|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Misconceptions of Atheists
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 13:34 |
 Misconceptions of AtheistsThe first misconception is that no evidence exists for God. The truth is, for the Christian, Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh. For the Christian, God is comprised of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. So if we can establish that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that is pretty solid evidence that God exists and that Jesus Christ, who claimed to be God and who said He would rise from the dead, indeed was/is God. A thread on here entitled “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection” goes over some of the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection; some has yet to be posted. Another thread on here identifies some of the Messianic prophecies of Jesus Christ that were written centuries before His earthly ministry and that identified the then-future Messiah as God. And another thread cites examples of Jesus Christ identifying Himself as God. Plenty of evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ for anyone with an open mind and open heart. But you have to be willing to read the evidence to see the evidence. These men, who are experts in evaluating evidence, were willing to examine the evidence and came away convinced of the truth of Christianity: “Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered ‘the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.’ Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. ‘Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.’ Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the ‘World's Most Successful Advocate,’ with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: ‘I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.’ Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence.” www.allaboutthejourney.org Will the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection persuade everyone that the Resurrection took place? Of course not. Most atheists won’t even read it. The fact is, in my experience, most atheists’ minds are completely and irrevocably made up on the question of whether God exists, and Jesus Christ Himself could appear in front of them, perform miracle after miracle and they’d simply say, “Science says this can’t be true. I don’t believe my lying eyes!” And that’s no exaggeration - in Biblical times, the Pharisees saw Jesus Christ’s miracles, heard Jesus Christ’s profound wisdom and teachings, heard Jesus Christ identify Himself as God and they had Jesus put to death for blasphemy. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 13:47 |
Of course the truth is everyone on earth could be an atheist and God would still exist. God existed before He created humans, and God will exist long after atheists have “shuffled off this mortal coil” (to quote Shakespeare.) But atheists will eventually acknowledge the truth, though, for many, that acknowledgement won’t come while they’re alive. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 14:46 |
A short while ago, an atheist on here was strongly critical of a devotional I posted because God didn’t save every child from a serial killer. Since the atheist had obviously read the devotional (and even quoted from it) and extended his criticism to include God allowing suffering in the world, I posted a reply at the bottom of this thread: m.gameknot.com Since I posted my response shortly after the atheist objected to the devotional, I’m pretty certain he saw it (and just as certain he didn’t read it.) Just as the atheist refuses to read evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the atheist refuses to read responses to other objections he raises pertaining to God and God’s existence. His mind is completely and irrevocably made up, and he posts objections, not to learn anything, but to prevent other people from finding freedom, peace and joy in Jesus Christ and in a relationship with Him. I sadly find this “crabs in a bucket” mentality to be common among atheists. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 17:18 |
This of course is false. Christians are fully approved by and fully loved by God at the moment they accept and believe in Jesus Christ. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) The good that a Christian does in this world is done out of gratitude for everything Jesus Christ has done and continues to do for them. The good that a Christian does is also the result of God’s Holy Spirit, which indwells every believer at the moment he or she accepts and believes in Jesus Christ and which then begins to change the believer’s heart. In Christian terminology, a believer is justified before God the moment they accept and believe in Jesus Christ. But the process of sanctification, which is making a believer to more and more have the mind of Jesus, continues for a believer’s entire life. Many Christians, at least in my experience, discount the power of God’s Holy Spirit, are mystified by Him and don’t realize He indwells them. But He does and the goal of every Christian is (or should be) to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. I think a Christian accomplishes this though reading the Holy Bible; memorizing Scripture and bringing verses to mind and voice throughout the day; prayer; listening to Grace-based and Jesus-centered sermons; and worshipping God in song with other believers. In Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote these verses as evidence of someone who is walking in the Spirit: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23) But just because a believer has God’s Holy Spirit within them doesn’t mean their free will is taken away. Paul says as much in Ephesians when he writes: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 17:31 |
What Caused God? The law of cause and effect makes it apparent there must be a “first cause.” If there were a never-ending chain of causality leading into the past, there would never have been a present. Sooner or later, there must be something that itself has no cause and that caused everything else. This reality is logically inescapable, though many people debate over what—or who—this first cause is. Some wonder if God is the first cause. On the other hand, the idea of a first cause is literally beyond doubt. In that sense, it almost makes more sense to ask, “Is the first cause God?” Combining reason with observation not only leads us to the idea that there is a first cause, but it also gives us clues about what this first cause must be like. When we combine all of that information, we wind up with a description that’s identical to the God of the Bible. God is, in fact, philosophy’s “first cause”; the best fit for all we can deduce about the first cause is the Judeo-Christian God. Logically, the first cause must be eternal. Since it is not itself “caused,” it cannot have a beginning. God, according to the Bible, fits this description, as the only thing in existence that was not “made.” John 1:3 makes a specific distinction between things that are made and things that are not made. God, as it stands, is the only “thing” that was not made. He is eternal, always existing (Psalm 90:2). The first cause is also necessary. There are other terms used for this idea, such as noncontingent or basic. Without the first cause, nothing else can exist. So, the first cause must exist, and there can be no reality where it does not. Everything other than the first cause is said to be “contingent.” This simply means that everything that begins—or is caused—owes its origin to something else. The first cause, on the other hand, does not and cannot depend on anything else in order to exist, since it must exist. God, again, matches this description, as the One who simply “is” and must be (Exodus 3:14) and as the One who created—who caused—all other things (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:3). The first cause must also be changeless, since change is always triggered by some outside force or event. But since the first cause is the “first,” no other causes can affect it. This means the first cause must not only be changeless, but it must also be perfect—it is the standard of all other things, since all other things are caused by and secondary to it. Here, again, the God of the Bible matches this description: He is changeless (Malachi 3:6), perfect (Isaiah 6:3), and the source of all that is (Genesis 2:3). Observation of the universe suggests additional details about the first cause. The first cause must be creative, since there is a great deal of diversity in the natural world (Psalm 147:4; Psalm 19:1). It must be phenomenally intelligent (Isaiah 55:8), since there is amazing structure and complexity in the universe. This first cause must also be incredibly powerful (Job 38:1–7) in order to create and sustain all of these things. Scripture speaks of exactly this kind of being. Similarly, the existence of intelligent life in a universe finely tuned to make life possible suggests the first cause is personal. The same is true of “personal” concepts such as morality; the very notion that “what is” is a separate question from “what should be” implies something beyond the physical realm that governs those properties. Again, we are led to the idea of a single, transcendent, perfect standard—our first cause—which again is best matched by the biblical God (Deuteronomy 32:4). Logic and observation also suggest that God, as a triune being, is easily the best explanation of the first cause. The universe exhibits both uniqueness and unity—different parts but a single system. For a property to be present in the effect, there has to be some origin for it in the cause—so, for the universe to exhibit both diversity and unity, it makes sense for that cause to be both diverse and unified, as is the Trinity. All in all, the same logic and observations that lead us to conclude there is a “first cause” also point toward the God of the Bible. While the terminology might be different, depending on whether one approaches through philosophy, science, or theology, the end result is the same: God, as defined according to the Bible, is the first cause. www.gotquestions.org |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 08:14 |
“God exists because something created the universe! Something can’t come from nothing! And nothing exists eternally!!” Where did god come from? “God existed eternally!” Idiotic circular reasoning. Why they can accept God’s eternal existence but not the universe’s eternal existence is obvious. They WANT god to exist.>> See the post above this one. Since it’s obvious to me you’re either not interested in learning about evidence for God’s existence or you’re incapable of understanding it, I’ll leave you to your cries in the dark. “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 09:57 |
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! George Carlin>> This quote, attributed to George Carlin and posted in another club, is worth responding to. First, George Carlin apparently never heard of Jesus Christ or understood why He came to earth 2,000 years ago. Christians who, by definition, have accepted and believed in Jesus Christ are no longer under the Mosaic Law but are under grace. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:24-26) Jesus Christ Himself said, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29) and “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40) Second, Heaven is God’s home. Who is man to say the criteria by which he should be allowed to enter God’s home? We wouldn’t do that to our own neighbor! If our neighbor said, “Please take off your shoes before entering my house,” would we say, “No, I should be allowed to enter your house with my shoes on!” And yet some people presume to say by what criteria they should be allowed to enter God’s home. God is holy and cannot have unforgiven sin in His Presence. And so God gave man a way to have his sins forgiven, but God also gave man free will - to accept Him or reject Him. Those who reject Him shouldn’t be surprised they don’t enter His home after they die. As to the money part, God encourages (not requires) believers to tithe 10 percent of their income to help the poor. George Carlin is being very disingenuous here - the tithes aren’t meant to go to God, they’re meant to go to the poor. If this quote attributed to George Carlin is accurate, I lost quite a bit of respect for him ‘cause this remark is so purposefully deceptive (I say “purposefully” because George Carlin was too smart to know what he was saying was nonsense.) As to the claim that a lot of religions exist and it’s impossible to tell which is true, no man-made religion has the evidence that Christianity has (specifically evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 12:30 |
If you’d feel silly doing that, like you were talking to yourself, then why not spend a few hours investigating whether God exists (with an open mind and open heart, of course) and, if you conclude God does exist, spend another few hours investigating whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is true. Maybe spend a half-hour a night reading the New Testament. How much time is all of that compared to eternity? The problem atheists have is they’re basing their view of whether God exists entirely on their feelings. Have your feelings always been right? Why not base your view on evidence instead? Those who aren’t willing to entertain the possibility that God exists won’t ask Him to reveal himself, won’t look at evidence for His existence and Jesus Christ’s Resurrection or read the New Testament. They clearly don’t think it’s possible that Heaven and hell exist either. So why worry about what happens after you die? Why even bother talking about it or thinking about it? Don’t look at evidence before making the most consequential decision of your life. Go by your feelings instead. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 14:37 |
Yep! <<How do people actually believe stuff like this?>> ‘Cause it’s true? <<Nothing in our experience lasts forever. Nothing!!!>> You mean nothing in the natural world, right? And by “our experience” you mean our experience in the natural world, right? <<So people imagine a being who can’t be seen, heard or touched.>> Sure He could. Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh, identified Himself as God, fulfilled centuries-old prophecies of a coming Messiah and who performed miracles according to Biblical *and* non-Biblical sources, could be seen, heard and touched. <<Who knows everything, is everywhere and can do anything.>> That’s our Jesus! <<And this magical being with all superpowers has no beginning and no end.>> Correct! <<Uh huh. Sure.>> Glad you agree! <<And in heaven, there will be candy floss and sugar plums and all good things (but no sex - that dirty sin is for making babies ONLY!).>> I’ll take my description of Heaven from Revelation in the Holy Bible, not from an atheist. <<Willful self-deceit>> Psychological projection to the max! |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 16:15 |
So you’re both insignificant and incredibly important? You’ve heard of antonyms, right? <<I come from, and will return to, cosmic dust.>> Your current material body will return to dust. I think that’s true. <<In between, my components will be part of everything and everything else.>> Really? Your components are going to be part of Jupiter, Neptune, Alpha Centauri, the Andromeda Galaxy and everywhere else in the universe? Wow. You’re a pretty big guy! <<As quantum physics shows us our material separations are largely a matter of our limited perception. We literally are all attached to everything. Birth, life and death are all just rearrangements. How gorgeous and delicious to be alive, conscious and aware. What a blessing!>> If life is such a blessing and gorgeous and delicious, why do you spend so much time insulting, attacking and trolling people on the Internet? Why do you spend so much time complaining about former President Trump, global warming, anti-vaxxers, conservatives, etc. ad infinitum? <<Joy lies in the present. The past is history. The future doesn’t exist. The present is a gift 🎁 >> I actually agree with this. So did Jesus Christ. “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:34) <<If god exists, cool. Who cares? Not me. Why care?>> Not everyone is able to live a carefree life, for starters. Some people have challenges and problems and they rely on God to get them through those challenges and problems. Then there’s the whole eternity thing. People who have accepted and believe in Jesus Christ are in a relationship with Him and it’s the best relationship anyone could have. <<If God wanted me to know about him, he’d multiply some loaves 🤪 >> People who seek God find Him. People who don’t seek God usually don’t find Him. <<Hearsay of loaves from two millennia ago leave me unmoved. Did god shoot his wad 2,000 years ago and can’t get it up again? I wonder if they make a divine miracle Viagra for elderly impotent gods?>> Pretty vulgar and classless. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 16:35 |
I suggest you try opening your mind first. <<That’s what David Koresh and Jim Jones and Charles Manson said.>> Really? If that’s true, and I don’t know that it is, I’m sure they said a lot of things. As Satan knows, when you’re trying to deceive people, the best way to do it is to mix the lie with some truth. The lie therefore becomes more believable. So if those guys did tell people to open their hearts to God, that was the kernel of truth around which they wove the lie. But I wouldn’t believe they actually said that based only on your say-so. <<Desperately seeking lost souls ask for help and hear voices.>> Like I said, not everyone can live a carefree life with very few responsibilities. Some people have challenges and problems and are in dire straits, often through no fault of their own. And so they turn to God. Most people don’t realize they need God until they’re at (or near) rock bottom. Then they finally turn to God ‘cause there’s nowhere else to go. And they don’t hear God’s voice in an audible form. The fact you seem to believe that and are mocking something that isn’t true shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. Of course you know about believers’ experiences with God more than they do. I mean you essentially said that when you challenged the testimony of a suicidal drug addict who turned her life around after accepting Jesus Christ. You know far more about that woman’s life and what she experienced than she does, right? <<Lo! It must he GOD!!>> It’s sad that you’re this ignorant of what it means to be in a relationship with God. <<No. It’s just you talking to yourself>> If you really believe that, why do you keep posting about God? Seems odd you spend this much time posting about an entity you think doesn’t exist. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 06:47 |
Response from atheist: Blame God, an entity He doesn’t think exists. Response from believer: Realizes we live in a fallen world, with evil and the consequences of sin all around us, and donates money to charities that provide meals to the poor. For those interested in helping, instead of blaming God and doing nothing, the Bowery Mission in New York is a great charity and among those I support. They’re especially in need of donations now, with Thanksgiving coming up. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Malachi 3:10) “e. And try Me now in this: It’s hard to find a comparable passage of Scripture – where the LORD commanded His people to test Him. Here, in regard to giving and His blessing of it, He told His people ‘try Me now in this.’ It was as if God said, ‘See if you can give to Me and be the poorer for it. See if you can out-give Me.’ i. ‘The context for God’s words about tithes is the teaching that God is faithful. The matter of tithes is only an illustration of that teaching.’ (Boice) f. Open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it: This is the response God promised when His people give as He told them to. He would bless them both with provision and protection (I will rebuke the devourer). i. The reference to the windows of heaven reminds us of the glorious account of provision in 2 Kings 7, when God provided in a completely unexpected way. God has resources that we know nothing about, and it is often of no help to try and figure out – or worry about – how God will provide.” enduringword.com |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 07:08 |
Since you’re an atheist, isn’t this what you meant to say? “I just wonder how an atheist could sleep at night knowing he has the ability to feed the hungry and shoe the barefoot, but chooses to let the innocent children suffer. What a callous selfish jerk!” After all, in your world view, God doesn’t exist and therefore can’t help so it’s up to humans. How do you sleep at night? |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 07:25 |
Oh yeah, getting high is more important to them than a starving child. Talk about “a callous selfish jerk.” |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 07:39 |
I recognize my limitations. I’m not omnipotent or omnipresent. I can only do what I can do. But.... someone omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient choosing to allow evil.... is in fact, evil. It’s as if I’m a classroom teacher and have a bully in the class. I have the power to stop the bullying, but choose not to intervene. Then Andrew comes along, praises me (mysterious, aren’t I?) and yells at the other kids for allowing this evil.>> So human beings doing evil makes God evil? Ever hear of humans having free will? Where do you want God to draw the line on intervening? If you want God to eradicate all evil in this present world, he’d have to negate the free will of human beings. And yeah, sin has consequences that affect innocent people. That’s why it’s so bad. A guy who cheats on his wife and causes his wife to divorce him is impacting his kids when his kids had nothing to do with that sin. So you’d be in favor of God taking away that guy’s free will to have an affair? If a guy loses his temper, yells at his boss and gets fired, putting his family in dire financial straits, you’d be in favor of God taking away that guy’s ability to get angry? Or do you just want God to prevent him from expressing anger? It’s interesting you blame God for evil existing in this world but don’t blame human beings. And yet you think humanity is a cancer on the planet and you long for humanity’s disappearance. Strange disconnect. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 07:48 |
How much good Andrew could do in the world if he’d stop spending so much time bragging to god on GK about how holy he is>> Huh? I don’t brag to God (or anyone else) about how holy I am. I brag about Jesus Christ. I recognize my state (and everyone’s state) without Christ. And I recognize my and other believers’ state in Christ. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21) My righteousness (right standing) with God is not due to my own efforts or good works - it’s a gift that I chose to accept. I brag on the gift giver, not the gift receiver. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 15:21 |
Carlin nails it>> More like Carlin misses by a country mile. I only needed to watch the first roughly 30 seconds of that video to know Carlin had no idea what he was talking about. Carlin actually thought if you break one of the Ten Commandments you’re going to burn in hell for eternity? Hopefully he wasn’t that stupid. But maybe he never heard of Jesus Christ. He definitely doesn’t understand Christianity. Good people aren’t in Heaven. Forgiven sinners are. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 20:04 |
Let's start by looking at the crucifixion, which is sickening and utterly horrific. It's a person of flesh and blood being nailed to a wooden cross through his hands and feet until he dies, all the while being in excruciating pain. And yet according to traditional Christianity, this not only happened, but it happened to an innocent person. It was also supposed to happen—Christianity does not regard its inception as an accident! God intended it, or planned it, or somehow set things up so that it would occur.[2] But all of this runs into a significant amount of absurdity. First, a morally perfect being intended, planned, or otherwise set things up so that an innocent person would be killed in a really horrific way. Now there is already a strong moral constraint against intending, planning, or otherwise setting things up for an innocent person to be killed. Such a thing is presumptively immoral, and there must be some really strong moral justification to override this. But the moral constraint against intending, planning, or otherwise setting things up for the crucifixion of an innocent person—that is surely as high as moral constraints come. It is right up there with the moral constraints against boiling babies alive, torturing puppies, and all of the other horrific things dreamed up by moral philosophers. It is as close as one can get to an absolute moral constraint against certain behavior. And perhaps even this concedes too much. Maybe intending, planning, or otherwise setting things up for the crucifixion of an innocent person is absolutely morally prohibited. If so, then the doxastic core of traditional Christianity is flatly incoherent because it maintains that a morally perfect being did something that's absolutely immoral.>> Jesus Christ went to the Cross WILLINGLY. “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:17-18) “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:7-9) “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matthew 26:53-54) And Jesus Christ went to the Cross to pay for our sins and to defeat death and give us eternal life. God is a God of mercy and justice. If God didn’t punish sin, He wouldn’t be just. And if God held our sins against us, He wouldn’t be merciful. The Cross is where both justice and mercy are shown. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21) Good people aren’t in Heaven. Forgiven sinners are. It’s through Christ that we’re forgiven of sins (John 3:16-17, Romans 10:9-10) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Sep-21, 00:41 |
Everyone on earth could be an atheist and not need God to make sense of the world or for their life to have meaning, but God would still exist. God’s existence doesn’t depend on anyone needing Him or believing He exists. You see this all the time with atheists - God is simply an explanatory phenomenon to them. And they’ll say the reason people believe in God (at least people nowadays) is that they couldn’t stand the uncertainty in not having life’s “big questions” answered and so they’re using God as the explanation. Never mind all the evidence for God’s existence, never mind the power of God in transforming people’s lives - to the atheist, people only believe in Him because they’re frightened and insecure. It’s so preposterous. But the atheist’s mind is so closed on the matter that you could present him with reams of evidence for God’s existence and not only won’t they acknowledge it, five minutes later, they’ll say no evidence exists! But even more ridiculous is not believing in the supernatural. For the atheist to dismiss a supernatural realm, he has to discount every single paranormal report that ever was - poltergeists, ghosts, demonic possession and on and on. Every single one, to the atheist, has to have a natural explanation in our 3-dimensional world (4 if you count time.) And what about all those extra dimensions that physicists think exist. What occupies them? A famous scientist (can’t remember who) once said, “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we can imagine.” But not to the atheist! If he can’t experience something with his five senses, it doesn’t exist! |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 19:08 |
I’m going to copy that post word-for-word, from top to bottom, and put what I copied in brackets, followed by my response outside of brackets. <<Jesus resurrection a hoax>> No, the Resurrection happened. <<How do we know?>> Principally from the Gospels, which were written by eyewitnesses and close friends/companions of eyewitnesses. <<We don’t!>> Yes, we do. <<Certainty after2,000 years is IMPOSSIBLE!>> The information in the Gospels is more credible than other biographies of historical figures in terms of dates the Gospels were written in relation to the historical person’s life and the sources of the information (in the case of the Gospels, the sources are eyewitnesses and close companions of eyewitnesses.) <<Nonetheless, naturalistic explanations are far mor probable than magical explanations.>> This is just bias against the supernatural and stems from the belief that a supernatural (spiritual) realm does not exist. Does the spiritual realm manifest itself in our natural world often? No, but it has manifested itself (made itself known) in our natural world in the past, and once is all it takes as evidence that a spiritual (supernatural) realm exists. <<Now, you can claim that some of these interpretations or theories or claims are inherently improbable. They may even be utterly wildly improbable.>> Ok. <<But that still puts them in the category of being far more probable, and with higher prior probability through precedence,>> Just because a rooster crows only once a day at sunrise doesn’t make it any less real than a dog that barks day and night. Probability is not an accurate gauge of whether something exists. <<than a dying and rising incarnate god-figure,>> Not “god figure.” God in the flesh. <<who prays to himself>> No, Jesus Christ prayed to God the Father. Jesus Christ and God the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are all distinct from each other, but they also are equally God. When Jesus Christ was on earth during His 3+-year ministry, He was “lower” than God the Father because Jesus Christ was fully God *and* fully man. And fully God (God the Father) is superior (imo) to fully God and fully man. In Hebrews, the author (believed to be the apostle Paul, though some think Jesus Christ Himself wrote Hebrews,) in chapter 2 describes Jesus as having been made “a little lower than the angels.” “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Hebrews 2:9-10) Obviously being “a little lower than the angels” is to be lower than God the Father (and the Holy Spirit.) So Jesus Christ and God the Father are not the same - they weren’t the same before Jesus Christ came to earth (though they were both equally God) and they weren’t the same when Jesus was on earth. So Jesus Christ was not praying to Himself. <<and sacrifices himself>> Yes, Jesus Christ went to the cross willingly. <<to sit on his own right hand>> No, again, Jesus Christ and God the Father are not the same. <<which somehow pays for the sins of humankind,>> Yes, in the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made to atone for sins. But those sacrifices had to continually be made. Jesus Christ, because He was|is God in the flesh was a perfect eternal sacrifice for sin. But for someone’s sins to be forgiven through Christ’s sacrifice, they have to accept Him, much in the way, in the Old Testament, the sinner had to lay his hands on the animal to be sacrificed for his sins to be removed. Why does a sacrifice have to take place to atone for sins? “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) <<which he created and had ultimate control over, for all of time.>> God created man with free will and God chooses not to interfere with man’s free will to the extent atheists apparently think He should. If mankind were to become sinless, God would have to turn men and women essentially into robots that were incapable of making decisions that displeased God. <<The Resurrection Debunked: Naturalistic Explanations>> Debunked. That’s hilarious. <<APRIL 2, 2018 BY JONATHAN PEARCE As mentioned in my previous posts, it is that time of year that the historicity of the Easter accounts gets analysed by us skeptics. And found wanting. Very wanting.>> Found “wanting, very wanting” by atheists who are predisposed to find it “wanting, very wanting.” <<There are three aspects to the debunking of the Resurrection: 1) The Gospels are not reliable sources of information; they are poor quality evidence>> Based on what? Compared to historical biographies of other important historical figures, the Gospels were written closer to the time that the historical person lived, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses and close companions to eyewitnesses and there are more copies of the Gospels than biographies of other historical figures. And when I say “historical figures,” I’m talking ancient historical figures. <<2) The claims of the Resurrection are incredible claims which require very good quality evidence>> Sure, and there is “very good quality evidence.” But I suggest the claims of the Resurrection are not so incredible if one accepts that a spiritual/supernatural realm exists and that more in (and out of) this universe exists than can be ascertained by our five senses. <<3) If the Christian claims of the Resurrection are not true, then what, if anything, actually took place, and what hypothesis can better explain the data?>> This should be interesting… <<Having looked at points 1) and 2) in some details, it is time to see if there is a more plausible explanation for the data from a naturalistic perspective than the Christian claims.>> Ok. <<Before I do this, it should be apparent from the previous posts in this series that almost any naturalistic explanation is, by analysis of probability, more probable than a supernaturalistic one.>> Again, this is a bias against the supernatural. And just because the spiritual|supernatural realm doesn’t manifest itself often doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is less likely to be an explanation for what Occam’s Razor would suggest is a supernatural event (and one predicted many centuries earlier and even predicted by Jesus Christ Himself who told His disciples He would rise on the third day.) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 19:58 |
You mean, of course, the renowned atheist Bart Ehrman. Let’s not pretend Bart Ehrman is approaching the Resurrection of Jesus Christ objectively. <<Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don’t know that it was.>> Where’s Jesus Christ’s body? <<Our very first reference to Jesus’ tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living in a different country who had heard it was empty.>> Actually, appearances of the Resurrected Christ were written about much earlier than the Gospel of Mark and were written about by the apostle Paul who himself had an encounter with the Resurrected Christ on the Road to Damascus. <<How would he know?…Suppose…that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea…and then a couple of Jesus’ followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate>> So a couple of casual followers of Jesus decide for some unknown reason to steal His body from the tomb and bring His body to some unknown “more appropriate” location? <<But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane. The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commandeer a cart and take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus’ original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why.>> That’s quite a story! But it doesn’t account for the guards that were stationed at the tomb to prevent just such a theft from taking place. The last thing the Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders who had Jesus put to death) wanted was Jesus’ body to go missing. Because Jesus publicly predicted He would rise the third day and if His body were missing, that would appear to validate Jesus’ predicted Resurrection. The Pharisees wanted Jesus’ body and the tomb in which His body was laid secured so that Jesus’ followers could not steal His body and claim He rose from the dead. “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.” (Matthew 27:62-66) <<Is this scenario likely? Not at all.>> We agree! <<Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not.>> We agree again! <<Is it more probable that something like this happened than that a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely!>> Wrong. Again, this is a bias against the supernatural. And, also again, just because the supernatural doesn’t manifest in our natural world often doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and is incapable of manifesting itself in our natural world. <<From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one…” [Jesus Interrupted, pp. 171-179] >> The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is only “virtually impossible” because atheists have a bias against the supernatural. You think if something cannot be ascertained by your five senses it doesn’t exist. But I think it’s more of a bias against God because many atheists willingly embrace multiverses, string theory and extra dimensions, even though those can’t be ascertained with their five senses. <<In other words all sorts of fairly improbable scenarios are inevitably going to be more likely than an extremely improbable one.>> Yeah, why don’t you repeat that point for the tenth time? It doesn’t get more convincing the more you repeat it. <<What do I think happened? Well, I can only roughly hypothesise. I do think someone called Jesus was crucified.>> Nearly all historians agree. <<I think this does the best job of explaining the cult of Jesus which went on.>> Cult? How many “cults” have billions of members? How many “cult members” have had their lives radically changed for the better by the living God? <<I think he was an apocalyptic figure whose followers were expecting him to be some kind of Messiah.>> His followers expected Him to restore Israel to its former glory by first throwing off the yoke of bondage that Jews lived under in the Roman Empire. That is true. <<He was an itinerant preacher who went about charismatically attracting followers, spreading a socialistic and revolutionary message.>> He attracted followers, I think first and foremost, due to His healings. Those healings and the other miracles He performed testified to who He was and where He came from. His message was unlike anything His followers had heard before, but I think it was principally His healings and His goodness and wisdom that attracted people. <<But he was killed, and his followers were not expecting this.>> That’s absolutely true. That’s why His disciples went into hiding after His crucifixion. They thought it was all over and that they could be next. <<As a result, they went though classic cognitive dissonance experiences.>> No, I think they accepted His death. Accepted it to the point where they returned to their prior occupations. And their seeing the Resurrected Christ was certainly not a group hallucination. Hallucinations are typically personal to an individual and not experienced by multiple people at the same time. <<Some would have left, but most would have stayed on and post hoc rationalised such a problematic piece of evidence against their case.>> What?! No one expected Jesus Christ to be Resurrected, even though He publicly told His disciples (and others) more than once it would happen. It’s like right after Jesus Christ multiplied loaves and fishes and got into a boat with His disciples and warned them about the “leaven of the Pharisees.” His disciples thought He was chastising them for forgetting to bring bread aboard the ship - even though they just saw Him essentially create bread out of thin air! <<Leon Festinger first noted this phenomena in psychological terms when a UFO cult had a failed rapture day, and the world continued. fringe members left but committed members rationalised the disappointment to continue with stronger commitment.>> Like I said, none of Jesus’ disciples expected Him to be Resurrected. In fact, when the women told the disciples that Jesus had Risen, the disciples didn’t believe them! “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” (Luke 24:1-11) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 20:31 |
Jesus was a disgraced blasphemer of sorts>> Disgraced in whose eyes? Certainly in the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders who had Him put to death because they viewed Him as a threat to their rule and didn’t even recognize Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled before their very eyes. But Jesus Christ was not a “disgraced blasphemer” to his thousands upon thousands of followers. <<He was crucified and his body eaten by wild animals as was the norm >> That’s absolutely ridiculous. Jesus was revered and beloved by thousands upon thousands of people. In fact, the Pharisees refused to take Him into custody on more than one occasion because they feared the reaction of the people. To think the Pharisees, after they got what they wanted by having Jesus Christ killed, would then risk inflaming thousands of people into violence by having His body eaten by wild animals is ridiculous and demonstrates the absurd lengths to which atheists will go to troll Christians and deny the obvious. <<He would have had a criminal’s burial in a shallow, unknown grave >> Wrong again. He was not a criminal and everyone knew He wasn’t. That’s why a Pharisee (and secret follower of Jesus’) asked Pilate for Jesus’ body, so the body could be buried in a tomb owned by him. <<His followers would not know where he was buried>> The Gospels clearly identify the tomb in which Jesus’ body was placed after His crucifixion. The suggestion that the tomb where a beloved and revered person was placed was somehow a mystery to His followers is absurd. <<This supports the fact that his tomb was not venerated as he did not have one, or it was unknown>> What?! The tomb wasn’t venerated because Jesus’ body was no longer in it! Why venerate an empty tomb? <<Stories developed out of this, and committed members had experiences which were later expanded or mythologised>> And your evidence for this is? You’re just piling one ridiculous hypothesis upon another. <<A variation could be Jesus was left on the cross, but had to be removed before Passover sundown,>> This part is true, from what I know. <<and was hastily given a temporary tomb (there is precedence for this)>> What is the precedence? But, assuming there is precedence, a temporary tomb was not needed. Joseph of Arimathea had asked Pilate for Jesus’ body so he could put Jesus in his tomb. Are you suggesting Joseph of Arimathea didn’t intend that to be Jesus’ final resting place? What’s your evidence for that? You’re just making stuff up! Conjecture with no evidence whatsoever. <<Jesus was then later moved from the tomb, lent by someone (perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, perhaps someone else forgotten in time, with J of A mythologised over), and put in a shallow grave as per protocol>> Just conjecture with no evidence. Maybe a UFO teleported His body into their spacecraft. Why not suggest that? There’s as much evidence for that as for the hypotheses you’re proposing. <<The people or person who moved the body were unknown to the disciples>> Because casual followers of Jesus had every reason to steal His body and move it to an unknown location 🙄. <<The disciples came to the tomb where they thought Jesus was buried, only to find it empty>> That happened, but women found the empty tomb first. <<Tales of angels were mythologised onto this account, or it even involved hallucinations (some 13% of people who have experienced the death of somone close orally or visually hallucinate)>> Hallucinations are typically personal and not experienced by a group. The disciples witnessed the Resurrected Christ as a group - and more than once. <<I am not overly swayed by hallucinations, but only because I have not been around death and people who have lost others too much. One of my frinds used to hallucinate smells of her dead grandmother.>> Presumably your friend’s friends also did not hallucinate the smells. Like I said, hallucinations are typically personal to an individual and not experienced by a group of people. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 21:17 |
The authorities removed the body, for one reason or another, from the cross or tomb>> The authorities had no reason to lend credibility to the idea that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Why would they remove His body from the tomb when His body would be the best evidence that the Resurrection didn’t happen? <<The women went to the wrong tomb>> The women knew where the tomb was. At least one of them went to the tomb immediately after He was placed there. <<The disciples stole the body to contrive a resurrection>> Why would the disciples endure beatings, imprisonment and eventually execution for refusing to deny they saw the Resurrected Christ and for refusing to stop preaching in His Name? Do you really think people give up their lives for something they know is a lie? <<The tomb was never visited, and the whole set of events were mythologised>> Based on what? Where’s Jesus’ body if the tomb was never visited and found to be empty? <<Sometimes called the “swoon theory”, the idea that Jesus never actually died on the cross and was taken down alive>> This is honestly the most preposterous of the naturalistic explanations. To believe the swoon theory, you have to believe Jesus was whipped with a Roman flagellum 39 times (this is the most commonly accepted number,) was nailed to a cross, had a spear thrust into His side, was wrapped in burial cloths and placed in a tomb where He had no medical care and no food and water, and then miraculously revived to the point where He pushed away the boulder in front of His tomb (and not just enough to squeeze through, but entirely out of the way) and had His body healed from the bloody mess it was. Absolutely ridiculous, but it shows the lengths to which atheists will go to deny the Risen Christ. <<In order to save me doing the writing myself, here is a list compiled by the Iron Chariots Wiki to explain the data from a naturalistic perspective: The evidence for the resurrection is open to a number of naturalistic explanations Swoon theory “Swoon theory” refers to the hypothesis that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, but rather was taken down alive and recovered in the tomb. It was made famous in the 19th century by Heinrich Paulus, as well as by fictional works that postulated an Essene conspiracy that assisted in the ruse. Today it has few advocates, though Richard Carrier recently published a partial defense of it. [3] Carrier argued that it was actually the least likely naturalistic explanation, but it still had a chance of occurring of 1 in 6,800. This is sufficient to rule out a miracle, because if every 1 in 6,800 event were declared miraculous, we would have to believe that royal flushes are miraculous.>> I already responded to how ridiculous the “swoon theory” is. <<A related but arguably distict theory is the “Autoresuscitation Theory”, invoking an unusual phenomenon of spontaneous, natural return from a state of clinical death accepted as a naturalistic occurrence in the medical literature, including a set of 32 cases compiled here: [4]>> And how does His obviously healed body (except for the nail imprints) fit into this theory? <<Assimilation of hearsay Psychological research by Loftus and Palmer in 1974 demonstrates that testimony assimilates external information and cues without the person even realizing it. Psychological research carried out by Festinger and Carlsmith in 1959 shows that people can change their understanding when there is otherwise insufficient evidence to justify a conclusion that the subjects wish to come to. Both of these can lead to exaggerated or inaccurate narratives being given. The effect studied by Festinger and Carlsmith also poses a fatal problem for David Strauss’s argument that the swoon theory fails to account for the amazement of the disciples.>> Where’s the body? You can cite all the psychological research you want, but the body’s still missing. <<Political correctness Wars and fights don’t generally end suddenly for political reasons, as it would amount to an admission that it wasn’t right in the first place. Paul wanted something to say along with his ceasing to persecute Christians, giving him motivation to invent or modify a story as to what happened. Paul’s visions (even if they existed) are obvious embellishments, as he would have no way of knowing it was Jesus, as he didn’t even know what Jesus ‘s face looked like.>> You’re not familiar with the account in Acts, chapter 9? The Resurrected Christ identified Himself to Paul. “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Acts 9:1-6) <<We can see him saying many things that he clearly did not do any fact-checking on, and this must include the purported appearance of Jesus to a group of 500 people claimed by Paul. (Source: New Testament historian Bart Ehrman) This was combined with the above effects to result in exaggerated claims made later by others.>> Jesus spoke to large numbers of people before His crucifixion. Is it unreasonable to think He did the same thing after His Resurrection and before His ascension into Heaven? <<Yerkes-Dodson Law 1908 psychological research by Yerkes and Dodson shows that high anxiety can impair judgement in non-trivial situations.>> Ok. <<Claims apologists make that a centurion pronouncing death>> Who is this centurion pronouncing death on? Jesus? If so, what anxiety was he under? If Jesus wasn’t dead on the cross, the centurion would have broken His legs to hasten death. What anxiety? The centurion’s not responsible - and couldn’t be viewed as responsible - for when Jesus died on the cross. <<or later recollection by early church members would be accurate under death threats can be turned on their head:>> So early church members were threatened with death if they didn’t agree Jesus Christ was Resurrected? Is there any evidence of these alleged threats? <<Anxiety impairs, not enhances judgment, in such cases.>> I agree anxiety can impair and not enhance judgment, but I don’t see how that applies to whether Jesus Christ was Resurrected. <<Twin and moved body Jesus had an identical twin and the body was moved by someone (several possibilities here) >> Give me a break. This is just atheists trolling now. <<Twin and wrong tomb Jesus had an identical twin and Mary Magdalene made a mistake while locating the tomb. Others may have been induced to make a mistake by the effect documented in the psychological research “Asch Conformity Experiments” (1950’s) although the Gospels are inconsistent on who exactly was and wasn’t there.>> So the identical twin was crucified also? Some Christians may think you’re serious in posing this as a naturalistic explanation, but I (and I think many others) know you’re just trolling. <<Scribal alteration Minor details may have been corrupted. Even those who subscribe to the “minimal facts” approach must admit that some of the minor details are unreliable and inconsistent among the Gospels.>> Such as? Witnesses don’t always report and put emphasis on the same facts. I would be more concerned about the Gospels’ reliability if they were uniformly consistent with each other and in all details. <<This poses problems for those apologists trying to debunk some of the naturalistic explanations, as they often need to assume the truth of a minor detail. Example: claiming that the inability of Jesus to push away the stone according to “swoon theory” depends on an unreliable detail – namely, the weight of the stone.>> It depends on a lot more than that! It depends on how a person whipped by a Roman flagellum to the point that He was a bloody pulp, crucified, having a spear thrust into His side, denied medical care and food and water, wrapped in burial cloths, somehow manages to unwrap those cloths and push a boulder (of any weight) away from the entrance to His tomb and leave. Does that really seem plausible? |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 21:59 |
Keith Parsons has recently argued that recent experience with people who believe themselves to have been abducted by aliens makes the hallucination hypothesis more plausible, and that many standard apologetic objections to the hypothesis would also require us to believe in alien abduction.>> Does this assertion claim that as many as 11 people can hallucinate the same thing at the same time? I believe that hallucinations are highly individualistic and I don’t see how a group of people can hallucinate the same event at the same time. <<Biblical scholar Dale Allison has made a similar argument based on reports of apparitions of the dead. In particular, he notes “examples of collective hallucinations in which people claimed to see the same thing but, when closely interviewed, disagreed on the details, proving they were not, after all, seeing the same thing.”>> How many people are we talking about? To what degree do they disagree on details? Do they disagree on the main event in the hallucination? These are important questions that are left unanswered. <<Primary and Composite naturalistic explanations The swoon and hallucination theories are “primary”, only invoking one part.>> The swoon theory’s ridiculous. The hallucination theory, if we’re supposed to believe it’s a group hallucination, requires multiple parts (or at least multiple evidences) because multiple people are involved. <<By contrast, the “twin plus moved body” and “political correctness plus hearsay assimilation” are composite, requiring a “synthesis” of more than one part.>> Both these theories are ridiculous and the only evidence they provide are of obnoxious trolling. <<Apologists essentially never mention these, or even the possibility of composite theories, because it would show that their case can have holes poked in it.>> I’d suggest apologists never mention these because they don’t want you to think they’re taking your trolling seriously. <<Fraud The standard objection to the fraud theory is that the disciples would not have died for a lie. However, documentation of their martyrdoms is weak. The earliest comes at the end of the 2nd century and is only for Peter and Paul. Also, it has been suggested that the disciples may have lied for what they believed was a higher cause.>> I don’t know enough about the evidence of the ultimate fates of all the apostles to really offer a comment on this, but I know that at least a few (if not many) of Jesus Christ’s original 12 disciples were martyred and no evidence has been offered that most weren’t. But leaving martyrdom aside, it’s clear many risked their lives and experienced hardships, beatings and imprisonment. If they knew what they were preaching (Jesus Christ risen from the dead) was a lie, why do it? Why waste their time? Why inconvenience themselves (to say the least?) <<The resurrection and Jesus mythicism To some extent, the debate over the resurrection would be moot if it were demonstrated that Jesus never existed. However, some mythicists, notably Richard Carrier[5], accept that early Christians reported visions of Jesus, and these are explained as hallucinations. Even assuming that a person named Jesus existed, there is no reason to believe that the Bible provides an accurate account of events in his life. The resurrection and the accompanying details may have been invented at a later date.>> The Gospels are far more reliable, in terms of the dates they were written in relation to when the historical figure lived *and* in their sources (eyewitnesses and close companions of eyewitnesses,) than universally-accepted biographies of other historical figures. And, again, by “historical figures,” I mean ancient historical figures. <<Generalized Littlewood’s Law If we generalize Littlewood’s Law of Miracles to an approximately 1,000-month-long human lifespan, and to a total population of humans who have ever existed of 100,000,000,000 then to reject the null (no supernatural intervention in the natural world) hypothesis with 95% confidence we need, to avoid the so-called multiple testing fallacy , the probablity of all naturalistic explanations to be below P = 5 * 10-22 or 1 in 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The apologist has no case unless every single potential naturalistic explanation is truly astronomically improbable, not just seemingly unlikely.>> The miracles Jesus Christ performed during His earthly ministry - in addition to rising from the dead - are included in non-Biblical sources. And obviously God, who created the Heaven and the earth, can perform as many miracles as He wants. And Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. <<Conclusion Now, you can claim that some of these interpretations or theories or claims are inherently improbable.>> They are. <<They may even be utterly wildly improbable.>> Many are. <<But that still puts them in the category of being far more probable, and with higher prior probability through precedence,>> Probability through precedence is a false standard for reasons cited earlier. <<than a dying and rising incarnate god-figure,>> God in the flesh. <<who prays to himself and sacrifices himself to sit on his own right hand which somehow pays for the sins of human behavior mankind, which he created and had ultimate control over, for all of time.>> I addressed this at the beginning of my responses to this post. I didn’t realize the GK atheist who posted this simply copied a few paragraphs from the end of an article and tried to pass those quoted paragraphs off as his own at the beginning of his post. <<See my previous posts for more on these probabilities.>> Don’t hold your breath. <<I know what I think is more probable.>> And I know you’re wrong. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Sep-21, 10:15 |
This misconception, of course, assumes that the evidence for all religions is the same. If I decide a head of lettuce in my refrigerator is god and that salvation is only obtained by eating it, does that “religion” count? Does my new “religion” have the same legitimacy as every other religion? The honest, non-trolling answers to those questions is “No.” Why? Because there’s no evidence to support that the head of lettuce in my refrigerator is god and that I’ll obtain salvation by eating it. The fact is Jesus Christ did say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) While Jesus Christ was on earth 2,000 years ago, He not only brought a revolutionary message to mankind (that so angered religious leaders they had Him put to death,) He also performed miracles of healing and raised three people from the dead - Jairus’ 12-year-old daughter (www.biblegateway.com) Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany (www.biblegateway.com) and a widow’s only son in Nain. (en.m.wikipedia.org) He was the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament that were written centuries before He came to earth 2,000 years ago. And His crucifixion occurred on the exact date prophesied in the book of Daniel 500+ years earlier. And He was Resurrected from the dead and His body was nowhere to be found. And plenty of people back then wanted to find it to disprove Jesus Christ’s disciples’ reports that they had seen the Resurrected Christ. Obviously, nobody has to believe any of this. And the people who don’t believe it, in my experience, are the ones who don’t even look into it. But to claim that every religion is the same (as far as legitimacy) is completely false. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 12-Sep-21, 10:37 |
Ask someone who’s not a Christian if Jesus Christ is God and see what kind of answer you get. Jesus Christ is what separates Christianity from every other religion. In no other religion did God come to earth in the form of a man to reveal Himself and to save mankind. Also, every other religion (at least to my knowledge, but I only know about the main ones) has a list of do’s and don’t’s for people to obtain salvation. Christianity doesn’t. Salvation in Christianity is by John 3:16 and Romans 10:9. No other religion (that I’m aware of) is based on a relationship between a believer in that religion and God. Christianity is about that relationship and it’s really not accurate (imo) to even call Christianity a religion. No other religion promises the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit. But once someone accepts and believes in Jesus Christ, he or she receives God’s Holy Spirit. God’s Holy Spirit not only helps them through this life but is the means by which they are raised to eternal life. |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Sep-21, 09:31 |
From gotquestions.org: The “Golden Rule” is the name given to a principle Jesus taught in His Sermon on the Mount. The actual words “Golden Rule” are not found in Scripture, just as the words “Sermon on the Mount” are also not found. These titles were later added by Bible translation teams in order to make Bible study a little easier. The phrase “Golden Rule” began to be ascribed to this teaching of Jesus during the 16th–17th centuries. What we call the Golden Rule refers to Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus knew the human heart and its selfishness. In fact, in the preceding verse, He describes human beings as innately “evil” (verse 11). Jesus’ Golden Rule gives us a standard by which naturally selfish people can gauge their actions: actively treat others the way they themselves like to be treated. The English Standard Version translates the Golden Rule like this: “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus brilliantly condenses the entire Old Testament into this single principle, taken from Leviticus 19:18: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” Again, we see the implication that people are naturally lovers of self, and the command uses that human flaw as a place to start in how to treat others. People universally demand respect, love, and appreciation, whether they deserve it or not. Jesus understood this desire and used it to promote godly behavior. Do you want to be shown respect? Then respect others. Do you crave a kind word? Then speak words of kindness to others. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). The Golden Rule is also part of the second greatest commandment, preceded only by the command to love God Himself (Matthew 22:37–39). What is interesting to note about the Golden Rule is that no other religious or philosophical system has its equal. Jesus’ Golden Rule is not the “ethic of reciprocity” so commonly espoused by non-Christian moralists. Frequently, liberal critics and secular humanists attempt to explain away the uniqueness of the Golden Rule, saying it is a common ethic shared by all religions. This is not the case. Jesus’ command has a subtle, but very important, difference. A quick survey of the sayings of Eastern religions will make this plain: • Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects 15:23) • Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517) • Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga 5:18) These sayings are similar to the Golden Rule but are stated negatively and rely on passivity. Jesus’ Golden Rule is a positive command to show love proactively. The Eastern religions say, “Refrain from doing”; Jesus says, “Do!” The Eastern religions say it is enough to hold your negative behavior in check; Jesus says to look for ways to act positively. Because of the “inverted” nature of the non-Christian sayings, they have been described as the “silver rule.” Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions. However, the texts for Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, cited above, were all written between 500 and 400 BC, at the earliest. Jesus takes the Golden Rule from Leviticus, written about 1450 BC. So, Jesus’ source for the Golden Rule predates the “silver rule” by about 1,000 years. Who “borrowed” from whom? The command to love is what separates the Christian ethic from every other religion’s ethic. In fact, the Bible’s championing of love includes the radical command to love even one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43–44; cf. Exodus 23:4–5). This is unheard of in other religions. Obeying the Christian imperative to love others is a mark of a true Christian (John 13:35). In fact, Christians cannot claim to love God if they don’t actively love other people as well. “If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). The Golden Rule encapsulates this idea and is unique to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. www.gotquestions.org |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Sep-21, 09:40 |
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:38-48) |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Sep-21, 10:13 |
Just as man could not keep the Mosaic Law on his own, so too man cannot keep “The Golden Rule” on his own. And just as God’s purpose in the Law was to show man his inability to keep it and his need for a Saviour, I think the same is true with “The Golden Rule.” It is possible, imo, for someone to keep “The Golden Rule” even when one is treated badly, offended and has his or her self-interest threatened. But that’s accomplished through the power of God’s Holy Spirit, which indwells every believer at the moment he or she accepts and believes in Jesus Christ. And while it’s possible for a believer to grieve and quench God’s indwelt Holy Spirit (because a believer retains his or her free will,) the Holy Spirit’s influence on a believer can also be strengthened by regular fellowship with God through reading the Holy Bible, memorizing Scripture (to keep it close to one’s heart and mind,) listening to Grace-based preaching (at church or online - Joseph Prince is my favorite Grace-based preacher and he often speaks about Jesus Christ and references the Holy Bible, which are two signs of a great preacher; in fact, I wouldn’t trust a preacher who didn’t do both.) The Apostle Paul in his letter to the church of Galatia, which is one of my favorite books of the Bible, explains the purpose of the Law: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:24-26) But those who want to be justified and establish their own righteousness by the Law and by “The Golden Rule” have to keep it at all times and, in the case of the Law, have to keep *all* of it at all times and keep it perfectly. As the Apostle says, such are “debtors to do the whole law.” Can’t be done - at least not by man. Jesus Christ did it and fulfilled the Law *and* the prophets. Before I walk into a situation that I think may get me irritated or upset, I say this verse several times: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.” (Psalm 19:14) And sometimes, I’ll say this verse right after it: “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.” (Psalm 141:3) Very effective! 👍👍 |
|||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Sep-21, 10:47 |
If the Golden Rule can be summarized as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” then one could rationalize speaking angrily to a person who cuts in front of them in a checkout line. After all, if I did that, I would expect the person I cut in front of to speak angrily toward me and demand that I go to the end of the line. Therefore, I may conclude myself justified under the Golden Rule in expressing anger at the person who cuts in front of me - I would expect him to do the same if I cut it front of him. But that’s not what Jesus Christ says in Matthew chapter 5: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:39-48) While Jesus said the essence of the Golden Rule, I think He meant that as a baseline, and I think He and authors in the New Testament advocate going beyond the Golden Rule. In the book of Romans, which was written by the Apostle Paul after Jesus Christ’s Resurrection, Paul says: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19-21) The Apostle Peter, one of Jesus Christ’s inner circle of disciples, expresses the same view in one of his letters: “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” (1 Peter 3:8-12) |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
