Are Atheists Zombies?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 08:47 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 07:03 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 06:34 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Considering that this documentation you keep mentioning is full of contradictions, how do we determine what is the truth?
The 'eyewitness' accounts are suspect, at best.

There are no contradictions. Scholars have answered the many alleged contradictions. If you don't want to know the answers you're free to shut your mind down.

You can't ask for a better set of eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. As a historical standard it holds to the highest of standards. So the burden is on you to find a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony. If you can't find any then give your life to Christ.

Moreover, the entire Bible doesn't have to be 100% correct. As long as the Minimal Facts Approach holds up then the proof stands. MFA says, basically, since the most agreed upon text of the entire Bible by scholars is 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 it is fair to ask what we can garner from Paul's genuine writings here. He said he spent 15 days with Peter one of the original eyewitnesses who spent 3 years with Jesus. And he spent time with James and John who also saw Jesus resurrected. Add to that Paul's testimony he saw Jesus they were all in agreement, on the same page, of the gospel message: Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He is God, and rose the 3rd day.

Laugh out load I do appreciate the laughs you give me daily, truly.

The depths to your self delusion astound me.

Paul never saw jesus, his "vision/hallucination" on the road to damascus of a voice from a light is not knowing/meeting jesus.

Who saw jesus rise from the grave? citation please...

He is not god, even under Xtian doctrine, he is a part of the triune god theory, and where was that derived from? Ensure you thank emperor constantine...

A paper I wrote on this recently;

Eric ##############
Professor V###### S########
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
March 19 2014
The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

For a church to be considered a New Testament church it shall accept the biblical New Testament as its sole authority for all matters of faith. A “true” biblical church shall not accept any authority for its faith and daily practice, outside of the New Testament Scriptures. This does not discard the importance of the Old Testament Scriptures by any means. The church is not based on the biblical Old Testament because that is the record of God’s dealing with Israel. In the New Testament you will find a specific pattern and instructions from God concerning the church. The followers of the New Testament church model believe in the irrefutable word of God, that the Bible is complete as written, and it is, “… Given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

New Testament church parishioners believe that any hierarchy outside of the local church, is unsupported by Scripture. They think that Christ is the head, and that the New Testament Scriptures are the “true” churches only sole authority. I always find it amusing that with all the religions in the world, multiple versions of God or gods, and various holy books and ideologies of creation, that the believer of each religion thinks the believers of other religions are wrong, and that their own belief is the truth, the will and the way of the one “true” God. Even within Christianity, if every Christian who ever called another Christian, not a “true” Christian was removed from earth, there would be no Christians.

The Congregational style of a New Testament church is basically a biblical form of church government. Final authority in a New Testament church rests with the delegation. Each member has an equal democratic vote. They believe that the Bible, specifically the New Testament teaches that churches are to be governed by their own congregation following strict biblical guidelines.

In Trinitarian theology, the father gives everything he has, his very being, as a free gift to his son. Since the Son has everything that the father has, then they are in fact equal (Albl 139). In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with God’s gift of prophecy. For example, “the Lord took some of the spirit from Moses and gave it to the elders, and they were able to prophesy also (Num 11:25). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with the creation of God’s son in human form. For example, Mary conceived Jesus not through ordinary human means, but “through the Holy Spirit” (Matt1:20). In essence, just as Jesus comes in the father’s name, so the Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name (Albl 150). I define the Holy Spirit as God’s breath, his very soul, that of which he can giveth away to create life itself.

The church understands such self-emptying on the part of God as simultaneously the fulfillment of human existence, whose transformative effects are extended in the church in the world through the work of the Holy Spirit (Mueller 44). As such, parishioners of the New Testament church believe that they can follow this example by sharing the Holy Spirit with others. This is “living through Christ” by spreading the good word, in line with strict interpretation of biblical reference.
In the New Testament, outside of the story of Christ in his teachings, is the insistent belief through Scripture that the end times or transition into the new world in the second coming of Christ to take his place as king of the world would occur at any moment. “That Christ would come soon is an expectation which appears even in the latter writings of the New Testament. It is present in almost every stratum” (Moule 141). A rationalist may posit that today things are going on exactly as they were before, and thus there will never be an end to the world. Believers in the New Testament think that the real mistake here is to make time the determining standard at all. A good analogy of this is that the Christian hope is not measured in terms of time, but in terms of the journey continuing to its completion; the incarnation. The question should not be when is the end of the world, but what can I do to be ready for it? (Moule 148).

Now let’s go back in time to the very formation, fabrication of the Christian faith, the Trinity concept and successful establishment of the Christian religion. We must begin with the immeasurable impact that Emperor Constantine had on the spread of Christianity, and successful suppression of incumbent Roman pagan beliefs. Legend has it that Emperor Constantine saw two stars cross in the sky, in which he took to be a sign from God that Christianity was the only true faith. While his conversion to Christianity in 312 was not truly the moment Christianity came to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, it definitely was one of the major contributing factors for its subsequent acceptance.

Emperor Constantine conducted a religious-based crusade against Licinius in a war to rescue Christians on the east from further persecution. In the years 312 to 313 Emperor Constantine began a systematic policy in which he gave honors, privileges and financial donations to the Christian church and their clergy. In 324, as the unchallenged controller of the East, he prohibited by Royal decree any cultic activities which until then fell under the traditional religions of the Roman Empire, and this is when the status of Christianity as the official religion of the state and its rulers was affirmed (Lieu 7).

Religious scholars concede that Emperor Constantine not only convened important council’s sessions, but also either presided over them, or appointed a Royal official to preside in his place. This reduced the very role of bishops and councils such as Nicaea and Tyre to utter insignificance by assimilating them to members of the Imperial consilium, whose advice was not binding on the Emperor. All decisions taken at the Nicene Council were made by Emperor Constantine alone, since he could completely disregard the advisory opinions of the bishops whom he had summoned to the Council (Lieu 8).

Some scholars contend that Emperor Constantine’s influence was minimal, and merely sat in on the councils out of personal interest. However, when we look at the Council of Nicaea of 359, we see that Emperor Constantine again took a prominent role of control in the theological debate. Once the foundation of Christianity as a predominant religion of the Empire had been successfully established, Emperor Constantine later relinquished some of his control and influence by putting a seal of approval on the rulings of bishops declared at councils. The governors of provinces were not even allowed to rescind what they had decided, for he said the priests of God were more trustworthy than any magistrate (Lieu 10).

We can trace back the very beginning of the entitlement mentality by church hierarchy to Emperor Constantine and his enabling policies. No matter what his crime, a bishop could only be deposed and exiled, not legally tortured and executed (Lieu 17). I am sure this was fundamental in developing the culture within the church of dealing with any indiscretions internally, and not invoking the authority of the legal system. This of course has led to much abuse throughout history. One has only to watch the news these days to see on a routine basis, some priest or other has been exposed for having performed a plethora of transgressions, hidden by the church by simply moving the clergy member to a new area. This mentality just exposes more people to being victimized.
On the basis of Christian faith and the Trinity concept; the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, the first Council of Nicaea in 325 called together by Emperor Constantine, worked to establish a settlement of the issue of the relationship between father and the son. The focus primarily was on defining Jesus Christ as a deity. Establishment of the Holy Spirit was largely unaddressed until after the father and son relationship was settled in 362. After Nicaea, some bishops continued to prefer a term which had been discussed and rejected by the Council: homoiousios, in the sense of the son ‘being of like substance’ with the father. There were other bishops who were antagonistic to the term homoiousios because it was not biblical (O’Collins 184). Seven years later, the Trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after first Council Constantinople.
In its letter to Pope Damascus, a post conciliar synod confessed ‘one divinity, power, or substance’ in ‘three most perfect hypostasesin’ (O’Collins 185). At the Trinitarian level, Constantinople I reaffirmed the Nicene Council confession of faith that the son was ’of one substance’ with the father, as well as teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit (O’Collins 186). Thus, the official establishment of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit was initiated.

Works Cited:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.


Go to school hbl. I am tired of teaching you YOUR faith.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
hbl, and on your resurrection myth...

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.


One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.


Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Your BLIND faith is most epic, the stupid is strong in this one..

GOLDILOCKS 3:14 Thou shalt not sleep in other people's beds

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 09:09 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 08:50 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  after two women arrived at the tomb:

Two people are allowed to have a different report as long as they didn't disagree. For example. Bob can say, "Jim and Sarah were at the bar". But Ted said, "Jim, Sarah and Peter were at the bar". They just chose to report what they knew or saw or Bob decided to leave out the fact that he saw Peter there too, but it wasn't relevant to his point he was trying to make related to these persons.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 09:47 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
Focus just on the Minimal Facts Approach.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:04 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 09:47 PM)hbl Wrote:  Focus just on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Focus on the substantiated facts. That would leave zero.
I prefer to focus on all the other zombies that Matthew says rose with him, yet not one was ever substantiated, including this Jebus dude.

Buncha made up garbage.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-08-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Focus on the substantiated facts.

Yes, let's do that. What we have in the 27 books of the NT are the most corroborated testimony in antiquity, thus, holding to the highest standards of historicity. Ask yourself what better proof could there possibly be?

These multiple points of corroboration are so powerful, we can conclude from Matthew, Luke, Peter, James, John, Jude, Mark and Paul that the 12 Apostles Jesus spent 3 years with truly believed they saw Him alive from the dead in various group settings (12 were recorded).

The most powerful point of corroboration is the fact that almost all scholars concede of all Paul's writings in the epistles, Paul's 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 are most trustworthy, genuinely Paul's own writings and his definite and sincerest view. He said he spent 15 days with Peter, and with John and James. He received the gospel from them. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach because it just focuses on the strongest point of agreement among scholars.

There is no naturalistic explanation to account for it so it is true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:33 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 10:09 PM)hbl Wrote:  There is no naturalistic explanation to account for it so it is true.

Stop saying that over and over again!!! There is no naturalistic explanation to account for your fucking dense, idiotic, stupidness so it must be true.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 10:33 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Stop saying that over and over again!!! There is no naturalistic explanation to account for

You do need a naturalistic explanation because the Apostles truly believed they saw, could touch and talk with Jesus alive from the dead in various settings.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 10:34 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 10:33 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Stop saying that over and over again!!! There is no naturalistic explanation to account for

You do need a naturalistic explanation because the Apostles truly believed they saw, could touch and talk with Jesus alive from the dead in various settings.

Because we don't need naturalistic explanations for stories! You don't see people trying to explain Harry Potter. All your doing is spamming the same shit over and over again because you have no life and no one loves you and your sitting alone in your mothers basement like a loser.

[Image: giphy.gif]

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: Are Atheists Zombies?
(16-08-2014 10:41 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Because we don't need naturalistic explanations for stories!

There is nothing for you to think this is just a story. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. If He didn't exist then Aristotle and Plato didn't either, not Julius Caesar nor Tiberius.

So foremost you are in a state of delusion and like all delusions they are eventually harmful to your state of mind which will make you unhappy and increasingly uncomfortable.

I think it's wonderful how someone can help another person out of their delusions even though they are miles and countries apart.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: