CHRIST'S TOMB
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2014, 10:48 PM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(06-02-2014 08:15 PM)JAH Wrote:  Bucky Ball, I must say you put a very narrow definition on "procreate". Certainly not one that I accept as the common usage of the term. Not that I disagree in general with your point of view but I think you are being a bit fastidious in this case of definition. Damn I love big words even when I have to check out the spelling.

You seriously had to look up "procreate"? Hobo

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:09 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(06-02-2014 05:56 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Alpha,

I wasn't stereotyping Christians, it's what they are supposed to do, to spread the good news. I didn't say YOU were proselytizing, I said that's what Christians are supposed to do, to convert those who aren't Christian. Who is misreading now?
You are. Here's what you said:
Christians don't challenge their beliefs, they promote them and try to prostelityze those who question their beliefs.

You didn't say "supposed to."
Quote:Your answers ring hollow and are against Christian practices.
Amazing - you deny stereotyping, then jump right back to stereotypes. Funny how atheists will point out that there are x thousands of Christian denomiantions when that suits their purposes, but act like we're all the same when that suits their purposes.
Quote:Looking for doubt to enforce your faith? What the hell kind of logic is that?
If you look for reasons to doubt and don't find them, your faith is strengthened. That's pretty straight-forward logic. Not sure why you struggle with it.
Quote:You keep saying we are misreading or misunderstanding you, but that's not the case. My accusation that you were being dishonest isn't baseless. In fact you've only reinforced it by saying you could possibly have an atheistic stance only to say if you abandoned Christianity you'd jump on another deity train because first cause and design compel you. But I specifically asked you if science could prove these two things were not from a deity would you have an atheistic stance, and you said yes. So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, or in other words, you're a liar.
Funny that you claim you're not misreading me, then prove that you are.

First, you don't seem to understand hypothetical questions. I find the idea of a universe from nothing and abiogenesis to be utterly ridiculous. You then posed a hypothetical: "If science could prove these two things..." I don't think science will prove these two things in my lifetime, but sure, if they could, I would reconsider some things. Responding to a hypothetical which I find to be highly unlikely is in no way talking out of both sides of my mouth. Are you capable of grasping this concept?

Second, I didn't say that I "would you have an atheistic stance," I said that "I could possibly have an atheist stance." You misrepresent me when what I wrote is right there a couple pages back for all to see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:13 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(06-02-2014 08:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nice try. YOU explained it. Now you attempt to backtrack. Lovely.
WRONG YET AGAIN, Zed Male.
"Procreate" means involved along with a "creator". Perhaps you should include an English class when you decide to go get educated. No atheist uses the term "procreate", neither does ANY scientist. Only religious retards suffering from delusional Presuppositionalism. The word is "reproduction".
My but it's fun when you feed them rope and they just keep taking it! Smile

Let's see what wiki says about reproduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
Quote:Reproduction (or procreation)...
Oh snap, it refutes you in the first three words!
Banana_zorro
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:24 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
@ willhopp

Maybe looking at it from the opposite view would help.

Suppose an atheist said that he could never believe in a god.

I say, what if a being appeared to you in some miraculous fashion claiming to be a god, it told you your thoughts, it predicted the future, whatever kind of signs you like.

Atheist says, in those circumstances I could possibly believe in a god.

I say, oh snap you're dishonest, you just contradicted your earlier position!

Atheist says, you're a freaking idiot, a response to a hypothetical alternate fact pattern can't be held as a contradiction to a previous position under a different fact pattern.

Who's right, me or the atheist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(07-02-2014 06:24 AM)alpha male Wrote:  @ willhopp

Maybe looking at it from the opposite view would help.

Suppose an atheist said that he could never believe in a god.

I say, what if a being appeared to you in some miraculous fashion claiming to be a god, it told you your thoughts, it predicted the future, whatever kind of signs you like.

Atheist says, in those circumstances I could possibly believe in a god.

I say, oh snap you're dishonest, you just contradicted your earlier position!

Atheist says, you're a freaking idiot, a response to a hypothetical alternate fact pattern can't be held as a contradiction to a previous position under a different fact pattern.

Who's right, me or the atheist?

The problem with your statement is you are giving a false equivalence to belief and knowledge based on evidence.

Would most atheists say I could never "believe" in a god? - yes.
Would most atheists say I could never acknowledge a god exists if the evidence clearly showed that it did? - no. because then I am simply stating that I now have knowledge of this god's existence based on evidence.

These are not the same thing, so they are not a contradiction. Belief does not necessarily require facts or evidence. Knowledge does.

Example: I don't believe in bacteria. Here, look in this microscope. Look at the data on experiments done studying bacteria. Oh. Bacteria does exist. The person doesn't now believe in bacteria. They know it exists based on evidence. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(07-02-2014 06:13 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 08:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nice try. YOU explained it. Now you attempt to backtrack. Lovely.
WRONG YET AGAIN, Zed Male.
"Procreate" means involved along with a "creator". Perhaps you should include an English class when you decide to go get educated. No atheist uses the term "procreate", neither does ANY scientist. Only religious retards suffering from delusional Presuppositionalism. The word is "reproduction".
My but it's fun when you feed them rope and they just keep taking it! Smile

Let's see what wiki says about reproduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
Quote:Reproduction (or procreation)...
Oh snap, it refutes you in the first three words!
Banana_zorro

I see you have no science background, Zed male. I could care less what Wiki says.
No embryologist or scientist uses the word "procreation". It implies that humans have only a "partial" role in reproduction. Provide the proof that your deity plays a part in reproduction, or STFU. Nice try at deflection. YOU said your deity was place-holder in the absence of a better explanation. Nice that you relegate a god to your "necessity" box, as your ignorant brain REQUIRES it, whether it's true or not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(07-02-2014 07:46 AM)meremortal Wrote:  The problem with your statement is you are giving a false equivalence to belief and knowledge based on evidence.
That's one problem with it. Note that "[my] statement" is an analogy for willhopp's position, and not a real position of my own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(07-02-2014 07:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I see you have no science background, Zed male. I could care less what Wiki says.
No embryologist or scientist uses the word "procreation".
You might have a point - if we were on a science forum. We're not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(07-02-2014 07:58 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 07:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I see you have no science background, Zed male. I could care less what Wiki says.
No embryologist or scientist uses the word "procreation".
You might have a point - if we were on a science forum. We're not.

Nice try. The word "procreate" implies a co-action with a "creator". The fact is this is not a "creationist" forum. It's an atheist forum. BTW what exactly are you doing here ? Seth set this up as a community for non-believers. It's unethical for you to post your theist shit here. You're using the resources of non-believers to promote your shit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-02-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: CHRIST'S TOMB
(28-01-2014 10:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Most criminals crucified by the Roman occupation were dumped into common graves. You can assume, (if he was actually an historic person), that's what happened. The "Jesus Seminar" disagrees among themselves about what happened. See JD Crossan. There is an interesting "shift" in Mark (to transfer the burial from his enemies to his friends), but in light of the fact that the trial was entirely fiction, (the Sanhedrin never once in history was called into session on Passover weekend), AND the temple curtain, if it had been torn, would have been mentioned by a Jewish historian, it was probably all just pious fiction (fraud). They use Paul's "creed" in Corinthians I as evidence, (that he spoke with the apostles), but Paul says he got his gospel from his hallucination, so who the hell knows.

Actually most Roman crucifixion victims were left to rot on the crosses as a warning to other nare-do-wells who might try to challenge Caesar's authority. Occasionally the condemned man's family did get permission from the Romans and remove the body from the cross and give it a proper burial (see Jehoanon's grave).

Most people of that era who died were intially laid to rest in a large tomb until the flesh had rotted from their bones. At that point, the skeleton was taken, smashed up into little pieces and placed in a small box for its final rest. The idea that Jesus was removed from the cross and buried in the fashion listed in the Gospels is not unusual.

Catholics and other denominations believe that the Church of the Holy Sephlecure in Jerusalem contains the tomb that Jesus was buried in as well as the site he was supposed to have been crucified at.

Other christian sects state another site, the Garden Tomb, was supposed to have been where Jesus was buried. It matches one of the accounts of the Gospels, which states that Jesus tomb was in a garden not far from the site he was crucified at. The Garden Tomb side is close to a rocky hill called Golgotha or Skull Hill. It does match up with the execution site, called The Place of The Skull, where Jesus is crucified, according to Luke.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: