Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(19-06-2015 06:39 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yabut.... Jesus was an outright "militant" Jew. He wouldn't even have believed in hell. Anything written in red text in the bible about Jesus' beliefs cannot be trusted by any means to be historically accurate, and if you claim that they can you are a fool.

The bible as we know it is nothing more than political propaganda and should be approached as such, whether or not a jewish preacher named Jesus really was killed thousands of years ago.

Sometimes...it just aint worth it Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2015, 08:43 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(19-06-2015 07:08 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-06-2015 06:39 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yabut.... Jesus was an outright "militant" Jew. He wouldn't even have believed in hell. Anything written in red text in the bible about Jesus' beliefs cannot be trusted by any means to be historically accurate, and if you claim that they can you are a fool.

The bible as we know it is nothing more than political propaganda and should be approached as such, whether or not a jewish preacher named Jesus really was killed thousands of years ago.

Sometimes...it just aint worth it Facepalm

Agreed.

We both know that your argument holds no water, you've been down that road too many times to think otherwise.

I'm just kindly suggesting that you go away. Thumbsup

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
19-06-2015, 08:46 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
In other words, put up or shut up. You've been here long enough and haven't proposed one decent argument for your claims. It wasn't even a valiant effort. Time for you to shoo.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
20-06-2015, 01:47 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2015 08:12 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(19-06-2015 06:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Heyyy GWOG...long time, no ass whoopin, eh?

(19-06-2015 03:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Zero proof, what else you got? You still lurking here?

I come back whenever the "urge" comes over me.

(19-06-2015 03:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Havent had your ass beaten and dragged around the schoolyard enough yet? Must like public humiliation.

Man you couldn't beat your meat in a porn store Laugh out load

(19-06-2015 03:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Name one eyewitness account of jesus, just one....

Paul, who lived during the time of Jesus AND the disciples, and met with Peter, apostle of Jesus, and James, brother of Jesus, met with eyewitness' of Jesus. I don't know how many times I have to say this, between you and Chas.

(19-06-2015 03:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The bible IS a book of myths.

Unsupported assertion. Is Chas your understudy? You guys are the kings of unsupported assertions.

(19-06-2015 03:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As I have schooled you before, if you remove the pseudepigrapha, allegorical stories, parables, fiction, fantasy, and forgery you wouldn't have much left. Exodus never happened, global flood never happened, moses never existed, noah never existed, jesus's alleged resurrection was never witnessed....an empty tomb does not a resurrection make. Keep up cartilage of the brain, you are slipping back even further with every ignorant, biased, misinformed, ineducable post you make.

More unsupported assertions, yayyy Thumbsup Tell ya what, GWOG...lets just take this stuff on a point by point basis...now which one of this topics or subtopics within the Resurrection realm would you like to get intellectually spanked on??

Go ahead, I am even letting you choose the topic. Am I a nice guy or what?

again, maybe if I say it reeeeeeeeal slow....no one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him. Someone saying "I met with timmy, who knew jesus and he heard him say..." doesn't count.

oooh resurrection myth? You do realize an empty tomb does not a resurrection make right COTW?

But since I am taking a 5 min break between paper writing, maybe you could explain this day for me......let me lay it out for you..

I have a small question...what happened on easter? I am not asking for proof...because we all know you can't provide that...my small request is merely that you tell me exactly what happened on the day that your most important doctrine was born.

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.

Here is my take....

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." Rolleyes

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 try to 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). Gasp

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? Laughat

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. Weeping

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 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)?

I ask you this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.

You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.

Good luck on your trip...I await with bated breath for you to decipher the myths...remember the bible is "infallible" Angel

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
20-06-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
GWG, I love the effort, but to quote a friend of ours, "sometimes, it just ain't worth it. Facepalm "

The willful ignorance is strong with this one. Tongue

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
21-06-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(20-06-2015 08:25 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  GWG, I love the effort, but to quote a friend of ours, "sometimes, it just ain't worth it. Facepalm "

The willful ignorance is strong with this one. Tongue

yeah trying to educate the ineducable is like pissing in the ocean hoping to change the ebb and flow of the tides.

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-06-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  again, maybe if I say it reeeeeeeeal slow....no one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him.

Unsupported assertion. Keep'em coming.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Someone saying "I met with timmy, who knew jesus and he heard him say..." doesn't count.

Dude, what the HELL are you talking about? That is called an EYE FREAKIN WITNESS. That is like me saying "I met with Reverend Jesse Jackson, who knew MLK, and he heard him say"....If I met with Reverend Jackson, I met with an EYE WITNESS to MLK.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  oooh resurrection myth? You do realize an empty tomb does not a resurrection make right COTW?

Yeah, but if you are gonna go around claiming that Jesus rose physically from the dead, it might be better if the tomb didn't consist of Jesus' dead corpse. Just sayin'

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But since I am taking a 5 min break between paper writing, maybe you could explain this day for me......let me lay it out for you..

Smile

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I have a small question...what happened on easter? I am not asking for proof...because we all know you can't provide that

That was kinda funny Laugh out load

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...my small request is merely that you tell me exactly what happened on the day that your most important doctrine was born.

Word.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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).

Paul was an OG (original gangsta) Thumbsup

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Here is my take....

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.")

Well, if there was an earthquake at my location right now, I wouldn't write a book about it..and apparently, neither did they.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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." Rolleyes

Nonsense. Matthew doesn't state that the stone was rolled away in their presence. He started off saying the women "went to look at the tomb". And it is apparent that during the travel time of the women (verses 2-4), the angel appeared and rolled back the tomb, so by the time the women arrived to the tomb (verse 5), the tomb was open and the angel spoke to them.

*Sigh*

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre."

And if it weren't for your wacky understanding of Matthew, you would see that he agrees with Luke..the women arrived and found the tomb open.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

First off, I don't know what is it about you and this earthquake business. Matthew felt it was important to mention the earthquake...the others didn't. How much information that is given to the readers is at the authors discretion, not skeptics living over 2,000 years later on atheist forums.

Second, again..there is no three-to-one vote...all agree that the tomb was open prior to the women arriving.

But, however, I can understand why someone will interpret it the same way that you do. I just don't.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Some bible defenders try to 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?

Not so fast, though. Again, Matthew states "they went to look at the tomb", but it isn't apparent as to when they actually ARRIVED to the tomb until first 5, when the angel is speaking to them. Does "they went to look at the tomb" cover just the travel implication...or does it cover both the travel implication, AND the arrival to the tomb?

It isn't exactly clear either way. If I say "Tom went to the basketball game", that statement can include Tom's actual arrival to the game, or it could exclude Tom's arrival, and just cover the duration of travel before arrival....because even before the arrival to the game, the statement "Tom went to the basketball game" would still stand.

So as I said, it isn't clear either way. But I told you my view opinion.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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."

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. Weeping

Matthew CLEARLY states that the disciples met with Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:16).

Mark agrees with Matthew that the message was for the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee (Mark 16:7), although the appearance narrative is wishy-washy due to the omitted verses (9-20).

Luke says it happened in Jerusalem. So which is it? Well look, it is obvious that Jesus met with the disciples on numerous occasions since the Resurrection. The more differences you have between the Gospels, the less likely you can say that the authors all joined together and decided to write the four books by piggy-backing off of each other. Second, just because one book mentions one appearance, and another book mentions another appearance doesn't mean that there is a contradiction, it just means that one author decides to narrative one appearance, and another author narrates another.

What do I think? I think the Jerusalem appearance was first. Why? Because in the book of Luke, when Jesus appeared to them, the disciples were full of "joy and amazement". But when they met Jesus in Galilee, Matthew doesn't describe the disciples emotions, but just simply state that they "worshiped him", and I think that is because when they met him in Galilee, the initial "shock" of Jesus' appearance was over since they had already seen him in Jerusalem. So at that point, all that was left to do was just to worship the risen Messiah. Sure, they were still overjoyed, but not as nearly as they were when they first saw him in the Jerusalem account, as Luke recorded.

That is just my take on it.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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?

If you assume that the Galilee appearance was first...if the Jerusalem appearance was first then this would be a dead issue, wouldn't it?

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

I don't know what you are talking about here...but to ask a question regarding Jesus, who is God incarnate, and whether or not he has "time" to do something as if he is just an average joe schmo finite human being....how absurd.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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. Smartass

Hey, I admit..it is a legitimate concern that requires some critical thinking.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

And I could question whether or not reptiles evolving into birds, and life originating from nonliving materials, and how a mindless and blind process can configure a human body with intelligence attached to it...I could ask whether that stuff, on a "without God" naturalistic level, should be given any serious consideration.

You take issue with dead corpses coming back to life...but you don't have a problem with nonliving material suddenly/gradually "coming to life"? Bullshit.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Tell Thomas Paine to give me outrageous proof that inanimate material can come to life.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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?

Its not really an outrageous claim when you think about it. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and if God exists, then raising someone from the dead would be as easy as 1-2-3.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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)?

Right!!! Exactly!!! And Jesus told Thomas "You see, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believe."

And Jesus is talking about.....us!!! Because we believe, despite having NOT seen..so according to Jesus, we are blessed.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I ask you this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.

And as I said, I can see why this is a an issue to some people, and such questions deserve an honest, rational answer.

(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Good luck on your trip...I await with bated breath for you to decipher the myths...remember the bible is "infallible" Angel

The pro's don't audition...the boss just walk'em in Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(21-06-2015 09:05 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yeah trying to educate the ineducable is like pissing in the ocean hoping to change the ebb and flow of the tides.

And trying to get you lost souls to eternal life through Jesus Christ is like trying to herd a bunch of cats.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(22-06-2015 01:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-06-2015 09:05 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yeah trying to educate the ineducable is like pissing in the ocean hoping to change the ebb and flow of the tides.

And trying to get you lost souls to eternal life through Jesus Christ is like trying to herd a bunch of cats.

Actually, I believe Jesus would prefer the term "sheep." Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
22-06-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(22-06-2015 01:32 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  again, maybe if I say it reeeeeeeeal slow....no one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him.

Unsupported assertion. Keep'em coming.

This has been supported so many times it is only your willful ignorance that prevents you knowing that. Here you go.

Quote:
(20-06-2015 01:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Someone saying "I met with timmy, who knew jesus and he heard him say..." doesn't count.

Dude, what the HELL are you talking about? That is called an EYE FREAKIN WITNESS. That is like me saying "I met with Reverend Jesse Jackson, who knew MLK, and he heard him say"....If I met with Reverend Jackson, I met with an EYE WITNESS to MLK.

No, he is not an eyewitness to what MLK experienced, he just heard testimony. That is hearsay, not eyewitness.
An eyewitness has to have witnessed an event with his own eyes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: