[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-02-2013 04:17 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  In your hypothetical example did the "terrorist" willingly surrender to the crucifixion? And was their resurrection believed by both atheist and theist alike?

I'll say that the resurrection of the "terrorist" *actually happened* - do you see what I'm saying, I'm letting a genuine miracle happen (as genuine as miracles get). I'll let theist, atheist, scientist and non-scientist all agree that a dead man came back to life after being executed by the authorities. Heck, let's do it by beheading. Even JC might have had a problem with that right ? Wink

What I'm saying is even if I give you that, I still don't see the connection from "Man who was dead suddenly wakes up" to "therefore validates book and invisible God".

The resurrection doesn't imply Christianity in other words (at least for me) - I see "existence of God" and "man who was dead is alive again" as two separate things. How do you connect them ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-02-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-02-2013 10:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  The resurrection doesn't imply Christianity in other words (at least for me) - I see "existence of God" and "man who was dead is alive again" as two separate things. How do you connect them ?
Same here. The assumption that a god exists based on the resurrection of a person after three days is a non-sequitur. All that we can conclude from this (if it was proven to have occurred at all) is that there is something we don't understand that is capable of reanimating a corpse after at least up to three days.

Maybe it was witches and black magic.

or Thor cast a lightning bolt down into the tombstone which restarted his heart and miraculously repaired three days worth of decay.

or perhaps pixies Jesus made friends with in the desert didn't want him dead so they sprinkled magical fairy dust on him which caused immediate regeneration of decay damage.

or some god other than Thor did it with their divine powers.

or it's just a story which is the result of rumour and heresay OR the result of some clever individuals seeking to gain power over the ignorant.

Take your pick. I know which one I see as being most likely.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Adenosis's post
20-02-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-02-2013 10:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-02-2013 04:17 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This is not an attempt at deflection Bucky Ball.

Then answer the fucking questions, moron.

The questions have been answered already.

*Jesus really existed. (That is not reasonably disputed. Jesus ''mythers'' are a fringe group.)

*Miracles are perfectly feasible for a Supreme Being. (That cannot metaphysically disputed.)

*I explained Gods unselfish loving motive for the Resurrection. (Nobody contested that motive.)

*The only truth claim under discussion is whether the Gospel sources honestly believed that which they were reporting. (Nobody contested their sanity. Nobody contested their persecution/martyrdom. Being stoned to death is the best lie detector ever devised and the disciples of Jesus gained nothing from the risks they took spreading Christianity.)

*The age/dating of Gospel manuscripts is essentially a red herring because Christians would still be defending the same CONTENT irrespective of the copy date moving +/- 20 years. And in any case, the Gospel fragments which may be preserved copies of earlier written accounts, are STILL closer in time to the events they report than any other historical document of antiquity. (And nobody has contradictory evidence disputing that the manuscript authors or their sources were reporting eyewitness accounts. You cannot make claims and assertions about the supposed motives and identity of authors while at the same time accusing Christians of not knowing who they were.)

The current (and still prevailing) best explanation for the accepted historical facts is an apparent, otherwise inexplicable, supernatural event which is only a problem for skeptics if they deliberately refuse to admit the existence of God. And as I said, Jesus' Resurrection is NOT the only miraculous event associated with God's existence. So the atheist who focuses their skepticism on one single biblical miracle is pretty much missing the forest for the trees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 11:45 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-02-2013 11:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  *The only truth claim under discussion is whether the Gospel sources honestly believed that which they were reporting. (Nobody contested their sanity. Nobody contested their persecution/martyrdom. Being stoned to death is the best lie detector ever devised and the disciples of Jesus gained nothing from the risks they took spreading Christianity.)


Other people who have died terrible painful deaths for their beliefs, and thus must be true.

Thich Quang Duc - Buddhist

[Image: budist_monk_on_fire.jpg]


The September 11'th Highjackers - Muslim

[Image: 0000074225-annals282-004.jpg]


The 12 Disciple of Jesus - Debatable...
































[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-02-2013, 11:57 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 02:32 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Does anyone know why so many Christians have the idea that the the earliest followers of Jesus (those who knew him) were

1. Christians

2. physically persecuted for their beliefs?

I've heard many modern Christians claim that the stories about Jesus must be true because all these Christians were killed because they believed in Jesus.

I've spend 7 years studying the origins of Christianity. The persecution of Peter in Rome is a myth. Nero persecuting "Christians" is a myth too. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing else.

They must get told this in church, because it simply isn't historical.

PS I wrote the above while Ev kills was posting his excellent series of videos. I've now watched them, and the narrator comes to the same conclusion I did...there is no good evidence any of Jesus' disciples were executed for their Christian beliefs. (I disagree with the narrator about James, Jesus' brother, who I think was executed, but James was never a Christian.)

Nor do I think there were any Christians, anywhere, executed because they were Christians in the first century. I'm happy to be corrected, however. I think the reality is that Christianity barely existed in the first century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-02-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-02-2013 11:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Does anyone know why so many Christians have the idea that the the earliest followers of Jesus (those who knew him) were

1. Christians

2. physically persecuted for their beliefs?

I've heard many modern Christians claim that the stories about Jesus must be true because all these Christians were killed because they believed in Jesus.

I've spend 7 years studying the origins of Christianity. The persecution of Peter in Rome is a myth. Nero persecuting "Christians" is a myth too. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing else.

They must get told this in church, because it simply isn't historical.
The persecution of a few early "christians" wasnt a myth. Romans had laws about religion, the early christians knew this and broke the laws. There is no evidence to suggest Rome had a vendetta against christians and wanted to slaughter them all. The Jesus cult wasnt even on their radar at the time of Nero. It took hundreds of years for it to have an impact on Roman society. Thats my understanding on it, I AINT NO HISTORIAN THOUGH.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 12:52 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 01:03 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-02-2013 12:28 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(20-02-2013 11:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Does anyone know why so many Christians have the idea that the the earliest followers of Jesus (those who knew him) were

1. Christians

2. physically persecuted for their beliefs?

I've heard many modern Christians claim that the stories about Jesus must be true because all these Christians were killed because they believed in Jesus.

I've spend 7 years studying the origins of Christianity. The persecution of Peter in Rome is a myth. Nero persecuting "Christians" is a myth too. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing else.

They must get told this in church, because it simply isn't historical.
The persecution of a few early "christians" wasnt a myth. Romans had laws about religion, the early christians knew this and broke the laws. There is no evidence to suggest Rome had a vendetta against christians and wanted to slaughter them all. The Jesus cult wasnt even on their radar at the time of Nero. It took hundreds of years for it to have an impact on Roman society. Thats my understanding on it, I AINT NO HISTORIAN THOUGH.


From what I understand, the Romans had an open pagan society. They saw other religious pantheons as different interpretations of the same gods. Romans called their version 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus', the Egyptians called theirs 'Amun-Ra', and the Babylonians called theirs 'Marduk', etc. Christians, much like the latter Hebrew, ostracized themselves by denying and refusing to participate in the pagan practices of their contemporaries. The Romans probably would have been fine if the Christians had blended in and agreed that Yahweh and Jesus were just avatars or aspects of the other pagan gods, much as everyone else did; but they refused to do this. They also refused to swear fealty to the Emperor (the oath claimed that the Emperor was a god), which prevented them from becoming Roman citizens or serving in the army or public office. If there was persecution, it sounds like it was self inflicted. Now I could be wrong, but this is what I've seen so far.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-02-2013, 01:05 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Haven't you guys realized that Lion IRC DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK about what you say? All Lion IRC wants to do is waste bandwidth and so prevent you from discussing anything meaningful. If Lion IRC can make you waste time, then he wins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
21-02-2013, 01:11 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-02-2013 12:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-02-2013 12:28 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  The persecution of a few early "christians" wasnt a myth. Romans had laws about religion, the early christians knew this and broke the laws. There is no evidence to suggest Rome had a vendetta against christians and wanted to slaughter them all. The Jesus cult wasnt even on their radar at the time of Nero. It took hundreds of years for it to have an impact on Roman society. Thats my understanding on it, I AINT NO HISTORIAN THOUGH.


From what I understand, the Romans had an open pagan society. They saw other religious pantheons as different interpretations of the same gods. Romans called their version 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus', the Egyptians called theirs 'Amun-Ra', and the Babylonians called theirs 'Marduk', etc. Christians, much like the latter Hebrew, ostracized themselves by denying and refusing to participate in the pagan practices of their contemporaries. The Romans probably would have been fine if the Christians had blended in and agreed that Yahweh and Jesus were just avatars or aspects of the other pagan gods, much as everyone else did; but they refused to do this. They also refused to swear fealty to the Emperor (the oath claimed that the Emperor was a god), which prevented them from becoming Roman citizens or serving in the army or public office. If there was persecution, it sounds like it was self inflicted. Now I could be wrong, but this is what I've seen so far.
Heavnen's gate




Sihks, Jews, and Native Americans/First Nations etc... All died for their faiths, were persecuted, and in some cases killed in mass.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 01:24 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-02-2013 12:28 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(20-02-2013 11:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Does anyone know why so many Christians have the idea that the the earliest followers of Jesus (those who knew him) were

1. Christians

2. physically persecuted for their beliefs?

I've heard many modern Christians claim that the stories about Jesus must be true because all these Christians were killed because they believed in Jesus.

I've spend 7 years studying the origins of Christianity. The persecution of Peter in Rome is a myth. Nero persecuting "Christians" is a myth too. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing else.

They must get told this in church, because it simply isn't historical.
The persecution of a few early "christians" wasnt a myth. Romans had laws about religion, the early christians knew this and broke the laws. There is no evidence to suggest Rome had a vendetta against christians and wanted to slaughter them all. The Jesus cult wasnt even on their radar at the time of Nero. It took hundreds of years for it to have an impact on Roman society. Thats my understanding on it, I AINT NO HISTORIAN THOUGH.
I agree with everything you say except your first sentence.

Why wasn't it a myth? Do you have good evidence of first century persecution of Christians? PS I acknowledge there were some 2nd century persecutions, mainly because , as you say, some Christians broke the law of the land (not because they were Christians per se.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: