Atheist conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection

[Cypress]

I wouldn't categorize this as an example of idiocy. I classify it as someone greatly conflicted, i.e. Cypress feels great pressure to believe something that he personally finds to be bunk, and now he is performing mental gymnastics to see if he might possibly convince himself that Christian beliefs are true, despite his inability to get behind them at present.

 

[Cypress]

I swear that some people go out of their way to find something about which they can argue.

speaking of paltry things to argue about, don't Red Sox and Yankee fans get in fist fights, Haha

 

[IBDaMann]

Why do any atheists even care about the "historicity" of the resurrection?

Why do you believe that any atheists care about the historicity of something about which they haven't been convinced occurred?

The thought would never enter my head even once if I didn't read about it here.

Are you saying that you are an atheist who doesn't care about the specific details of events for which you have not yet been convinced occurred?

I swear that some people go out of their way to find something about which they can argue.

You sure seem to be going out of your way to find some angle on this point to argue.

My attitude is,

... go out of your way to argue something?

Don't try to jam your superstitious beliefs into the laws of the land,

Good, good ... and don't cite any concrete examples either.

and then believe whatever the fuck you want.

Naturally they should believe what you tell them to believe. Well done.

Why does intellectual curiosity crawl down such irrelevant paths when there are such important things to figure out?

... like why do people jump onto JPP to bitch about religion when there are so many tariffs to be supporting, and IRSs to be eliminating.

Resurrection? I don't fucking care.

Obviously you are obsessed. You felt compelled to write a post on the matter. So, while you're here, explain why you care so deeply about the resurrection?

How do we make 77,000,000 filthy trumpanzees disappear?

Better question: How do we make income taxes disappear?
Best Answer: We allow tariffs to replace any need for an IRS.

 

[Hume]

Christians do accept their faith as a matter of faith. It's the non-believers, e.g. Cypress, who need something more than what they have to be convinced ... but they cannot admit this.

There are Christians on JPP who are quite comfortable in their faith despite acknowledging that they cannot run the historicity of Jesus through the scientific method. They neither need nor feel inclined to prove that their beliefs are somehow falsifiable models. Only those who are frighteningly weak in their faith feel compelled to search for absolute proof of their religious faith.

Cypress is reminiscent of the phrase "Oh ye of little faith."

Yes, Christians prefer myth.

 

[Cypress]

whatever you need to make yourself feel better........

So you think all the American university scholars who study Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism without actually being members of those religions have nothing to offer and should leave their jobs? That's the logical conclusion of your claim that only Christians can legitimately study the New Testament.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

the most valuable trait to being an expert or scholar in anything is either complete objectivity, or fanaticism in the subject. Being a non believer in something is probably the least valuable trait and exhibits, mostly, a desire to debunk said subject.

Only fanatics see the world in terms of only Black and White.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, Christians prefer myth.

Of course you say this of Christianity because you are of a competing religion.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you think all the American university scholars

You used the word "scholar", which is a tell-tale sign that you are trying to disguise the fact that they are bonehead morons who wasted their college education on a booooolsch't major and who will probably never find a real job.

That's the logical conclusion of your claim that only Christians can legitimately study the New Testament.

Only Christians can immerse their Christian beliefs in Christian doctrine. Non-Christians can only read the doctrine.

 

[Cypress]

You used the word "scholar", which is a tell-tale sign that you are trying to disguise the fact that they are bonehead morons who wasted their college education on a booooolsch't major and who will probably never find a real job.


Only Christians can immerse their Christian beliefs in Christian doctrine. Non-Christians can only read the doctrine.

You appear to be unaware that the Bible is probably the most important collection of literature in the history of western civilization, and it's not just something that's going to sit and gather dust on grandma's book shelf. It's going to invite scholarship and professional literary criticism.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I think we lefties commonly forget that it was Christians and their Christian values that animated the slavery abolitionists and the civil rights movement.

I wouldn't say that somebody's spiritual values should never, ever inform their opinion of what a civilized society should look like.

Spiritual values, fine. Superstitious dogma, no.

We should be able to understand when contrasting values
are not harming anybody who doesn't share them.

Abolishing slavery is not the same as abolishing abortion, for example,
when nobody is forcing anybody to have an abortion.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

speaking of paltry things to argue about, don't Red Sox and Yankee fans get in fist fights, Haha

That's not voluntary.
That's genetic nature.

I've always enjoyed Manhattan,
but the Yankees left Manhattan for the Bronx in 1923,
and their fans are so fucking hittable by nature.

 

[Cypress]

That's not voluntary.
That's genetic nature.

I've always enjoyed Manhattan,
but the Yankees left Manhattan for the Bronx in 1923,
and their fans are so fucking hittable by nature.

I liked the Seinfeld episode where Elaine wore an Orioles cap to Yankee stadium, and got kicked out of the park!

 

[Cypress]

Spiritual values, fine. Superstitious dogma, no.

We should be able to understand when contrasting values
are not harming anybody who doesn't share them.

Abolishing slavery is not the same as abolishing abortion, for example,
when nobody is forcing anybody to have an abortion.

I don't think Jesus said anything about abortion, and I've always thought the effort to get Roe overturned had more to do with traditional patriarchy than with any abiding Christian principles.

 

[Bai Lan]

I think we lefties commonly forget that it was Christians and their Christian values that animated the slavery abolitionists and the civil rights movement.

I wouldn't say that somebody's spiritual values should never, ever inform their opinion of what a civilized society should look like.

eloquent yet retared double negative.

so dumb.

 

[Bai Lan]

I don't think Jesus said anything about abortion, and I've always thought the effort to get Roe overturned had more to do with traditional patriarchy than with any abiding Christian principles.

that's because you're retarded.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I liked the Seinfeld episode where Elaine wore an Orioles cap to Yankee stadium, and got kicked out of the park!

Seinfeld was a funny show.

Comedy isn't allowed anymore. It offends woke people.

I've worn a Red Sox cap in Yankee stadium,
but I was with my family and didn't get into a fight.

I've also worn a Red Sox cap in Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, and San Francisco ballparks.
[The latter was a Giants-Cubs game not involving our Sox.]

Funny, but when I was little, grown up men actually wore suits or at least sport jackets to the games.

I went to my first game in 1953, I believe, when Ted came home from Korea.
He hit a moonshot home run for me.

By the time I was in middle school, I could walk to Fenway for day games.
Bleacher tickets were 75 cents if I remember right. Certainly no more than a buck.

It's a different world, now, of course.

 

[Cypress]

Seinfeld was a funny show.

Comedy isn't allowed anymore. It offends woke people.

I've worn a Red Sox cap in Yankee stadium,
but I was with my family and didn't get into a fight.

I've also worn a Red Sox cap in Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, and San Francisco ballparks.
[The latter was a Giants-Cubs game not involving our Sox.]

Funny, but when I was little, grown up men actually wore suits or at least sport jackets to the games.

I went to my first game in 1953, I believe, when Ted came home from Korea.
He hit a moonshot home run for me.

By the time I was in middle school, I could walk to Fenway for day games.
Bleacher tickets were 75 cents if I remember right. Certainly no more than a buck.

It's a different world, now, of course.

Baseball was a rite of passage. In high school, my buddies and I could go and sit in the bleachers at an Orioles game for about three bucks. That wasn't really an option for an NFL game.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Baseball was a rite of passage. In high school, my buddies and I could go and sit in the bleachers at an Orioles game for about three bucks. That wasn't really an option for an NFL game.

Back in the 1960s when the Patriots played in Boston, the tickets were seven bucks,
4.50 for the end zone on the baseball bleachers side.
I went to plenty of games.

But it's still not the same as basebaall.
As you said, that was a rite of passage.

In Foxborough, you can't get a cup of coffee for that.
And I'm NOT driving to Foxborough, believe me.
The last time I drove up that way was eleven years ago
when we picked up the Avatar from the breeder.

[A quick aside--if you want a dog, adopt a rescue.
They're more appreciative and lower maintenance. The Avitar is a total Diva.]

All sports are basically a TV thing for working class families today.
If they do go to a game, it's once a year.

 

[Bai Lan]

Seinfeld was a funny show.

Comedy isn't allowed anymore. It offends woke people.

I've worn a Red Sox cap in Yankee stadium,
but I was with my family and didn't get into a fight.

I've also worn a Red Sox cap in Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, and San Francisco ballparks.
[The latter was a Giants-Cubs game not involving our Sox.]

Funny, but when I was little, grown up men actually wore suits or at least sport jackets to the games.

I went to my first game in 1953, I believe, when Ted came home from Korea.
He hit a moonshot home run for me.

By the time I was in middle school, I could walk to Fenway for day games.
Bleacher tickets were 75 cents if I remember right. Certainly no more than a buck.

It's a different world, now, of course.

and you've failed to adjust.

 

[Cypress]

Back in the 1960s when the Patriots played in Boston, the tickets were seven bucks,
4.50 for the end zone on the baseball bleachers side.
I went to plenty of games.

But it's still not the same as basebaall.
As you said, that was a rite of passage.

In Foxborough, you can't get a cup of coffee for that.
And I'm NOT driving to Foxborough, believe me.
The last time I drove up that way was eleven years ago
when we picked up the Avatar from the breeder.

[A quick aside--if you want a dog, adopt a rescue.
They're more appreciative and lower maintenance. The Avitar is a total Diva.]

All sports are basically a TV thing for working class families today.
If they do go to a game, it's once a year.

Part of the problem for me is I hated the Redskins, and never even bothered to try to go to a game. I would have rather gone to Colts games, but they covertly moved to Indianapolis under cover of night!