Atheist conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection

Cypress said:
In conclusion, he asks whether in light of the nonhistoricity of Jesus' resurrection, thinking people today can legitimately and in good conscience still call themselves Christians.
Click to expand...
yes they can.

because being christian is best served by following the golden rule.

Jesus said that is the whole of the law.

the nicene Creed shit is a church creation.
 
Cypress said:
The New Testament scholar posted in the OP is atheist, as is well known atheist-agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman.

Why wouldn't a well informed person such as yourself not realize that the most important literary collection in the history of western civilization would invite scholarship from non-believers?
Click to expand...
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.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you're wrong about Ehrmann. He started off as an Evangelical. Over time he got his divinity degree. The man knows his shit.


He's worth a read. He's super even-handed and quite decent. He's not "debunking" anything. He's discussing what we KNOW vs what we BELIEVE.
 
HEy @Cypress I would REALLY appreciate that if you ban me from one of your threads that you don't then continue talking to me on that thread. That's just childish.

You are "retired"? Honestly surprised. I didn't think school janitors had retirement.

What makes you think I'm still working, btw?
 
Daylight63 said:
HEy @Cypress I would REALLY appreciate that if you ban me from one of your threads that you don't then continue talking to me on that thread. That's just childish.

You are "retired"? Honestly surprised. I didn't think school janitors had retirement.

What makes you think I'm still working, btw?
Click to expand...
:lolup:
Exactly what Perry PhD would have done; continued his litany of complaints about me across multiple threads
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess that's your way of tacitly admitting it actually was neither stupid nor misinformed of me to state the New Testament collection of literature is important enough in western civilization to invite scholarship from atheists and agnostics.
 
Neoclitorus said:
nothing wrong really. idiots abound in this world. acceptance is key. be like water.
Click to expand...
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.

If Cypress had actually believed that Jesus was an historical figure, he would have just professed to JPP "I believe that Jesus really lived and really died for our sins." Then, other Christians could jump in and say "Well, duh, it's totally obvious, Sherlock." Instead, he posts omniscience fallacies in the hopes of gaining validation from others. He's looking for positive responses to confirm that he is correct for believing in the historicity of Jesus because he's not getting any from himself.
 
Hume said:
Why do Christians want their religion to be a science? Why not accept it as a belief?
Click to expand...
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."
 
Why do any atheists even care about the "historicity" of the resurrection?

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

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

My attitude is,

Don't try to jam your superstitious beliefs into the laws of the land,
and then believe whatever the fuck you want.

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

Resurrection? I don't fucking care.
How do we make 77,000,000 filthy trumpanzees disappear?
That's something upon which the quality of our lives depends.
 
Cypress said:
I guess that's your way of tacitly admitting it actually was neither stupid nor misinformed of me to state the New Testament collection of literature is important enough in western civilization to invite scholarship from atheists and agnostics.
Click to expand...
whatever you need to make yourself feel better........
 
IBDaMann said:
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.

If Cypress had actually believed that Jesus was an historical figure, he would have just professed to JPP "I believe that Jesus really lived and really died for our sins." Then, other Christians could jump in and say "Well, duh, it's totally obvious, Sherlock." Instead, he posts omniscience fallacies in the hopes of gaining validation from others. He's looking for positive responses to confirm that he is correct for believing in the historicity of Jesus because he's not getting any from himself.
Click to expand...
yes.

this stupidity makes him an idiot.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Why do any atheists even care about the "historicity" of the resurrection?

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

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

My attitude is,

Don't try to jam your superstitious beliefs into the laws of the land,
and then believe whatever the fuck you want.

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

Resurrection? I don't fucking care.
How do we make 77,000,000 filthy trumpanzees disappear?
That's something upon which the quality of our lives depends.
Click to expand...
so they can 'debunk' christianity.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Don't try to jam your superstitious beliefs into the laws of the land,
and then believe whatever the fuck you want.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top