The best arguments atheists and religionists have been able to muster

[Litmus]

* As long as you ignore all of the clearly immoral entries in the Bible, right?

of course not all events depicted are moral that's how moral messages are embedded in dramatic naratives, by show some evil events.. in a dramatized fashion, but what is offered as explicit moral teachings is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sorry, no subject changes.

My question is still on your subject of knowing/not-knowing that one's religion is correct. What do you suspect is mistaken about your religion?

 

[IBDaMann]

That is what I just said. The basis of Christian theology is: His ethical teachings (historical), his death (historical), his resurrection (reported by eyewitnesses, but open to question).

So, despite you having no documented first-hand accounts of Jesus, you nonetheless are the omniscient authority who declares what is historical and what is not. I get it.

I think [the apostles] genuinely believed they saw Jesus after he died, although I have my own medical and biological theories about that.

Nope. You don't have any of your own original theories. You probably have some omniscience-fallacy delusions based on what others have written on the internet.

I base my interpretation on the evidence:

Nope. You never use evidence. You use whatever kooky crap you read off the internet. You have no first-hand evidence of Jesus, yet you pretend that you have overwhelming reams of evidence.

The written record indicates the resurrection is not a later legend added to the New Testament.

There is no such thing as either the global climate (singular) or the written record (singular). The earth has millions of climates and many millions of written records.

Of which written record are you speaking?

the earliest reports of the resurrection go all the way back to the eyewitness and are reported in Corinthians and Mark.

So the big question is why were the Romans (who executed Jesus) not totally abuzz with first-hand accounts of the amazing resurrection of the guy they killed? Romans did that, i.e. document everything. If they had executed someone who then returned to life, there would have been more coverage by the Romans than CNN devotes to Trump. However, nobody has anything. No first-hand accounts.

Does that mean that it did not happen. Nope. That's not what it means. It means that one will not find any evidence of historicity and must have faith to believe that it happened.

The fact that the apostles were willing to die and be executed for their belief they had seen Jesus after his death does not make it sound like a tale they conspired to fabricate while drinking carafes of wine at a tavern.

It is not a fact. The non-historical account of the apostles dying for their beliefs also requires faith to believe because it too has no first-hand documentary support.

My rational explanation is that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Your irrational explanation is devoid of any first-hand evidentiary support.

 

[ZenMode]

of course not all events depicted are moral that's how moral messages are embedded in dramatic naratives, by show some evil events.. in a dramatized fashion, but what is offered as explicit moral teachings is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The golden rule didn't even come from God. There are many commands from God that are blatantly immoral by today's standards.

 

[ZenMode]

My question is still on your subject of knowing/not-knowing that one's religion is correct. What do you suspect is mistaken about your religion?

A belief that climate change is more likely than not to be true isn't religious.

 

[ZenMode]

Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science.

Genesis 1 is a lot closer to what actually happened than what scientists were thinking before the 1920s. The consensus view before Hubble was that universe had no origin, it was static and had always existed. This view in science persisted to some extent until the 1960s. The religious view of an origin to the cosmos was widely rejected in the science community prior to Erwin Hubble.

If anyone wants to complain that various stories, parables, and poems in the Bible don't match up with Newtonian physics, my response is, so what?

Christian theology does not depend on the scientific accuracy of Genesis, or the walking on water. You could remove those stories from the Bible and it wouldn't change Christian theology in any measurable way. Christian theology is based on the ethical teachings of Jesus and his death and resurrection.

Christian theology, according to the Bible itself, is dependent on Jesus physically coming back to life 3 days after dying. That claim absolutely intersects with science, specifically biology. There are biological truth regarding what happens to the human body after death, how soon it happens and the ability to undo those events.

 

[Cypress]

Christian theology, according to the Bible itself, is dependent on Jesus physically coming back to life 3 days after dying. That claim absolutely intersects with science, specifically biology. There are biological truth regarding what happens to the human body after death, how soon it happens and the ability to undo those events.

I'm not a Christian, so I can have whatever theories I think fits the evidence.

The apostles seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his execution. And this is plausible to me. Practicing Christians buy the testimony of the apostles....though my interpretation is different than theirs.


My take on this war between the Atheists and the Religionists is that they both believe in miracles.

The religionists have some small-scale miracles like resurrections and healing lepers.

Atheists have one big cosmic miracle: that something can come from nothing

 

[Litmus]

The golden rule didn't even come from God. There are many commands from God that are blatantly immoral by today's standards.

but I;m talking about the golden rule, do you like it?

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not a Christian, so I can have whatever theories I think fits the evidence.

The apostles seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his execution. And this is plausible to me. Practicing Christians buy the testimony of the apostles....though my interpretation is different than theirs.


My take on this war between the Atheists and the Religionists is that they both believe in miracles.

The religionists have some small-scale miracles like resurrections and healing lepers.

Atheists have one big cosmic miracle: that something can come from nothing

"The apostles seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his execution. And this is plausible to me. "

Initially you said said that science and religion are asking different questions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Religion makes many claims that directly contradict what we know as it relates to science. In this case, is it possible for a human body, which has been dead for 3 days, to be brought back to life?

 

[Cypress]

I hate Christianity!

Jesus is the most well-attested Palestinian Jew of the first century, hands down. His execution is considered a virtual historical certainty by all reputable scholars of antiquity.

The arrests and executions of the apostles Paul, James, Peter, Andrew are attested to in Acts and in a pantheon of early Christian writings.

People do not willingly die for lies, half-truths, fabrications. That is why it seems very plausible the apostles believe they saw Jesus after he was crucified. After that, it is only a matter of interpretation of what those people might have experienced.

 

[ZenMode]

but I;m talking about the golden rule, do you like it?

Sure. I think it's a great principle, but there's nothing about it that makes it so amazing and insightful that it could only come from the creator of the universe.

 

[Cypress]

"The apostles seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his execution. And this is plausible to me. "

Initially you said said that science and religion are asking different questions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Religion makes many claims that directly contradict what we know as it relates to science. In this case, is it possible for a human body, which has been dead for 3 days, to be brought back to life?

You believe in the big miracle of something popping into existence out of nothing (the Big Bang), so you have to let the Christians belief in their miracles too.

I have my own theories, which have nothing to do with Christian belief.

 

[Litmus]

Sure. I think it's a great principle, but there's nothing about it that makes it so amazing and insightful that it could only come from the creator of the universe.

i say perhaps religion is useful as a repository as basic common sense.

that's why totalitarians hate it.

 

[Litmus]

People do not willingly die for lies, half-truths, fabrications.

 

[Margot]

I'm not asking about Islam. I'm asking about the belief that "your" religion is the correct one.

It's the correct one for me! Although I didn't chose it,I was Chosen for it!

 

[Margot]

I'm not a Christian, so I can have whatever theories I think fits the evidence.

The apostles seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his execution. And this is plausible to me. Practicing Christians buy the testimony of the apostles....though my interpretation is different than theirs.


My take on this war between the Atheists and the Religionists is that they both believe in miracles.

The religionists have some small-scale miracles like resurrections and healing lepers.

Atheists have one big cosmic miracle: that something can come from nothing

 

[ZenMode]

i say perhaps religion is useful as a repository as basic common sense.

that's why totalitarians hate it.

Religion was created by humans. Humans have the ability to reason and exercise common sense. Religion adds nothing. I could write a common sense book today that would put the Bible to shame.

 

[Margot]

Christianity would have died out pretty quickly if the Holy Spirit hadn't been sent at Pentecost!
That's the glue that has kept it going in all it's different forms.

 

[ZenMode]

Jesus is the most well-attested Palestinian Jew of the first century, hands down. His execution is considered a virtual historical certainty by all reputable scholars of antiquity.

The arrests and executions of the apostles Paul, James, Peter, Andrew are attested to in Acts and in a pantheon of early Christian writings.

People do not willingly die for lies, half-truths, fabrications. That is why it seems very plausible the apostles believe they saw Jesus after he was crucified. After that, it is only a matter of interpretation of what those people might have experienced.

"People do not willingly die for lies, half-truths, fabrications."

Someone should tell all the Muslim suicide bombers.

 

[Margot]

Religion was created by humans. Humans have the ability to reason and exercise common sense. Religion adds nothing. I could write a common sense book today that would put the Bible to shame.

Ok wise guy,let me know when you're published!