Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[sooda]

Oh yeah, there're plenty more complications. The various parts of the Bible were themselves written across centuries, under different circumstances. Even the NT was written partially before the destruction of the temple, partially after(but before the Diaspora) and some later. Spoken in Aramaic, written in Greek, then translated into whatever language the modern reader is using.....
The list is just endless.
Tom

Mostly the Diaspora is fiction. By the time Christ was born more Jews lived outside Palestine than in it... in Rome, Aleppo, Damascus, Persia, Turkey, Alexandria, Elephantine Island and all around the Med Sea.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you not aware that many legal scholars, including many pro abortion scholars consider Roe, sloppy, bad law ? Are you not aware that Roe provided for advances in medical knowledge re the unborn child, and it's status as a person ? Do you not know that in most states murdering a pregnant mother is considered a double homicide ?

I've already explained how I view the issue. I don't consider abortion immoral if done before the fetus has developed a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering, The issue surrounds who should make the choice, the pregnant woman or the state. Your comments don't pertain to that.

I have never argued for the abolishment of abortion from my religious view, which is that all should be banned. I have always argued within the framework of the Constitution.

The 1973 Supremes interpreted the Constitution differently than you.

I have always argued that at the beginning of the second trimester the unborn child is a person and has the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration has no legal standing, and doesn't "declare" that fetuses have any rights. I have also already stated that calling a fetus a person (or human, or a human being, or a child, or a baby) doesn't change the moral calculus of abortion for me.

You lament the current spate of abortion legislation. I don't know why. It is right out of liberal 101, if the people can't or won't give you what you want, have a court do it.

Well, apparently it's right out of conservatism 101.

We will then know whether an unborn child who looks like a person, internally functions as a person, has it's own genetic make up, and may even have a different blood type from it's mother, is a person.

Calling a fetus a person doesn't change a thing. If aborting a person is immoral, aborting a dog is as well.

I have shown in another post how my concern, and the Christian concern in general about abortion isn't a religious issue, it is a legal one.

You didn't show me that. I saw what you wrote, but wasn't convinced that you're being a lawyer here rather than a Christian.

 

[shmogie]

I've already explained how I view the issue. I don't consider abortion immoral if done before the fetus has developed a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering, The issue surrounds who should make the choice, the pregnant woman or the state. Your comments don't pertain to that.



The 1973 Supremes interpreted the Constitution differently than you.



The Declaration has no legal standing, and doesn't "declare" that fetuses have any rights. I have also already stated that calling a fetus a person (or human, or a human being, or a child, or a baby) doesn't change the moral calculus of abortion for me.



Well, apparently it's right out of conservatism 101.



Calling a fetus a person doesn't change a thing. If aborting a person is immoral, aborting a dog is as well.



You didn't show me that. I saw what you wrote, but wasn't convinced that you're being a lawyer here rather than a Christian.

The Constitution is the Constitution, and calling an unborn baby a fetus doesn´t change a thing.

Killing a person with premeditation is murder, aborting a dog is immoral.

Your moral calculus is yours free to have, but it doesn´t mean jack in relation to the law.

If the supremes declare an unborn baby a person at some point in a pregnancy, said with respect, your moral calculus be damned.

 

[Spartan]

I recall reading this one. It was highly recommended by a Christian acquaintance.
"Hard driving atheist journalist" my butt. It was pathetic, obviously intended to sell to Christians not influence anybody else.
Tom

Nothing pathetic about it. I read it too and it would appeal to anyone with an unbiased intellect.

 

[Spartan]

Both of you are ignoring what I actually posted.
I have virtually no doubt that Jesus existed and was executed. That's extremely plausible. I generally assume a kernel of truth at the center of such legends, somebody who inspired the legends.

But the full account in the Gospels is drastically different.
According to the stories, Jesus was a fairly well known figure in Jerusalem. He preached to thousands at a time and purportedly performed miracles.
Then He was arrested for heresy and treason. He was brutally tortured. The next day, on one of the busiest days of the year in Jerusalem, He is publicly whipped through the streets , naked and carrying His cross. Then He is publicly and humiliatingly executed by crucifixion. His death is marked by great portents, like a solar event and a strong earthquake.
Then a week or so later, He reappears fresh as a daisy. He appears to lots of people across the countryside. He preaches for another month or so, then ascends to Heaven.
But nobody beyond a tiny band of followers notices this. At least not to the point of leaving any records of even knowing about it.
(At least a record of a Passover marked by the portents described, that everyone had to be aware of.)
I find that vastly, vastly, less plausible than the premise that the legends were created later for the purposes of the remaining followers.

Tom

That's your belief, but I don't see any evidence to back that up.

 

[sojourner]

Killing a person with premeditation is murder

Actually, it isn’t. Killing a person isn’t always murder, because murder is a legal term that is pretty tightly defined, and not an action. Killing a person is an action. That action may be defined legally as murder, and it may not.

Besides that, there’s no indication that a fetus is a “person.” There’s a whole lot of grey area surrounding that issue that cannot be resolved through legal means.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have no reason to believe in any magical version of Jesus. There very well could have been a man named Jesus that had a following and was crucified as a result. From that a mythical story was spawned.

I don't say anything mythical. Jesus was a man and prophet/messenger of G-d, he was neither a god nor a son of God nor he had risen from the dead nor he ascended to heaven. What is mythical in it, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't say anything mythical. Jesus was a man and prophet/messenger of G-d, he was neither a god nor a son of God nor he had risen from the dead nor he ascended to heaven. What is mythical in it, please?

Regards

The "prophet of God" part for example.

 

[Riders]

That's your belief, but I don't see any evidence to back that up.

You don;t have evidence to back up the bible as perfect truth.

 

[Riders]

I don't say anything mythical. Jesus was a man and prophet/messenger of G-d, he was neither a god nor a son of God nor he had risen from the dead nor he ascended to heaven. What is mythical in it, please?

Regards

He was raised from the dead and was God thats the myth.

 

[Spartan]

You don;t have evidence to back up the bible as perfect truth.

There's your "cover your you-know-what" qualifier - "as perfect truth".

Just in the Gospels alone, the preponderance of the evidence weighs in my favor. The mathematically improbable fulfillment of numerous Messianic prophecies is the signature of God. The multiple, independent, historical accounts of the resurrection are the fatal chink in the skeptic's armor.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I don't say anything mythical. Jesus was a man and prophet/messenger of G-d, he was neither a god nor a son of God nor he had risen from the dead nor he ascended to heaven. What is mythical in it, please?

Regards

He was raised from the dead and was God thats the myth.

That is what I said. There is nothing mythical or weirdness in it. The myth has the weirdness, those who believe in it, out of the normal, the onus of proof or evidence is on them. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's your "cover your you-know-what" qualifier - "as perfect truth".

Just in the Gospels alone, the preponderance of the evidence weighs in my favor. The mathematically improbable fulfillment of numerous Messianic prophecies is the signature of God. The multiple, independent, historical accounts of the resurrection are the fatal chink in the skeptic's armor.

Sorry, what are you talking avout? There are none that I am aware of. I am aware of quite a few failed prophecies. But none the other way around.

Before we get started here are the criteria for a successful prophecy, not my own personal list, but I do not see anything wrong with the listed requirements:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

 

[oldbadger]

There's your "cover your you-know-what" qualifier - "as perfect truth".

Just in the Gospels alone, the preponderance of the evidence weighs in my favor. The mathematically improbable fulfillment of numerous Messianic prophecies is the signature of God. The multiple, independent, historical accounts of the resurrection are the fatal chink in the skeptic's armor.

So, basically, you are certain in your Christianity?
All of it?

 

[Spartan]

So, basically, you are certain in your Christianity?
All of it?

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

So?
So, basically, you are certain in your Christianity?
All of it?

We can look at gospels and epistles later, but are you 'certain'?

 

[columbus]

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

Why do you find it more convincing than the various other miracle accounts from other scriptures? Like the Qur'an, as an example.
The ancient world is full of this sort of thing. Frankly, I find the Bahai scriptures far superior to any of the other Abrahamic stuff. The NT strikes me as the weakest, in terms of historical accuracy.
Tom

 

[sooda]

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

Actually, it isn't...

Who is writing these conversations down contemporaneously? I mean who recorded what Pilate or Herod or the mob said? Who are the witnesses and scribes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

Only if one is fond of circular arguments.

 

[Spartan]

Actually, it isn't...

Who is writing these conversations down contemporaneously? I mean who recorded what Pilate or Herod or the mob said? Who are the witnesses and scribes?

The disciples Gospel authors, recounting what they lived or learned through their investigations (i.e. Luke). No doubt the resurrected Jesus was a good source of information, as was the Holy Spirit (note John 14:26).