Apologetics Thread!!!

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 05:19PM

That's an awful awful lot of text that changes nothing. You seem to be making one of the biggest mistakes that believers make: assuming that I accept the entire account of the bible except for the supernatural bits and that you can use one bit of the bible to add weight to another. You are seeing only what the apostles wrote down, not what necessarily happened. The fact is there are dozens of possible explanations for the origins of christianity, most of which are rooted in humanity's amazing ability to believe what they want to believe and you discount them because of that same ability

Soul Winner · 10-11-2009 05:38PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's an awful awful lot of text that changes nothing. You seem to be making one of the biggest mistakes that believers make: assuming that I accept the entire account of the bible except for the supernatural bits and that you can use one bit of the bible to add weight to another. You are seeing only what the apostles wrote down, not what necessarily happened. The fact is there are dozens of possible explanations for the origins of christianity, most of which are rooted in humanity's amazing ability to believe what they want to believe and you discount them because of that same ability

No I don't, I discount them because they do not adequately answer all the questions I raised above and in other posts. I accept that there are natural explanations for Christianity but for me not one single natural explanation can explain why the tomb was empty, the reason the disciples had a genuinely belief that Jesus was the Son of God and the fact that they experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus alive and well. If you can give me one natural explanation that explains all these three facts together then I will be very impressed indeed.

I think we can safely say that the tomb was in fact empty, that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that they experienced post mortem appearances of Him alive and vital as a normal man, something you would not expect to see if you were just hallucinating.

So if you want so say that hallucinations explains the postmortem appearances then how does that explain the empty tomb? And if you want to say that somebody stole the body explains the empty tomb then how could they have had postmortem appearances and end up dying for a belief that He was raised and was the Son of God? Only the hypotheses that He actually rose explains all three established facts. Like I said if you can think of better single natural explanation then I will be very impressed. You won’t be able to though.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 06:16PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I don't, I discount them because they do not adequately answer all the questions I raised above and in other posts.

But most of your questions are only relevant if you being with the assumption that the retelling of the events is accurate. You say

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think we can safely say that the tomb was in fact empty, that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that they experienced post mortem appearances of Him alive and vital as a normal man, something you would not expect to see if you were just hallucinating.

as if that's self evident but we can assume nothing of the sort. The only thing we can safely assume about the bible without independent verification is that it was written. If I was to accept the events described in the bible as an accurate retelling I'd already be a christian.

As for your three "facts"

Soul Winner wrote: »

not one single natural explanation can explain why the tomb was empty

In fact a million natural explanations can explain why the tomb might have been empty. It becomes less likely (but far from impossible) if you accept the bible as an accurate retelling but I don't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

the reason the disciples had a genuinely belief that Jesus was the Son of God and the fact that they experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus alive and well.

You don't know that any of this happened. We've already gone through true believer syndrome, the incredible human ability to believe what they want to believe but as long as you're talking about facts in the bible I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. It would be similar to me starting a conversation with "If your god exists how do you explain the fact that he doesn't!?!?!?!?!?"

Soul Winner · 10-11-2009 07:15PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But most of your questions are only relevant if you being with the assumption that the retelling of the events is accurate. You say

as if that's self evident but we can assume nothing of the sort. The only thing we can safely assume about the bible without independent verification is that it was written. If I was to accept the events described in the bible as an accurate retelling I'd already be a christian.

As for your three "facts"

In fact a million natural explanations can explain why the tomb might have been empty. It becomes less likely (but far from impossible) if you accept the bible as an accurate retelling but I don't.

You don't know that any of this happened. We've already gone through true believer syndrome, the incredible human ability to believe what they want to believe but as long as you're talking about facts in the bible I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. It would be similar to me starting a conversation with "If your god exists how do you explain the fact that he doesn't!?!?!?!?!?"

Sam, even without the New Testament documents we can conclude from independent secular sources that a person called Jesus existed who was believed in by His followers as a God and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Those sources show us that the New Testament was pretty accurate about these facts. What reasons do you have for disbelieving the other parts? As for me, by simply reading and without even any serious scrutiny of the text themselves, they come off like simple reporters who would not be able to concoct such a lie even if they tried. But even if we do seriously scrutinize the texts we can find no evidence that they were lying anywhere. Can you find any? And can you fin any texts in history which refute the claims in the New Testament? If you can’t then why is your default position one of absolute disbelief without even looking at the evidence?

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 08:43PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sam, even without the New Testament documents we can conclude from independent secular sources that a person called Jesus existed who was believed in by His followers as a God and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Those sources show us that the New Testament was pretty accurate about these facts. What reasons do you have for disbelieving the other parts?

That they're one of thousands of groups making supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and my standard of evidence for a guy raising from the dead is a lot higher than my standard for a guy called Jesus existing. A 2000 year old book just doesn't do it I'm afraid

Soul Winner wrote: »

SBut even if we do seriously scrutinize the texts we can find no evidence that they were lying anywhere. Can you find any?

Ummmm, the laws of nature? You know, the same criteria you use to disbelieve every supernatural claim except one?

Soul Winner · 11-11-2009 01:34AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That they're one of thousands of groups making supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and my standard of evidence for a guy raising from the dead is a lot higher than my standard for a guy called Jesus existing. A 2000 year old book just doesn't do it I'm afraid

Like what? What kind of extra ordinary evidence would suffice in your case Sam? Video footage? What would you need to see that would make a believer out of you that Jesus rose from the dead as its reported in the New Testament?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ummmm, the laws of nature? You know, the same criteria you use to disbelieve every supernatural claim except one?

I have no truck with other supernatural claims, they just have no meaning for me. That doesn't mean I don't believe they happened or anything, but even if I was convinced that they did in fact happen, so what? How can that take anything away from what we are talking about here?

You have your own dogmatic belief system that nature is all that there is, but you have no concrete proof of that whatsoever either and yet you act as though it is true. Believe it or not but that's what faith is. Acting on something that you are confident is true. I'm like that too, but I've been swayed by what I consider very strong evidence that the Gospel records are true. In your case you need what you would regard as stronger evidence, I hope for your sake that you find it, I'm convinced already just from simple logical deduction of the evidence that we do have. Secular historical corroboration for some of the main narratives in the New Testament accounts, archeological corroboration and lack of contrivance or any evidence of lying in the texts themselves and all the other stuff that I pointed out in the other posts. That’s good enough for me, I don’t need video footage but it would be great

chozometroid · 11-11-2009 03:35AM

You are now casting your pearls before swine, my friend. It just does not add up for them.

If there was a comparable example to the situation we have with the Bible, I would be all ears. As it stands, the Bible is completely candid and if it's actually telling a big lie, then I want to know who the evil mastermind is.

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 09:09AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like what? What kind of extra ordinary evidence would suffice in your case Sam? Video footage? What would you need to see that would make a believer out of you that Jesus rose from the dead as its reported in the New Testament?

I would require the same thing I would require for any other supernatural claim: proof. One of the things that most makes me doubt your religion is that it says I will go to hell for requiring proof of an extraordinary claim. Someone who is confident of their position doesn't need to threaten people for non belief, that's what cults do. Not to mention it's not the action of a loving god

Soul Winner wrote: »

I have no truck with other supernatural claims, they just have no meaning for me. That doesn't mean I don't believe they happened or anything, but even if I was convinced that they did in fact happen, so what? How can that take anything away from what we are talking about here?

To give an example, if the supernatural claims of Islam are true, if an angel did really appear to Mohammed, that means that no matter how sure you might be, christianity is false. Most supernatural claims are mutually exclusive

Soul Winner wrote: »

You have your own dogmatic belief system that nature is all that there is, but you have no concrete proof of that whatsoever either and yet you act as though it is true. Believe it or not but that's what faith is. Acting on something that you are confident is true. I'm like that too, but I've been swayed by what I consider very strong evidence that the Gospel records are true. In your case you need what you would regard as stronger evidence, I hope for your sake that you find it, I'm convinced already just from simple logical deduction of the evidence that we do have. Secular historical corroboration for some of the main narratives in the New Testament accounts, archeological corroboration and lack of contrivance or any evidence of lying in the texts themselves and all the other stuff that I pointed out in the other posts. That’s good enough for me, I don’t need video footage but it would be great

I don't have any dogmatic view, I have exactly the same view you do on every supernatural claim ever except one. I simply see no reason to make any exception for that one

chozometroid wrote: »

You are now casting your pearls before swine, my friend. It just does not add up for them.

If there was a comparable example to the situation we have with the Bible, I would be all ears. As it stands, the Bible is completely candid and if it's actually telling a big lie, then I want to know who the evil mastermind is.

It's not necessarily an evil mastermind. The thing that I think is most likely is that this group had a philosophy that they felt would be of great benefit to the world, which I'm sure you'll agree with, but they knew that Jewish society wouldn't change for some random Jewish carpenter so they built up a legend around him and claimed he was the son of god. People can be willing to both lie and die for an idea if they feel it serves a greater good

Soul Winner · 11-11-2009 09:41AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would require the same thing I would require for any other supernatural claim: proof. One of the things that most makes me doubt your religion is that it says I will go to hell for requiring proof of an extraordinary claim. Someone who is confident of their position doesn't need to threaten people for non belief, that's what cults do. Not to mention it's not the action of a loving god

You have a very bad understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Threatenings about going to hell are not what make any religion true, but if their is a hell to avoid, a really true religion will warn you of it, not a false one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To give an example, if the supernatural claims of Islam are true, if an angel did really appear to Mohammed, that means that no matter how sure you might be, christianity is false. Most supernatural claims are mutually exclusive

Not necessarily. If Christianity is true then angels exist, including bad angels, which means he could have been visited by one of the bad angels made to look good, so you are wrong, even theoretically they are not mutually exclusive.

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 09:56AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

You have a very bad understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Threatenings about going to hell are not what make any religion true, but if their is a hell to avoid, a really true religion will warn you of it, not a false one.

You've kind of missed the point. God could have made up any rules he wanted. He didn't have to say that non belief earned hell, he could have decided that non believers get a quick smack and told to go on their way. It is the decision to say that non belief of extraordinary claims without proof will be punished that I find reprehensible and telling that they may not be truthful

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not necessarily. If Christianity is true then angels exist, including bad angels, which means he could have been visited by one of the bad angels made to look good, so you are wrong, even theoretically they are not mutually exclusive.

Then his claim wouldn't be true. And the scenario you just gave could just as easily be applied to christianity btw

Soul Winner · 11-11-2009 11:08AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've kind of missed the point. God could have made up any rules he wanted. He didn't have to say that non belief earned hell, he could have decided that non believers get a quick smack and told to go on their way. It is the decision to say that non belief of extraordinary claims without proof will be punished that I find reprehensible and telling that they may not be truthful

So your real reason for not accepting the Gospel texts is not because you think they are historically unreliable sources but because God created hell?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then his claim wouldn't be true. And the scenario you just gave could just as easily be applied to christianity btw

Yes of course but just because one of them might be right and the other wrong doesn't make them mutually exclusive. Like I said before they both could be wrong but they both certainly can't be right when it comes to Jesus. Your point was that they are mutually exclusive which is blatantly wrong.

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 11:13AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So your real reason for not accepting the Gospel texts is not because you think they are historically unreliable sources but because God created hell?

No I said that it was one of the things that made me doubt because threats of punishment for non belief is a cult tactic and should not be required by a loving god, by which I mean that he should not have to create a place called hell to which to send non believers if he is confident of his message.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said before they both could be wrong but they both certainly can't be right when it comes to Jesus. Your point was that they are mutually exclusive which is blatantly wrong.

That's what mutually exclusive means, that if one is true and the other must be false and vice versa

edit:
Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

* contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time

Soul Winner · 11-11-2009 11:43AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I said that it was one of the things that made me doubt because threats of punishment for non belief is a cult tactic and should not be required by a loving god, by which I mean that he should not have to create a place called hell to which to send non believers if he is confident of his message.

So do you think God should let His enemies share eternity with Him?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's what mutually exclusive means, that if one is true and the other must be false and vice versa

edit:
Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

* contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time

That's true, but look at how you phrased your point earlier:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To give an example, if the supernatural claims of Islam are true, if an angel did really appear to Mohammed, that means that no matter how sure you might be, christianity is false. Most supernatural claims are mutually exclusive

My point was that even if an angel did appear to Mohammad that still wouldn't make Christianity false. So your using the phrase 'mutually exclusive' was wrong in relation to Islam and Christianity on that score. They are only mutually exclusive when it comes to Jesus and possibly a few other things. To Muslims Jesus is just a great prophet and not co-equal with God, whereas to Christians, Jesus and the Father are one. In that sense Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive but they are not mutually exclusive just on the claim that an angel appeared to Mohammad, which was your point. If Christianity is true then even if the experience Mohammad had was real, it just wasn’t an angel of God, and if it was an angel sent from God then Christianity is false, but the simple fact that Mohammad was visited by an angel doesn’t make the two religions mutually exclusive. Ahh, glad we cleared that up.

chozometroid · 11-11-2009 11:43AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not necessarily an evil mastermind. The thing that I think is most likely is that this group had a philosophy that they felt would be of great benefit to the world, which I'm sure you'll agree with, but they knew that Jewish society wouldn't change for some random Jewish carpenter so they built up a legend around him and claimed he was the son of god. People can be willing to both lie and die for an idea if they feel it serves a greater good

LOL, the Bible is just a legend built around Jesus to make Him look like the Son of God? It's a bit more deep and complex than that.

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 11:52AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So do you think God should let His enemies share eternity with Him?

God's supposed to love everyone. And not believing in something does not make you its enemy. I try to live my life by the example of Jesus because what he said made sense but I'll burn for eternity where the child rapist who believed some guy rose from the dead spends eternity in paradise with god. Makes no sense to me.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point was that even if an angel did appear to Mohammad that still wouldn't make Christianity false. So your using the phrase 'mutually exclusive' was wrong in relation to Islam and Christianity on that score. They are only mutually exclusive when it comes to Jesus and possibly a few other things. To Muslims Jesus is just a great prophet and not co-equal with God, whereas to Christians, Jesus and the Father are one. In that sense Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive but they are not mutually exclusive just on the claim that an angel appeared to Mohammad, which was your point. If Christianity is true then even if the experience Mohammad had was real, it just wasn’t an angel of God, and if it was an angel sent from God then Christianity is false, but the simple fact that Mohammad was visited by an angel doesn’t make the two religions mutually exclusive. Ahh, glad we cleared that up.

You're just nit picking. For a supernatural claim to be true, the entire claim must be true and correctly interpreted, not just select parts of it. Also, I wouldn't use the term angel for something that did that, I'd use demon or similar. When I said angel, I meant something sent by god. Yes a demon could have appeared to Mohammed but that would still make his claim false and by bringing in the concept of bad angels that fooled Mohammed to explain Islam you make the entire supernatural completely unknowable, christianity included. Here are the three "facts" that you asked me to explain:

Soul Winner wrote:

not one single natural explanation can explain why the tomb was empty

A bad angel stole the body or made them think the tomb was empty

Soul Winner wrote:

the reason the disciples had a genuinely belief that Jesus was the Son of God

A bad angel made them believe it

Soul Winner wrote:

and the fact that they experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus alive and well.

A bad angel made them think they did.

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 11:57AM

chozometroid wrote: »

LOL, the Bible is just a legend built around Jesus to make Him look like the Son of God? It's a bit more deep and complex than that.

In your opinion, I find it to be the most likely explanation

Soul Winner · 11-11-2009 12:06PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God's supposed to love everyone. And not believing in something does not make you its enemy. I try to live my life by the example of Jesus because what he said made sense but I'll burn for eternity where the child rapist who believed some guy rose from the dead spends eternity in paradise with god. Makes no sense to me.

Loving everyone is not going to make people freely choose to enter into life. The door has been opened, you either enter in though it or you don't. The choice is yours.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're just nit picking. For a supernatural claim to be true, the entire claim must be true and correctly interpreted, not just select parts of it. Also, I wouldn't use the term angel for something that did that, I'd use demon or similar. When I said angel, I meant something sent by god

But if either Islam or Christianity is true, then there are bad angels out there. If there is no such thing as bad angels then both Islam and Christianity are false. If one of them is true then either bad angels or lying men have had a part in the false one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By bringing in the concept of bad angels that fooled Mohammed to explain Islam you make the entire supernatural completely unknowable, christianity included. Here are the three "facts" that you asked me to explain:

A bad angel stole the body or made them think the tomb was empty

A bad angel made them believe it

A bad angel made them think they did.

Now now Sam, back up there a little but. Did I not ask for a natural explanation? Is the explanation that a bad angel stole the body, made them believe it and so on really a natural explanation? Are they not supernatural beings?

Sam Vimes · 11-11-2009 12:15PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Loving everyone is not going to make people freely choose to enter into life. The door has been opened, you either enter in though it or you don't. The choice is yours.

You're still missing the point, probably because of your very odd idea that moral=whatever god says is moral.

Yes I know god "gives me the choice" to believe and punishes me if I don't but so does Islam and many many other religions and cults. The point I'm making is that threats of punishment for non belief are a tactic used by groups that don't have a convincing case and so need to create an emotional motivation for people to believe and should not be required by an all powerful loving god.

A choice where one decision results in eternal bliss and the other in eternal torture is not a choice at all by the way. It's the choice that a torturer in Guantameno bay gives to his victim. Yes he can freely choose not to talk all he wants but the torture will continue until he does. A choice made under threat of punishment is not a choice, it's coercion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if either Islam or Christianity is true, then there are bad angels out there. If there is no such thing as bad angels then both Islam and Christianity are false. If one of them is true then either bad angels or lying men have had a part in the false one.

Now now Sam, back up there a little but. Did I not ask for a natural explanation? Is the explanation that a bad angel stole the body, made them believe it and so on really a natural explanation? Are they not supernatural beings?

Yes you asked for a natural explanation and I gave several which you rejected. You then brought up the concept of a bad angel to explain other religions so I pointed out how that concept can be used just as well against christianity, it explains the questions you have just as well as it explains Mohammed's experiences. It makes the supernatural unknowable.

Soul Winner · 13-11-2009 06:12PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're still missing the point, probably because of your very odd idea that moral=whatever god says is moral.

I could answer that but it's off topic so I won't, open a new thread and I will be glad to discuss it there.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I know god "gives me the choice" to believe and punishes me if I don't but so does Islam and many many other religions and cults.

One of which could be true.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point I'm making is that threats of punishment for non belief are a tactic used by groups that don't have a convincing case and so need to create an emotional motivation for people to believe and should not be required by an all powerful loving god.

I think Christianity has a very convincing case though. It doesn't need to appeal to threats of punishment in order to gain converts. Most Christians will agree that it is not the threat of hell that motivates them through their daily walk with God, rather it is the love of God who is saving them from this wrath that motivates them. I for one do fear God's wrath, but unless you can show that my fear is unfounded and not based in reality then I fail to see why I should abandon it. I think it's a healthy fear. The only thing that could make having this fear irrational on my part would be if God didn't exist.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A choice where one decision results in eternal bliss and the other in eternal torture is not a choice at all by the way. It's the choice that a torturer in Guantameno bay gives to his victim. Yes he can freely choose not to talk all he wants but the torture will continue until he does. A choice made under threat of punishment is not a choice, it's coercion.

The choice to either be tortured or talk is not the same as the choice to enter life or death. You are not under the threat of torture here and now if you don't accept life here and now. You have free reign over your life. But what you will not be able to do when it comes time for judgment is say that you want to go back and change your mind. That will not be an option and you will only have yourself to blame. You were given the choice and you chose death. Your choice to chose death rather than life is because you think there is a similarity with the choice God gives you and the choice Guantanamo gives prisoners. But even if that was true I fail to see the logic in your choosing death because of it. Why not choose life? At least you'll still have the option to ask God about the wisdom of His methods in eternity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes you asked for a natural explanation and I gave several which you rejected.

I asked for one single natural explanation that can explain why the tomb was empty, the disciple's postmortem appearances and how they came to truly believe that Jesus was the Son of God. You did not furnish me with one single natural explanation that explains all these three facts like the explanation that the disciples themselves gave, that He rose!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You then brought up the concept of a bad angel to explain other religions so I pointed out how that concept can be used just as well against Christianity, it explains the questions you have just as well as it explains Mohammed's experiences. It makes the supernatural unknowable.

If bad angels did it is an explanation for Christianity then that means that there's still a such things as the supernatural. Are you sure you want to side with that explanation? And even if you are willing to side with that explanation you still need to show us why that explanation is the best explanation of the facts. What are the bad angel's motives etc??

Sam Vimes · 13-11-2009 06:50PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think Christianity has a very convincing case though. It doesn't need to appeal to threats of punishment in order to gain converts. Most Christians will agree that it is not the threat of hell that motivates them through their daily walk with God, rather it is the love of God who is saving them from this wrath that motivates them. I for one do fear God's wrath, but unless you can show that my fear is unfounded and not based in reality then I fail to see why I should abandon it. I think it's a healthy fear. The only thing that could make having this fear irrational on my part would be if God didn't exist.

None of which changes the fact that christianity uses a tactic employed by cults to scare people into believing. The fact that some people play down its importance is irrelevant

Soul Winner wrote: »

The choice to either be tortured or talk is not the same as the choice to enter life or death. You are not under the threat of torture here and now if you don't accept life here and now. You have free reign over your life. But what you will not be able to do when it comes time for judgment is say that you want to go back and change your mind. That will not be an option and you will only have yourself to blame. You were given the choice and you chose death. Your choice to chose death rather than life is because you think there is a similarity with the choice God gives you and the choice Guantanamo gives prisoners. But even if that was true I fail to see the logic in your choosing death because of it. Why not choose life? At least you'll still have the option to ask God about the wisdom of His methods in eternity.

The only difference is that there is a delay in carrying out the threat.

And the question is not "why not choose life?" because that question begins with the assumption that christianity is true. I have no idea if choosing christianity is actually choosing life or is in fact choosing death because one of the other religions is true. You seem to be talking about Pascal's wager here which is flawed for many many reasons (that's a great show btw, the host is a former fundamentalist who was training to be a priest)

You say you fail to see my logic but I'm increasingly getting the feeling that that is because you keep talking to me as if we both accept the bible to be true. I don't, in any way, whatsoever. Once you comprehend that you will see quite easily why I would "not choose life", because as far as I'm concerned I'm not choosing life, I'm arbitrarily choosing one piece of bronze age mythology to believe in

Soul Winner wrote: »

I asked for one single natural explanation that can explain why the tomb was empty,

1. Someone came along and stole the body when no one was looking.
2. The guards were bribed
3. The guards fell asleep
4. He was never actually put in the tomb and they just said he was.
5. The stories of his death were deliberately or accidentally exaggerated and he never actually died and escaped himself

Soul Winner wrote: »

the disciple's postmortem appearances and how they came to truly believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

1. True believer syndrome. People believe whatever the hell they want to believe
2. He wasn't actually dead when taken down from the cross
3. Either a lookalike was crucified or a lookalike appeared to them
4. He was never actually crucified and they just said he was

There are lots of explanations. And before you tell me how none of them could have happened because of x passage in the bible, remember that I do not accept the bible to be an accurate retelling. If I did, I'd already be a christian. I don't even know that any of these people even existed for certain, much less that the stories they are telling are true

Soul Winner wrote: »

If bad angels did it is an explanation for Christianity then that means that there's still a such things as the supernatural. Are you sure you want to side with that explanation? And even if you are willing to side with that explanation you still need to show us why that explanation is the best explanation of the facts. What are the bad angel's motives etc??

You're not getting me. I am not siding with that explanation, I am pointing out that as soon as you bring in the concept of bad angels fooling people into believing things to explain other religions you make the entire supernatural unknowable because everything in the bible could have been the result of bad angels tricking people. The question to be asked here is do you want to side with that explanation?

Soul Winner · 14-11-2009 03:08AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

None of which changes the fact that christianity uses a tactic employed by cults to scare people into believing. The fact that some people play down its importance is irrelevant

When you think about it, which comes first? The believing? Or the or the fear? Do I believe in it because I fear it? Or do I fear it because I believe it? Good one for you to ponder on Sam. And what is this it that I'm believing in if it is separate from the fear?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And the question is not "why not choose life?" because that question begins with the assumption that christianity is true.

Well obviously, that's what Christians believe, that its true. I'm coming from the position that it is true and your coming from the position that it is false, and yet I've provided more good reasons for thinking that it is true than you have for thinking that it is false. All you supplied are you anti supernatural opinions without any really good arguments. I mean, if Christianity is so false surely it can be easily demonstrated.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have no idea if choosing christianity is actually choosing life or is in fact choosing death because one of the other religions is true. You seem to be talking about Pascal's wager here which is flawed for many many reasons (that's a great show btw, the host is a former fundamentalist who was training to be a priest)

I really don't see how any of that has anything to do with what we are talking about. It would appear that you are determined to build a straw man that you can bash and make it look like your winning the argument that we started out with. Are the Gospel writers bad historians and false reporters of what they claim to have happened? If so then what evidence do you have which shows that they were either lying or even mistaken about what they claim? You see, nobody ever debates the power of the message, so the world is forever coming up with theories to explain the message. How could such a message have come about in the socio political milieu that was 1st century AD in Jerusalem of all places?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say you fail to see my logic but I'm increasingly getting the feeling that that is because you keep talking to me as if we both accept the bible to be true.

I do?

Do you actually think that I think you accept the Bible as being true? Wonders will never cease. I could have sworn that I was having a debate with you which suggest the complete opposite.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Once you comprehend that you will see quite easily why I would "not choose life", because as far as I'm concerned I'm not choosing life, I'm arbitrarily choosing one piece of bronze age mythology to believe in

All I can say to that is, fair play to you. You pick that and I'll pick Christianity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Someone came along and stole the body when no one was looking.

That might explain the empty tomb but it doesn't explain the other two facts. The postmortem appearances or the disciples' genuinely held belief that Jesus was the Son of God.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. The guards were bribed

Bribed by who? The disciples? That would make them liars and not genuine believers that Jesus was the Son of God. Do you want to argue that the disciples were not genuine believers in Jesus? Or do you want to postulate that someone else bribed the guards? If so, then who? And for what purpose? Why bribe guards when the body still lay in the tomb? Why have guards in the first place? The guards were there to prevent somebody stealing the body in order to claim that He rose. If He didn't actually rise from the dead, then why would the guards need to be bribed? Who would bribe them and why?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. The guards fell asleep

Surely the moving of the stone from the tomb would have woke them up? But even if it didn't, the only people who would have wanted to steal the body would have been the disciples, and if that is what happened then they were not really be true believers that Jesus was the Son of God. But when one reads their accounts, they do not come across as people who don't believe that He rose and was the Son of God. If you can find evidence in their writings that this is so, then let us have it, or better still if you can find evidence in other writings that this is so then let us have that as well.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

4. He was never actually put in the tomb and they just said he was.

So they were liars? That is what we are faced with if the story is not true, that these disciples were liars and knew that what they preached was a load of bull. I could sort of buy that if Jesus wasn't really dead, but had faked it somehow. But how could he have faked such a thing being a mortal man? The Roman scourging? Crucifixion? A mortal man walking away from that? Or where the disciple lying about that as well? If so then how do you explain the secular historical accounts of Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus which taken independently confirm that He was believed in by his followers as a God, that He was rejected by the Jewish leaders and crucified under Pontius Pilate? Were they wrong too? Hey maybe eveyone is wrong except you Sam who knows?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

5. The stories of his death were deliberately or accidentally exaggerated and he never actually died and escaped himself

Even if that was true then that still makes them liars about everything else.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. True believer syndrome. People believe whatever the hell they want to believe

Like nature is all that there is and that's it? Yeah loads of people believe that and they have no proof whatsoever to back it up.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. He wasn't actually dead when taken down from the cross

Well the Romans were sure that He was. And they were experts in death. But who are they to know if someone is dead or not? Only people in the 21st century know these things.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. Either a lookalike was crucified or a lookalike appeared to them

Again a prime example of the ridiculousness of some of the explanations of what was simply a supernatural happening, you can't escape it. But even if we grant you that, that still just makes the disciples liars of what they claimed. But other than having a bias against anything supernatural, what evidence do you have that shows that they were in fact lying?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

4. He was never actually crucified and they just said he was

Think we coverd this above.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are lots of explanations. And before you tell me how none of them could have happened because of x passage in the bible, remember that I do not accept the bible to be an accurate retelling.

Like I already said, you don't even need the New Testament in order to build up a picture of Jesus. Even secular historians independently concur that a Jesus who was believed in as a God lived and was rejected by the Jewish leaders and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If I did, I'd already be a christian. I don't even know that any of these people even existed for certain, much less that the stories they are telling are true

If you really didn't think that these pople even existed for certain then you would have started out with that line of argument a couple of pages back wouldn't you?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're not getting me. I am not siding with that explanation, I am pointing out that as soon as you bring in the concept of bad angels fooling people into believing things to explain other religions you make the entire supernatural unknowable because everything in the bible could have been the result of bad angels tricking people. The question to be asked here is do you want to side with that explanation?

You are the one who came up with that explanation for Christianity not me. But yes, I do want to side with that explanation if Mohammad truly was visited by an angel, as I have no truck with bad angels existing, you have. If He wasn't really visited by an angel then what he said is all lies right from the start anyway. But even if he was visited by an actual angel then I as a Christian can only propose that it was in fact a bad angel. Why? Because the apostle Paul states in his Epistle to the Galatians the following:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9

If the angel really did visit Mohammad and gave the Koran to him and the Koran states that Jesus wasn't really crucified, then either Christianity is false or Islam is false or they both are, but one thing is for sure, they both cannot be true. Christianity was three times the age of that the USA is today before Islam came along, so who do you think had better access to the events of Jesus' life? Mohammad or Jesus' own disciples? You'll say Mohammad for the simple reason that He, like you, just doesn't accept Jesus as what He claimed Himself to be. But if it was any other historical figure then you would side with those who were closer to the events described. But then that sums up most of the world's opinion about Jesus, and they are either right or wrong, but when you look at Jesus up close there are much better reasons for believing that He was the genuine article than a fraud or a nut or both, the problem with the world in general is that they never bother the time to take that closer look. So if He wasn't a fraud or a nut then He was who He claimed to be, there is no other position to take when it comes to Jesus.

Turtwig · 14-11-2009 03:38AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like nature is all that there is and that's it? Yeah loads of people believe that and they have no proof whatsoever to back it up.

Wut?

Soul Winner · 14-11-2009 04:04AM

Malty_T wrote: »

Wut?

Wut what?

Turtwig · 14-11-2009 04:12AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wut what?

How exactly does someone prove there is NOTHING outside nature?
The onus is on you SW to provide proof that there is something.

You are the guy that claiming we are going to be judged yet you expect us to prove to you that we're not gonna be??

By your reckoning the State has to prove that a suspect DID NOT commit the crime - Isn't it the case, that the State has to show that the suspect is guilty; not the other way around?

Soul Winner · 14-11-2009 04:33AM

Malty_T wrote: »

How exactly does someone prove there is NOTHING outside nature?
The onus is on you SW to provide proof that there is something.

You are the guy that claiming we are going to be judged yet you expect us to prove to you that we're not gonna be??
By your reckoning the State has to prove that a suspect DID NOT commit the crime - Isn't it the case, that the State has to show that the suspect is guilty; not the other way around?

I'm not claiming anything. The people who claimed to have witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed are the claimers here. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that even comes close to showing them to be either liars or deluded. Because if they were either, then it could easily be ascertained even from their own writings without any outside corroboration whatsoever. So if they are not liars and were not deluded, then what were they? There is only one option left, that they were actually telling the truth. And if they were telling the truth, then He rose, and if He rose, then it is not only that some human being rose from the dead but that the One who claimed the things that Jesus claimed rose, which means that we have a starting point of a definition of God right there in history, because only God could make the claims that Jesus made.

Sam Vimes · 14-11-2009 01:46PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you think about it, which comes first? The believing? Or the or the fear? Do I believe in it because I fear it? Or do I fear it because I believe it? Good one for you to ponder on Sam. And what is this it that I'm believing in if it is separate from the fear?

None of which changes the fact that christianity uses a tactic employed by cults to scare people into believing. You can play it down all you want, it's still there and it's still regularly mooted to non-believers as a motivation, such as yourself who couldn't undertstand why I would be an atheist and "choose death over life"

Soul Winner wrote: »

All you supplied are you anti supernatural opinions without any really good arguments. I mean, if Christianity is so false surely it can be easily demonstrated.

No of course it can't, it's an unsubstantiated story in a 2000 year old book. Without any evidence either way and without a time machine science can't prove anything about the story, just as christians like it. As far as I'm concerned, even if someone did build a time machine and go back and definitely prove it never happened people would still believe, they'd just rationalise it to themselves as they rationalise so many other things. People believe whatever they want to believe and a belief not based on evidence cannot be disproved by evidence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I really don't see how any of that has anything to do with what we are talking about. It would appear that you are determined to build a straw man that you can bash and make it look like your winning the argument that we started out with. Are the Gospel writers bad historians and false reporters of what they claim to have happened? If so then what evidence do you have which shows that they were either lying or even mistaken about what they claim? You see, nobody ever debates the power of the message, so the world is forever coming up with theories to explain the message. How could such a message have come about in the socio political milieu that was 1st century AD in Jerusalem of all places?

My evidence against their claims is that they are one of thousands of groups making supernatural claims. If they are right then all of the other thousands of claims are at best inaccurate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the biased claims in a 2000 year old book don't cut it I'm afraid

Soul Winner wrote: »

I do? Do you actually think that I think you accept the Bible as being true? Wonders will never cease. I could have sworn that I was having a debate with you which suggest the complete opposite.

And yet you keep asking me questions that only make sense if you assume that the bible is true, such as when you couldn't understand why I would not "choose life", not realising that I don't see choosing christianity as choosing life because I don't think it's true

Soul Winner wrote: »

That might explain the empty tomb but it doesn't explain the other two facts. The postmortem appearances or the disciples' genuinely held belief that Jesus was the Son of God.

Indeed it doesn't explain the other facts, it wasn't meant to. I dealt with them separately.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bribed by who? The disciples? That would make them liars and not genuine believers that Jesus was the Son of God. Do you want to argue that the disciples were not genuine believers in Jesus? Or do you want to postulate that someone else bribed the guards? If so, then who? And for what purpose? Why bribe guards when the body still lay in the tomb? Why have guards in the first place? The guards were there to prevent somebody stealing the body in order to claim that He rose. If He didn't actually rise from the dead, then why would the guards need to be bribed? Who would bribe them and why?

Bribed by anyone, by the diciples or anyone else. True believers can often be liars and still believe, just look at the methods used by creationists. All of the questions you're asking are only relevant if you begin with the assumption that the bible is an accurate retelling. I don't know that the tomb was empty, I don't even know if there even was a tomb. All we have are the biased eye witness accounts of people who had dedicated their lives to this man, they could have missed anything, left anything out, embellished anything or just made stuff up all in the name of this man to whom they had dedicated their lives. It happens all the time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like nature is all that there is and that's it? Yeah loads of people believe that and they have no proof whatsoever to back it up

I don't have to prove that nature is all there is. You really need to get over this idea that it's up to us to prove your claims false. It's up to you to prove that there is some merit to your story

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well the Romans were sure that He was. And they were experts in death. But who are they to know if someone is dead or not? Only people in the 21st century know these things.

Only works if you assume the bible is an accurate retelling

Soul Winner wrote: »

Again a prime example of the ridiculousness of some of the explanations of what was simply a supernatural happening, you can't escape it. But even if we grant you that, that still just makes the disciples liars of what they claimed. But other than having a bias against anything supernatural, what evidence do you have that shows that they were in fact lying?

This is not about a bais against the supernatural, this is about looking at things objectively, the same way you look at the claims of other religions, although I'd say you go a good beyond objectivity in rejecting other religions

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I already said, you don't even need the New Testament in order to build up a picture of Jesus. Even secular historians independently concur that a Jesus who was believed in as a God lived and was rejected by the Jewish leaders and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Oh well that proves everything.....

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you really didn't think that these pople even existed for certain then you would have started out with that line of argument a couple of pages back wouldn't you?

I didn't say I didn't think that they existed, I said I don't know that they existed. I'm pointing out how little credence I give to the story because you keep coiming at me to explain facts in a book which as far as I'm concerned does not contain anything that can be called a fact. It's just a story

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are the one who came up with that explanation for Christianity not me. But yes, I do want to side with that explanation if Mohammad truly was visited by an angel, as I have no truck with bad angels existing, you have. If He wasn't really visited by an angel then what he said is all lies right from the start anyway. But even if he was visited by an actual angel then I as a Christian can only propose that it was in fact a bad angel. Why? Because the apostle Paul states in his Epistle to the Galatians the following:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9

So you also try to prove Islam wrong using a method that is only valid if you assume christianity is true. If christianity is not true then there could be good angels, bad angels, cheeseacke angels, no angels, hells angels, there could be anything, it's completely unknowable and trying to prove one set of supernatural claims wrong using assumptions based on the truth of another is......invalid logic

Zombrex · 14-11-2009 07:29PM

Ok, posts are getting sort of large so I'm going to try and pair this down a bit to your main points. Please point out if I'm missing anything important.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It boggles my mind that you could read the words in the New Testament and still turn around and say that that is a more plausible explanation than the explanation of what they preached might actually have been true.

Again Soul Winner you can use that argument to justify any religion.

It boggles the mind that Tom Cruise would believe Xenu put us all under volcanoes, therefore the only explanation has to be that Tom Cruise knows that this is true.

It boggles the mind that people would spend 15 years with Jim Jones, travel to him in South America and then commit mass sucide, some forcing others to do so before killing themselves. Therefore the only explanation is that what they were being told was true, because if it wasn't they couldn't have followed it.

This is conspiracy theory logic (ie deeply flawed confirmation bias), the same type of arguments used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists who say it is impossible that the US government wouldn't have known 9/11 was going to happen so therefore they must have known it would.

You set up the assertion that the disciples would not have followed Jesus if what he did wasn't true and then use that assertion to justify the next assertion that what he did must have been true. You ignore the fact that you have not demonstrated the first clause and then demand that others demonstrate the second is not true.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The followers of other religions will also die for what they believe in but that is the point, THEY BELIEVE IN IT TO BE TRUE. You're expecting me to believe that the disciples of Jesus DIDN'T believe in it and willingly died anyway.

I'm not expecting you to believe that. I think it is far more likely that they did believe in it than that they didn't. I was merely making to points

1) It is not impossible, or even ridiculously implausible, that they died while not believing since we have examples of others doing just that

2) That they believed demonstrates absolutely nothing as to the truth of Christianity. It is not impossible, or even implausible, that they would have believed in something that was ultimately untrue. Other cult leaders who spend much longer with their followers than Jesus did have convinced their followers of their supernatural abilities.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they were deluded then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. Which means that it is true.

Nonsense.

What possible reason can you have to say that when we are surrounded by large religions some of which must be false simply because they contradict each other.

What was so special about Christianity that if it was false it would not have gotten off the ground when false religions get off the ground all the time?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now I can understand how this might happen if they truly believed in Jesus but how could they have come to truly believe in Jesus when He was sealed in a tomb with nail holes in His hands and feet after been publicly condemned as a blasphemer of God in front of their own people? How did they develop this true belief that Jesus was the Son of God and had rose from the dead after His ignominious death on a Roman cross?

I've no idea, I wasn't there. The point is that this is not in any way impossible or even implausible (especially compared to a resurrection).

We have examples throughout other (false) religions and cults where just such beliefs are developed.

It is easy to imagine that after the execution of their leader a grief stricken group of disciples started believing they had seen Jesus come back to life, and that these rumours and stories would develop in quite a short time into an elaborate story of his resurrection. This is without anyone actively lying.

Come to the story 10 years later and you will find a fully fledged resurrection story.

Again we have examples of this throughout other cults and religions. Your assertion then that these stories demonstrate something about the truth of Christianity are baseless wishful thinking.

Remember Jesus, the man proclaiming himself to be the son of God. Well he came back to life! I think I saw him myself. What's that? You think you saw him as well! Well then I must have, that proves it doesn't it! Oh praise this miracle

Happens. All. The. Time

Soul Winner wrote: »

As a believer in the supernatural myself both positive and negative, and given the opposition of the enemy of God and Jesus I wouldn't be surprised that he would spawn as many false religions as He can in order to muddy the waters so that he can turn as many people off the the whole subject of God as he can.

Well yes, obviously if you come from a starting position of belief you can apply that logic to other religions. But it is circular reasoning. You believe in Christianity, you then look at Christianity and decide it is true and other religions are false because you believe in Christianity.

Which is fine. But this thread was supposed to be about the rational justification for belief in Christianity as opposed to other religions. The position I already believe in it doesn't really count.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How many times do I have to point out the differences between Jesus' disciples and Jim Jones' followers? Jim Jones's followers were ordered to poison themselves at gun point and didn't have the choice of recanting or running away.

Think about that for a minute Soul Winner. How was holding the guns? That is right, Jim Jones' followers. There were actually only a handful of guns anyway, and little evidence that people attempted to flee or were shot for doing so.

So you can keep going on about the differences between Jonestown, but the point remains. People who believe will do extra ordinary things.

Soul Winner wrote: »

On the other hand Jesus' disciples died when all they had to do to get out of it was to recant on their testimony and denounce their Lord.

I have been avoiding getting into too much details about that because it doesn't really matter, but you actually have no idea if that is true or not. The only accounts we have of most of their deaths are Christian ones, and they wouldn't exactly record if one of them said Yes we were faking it all and was killed away.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I have a fix for that. Just read my posts properly next time.

Your quotes of Islam didn't address the issue. I'm not saying that Muslims aren't expect to do good works. I was rejecting your assertion that they don't believe they have a personal relationship with God. The fact that they are supposed to show devotion to God through good works is irrelevant to that. They still have a personal relationship with Allah, or at least believe they do. You seem to be implying that because they are expected to show devotion through work and actions they some how don't have this? Which is some what odd.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They never made the claims about THEMSELVES that Jesus made about HIMSELF.

And ... ?

No one has ever made the specific claims L. Ron Hubbard has made about himself. What do you think that demonstrates?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Confucianism

Confucianism isn't a religion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can Evolutionary Psychology explain why Jesus thought that He was before Abraham?

Well yes, it is called Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think if an Evolutionary Psychologist was assessing Jesus today they would quickly deduce that He was either mad or a fraud. Strange that His disciples believe so strongly in Him when they had every predisposition to the contrary

How is that strange? People do things like that all the time.

Zombrex · 14-11-2009 07:36PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything.

You are claiming a whole load of things that you are not backing up.

For a start you are claiming that Christianity could not have got off the ground if it wasn't true

You are claiming that Jesus could not have convinced people to believe in him if he wasn't who he claimed to be

You are claiming that the claims of the resurrection could not have got started and survived unless Jesus was actually resurrected.

You are claiming that the disciples would not have been prepared to face death if what they believed wasn't true.

And so on and so on. With all these claims you have not put forward any actual evidence beyond a call to common sense, and you have ignored examples from other religions that demonstrate that people can and will do the sort of things you claim people won't do.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments