Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Atheos · 06-09-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

When you understand why you dismiss all the other holy books, you'll understand why I dismiss yours.

Didn't we go through this? I dismiss all other holy books (still working on the quoran) as half truths from satan

Indeed you did go through this with others (and WRT "God/gods") before I joined the conversation, but one important aspect of this hasn't been addressed:

Your claim that all the other god-myths are simply lies perpetrated by Satan and demons is predicated on your belief that the bible is the only book inspired by the One TRUE and LIVING GOD. It is circular reasoning of the most obvious sort and deserves to be exposed as such.

In spite of this objection I'm willing to concede that you have a different reason for rejecting all other gods/religions than I have for rejecting all of them as well as yours. No biggie.

You've had your turn at resolving the "Easter Challenge". I applaud your efforts. Reasonable and objective people will see how futile the effort was though.

Here's another challenge: Write me a contradictory story. Write just a few sentences or an entire page. Make sure it is so contradictory there's no way I can resolve it. Rig the game to your heart's content. Only thing is when it's my turn I get to play by the same rules you did. I'll use the same kind of apologetic techniques you've been using. I'm willing to accept that I might not win this round, but I think it would make for an interesting experiment. Let's see just how bad it has to get before everyone (including you) agrees it's a "contradiction".

ETA: Fair warning - I've got tons of experience at using these apologetic techniques. Don't forget, I was a professional for over 16 years.

dr lazer blast · 06-09-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

:deadhorse:

Remove the question and the answer from the context (the accounts themselves) and the answer seems reasonable. But the answer "glazes over" the fact that one writer says "Mary Magdelene", one says "Mary and Mary Magdelene", one says, "Mary, Mary Magdelene and Salome" and one says "Mary, Mary Magdelene, Joanna and other women". This is a contradiction inasmuch as in each case the writers (except for "Luke") give the reader no reason to think anyone else was there besides the lady or ladies specified. You say (I'm paraphrasing here) that if you have 10 dollars in your pocket you can truthfully answer "yes" if someone asks you if you have a dollar. That's fine, but it's not the same thing. The question was not "did a lady come to the tomb?", it's "Who came to the tomb?". Big difference. The same difference as "Do you have a dollar?" versus "How much money is in your pocket right now?" If you answered "A dollar" you'd be lying and you know it.

Gospels are 4 accounts of the same event. Neither of the writers explicitly said ONLY Mary magdelene, or ONLY Mary, Mary magdelene and salome. You are using arguments from silence. Basically claiming that the writers silence regarding the other women is evidence of them not being there, but that is not the case. As I said earlier, you would have a point if the writers said ONLY Mary, or Mary came to the tomb by herself, but it doesn't. Just because jhon says Mary is at the tomb doesn't mean the other women wern't there as well, there is nothing in the other gospels that says all 3 women can't be there. You are just using arguments from silence.

Gospels are 4 different accounts of the same event, so each writer wrote what was important to them.

Quote:

Once again you're glazing over the details that contradict each other in the descriptions about what happened next. According to "Matthew" the Angel sat down on the stone and addressed them from it, encouraging them to "come" and look where he was. This admonition would make no sense if they were already inside the tomb and looking at where he was. "Matthew" and everyone else are clearly contradicting each other about where the angel was.

While composing this post I see that you've posted and added the following:

And you can't see how far you're having to go to apologize for this contradiction? There's nothing in "Matthew's" text to suggest that the angel walked into the tomb from the rock and into the tomb, nor does this jive with "Luke's" clearly worded statement that they hadn't seen any angels and were already standing inside the tomb when suddenly two angels appeared among them. Just how far do you have to go before you're willing to admit that you're "torturing" the text?

Once again arguments from silence. Using Matthews silence regarding the angel that could've walked into the tomb as evidence to support your view. Like I said, each writer wrote what was important to him, and each gospel is to be read assuming you've read the other ones as well. Nothing in the other gospels contradict my statement. Did it say "the angel addressed them on the rock" no it did not. It said the angel sat on the rock, killed the 2 guards and spoke to the women. The other gospels show an angel saying the same things, so if you put 2 and 2 together you could see that the angel got into the tomb. You're just using argumetns from silence.

Quote:

According to "John" none of the ladies ever actually went into the tomb. Mary Magdelene always stood outside and looked in.

Arguements from silence. Like I said, the gospels are 4 different accounts of the same event, with each author writing what was important to him. If everyone wrote down the same thing, there would be only 1 gospel. Just because Jhon didn't write down the events of what happend to the other ladies does not mean it didn't happen. Does Jhon's gospel contradict anything in the others? no.

Quote:

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

I can easily plug in what happened in the other gospels and it would make sense.

Quote:

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

The bolded is taken from Mark, and when plugged into Jhon, it doesn't contradict anything. So you're using arguments from silence again.

Quote:

According to "Mark" there was only one angel inside the tomb. Mark doesn't say "only one person spoke to the women". He says they saw "saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted." There's no "other" angel sitting in the tomb in Mark's account. This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:

5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Once again arguments from silence this author only felt the need to describe the angel that SPOKE, but reading the other 3 gospels would tell you there is 2 angels, so there were 2 angels and one of them spoke, the author decided to describe the one angel that spoke as that seemed to be important at the time

Quote:

And I can't help but notice that you have turned a blind eye to what I have pointed out several times now is the most glaring contradiction of all: The command to meet Jesus in Galilee, not Jerusalem (in "Matthew" and "Mark") versus "Luke's" insistence that not only did Jesus meet the disciples in Jerusalem he clearly commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until well after he had ascended.

Where is the command?

Quote:

10Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

does it say immediatly meet me in Galilee? no it doesn't. The women went to the disciples and told them to meet Jesus in galilee, just like Jesus instructed, but guess what happend? Jesus appeared to them, and THEN they went into galilee. So they still ended up in Galilee just like Jesus said. More arguments from silence. Can you make one point without an argument from silence?

Quote:

7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him

This isn't even a command. IT says he will go before you into Galilee.

Quote:

Don't forget, you are the one implying that all this bullshit was inspired by some all-powerful god and is 'perfect'. I know we have to work hard to defend or replace imperfect things. Why do you have to work so hard to defend something that's supposed to be perfect already?

I don't have to work hard, you're just scrutinizing it with logical fallicies.

dr lazer blast · 06-09-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Problems:
1 - Mary Magdelene saw the angel, was told that Jesus was alive, then goes to find Peter and tell him "They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him". According to John 20:2 she has no idea Jesus is resurrected when she meets Peter. With your account of the events she knows exactly what happened.

Just because she knew Jesus had rose doesn't mean she knew HOW he rose or where he went.
John 20:9

Quote:

9For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

So that once again proves the point that they didn't know the specifics on how He was raised. Not to mention that when the other women saw the 2 men they didn't know the specifics either.

Quote:

2 - "Mark's" angel did not tell the disciples Jesus would meet them in Gallilee after he talked to them in Jerusalem. He specifically said "tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you". You are torturing the text by refusing to accept that "Mark's" statement of what the angel said was accurate.

Marks angel told them that Jesus was going to go before them into Galilee. That is not a command. It is saying that Jesus will go before the disciples into Galilee. The angel is not saying "meet Jesus in Galilee" He is saying "Jesus will go before you into Galilee" meaning that Jesus will go to Galilee before the disciples. In the story I have Jesus meeting the disciples at galilee. The reason I wrote that is because you wouldn't accept my answer unless it was in story format.

Quote:

3 - Apart from the most stubborn refusal to accept that there is a contradiction there is no reason to assume that the women separated on their way to see the disciples. "Matthew" says, "they" and he only lists two women. Luke's version is similarly clear about who "they" refers to, saying "they returned and told all these things unto the eleven and to the rest". It is at that point that "Luke" specifies which women he was describing, and includes Mary Magdelene in the list. Again, you are torturing the text by inserting this unwarranted separation.

Arguments from silence once again. Asserting I am torturing the text and backing it up with an argument from silence.

"They" could mean 3 as well as 2, so once again no contradiction there, not to mention that Luke doesn't give ANY names. 'They' all went to go get the disciples, so mary going to get peter by herself, and the other women going to get the other disciples is still 'they' going to get disciples, i.e all 3 women gonig to get the disciples. There is no contradiction here.

Quote:

4 - "The disciples left Jerusalem ... The disciples and the apostles arrived at Galilee and saw Jesus there" - This is in direct contradiction to "Luke's" clearly stated account of what happened:

Quote:

Luke 24
:49 tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy

...

Acts 1
:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
...
:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
...
:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

"Luke" / Acts is absolutely clear about this point and the geography is unimpeachable. Acts 1:12 even asserts that they went no more than "a sabbath day's journey" from Jerusalem. Although the exact distance of a "sabbath day's journey" is subject for debate nobody would argue that it would include a 50 mile trek to Gallilee. It was the threshold of travel that Jewish tradition held meant the difference between "just taking a walk" and "going for a journey" (which would involve "work", something they were prohibited from doing on the sabbath day).

having trouble understanding your point here.
They are in Galilee when he is saying all of this where does it say that they couldn't leave Jerusalem? A sabboth day's journey could easily mean it takes 7 days to get there, unless you're going to argue that they had a saying for a 6 day journey?

Quote:

Details you've still not inserted in your narrative include:
1 - Cephas was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus (I Cor 15:5)
2 - At least Mary and one other woman saw the resurrected Jesus somewhere between the tomb and visiting the disciples the first time (Matt 28:8-9).
3 - Jesus tells Mary (and at least one other woman, presumably Mary Magdelene) to tell the disciples to "go into Galilee, and there shall they see me"
4 - The eleven disciples think the women are telling them idle tales and do not believe them.

1.

Quote:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve

'And that' does not = First, so I don't know what your point is on #1

2. Did you read even read the narritive? the other women was salome. The people that saw Jesus in this account were Mary mother of James and Salome.

3. They did tell the disciples that. The disciples were getting ready to go when Jesus appeared amongst them.

4.Ok, ill add that into the story.

Quote:

These are not all the details you've excluded. I'm through doing your homework for you. Any further submissions that lack details from your book will simply be marked "details still lacking".

Im doing the best I can do, and if you're going to tell me 'details still lacking' without showing me evidence to back it up, then the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence of why my narritive is lacking.

dr lazer blast · 06-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Mary magdelana Mary mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb to anoint Christ with spices.

First line and you already have a serious problem.

Mark tells us that those two women knew where Jesus' tomb was because they watched Joseph place him there (15:47). John, however, tells us that Joseph was not alone but accompanied by Nicodemus who brought a hundred weight of spices with him!(19:39-40)

IOW, Christ's body had already been anointed with spices and the women could not possibly have missed the inclusion of that enormous amount of spices so the reason given for their return is certainly untrue.

Is there something wrong with His mom wanting to personally anoint Jesus?

sschlichter · 06-09-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

It's the same with all the evidence that has been presented so far. None of it is impressive. There's no reason to believe the Bible is any better than the Quran. Or the book of Mormon. Or the Hindu Vedas.

I find the fact that you are comparing books conflicting with your claims of past Christian experiences. Perhaps you are just leading the witness but some of the questions you are asking about the unique of Christianity, I would expect you would at least know what a Christian would answer to them. Christians are taught from a very young age that Jesus is the self-revelation of God. They vary wildly on the role of the bible as reliable historical witnesses, to infallibility, to inerrancy. After all, the first few centuries of Christians did not really have the concept of an 'inspired' NT, so it seems strange to define the religion by the book alone. I would have expected this to come up in your 16 years in the pulpit.

dr lazer blast · 06-09-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Here's another challenge: Write me a contradictory story. Write just a few sentences or an entire page. Make sure it is so contradictory there's no way I can resolve it. Rig the game to your heart's content. Only thing is when it's my turn I get to play by the same rules you did. I'll use the same kind of apologetic techniques you've been using. I'm willing to accept that I might not win this round, but I think it would make for an interesting experiment. Let's see just how bad it has to get before everyone (including you) agrees it's a "contradiction".

ETA: Fair warning - I've got tons of experience at using these apologetic techniques. Don't forget, I was a professional for over 16 years.

Challenge accepted.

This story is written and observed by only me and nobody else. Everything in this story is true.
A Man named frank died at 1:00 am March 15th 2003. Sue came to visit frank by herself with nobody else at 2:00am. The 2nd women named Mary came to vist with Sue at 2:00am. They began digging up franks grave at 10:00 pm march 15th 2003 and they found the body of frank that had died at 1:00 am march 15th 2003. Every mention of frank is talking about the same person (which is the guy that died at 1:00am March 15th 2003).

Kharakov · 06-09-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

A Man named frank died at 1:00 am March 15th 2003.

Yup.

Quote:

Sue came to visit frank by herself with nobody else at 2:00am.
The 2nd women named Mary came to vist with Sue at 2:00am.

Obviously, since the story is true, the second women Mary came to visit with Sue over at Frank's house. Incidentally, my aunt is coming to visit with me in a few days.

Quote:

They began digging up franks grave at 10:00 pm march 15th 2003 and they found the body of frank that had died at 1:00 am march 15th 2003.

Obviously Sue had Mary come help her dig a grave for Frank, who she knew was going to die. After they were done, Sue told Mary she was going to visit Frank around 2:00am. Sue and Mary went to their homes to wash up.

A bit later Mary realized that Sue might need company so went to visit with Sue at Frank's place at 2:00am, just as Sue walked into Frank's room. They both found that Frank had died already (at 1:00am, although they did not know the exact time of death) as they arrived through opposite doorways into Frank's room at precisely 2:00 am.

What's your take on post 60?

JamesBrown · 06-09-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

I hate to break it to you, but the truth is that it's all built on bluster and smokescreen. At the end of the questions there is nothing of substance. I've been there and checked it out. I went to a conservative christian college and took a B.A. in "Bible" with a minor in Greek and Hebrew. For over 16 years I occupied pulpits and defended the bible as the word of God, but I just couldn't stop asking questions rather than just accept that someone out there somewhere knew the real answers to the questions of why we believed all these things.

The more interesting question is - WHY IT TOOK 16 YEARS? I would really like to hear about that.

dr lazer blast · 06-09-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharakov

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

A Man named frank died at 1:00 am March 15th 2003.

Yup.

Obviously, since the story is true, the second women Mary came to visit with Sue over at Frank's house. Incidentally, my aunt is coming to visit with me in a few days.

Quote:

They began digging up franks grave at 10:00 pm march 15th 2003 and they found the body of frank that had died at 1:00 am march 15th 2003.

Obviously Sue had Mary come help her dig a grave for Frank, who she knew was going to die. After they were done, Sue told Mary she was going to visit Frank around 2:00am. Sue and Mary went to their homes to wash up.

A bit later Mary realized that Sue might need company so went to visit with Sue at Frank's place at 2:00am, just as Sue walked into Frank's room. They both found that Frank had died already (at 1:00am, although they did not know the exact time of death) as they arrived through opposite doorways into Frank's room at precisely 2:00 am.

oh I see my error, I meant 10pm the day before, re writting story, it was not intended to be that way as I made an error.

Deus Ex · 06-09-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharakov

Yup.

Obviously, since the story is true, the second women Mary came to visit with Sue over at Frank's house. Incidentally, my aunt is coming to visit with me in a few days.

Obviously Sue had Mary come help her dig a grave for Frank, who she knew was going to die. After they were done, Sue told Mary she was going to visit Frank around 2:00am. Sue and Mary went to their homes to wash up.

A bit later Mary realized that Sue might need company so went to visit with Sue at Frank's place at 2:00am, just as Sue walked into Frank's room. They both found that Frank had died already (at 1:00am, although they did not know the exact time of death) as they arrived through opposite doorways into Frank's room at precisely 2:00 am.

How did they find franks body on march 15th when he died march 23rd of the same year? if he died at 1 am, how did they find the dead body before he died?

Well I know that there can not be any contradiction here, because this story is the inspired word of Dr Lazer Blast. Any contradiction we are seeing is an apparent contradiction, because we are just misunderstanding the sacred text. :Cheeky:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.