Sven

According to this "Crimes Act", it may not be murder. I only said that I would call it "murder".

Dargo

It happens so infrequently that it's indistinguishable from death from natural causes. Sometimes voodo curses appear to work and horoscopes are right. I don't believe in them either.

There is no evidence for the eternal torment happening. There in no way to know what if anything happens after death. That's why people who profit in the name of god don't worry about it. Public punishments, on the other hand, would provide convincing proof.

A true deity should have other ways to prevent its name being misrepresented. As I noted in my previous post (I edited it several times, so you probably didn't see it), he could simply give religious frauds a nasty cause of laryngitis. That would shut them up, pun intended.

LP675

Huh? Move the goalposts? I simply rejected his request, Im not trying to prove anything. I only mentioned that I am going to try to get documentation of this other supernatural event because I thought he might be interested. What relevance does his request have anyway? I have already said anyone is free to reject the story because they are atheists. If people want to reject the story because they think the bible is a bunch of crap, then they are free to do so, and I haven’t attempted to argue the story should be believed. I have only responded to internal inconsistency allegations, and what I thought were genuine questions.
I will ask this Sunday the woman who claimed her baby was healed if she has medical reports etc, that I could scan in and post, just for those who might be interested. What do you mean I have got to do better than that?

gravitybow

You do know what "for the sake of argument" means, don't you? It is a rhetorical device that advances an argument beyond points that two sides see differently in order to get to other aspects of the argument. I hardly conceded defeat.

What?! You said:
Your "great chasm" is all about belief!

Bravo! See how well "for the sake of argument" works? We get to talk about other aspects of the case, which I see is moving right along.

Gregg

This saddens me. I will of course not presume to say you were not a Christian. But it seems you didn’t fully understand Christianity (you were an ‘ignorant Christian’ in that sense), because a proper understanding relieves that kind of fear.
True and complete Christianity looks more like this:

So, while you didn't say he wasn't a Christian, you clearly do say he wasn't a "True" or "complete" Christian. He didn't fully understand Christianity...he was a "Christian" largely in name only.

I don't know...how much understanding do you have to have before you can call yourself a Christian, period? Like, I know how to install a light fixture or a new switch, but nobody would call me an electrician.

LP675

Yep I sure do.
So then you believe these people were, according to the story, killed for something other than lying to God? Perhaps you think they were killed for ‘not adding enough to the church’s coffers’? Make your case and I will discuss it with you. If you don’t want to then that’s fine.
No (self edited), Einstein. This ‘great chasm’ was the reason I thought further discussion in the same vein would not be very fruitful. I.e. I wasn’t interested in a debate on this particular difference of opinion (the questions “did it really happen� or “should one believe the story�).

That is of course not to say I don’t believe the story. I have made it plain I do.
[Self edited to be slightly less abrasive]

Baidarka

LP675- "So then you believe these people were, according to the story, killed for something other than lying to God? Perhaps you think they were killed for ‘not adding enough to the church’s coffers’?."

I make no claims about why they were killed. I am only saying that the story in Acts is an obvious lie.
As a lawyer how would you defend Peter if he were brought up on charges for murder? Would you dare try the God did it defense?

LP675

Nonsense. I said he didn’t experienced ‘compete’ Christianity. To experience all Christianity has to offer an individual one must be a Christian, but just because you don’t experience everything ‘total and complete’ Christianity has to offer doesn’t (in my opinion) mean you are not a Christian.

I certainly don’t fully understand Christianity, yet consider myself Christian.

Not much. I wouldn’t state it in terms of understanding, to be able to call yourself a Christian you have to repent of your sinfulness, and believe in Jesus.

To do that I suppose to do that you would have to have some sort an understanding that:
-God exists
-Jesus exists
-You are sinful
I think that is probably a bare minimum.

gravitybow

Neither was I.

LP675

OK. It seems those who were arguing against the clear meaning of the text have disappeared and have conceded the point.
‘As a lawyer’ (the present day? Access to modern autopsies etc?)
‘Murder’ (under the laws of which state? If ancient Roman law is what he was to be charged under, I have no idea what defenses might be available)
If it were a present day case, of course no one would try the ‘God did it defense’. You would play the burden of proof game, say look at the body (assuming you have it) there is no evidence of violence/poison etc.

[edited to make a little more sense]