frikativ54

So - Mark - respond to my challenge: for a moment, let's just pretend that God exists. He created all of us and brought his one Son to earth to die for our sins.

Since we've never seen god, how do we independently know (the Bible doesn't count - that would be begging the question) that god is a man, and that his incarnation was in human form.

I mean, could not Tully, the squirrel who lives right outside my door, be the Son of God? Maybe, in a couple of years, he is going to be run over by a car in a couple of years, because walks across the the street to the Fruit Stand to spread the message to the other squirrels, that he is the Son of God.

For me, I have concrete evidence that Tully exists - http://www.kodakgallery.com/lazukor. I mean, the pictures are right before you - he's the fat one sitting in that tree there. I mean, I have more confidence right now that Tully is the Son of God, than I do that Jesus was the Son of God.

Why as a weak atheist did you choose Christianity? Because it had been established for a while? Because you needed somebody else to take responsibility for your sins? Or more likely - because you haven't had a relationship with Tully yet?

Matter of fact, I will invite you over to Tully's Sanctuary, where you can find many statues, cardboard cutouts, and other "graven images" of him. No - I don't necessarily want you to worship Tully - I am just spreading the Word, because belief in Tully and His Squirriness - who art in heaven and who hath come :Cheeky: (many times, believe you me!), has really changed my life and given me newfound hope!

So, Mark, Jesus wrote nothing - we have no evidence that he was the Son of God, except for the Gospels, which could have been written by people with bipolar disorder, who were propelled into manic episodes by their sadness at the death of their One True Son! Not to mention by schizophrenics.

Honestly, Mark, the mental illness explanation would make more coherent sense for why Jesus:

1) Thought he waas the Son of God (psychotic delusions)

2) Why his followers saw him rise from the dead (hallucinations)

3) Why they chose to leave their family members and were ostracized by their towns (bipolars/schizophrenics have always been ostracized from society - even now!).

4) Why Jesus had some wise things to say - many manic-depressives are very talented, productive, capable people - that is, when they are manic.

By Occam's Razor, wouldn't the aforementioneed explanations be much more plausible than believing something contrary to normal scientific processes? I mean, why would you need supernatural explanations if you can explain it all away naturally?

-Frik :devil3:

frikativ54

Oh, maybe I was wrong about the whole Tully thing. Listen to this: in December I saw this lifeless squirrel lying dead on the side of the street. He had obviously been hit by a car as he scampered across the street from the Fruit Stand.

Guess what - he was there for about a week. I was keeping close tabs on him, because I wanted him to have a proper burial - I even thought of calling the city, but I didn't think they would give the Poor Little Guy a suitable burial. And then, one morning - HE WAS GONE!

The most plausible explanation is that he had risen from the dead and is in heaven!

Even if Tully isn't perfect (I still think he is) and isn't the Son of God, he still can be saved!

Oh, Squirrel Master who art in heaven, grant me pardon for spending too much time on the IIDB and not acknowledging you sooner.

Amen. I'm officially a convert.

And please spread the word - and kill many infidels on behalf of the One True Faith.


-Frik :devil3:

Aradia

All hail Tully! I've already killed a multitude of heretical rats and mice who did not believe that Tully was their savior.

Tully, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy tail fluffs, thy will is much, in trees as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily nuts, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into treelessness, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the squeakiness, the fluffiness, the rodentness, forever and ever. Amen. :angel:

Tullians rule.

Pendaric

<split from Questions for Pastor Mark>

MarkB4

Frik - Since we've never seen god, how do we independently know (the Bible doesn't count - that would be begging the question) that god is a man, and that his incarnation was in human form. You've framed the question by rejecting the Bible as authoritative, revelational or even true - sounds like one of those impasse things.

Let's hope that if Tully does meet his demise under an SUV tire he had developed a good relationship with the white rats.

MarkB4

You said: So, Mark, Jesus wrote nothing.

Good thing - it would be surrounded by guards in a Vatican City shrine and there would be lines to see it and guards surrounding it and there would be a donut in Nashville that looked like it. People would worship both.

And - we have no evidence that he was the Son of God, except for the Gospels, which could have been written by people with bipolar disorder, who were propelled into manic episodes by their sadness at the death of their One True Son! Not to mention by schizophrenics.

Hmmm. You've read the Gospels, no? And what He said, (or what some clever scribe 100s of years later wrote) was brilliant and resonates with almost everyone - I mean, you may be an atheists, but you gotta like some of the parables and see the wisdom in them - was enough to convince people who were in His presence that He was the Son of God (the bipolar schizophrenic guys, I mean). Well they'd have to be mentally ill, since most went to their deaths for this conspiracy.

Why wasn't this immediately debunked by simply producing the body? There were plenty of people there who could look at it and atest to whether or not it was Him. How hard was that?

No, we have a better idea - Jesus died and they stole and hid the body and then agreed on the conspiracy to spread the good news. So there you have it, these men launched a brilliant plot to get themselves torutured and killed.

You have to have a lot of faith to believe that men would die for such a lie. Or you have to call them lunatics. Or debunk their book.

I presume you are familiar with textual criticism (http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html) - which makes a compelling case for the original language, authorship and 1st Century origin of the gospel accounts. Since the accounts were most likely written as tradition has proposed by the very authors who claimed to have written them, they must simply be liars.

Atheist faith.

Psychotic delusion, hallucinations (corroborated by all of the hallucinating witnesses and their Hale Bop friends), bipolar/schizophrenic social outcasts. a bright manic Jesus... there you go. Atheist faith. Thanks for being succinct.

HereticChick

I am now a true convert...all hail his Holiness Tully! Now I will grovel and genuflect at his divine cute, fluffiness. Thank Tully!

Marching Folly

So how do you know that the Bible is authoritative, revelational, and true?

Because it says so.



Now, consider this:

This Paragraph is authoritative, revelational and true. The Bible is neither authoritative, revelational, nor true.

How do we know that the Bible is neither authoritative, revelational, nor true?

Because the Paragraph says so, and it is authoritative, revelational, and true.

How do we know that the Paragraph is authoritative, revelational, and true?

Because it says so.



Now suppose that I am a Paragraphist. This means that I believe everything written in the Paragraph (PBUI). A non-Paragraphist asks me how we independently know that the Bible is neither authoritative, revelational, nor true. The non-Paragraphist hastens to add that the Paragraph doesn't count - that would be begging the question. Then I say that the non-Paragraphist has framed the question by rejecting the Paragraph as authoritative, revelational or even true. This is because the argument that the Paragraph is authoritative, revelational, and true is circular. The non-Paragraphist points out that circular arguments are logical fallacies. Absolutely any proposition could be justified on the basis of a circular argument. So I tell the non-Paragraphist that we have come to an impasse. Perhaps the non-Paragraphist asks me whether I believe all circular arguments. No, just this one.

MarkB4

Frik's question starts by rejecting the Bible and then asks for an to indepentent proof the Incarnation. Frik won't take the Bible into account, which is the book that claims the Incarnation. Tell me how it is to be answered with that limitation....

Nice Squirrel

How did I miss this?

I cried when I read this.

All hail Tully the one true Messiah! :notworthy: