Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xaxxat · 01-05-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No, we don't. No eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, that's just church tradition.

The idea that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus is merely a myth that some unwise atheists tell themselves (although I can't imagine why). There is no evidence of it, and it is contradicted by the historical record.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

* bump *

Dayum! Now this should be good...

rhutchin · 01-06-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't see why this would be true.

Well, in John 3.16, a man promises people eternal life if they believe he is the son of a God, now as soon as the first believer died, the claim became bogus.

Even, the life of Jesus was not eternal, in the NT, the life of Jesus came to an end.

John 3.16 is both false and stupid, it would appear Jesus thought he would never die, but according to the story, he did and would have been known to be a fraud and a blasphemer if he existed at all.

One day you will shed the bag of bones that you call your body. You will still live. From that point you either enter heaven and have eternal life or you stay outside heaven and have eternal death. Read the verse in context with what the Bible is telling us. Don't excise it from that context and try to make it say something it is not.

rhutchin · 01-06-2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Authorship would not necessarily matter unless the author was known to be a person like Shakespeare and recognized for writing plays that were largely fictional.

Well, we already disagree. I think the reliability of an unknown person is itself unknown, and I cannot agree that that is an irrelevancy.

OK. Then we reserve judgment in those cases (option 3).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If the author had no particular reputation and basically unknown, then I guess the initial presumption would be that the account could be accurate until shown otherwise.

Can you quote a professional historian endorsing that presumption? I took a course in historiography just last year. We had four textbooks, and not one of the authors said anything like it.

OK. So, in that context, which option would then be supportable? Seems like we can neither determine that it is true or not true leaving us with option 3 - reserve judgment.

dog-on · 01-06-2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, in John 3.16, a man promises people eternal life if they believe he is the son of a God, now as soon as the first believer died, the claim became bogus.

Even, the life of Jesus was not eternal, in the NT, the life of Jesus came to an end.

John 3.16 is both false and stupid, it would appear Jesus thought he would never die, but according to the story, he did and would have been known to be a fraud and a blasphemer if he existed at all.

One day you will shed the bag of bones that you call your body. You will still live. From that point you either enter heaven and have eternal life or you stay outside heaven and have eternal death. Read the verse in context with what the Bible is telling us. Don't excise it from that context and try to make it say something it is not.

How does one "still live" if one has "eternal death"?

Deus Ex · 01-06-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Well, we already disagree. I think the reliability of an unknown person is itself unknown, and I cannot agree that that is an irrelevancy.

OK. Then we reserve judgment in those cases (option 3).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Can you quote a professional historian endorsing that presumption? I took a course in historiography just last year. We had four textbooks, and not one of the authors said anything like it.

OK. So, in that context, which option would then be supportable? Seems like we can neither determine that it is true or not true leaving us with option 3 - reserve judgment.

Emphasis mine

Congratulations! You now understand why skeptics don't accept the bible as the Word of God. The above part in bold describes the agnostic position towards the bible.

aa5874 · 01-06-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One day you will shed the bag of bones that you call your body. You will still live. From that point you either enter heaven and have eternal life or you stay outside heaven and have eternal death. Read the verse in context with what the Bible is telling us. Don't excise it from that context and try to make it say something it is not.

But, this is blatant fiction. You cannot show that any person who have died and have been documented to have died, still actually live and do so after shedding their bag of bones.

This is foolishness according to the ancient Greeks, or stupidity to modern man.

rhutchin · 01-06-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. So, in that context, which option would then be supportable? Seems like we can neither determine that it is true or not true leaving us with option 3 - reserve judgment.

Emphasis mine

Congratulations! You now understand why skeptics don't accept the bible as the Word of God. The above part in bold describes the agnostic position towards the bible.

To reserve judgment means that skeptics allow that the Bible can be true. They should accept that the Bible can be the word of God but reserve judgment as to whether it actually is. They would not deny that the bible is the word of God simply because they know that no one can prove the Bible to be false. Many people who call themselves skeptics, do so falsely I think, because they do not want to believe that the Bible is true. A skeptic would be neutral in that respect.

rhutchin · 01-06-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One day you will shed the bag of bones that you call your body. You will still live. From that point you either enter heaven and have eternal life or you stay outside heaven and have eternal death. Read the verse in context with what the Bible is telling us. Don't excise it from that context and try to make it say something it is not.

But, this is blatant fiction. You cannot show that any person who have died and have been documented to have died, still actually live and do so after shedding their bag of bones.

Well, do you have proof that such is not the case? The Bible tells us that this is the case. On what basis do you say otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is foolishness according to the ancient Greeks, or stupidity to modern man.

As Paul said, "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

rhutchin · 01-06-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One day you will shed the bag of bones that you call your body. You will still live. From that point you either enter heaven and have eternal life or you stay outside heaven and have eternal death. Read the verse in context with what the Bible is telling us. Don't excise it from that context and try to make it say something it is not.

How does one "still live" if one has "eternal death"?

Because "eternal death" refers to that which the person experiences after death. Eternal life is that life which a person experiences in heaven and eternal death that life which a person experiences outside heaven.

Deus Ex · 01-06-2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Emphasis mine

Congratulations! You now understand why skeptics don't accept the bible as the Word of God. The above part in bold describes the agnostic position towards the bible.

To reserve judgment means that skeptics allow that the Bible can be true. They should accept that the Bible can be the word of God but reserve judgment as to whether it actually is. They would not deny that the bible is the word of God simply because they know that no one can prove the Bible to be false. Many people who call themselves skeptics, do so falsely I think, because they do not want to believe that the Bible is true. A skeptic would be neutral in that respect.

The Bible may very well be true; so might the Quran, or the Hindu Vedas. I am reserving judgment.

The plausibility of any of them being correct is extremely low by my reckoning.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.