Philosoft

I understand, Christian. It's just that I can't think of another religion that has a god named God. So, when you use "God" to refer to any god, it kind of throws me.

lpetrich

That would more likely be Emperor Tiberius (ruled 14-37 CE), but the principle is correct.

One curiosity in the Gospels is that the Jesus Christ's trial, crucifixion, and resurrection are all undated. If these were truly important events, then why haven't their chroniclers remembered even some approximation of the date? Like "the twentieth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius".

The author of the Gospel of Luke had bothered to date Jesus Christ's birth -- so why not his execution?

Added to that is Paul's total lack of interest in the spot where his Lord and Savior had been crucified, even when he visited Jerusalem. Which is a remarkable contrast to later Xianity's relic-mongering, which often went off the deep end of absurdity.

Finally, here's a list of the Roman Emperors and their reigns.

Jayjay

This is too easy to counter: "because the audience of the gospels were contemporaries of Jesus and they all knew when he died, but not when he was born."

Hedwig

What she said. But personally I'd really like to hear how you would react to suddenly finding yourself in the Islamic hell, Magus.

Illithid

Me for the Islamic heaven! I won't beat them unless they deserve it, I promise!

Incidentally, where did the beating part come in? I thought the guys had the houris (divine ho's) and the beautiful boys scattered like pearls on the grass, and all, but I never heard anything about beatings.

I can imagine waking from death and having a nice chat with some being, preferably in bed (hey, I just want to "know" god, right?)

...and having s/he say "Yup, I set it up and let it run... no, I didn't write any of that horseshit, and I've got better things to do than hold everyone's hand all their lives. Heck, I didn't even plan it out, just set the environment up so life could happen. Do you know how many petri dishes I've got in the lab? Don't blame me if you screwed yours up, I can't watch everything. Well okay, I can, but why would I want to? Here, have a truffle, and I'll introduce you around. Hey Heinlein! BOB! Kid here wants to meetcha!"

Silent Dave

Christian, if God does not exist, then I can explain your "dynamic longing for and love for God" quite easily: you have a series of emotional experiences that you are either unable or unwilling to explain in naturalistic terms, and therefore resort to explaining in supernaturalistic terms that you learned through your upbringing and/or environment. I submit that this explanation is superior to that of the actual existence of a supernatural being.


Dave

Christian

Lpetrich,

One of my biggest suprises in coming to this board was the fact that so many of the arguments presented here are arguments from silence. And that athiests seem to find such arguments convincing.

SD,

To put it bluntly you are speculating on what you know almost nothing about. Emotional experiences are certainly part of the inward experience I'm attempting to describe, but merely part.

I'm very curious ... I've asked 3 times on this board and not gotten a response: What basis is there for ruling out supernatural causes a priori? That seems to be a fundamental part of the naturalistic worldview, but I'm stumped as to why it would make sense to take that approach? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply go whereever the evidence leads?

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea

I asked this question because Christians ask this of atheists all the time. So I assumed (apparently foolishly) that they had actually considered the answer to the question themselves, and I guess I expected as many answers as it had been asked of us as Christians rush to show that they have a good answer and we aren't as thoughtful as they.

So you can imagine my surprise, given that assumption above, to not even hear from the people who have asked the question of Atheists.

What does that tell us? Interesting to ponder. But I know what I'll answer next time a Christian poses the question, "what would it take for you to believe?", don't I?

That was a bit of humor, fella.
I still look forward to your actual pondering of the question and offering your opinion of it.

Interesting you should say that.
My take on it is that the Silence doesn't convince me that there is no god, per se,
But it DOES convince me that if a god exists, s/he/it isn't asking anything of me.
Not to believe in him, not to obey anything in particular, not to behave as if I expect anything from him, and CERTAINLY not to act as if I know her/his nature.
KWIM?

oh, and "pssssst!" I don't know if you do this a lot, so if it's just a typo ignore me, but it's atheist. As in theist. Not Athiest as in Athy, Athier and Athiest.
Start your own thread. This one is trying to pin down Christians who rule out godlessness a priori.
I don't want to distract them.

I promise I'll answer you in a separate thread.

Magus55

Because we know that Jesus' trial, crucifiction and ressurection were under Pontius Pilate who ruled from 26 to 36 AD.

Rhea

(Thanks for the correction about Augustus/Tiberius. I knew I didn't know, but didn't want to spend time checking. T'anks.)

I can see it now...

George Bush who served his presidency sometime during the tenure of Kofi Anan was a...


I think what is being remarked upon is that it is claimed that Jesus was pretty magnificent, amazing and revered. But no one bothered to write down what year during anyone's reign his incredible resurrection occurred.

It was so amazingly incredible, and believed by SO MANY people and the news of it was intended to be spread across the (then flat) WORLD! But when it happened wasn't really worth noting.

And this doesn't cause your brow to furrow in surprise even a little teeny bit?

I mean does paul even say how many years ago it was wrt to his letter? Does anybody mention it even in passing?