Godless Dave

OK, Magus55. Say I decide that somebody in the ancient past found out from God what the afterlife is like, and what I can do in this life to determine what my afterlife is like. Whose account of the afterlife do I turn to?

The Christians?
The Jews?
The Babylonians?
The Sumerians?
The Egyptians?
The Greeks?
The Romans?
The Germanic peoples?
The Celts?
The Chinese?
The Japanese?
The Vietnamese?
The Hmong?
The Korean?
Australian Aborigines?
Africans?
Aztecs?
Mayans?
Inca?
Navajo?
Iroquois?
Hopi?
Cherokee?
Crow?
Ojibqwe?
Lakota?
Inuit?
Lapplander?
Slavic?
pre-Islamic Arabs?
Muslims?
Zoroastrians?
etc.
etc.
etc.
all across the world and throughout history.

On what criteria should I base my choice? How do I determine which account is closest to the truth?

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55:
And Christians are "sure enough" that it does exist. What makes you being sure enough more valid than us? You have even less proof that Hell doesn't exist than we do that it does.

You're speaking as the voice of all Xians here. Don't you realize that many Xians don't agree with your particular concept of hell?

As for "proof", you have absolutely none that hell does exist, so your claim of "less proof" is ludicrous.

winstonjen

Simple - the one which fits your morals the most, and which you agree with the most, just like Magus.

Magus55

What is your point here? The examples above died or committed suicide for what they believed, since so many atheists claim the Apostles made up the New Testament, as in a complete and total fiction book, then the apostles knew the NT was a lie, in which case they wouldn't have preached to the masses about it and given their life for it. You don't give your life up for a lie that you created.

Magus55

Because Christianity is the most likely religion to be true. Do investigation for yourself, none of the other religions have claims, logical ideas , or historical/archaeological basis for which to make their claims. Islam doesn't have fulfilled prophecies, nor does it have the leader of the religion claiming to be God, whose body can't be found and was recorded as being ressurected by eyewitnesses.

Its a historical fact that Jesus existed and was crucified. Don't bother trying to deny that because even some people on this board say they don't deny that. Archaeologists have also found the sites where Jesus performed his miracles, the supposed boat where Jesus appointed a couple of the apostles, and historical claims that match those of the NT. The apostles also described the Crucifiction as it happened and how it happened from personal testimony. Common sense tells you if they were right about every thing we have proven about the Bible through science and archaeology, its not farfetched to accept that they were telling the truth about the supernatural parts, especially since they ended dying for it.

Thallus recorded the darkness and earthquake that happened at the crucifiction. The fact that those 2 were stated to happen at the crucifiction of Jesus Christ, 3000 years prior and then actually did happen is pretty strong evidence of the fullfillment of prophecy. It may not be 100% solid, but none of science is either so its just as acceptable to take the accounts of the Bible as it is for science. The other interesting thing about the darkness was, Thallus assumed it was a solar eclipse, yet there was a full moon that night. Solar eclipses are impossible during a full moon. So how else do you explain the darkness?

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Magus55
... the Crucifiction ... [...] ... the crucifiction. ... the crucifiction ...

Outstanding Freudian slippage!

Autonemesis

Well, you certainly seem unable to contain your glee.

Spaz

Gotta love em

Mageth

Magus, you said above "And our critical analysis is on the facts at hand that we have." Look into the supposed martyrdom of the apostles with a little critical analysis and you might discover that it's by no means a sure thing that they all were martyred, and that the stories of their verious deaths are so steeped in legend as to be unprovable for the most part.

oriecat

Thallus: An Analysis