|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2006 : 11:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Before I reply to this, it is clear that Bill's strawman of choice is first cause. He will dismiss all knowledge that does not include what we don't know yet, or may never know. And since there is a boundary that we can't see beyond, in his eyes, he wins. Again, he is perfectly comfortable with inserting God where certain knowledge is beyond what we can see. That is his happy place.
No, no, no. I insert God based on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
quote:
As for global warming, he takes one tiny bit as evidence that it isn't happening (which isn't evidence that it isn't happening) and shows a complete ignorance on the subject. Does he know that the permafrost is melting? That the Greenland ice sheets are melting? Does he know that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of observable evidences for global warming?
Does not the earth warm and cool in patterns over many years?
I only mentioned the hurricanes because I just read about them since we are at the end of the season. I mean if I can't point to this season as evidence against GW then why can others point to last season as evidence for GW?
quote:
He takes his marching orders from those who would be financially hurt if they actually acknowledged global warming. The right tells him he should be skeptical, so he is skeptical. Good enough for this great thinker… He is a lemming
And who would that be? Just want to see if your right as I read a lot of different sources in my web surfing adventures
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 11:40:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Jesus may or may not have existed,
Well then that would go for most of the historical figures throughout history then.
True. At that point we use real evidence to decide if they did in fact exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
but there is NO evidence he was brought back from the dead.
Then how do you explain the thousands who were tortured and put to death by the Romans for refusing to reject the risen King? Many of whom had witnessed the crucifixion. Thousands of people, who were ready to die rather then renounce the King. What could cause Jews and Gentiles to stand up to the Caesar and face the lion's den rather then renouncing Christ, after watching him die, other then the resurrection of Christ?
Thousands? Where in the bible does it say that? And why is there no mention of this event outside the bible (i.e. roman records, or other writings from the same time period, not decades later)
I didn't say that there is no evidence he was crucified (that is another debate). Being crucified (which happened to many people) and being brought back to life are two differnt things.
A person may (fact) see someone die, then may believe they were brought back to life (based on what they heard.)
Therefore, it is easily explained why these people would give their life on a belief that has no basis in actual fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
You have a BELIEF that this happened. This is not evidence.
I have a belief that is BASED on evidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, who witnessed Jesus Christ's death, and then they would die themselves before they would renounce that he had risen indeed. That is powerful evidence!
See above. Not evidence of anything other than a belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
As to the rest of your statement, the same can be said about other religions. Are those religions lies or truth? People have died and are dying right now for their beliefs, no matter what god it is.
You base your belief that people do not die for what they know is a lie. I would tend to agree with this statement. However, that does not validate christianity any more than it validates every other belief/faith system that has ever existed.
Let me go through this again. A man would die for what he believes to be the truth. No man would die for what he knew to be a lie. A Muslim can die for what he believes to be true and, I agree with you, this does not prove his faith/belief system. Here is my point, many witnessed Christ die on the Roman cross. They saw his lifeless and mortally wounded body brought down from the cross. This news spread quickly to all of Christ's followers. But yet days and weeks after Christ was crucified thousands were willing to face the Roman executioners rather then deny that Christ had arose. I purpose that nothing, short of the actual resurrection of Christ, could have convinced these masses to lay down their life for Christ. Why would they be willing to die if they saw Christ die and that he was still in the grave? They wouldn't because no man will die for what he knows to be a lie.
And again, no man would (probably) die for what he knows to be a lie. Many men will die (and are dying now) for what they believe to be true.
That does not mean that the belief is, in fact, true.
Using your standards, Islam is true, Hindi is true, Mormonism is true, Native/Meso American religions are true, etc. etc. All it takes for something to be true, using your standard, are some believers.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 11/30/2006 11:47:08 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 12:50:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
i]Originally posted by pleco[/i]
quote:
True. At that point we use real evidence to decide if they did in fact exist.
What is your definition for real evidence?
quote:
Thousands? Where in the bible does it say that?
The Romans crucifixions were a public event. They did not have the W.W.W. or X-box back in the Roman's day so this was entertainment to many. Like we may go watch a hockey game.
quote:
And why is there no mention of this event outside the bible (i.e. roman records, or other writings from the same time period,
There is. And why would the Romans record this? To them Christ was nothing more then a petty criminal who was executed with 1000's of other criminals. All in a days work. Once the resurrection occurred and the Gospel was spreading like wildfire Rome did all they could to stifle it, not record it.
quote:
not decades later)
Where do you get decades? Paul, who preaches Christ's resurrection, recites the apostle's creed in his letters, which the creed can be traced to within one or two years of the resurrection. In historical terms, a headline story.
quote:
A person may (fact) see someone die, then may believe they were brought back to life (based on what they heard.)
What about an eyewitness?
quote:
Therefore, it is easily explained why these people would give their life on a belief that has no basis in actual fact.
Then explain it. Christ publicly died on the cross for all to see. Yet somehow, even though he was dead, he convinced 1000's that he was not dead. In fact he did such a good job of fooling them that most of them were willing to die a gruesome death rather then renounce his resurrection, even though they saw him die. How did Christ pull this off? Before the crucifixion even his own apostles cursed him and denied him to avoid his same demise. Yet weeks later 1000's would be convinced he arose to the point they would risk death.
quote:
quote:
I have a belief that is BASED on evidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, who witnessed Jesus Christ's death, and then they would die themselves before they would renounce that he had risen indeed. That is powerful evidence!
See above. Not evidence of anything other than a belief.
Nope. Very powerful evidence! See above. Eye witness testimony is some of the most powerful testimony you can have.
quote:
And again, no man would (probably) die for what he knows to be a lie. Many men will die (and are dying now) for what they believe to be true.
That does not mean that the belief is, in fact, true.
Using your standards, Islam is true, Hindi is true, Mormonism is true, Native/Meso American religions are true, etc. etc. All it takes for something to be true, using your standard, are some believers.
One more time, again. The Muslim may die for what he thinks is true, as the Hini etc.... But no man will die for what he knows to be a lie. Before is death Christ spoke of death and resurrection on numerous occasions. He was on record as predicting the crucifixion and his resurrection. Obviously nobody gave him any credit as even the apostles abandoned him as the crucifixion. Yet after the crucifixion 1000's are now ready to die rather then reject the risen King. What, other then the resurrection of Christ, could have convinced 1000's, many of whom had witnessed his death themselves, that we was alive again? They saw the guy die! Or do you think 1000's would go to the lion's den for not rejecting the resurrection even though they know it to be not true? Maybe one deranged person I could see. But 1000's? Many who had seen him die. Please explain how this happened.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 11/30/2006 12:58:41 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 13:15:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
The Romans crucifixions were a public event. They did not have the W.W.W. or X-box back in the Roman's day so this was entertainment to many. Like we may go watch a hockey game.
Oh jeez really? I'm sorry Mr. Bill for being so stupid. I thought the bible said something about xboxs.
Don't patronize me again.
That is not evidence either. I take it, then, you have no evidence about any crowd size at this particular crucifixtion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
And why is there no mention of this event outside the bible (i.e. roman records, or other writings from the same time period,
There is. And why would the Romans record this? To them Christ was nothing more then a petty criminal who was executed with 1000's of other criminals. All in a days work. Once the resurrection occurred and the Gospel was spreading like wildfire Rome did all they could to stifle it, not record it.
Please cite.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
not decades later)
Where do you get decades? Paul, who preaches Christ's resurrection, recites the apostle's creed in his letters, which the creed can be traced to within one or two years of the resurrection. In historical terms, a headline story.
When do you think the Gospels were written? When do you think Paul wrote these letters? I'll give you a hint - try looking around 50 AD (that would be 5 decades.) Here is a christian link, perhaps you will accept it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
A person may (fact) see someone die, then may believe they were brought back to life (based on what they heard.)
What about an eyewitness?
To what? Other than what is written in the bible, are there any other accounts of a dead man walking around? I know there weren't any xboxs, so you'd think if people noticed dead men walking around someone (perhaps even a silly Roman) would have made note of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Therefore, it is easily explained why these people would give their life on a belief that has no basis in actual fact.
Then explain it. Christ publicly died on the cross for all to see. Yet somehow, even though he was dead, he convinced 1000's that he was not dead. In fact he did such a good job of fooling them that most of them were willing to die a gruesome death rather then renounce his resurrection, even though they saw him die. How did Christ pull this off? Before the crucifixion even his own apostles cursed him and denied him to avoid his same demise. Yet weeks later 1000's would be convinced he arose to the point they would risk death.
Assuming for argument's sake that a man named jesus existed and was crucified for being what in modern terms would be a terrorist, you don't think in an age before xboxs that some rumor about a popular rebel could get started and easily believed by people looking for a messiah?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
That does not mean that the belief is, in fact, true.
Using your standards, Islam is true, Hindi is true, Mormonism is true, Native/Meso American religions are true, etc. etc. All it takes for something to be true, using your standard, are some believers.
One more time, again. The Muslim may die for what he thinks is true, as the Hini etc.... But no man will die for what he knows to be a lie. Before is death Christ spoke of death and resurrection on numerous occasions. He was on record as predicting the crucifixion and his resurrection. Obviously nobody gave him any credit as even the apostles abandoned him as the crucifixion. Yet after the crucifixion 1000's are now ready to die rather then reject the risen King. What, other then the resurrection of Christ, could have convinced 1000's, many of whom had witnessed his death themselves, that we was alive again? They saw the guy die! Or do you think 1000's would go to the lion's den for not rejecting the resurrection even though they know it to be not true? Maybe one deranged person I could see. But 1000's? Many who had seen him die. Please explain how this happened.
See above. I note that you did not answer if all other religions were true or not. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:15:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Don't patronize me again.
I would only ask the same then.
quote:
That is not evidence either. I take it, then, you have no evidence about any crowd size at this particular crucifixtion.
I was talking about roman crucifixions in general. I'll have to look to see if there is an account on this exact one. Again, Jesus was nothing but petty "terrorist" to the Romans. No different then all the others they executed. There would be no reason for them to make special crowd estimates just for his. but I will look.
quote:
Please cite.
Please cite what?
quote:
When do you think the Gospels were written? When do you think Paul wrote these letters? I'll give you a hint - try looking around 50 AD (that would be 5 decades.)
Well first off Christ was Crucified around 30-33 AD. So that would only be 17-20 years. Not 50. Historically speaking that is like a news ticker at the bottom of the TV. And I said Paul quoted the apostles creed in his letters, which was traced to within a year of resurrection.
quote:
To what? Other than what is written in the bible, are there any other accounts of a dead man walking around?
The Bible does not mention a dead man walking around. In fact Jesus was very much alive to where he even had some of the eye wittiness touch his flesh. That is my whole point. Those who saw him die would not give up there life for a dead man. Only a live one.
quote:
I know there weren't any xboxs, so you'd think if people noticed dead men walking around someone (perhaps even a silly Roman) would have made note of it.
Where did anyone say he was out walking around? He ascended to heaven after 40 days. Those 40 days it is said that he appeared with the apostles and over 500 other eye witness on many occasions.. Nothing about being a nomad wondering around Rome
quote:
Assuming for argument's sake that a man named jesus existed and was crucified for being what in modern terms would be a terrorist, you don't think in an age before xboxs that some rumor about a popular rebel could get started and easily believed by people looking for a messiah?
I am sure that is a plausible scenario. What I am saying is that no terrorist could die a public death, and then after his death convince 1000's, many of which had witnessed his death, that he was not dead, but rather alive. And then to do such a convincing job, even though he is dead, that these 1000's, many of whom witnesses his death, would now in turn die a brutal death, just so they could deny that he was dead, even though they saw him die themselves. Me thinks only the resurrection itself could accomplish such a feat.
quote:
See above. I note that you did not answer if all other religions were true or not.
I see no evidence to believe they are. If you have any evidence you want me to look at I will be glad to.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What I'm trying to say is that the abiogenesis and first cause/cosmology issues are completely separate. I'll discuss this again below in response to your other points.
Maybe in a text book they are separated. But in forming a complete worldview the two are intertwined like cords of a rope.
quote:
If we accept that somehow, the earth was formed from matter, can we not discuss abiogenesis, which is proposed to have occurred after the earth's formation, without addressing the origin of matter itself?
If you are writing a text book strictly on abiogenesis, then I suppose you can. However, if this is a discussion on worldviews then how can you fully, or even half-heartedly, explain step 3 without even understanding step one or two?
First, you need to define worldview. If you mean interaction with people socially and the world around us physically then you are totally wrong. No one needs to believe in any cause not even the cause of the mutation that generated any of our characteristics phenotypically in order to interact together. And no one needs to understand the theory of relativity, newton's laws of gravity, or even fluid dynamics in order to interact with the world around us. The wind blows independent of us understanding it. As do the tides rise without us knowing the moon is responsible. No one needs, god as you seem to think, to explain something. We do not need an explanation, the explanation simply empowers us to utilize these properties of nature more to our advantage. That is exactly why the god hypothesis is not good enough. There is nothing that can be learned from it. There is nothing to be gained from it. History shows that when we assume the gods, sprits, magic, and etc. are responsible for the phenomena around us we can't understand the true cause of the phenomena and thus cannot make advances in medicine or technology or anything else. Science has no room for the god hypothesis.
quote:
quote:
by JohnOAS
Most of us settle for the explanation with the best evidence, until new evidence and better explanations come along.
Again, we all, obviously, have come to different conclusion, based on the evidence.
No Bill You have no evidence. You just simply say that you don't get it, and therefore the lack of your understanding the evidence is evidence for a creator. In any case, you don't have evidence for your god. You just picked the one that you like. Why can't the Muslims be right Bill. Their god is just as barbaric as yours. Although, yours is much more evil historically.
quote:
One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for me for a non-material abiogenesis and the creation of the universe is the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That doesn't even mean anything Bill. It is a red herring and a terrrible one at that. Jesus, even if he was real, has nothing to do with the beginning to the universe on account of his ressurection. Instead, you think that because your preacher claims that jesus was god and god created the world he so loved, Jesus proves abiogenesis was god-jesus' fault. Show any sciptural evidence that Jesus was god or had anything to do with creation. Even scripturally your claim is not supported.
quote:
Since this a forum I will try and keep it pithy. Jesus Christ claims to be I AM and creator of all. He predicts his death, burial and resurrection, proving himself to be the Lamb of God, as claimed. Jesus Christ is to be executed on a Roman cross, along with two other accused criminals. All his followers have abandoned him, even his inner twelve. In fact, Peter denies he knows Jesus with an oath and even curses his very existence. Before the execution none were convinced he was the messiah, or that he would rise from his grave. Just days after the Roman crucifixion the apostles, who had just denied him, were now ready to give up their life, in the most gruesome of ways, rather then renounce Jesus as Lord and King. In fact in the months to follow the crucifixion thousands of Jews, and Gentiles, were now ready to face Roman punishment, and even death, for refusing to renounce Jesus Christ as Lord and that he arose from the dead. What could have changed the minds of thousands of people, who died for the Gospel under Roman persecution, other then the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ? Many of these people denied Christ, and then watched him get crucified on the cross, yet they are now willing to be burned at the Roman stake rather then renounce that Jesus Christ has risen. He has risen indeed. Many men will die for what they believe to be the truth. No man will die for what he knows to be a lie. We have thousands and thousands who now are willing to face Roman persecution, and even death, rather then deny the risen King. Only the historical resurrection could have convinced these men, who watched him die, to now give of their lives, rather then to deny the resurrection. In fact the more the Romans persecuted the new believers the faster the Gospel spread. These people, who many of them had seen him die themselves, without doubt, were convinced that Jesus Christ had arose from the grave. So much in fact they themselves were willing to risk torture and death rather then renounce the risen King.
Here is another story Bill. Romulus was the founder of Rome and Remus was his twin brother. Their story begins with their grandfather Numitor, king of the ancient Italian city of Alba Longa, was deposed by his brother Amulius. Numitor's daughter, Rhea Silvia, was made a Vestal Virgin by Amulius - this means that she was made a priestess of the godess Vesta and forbidden to marry. Nevertheless, Mars, the god of war, fell in love with her and she gave birth to twin sons.
Amulius, fearing that the boys would grow up to overthrow him, had them placed in a trough and thrown into the River Tiber. At that time the river was in flood, and when the waters fell, the trough, still containing the two boys, came ashore. They were found by a she-wolf who, instead of killing them, looked after them and fed them with her milk. A woodpecker also brought them food, for the woodpecker, like the wolf, was sacred to Mars.
Later the twins where found by Faustulus, the king's shepherd. He took them home to his wife and the two adopted them |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 11/30/2006 14:56:15 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Time to do a little research...
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Sources), the earliest Roman persecution of Christians came under the rule of Nero in 64 AD. Thats 34 years or so after the resurrection.
More likeky, Bill means Jewish persecution of Jesus's followers, supposedly to curry favor with their Roman rulers who granted them limited self rule in return for collecting taxes and keep the peace. Paul was one of the chief persecutors until his conversion. This Jewish persecution is supported by Paul's letters and Acts. No non-biblical sources were cited, Just Paul and Acts (mostly Acts).
Acts says thousands converted after the Pentecost, but does not say they were killed. Some apostles were altenately jailed and released (and once they were all flogged), although Stephen was stoned to death. Acts says that Paul jailed christians, not that he killed them.
So it would seem that thousands were NOT killed within months of Jesus's resurrection, as Bill claims. Thousands were converted, and perhaps some were jailed.
The biggest problem with this is that its all based on the Acts of the Apostles. Most modern biblical scholars consider Acts to be mostly unreliable historically (Bart Ehrman discusses this in his book Lost Christianities which I have lent out at the moment). It doesn't even agree with Paul's letters, which most scholars believe to be authentic. From the wiki article: "Although half of Acts centers on Paul...the epistles and Acts disagree about the general chronology of much of Paul's career". Most date it to the early second century CE, long after the time it describes. Even the conservative estimates of around 80 CE are some 50 years past the events.
To summarize my research: No widespread killings of Christians until about 35 years after Jesus's death. Even then, if I recall correctly from my readings, it was limited to Rome. At this date I don't think we're talking about any eye witnesses. These people were not convinced to convert because they saw the resurrection.
I look forward to any corrections Bill may have. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:46:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Jesus may or may not have existed,
Well then that would go for most of the historical figures throughout history then.
Wrong again. There is only one verified reference to Jesus. The Buy-Bull. BTW how do you think all those other religions started? Why do you think this one is any different?
quote:
Then how do you explain the thousands who were tortured and put to death by the Romans for refusing to reject the risen King? Many of whom had witnessed the crucifixion. Thousands of people, who were ready to die rather then renounce the King. What could cause Jews and Gentiles to stand up to the Caesar and face the lion's den rather then renouncing Christ, after watching him die, other then the resurrection of Christ?
How do you explain all those Muslims flying planes into buildings for Allah? Or bombing themselve in a crowd? Or fighting a civil war over specifics?
quote:
I have a belief that is BASED on evidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, who witnessed Jesus Christ's death, and then they would die themselves before they would renounce that he had risen indeed. That is powerful evidence!
First, there is no evidence, and alot of historical evidence against, this persecution. Although, we are sure persecution did happen under certain rulers because of the fear of religious revolt, such as the fear that led to the Jewish high officials being placed in those positions of power, and that later led to Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome although Constantine was not a christian. Ironically, this is what ended religious freedom in Rome. Second, millions have died for beliefs other than christianity and still do. People do not tend to die for lies but people also tend not to know what is true. In a counter case study, the Jews have been persecuted ever since christianity by christians and yet still do not accept jesus as the messiah. Probably because he does not fit any of the messianic prophecies.
quote:
Let me go through this again. A man would die for what he believes to be the truth. No man would die for what he knew to be a lie. A Muslim can die for what he believes to be true and, I agree with you, this does not prove his faith/belief system. Here is my point, many witnessed Christ die on the Roman cross. They saw his lifeless and mortally wounded body brought down from the cross. This news spread quickly to all of Christ's followers. But yet days and weeks after Christ was crucified thousands were willing to face the Roman executioners rather then deny that Christ had arose. I purpose that nothing, short of the actual resurrection of Christ, could have convinced these masses to lay down their life for Christ. Why would they be willing to die if they saw Christ die and that he was still in the grave? They wouldn't because no man will die for what he knows to be a lie.
You have no evidence of this at all. There were no Roman executioners. Rome had a freedom of religion law. Any religion could be made legal. The christians did not go through this channel and in some cases caused the rulers of the Roman provinces to worry about the evangelical spread as a threat, which it was. Nevertheless, Christianity spread amoung the poor and uneducated. It is easy to convince people even highly educated people of almost anything if it makes them feel better. There are tons of tales of heroic people and gods that people once believed in and fought wars over and were willing to die for in sacrifice rituals as well as go to prison and face hardship over. This argument of yours is fallicious. Bring some real evidence. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 11/30/2006 14:59:53 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:50:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Before I reply to this, it is clear that Bill's strawman of choice is first cause. He will dismiss all knowledge that does not include what we don't know yet, or may never know. And since there is a boundary that we can't see beyond, in his eyes, he wins. Again, he is perfectly comfortable with inserting God where certain knowledge is beyond what we can see. That is his happy place.
No, no, no. I insert God based on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
quote:
As for global warming, he takes one tiny bit as evidence that it isn't happening (which isn't evidence that it isn't happening) and shows a complete ignorance on the subject. Does he know that the permafrost is melting? That the Greenland ice sheets are melting? Does he know that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of observable evidences for global warming?
Does not the earth warm and cool in patterns over many years?
I only mentioned the hurricanes because I just read about them since we are at the end of the season. I mean if I can't point to this season as evidence against GW then why can others point to last season as evidence for GW?
Bill, read a book! GW has 100,000 years of observational evidence to support that it is more than a cyclical phenomenon. And no Bill you cannot and no one practicing science can site one year or one statistic as grounds for a conclusion. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 14:58:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
Time to do a little research...
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Sources), the earliest Roman persecution of Christians came under the rule of Nero in 64 AD. Thats 34 years or so after the resurrection.
More likeky, Bill means Jewish persecution of Jesus's followers, supposedly to curry favor with their Roman rulers who granted them limited self rule in return for collecting taxes and keep the peace. Paul was one of the chief persecutors until his conversion. This Jewish persecution is supported by Paul's letters and Acts. No non-biblical sources were cited, Just Paul and Acts (mostly Acts).
Acts says thousands converted after the Pentecost, but does not say they were killed. Some apostles were altenately jailed and released (and once they were all flogged), although Stephen was stoned to death. Acts says that Paul jailed christians, not that he killed them.
So it would seem that thousands were NOT killed within months of Jesus's resurrection, as Bill claims. Thousands were converted, and perhaps some were jailed.
The biggest problem with this is that its all based on the Acts of the Apostles. Most modern biblical scholars consider Acts to be mostly unreliable historically (Bart Ehrman discusses this in his book Lost Christianities which I have lent out at the moment). It doesn't even agree with Paul's letters, which most scholars believe to be authentic. From the wiki article: "Although half of Acts centers on Paul...the epistles and Acts disagree about the general chronology of much of Paul's career". Most date it to the early second century CE, long after the time it describes. Even the conservative estimates of around 80 CE are some 50 years past the events.
To summarize my research: No widespread killings of Christians until about 35 years after Jesus's death. Even then, if I recall correctly from my readings, it was limited to Rome. At this date I don't think we're talking about any eye witnesses. These people were not convinced to convert because they saw the resurrection.
I look forward to any corrections Bill may have.
Good job Leoofno |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 15:29:51 [Permalink]
|
Suggestion to Bill, What is the definition of evidence, Scott:
Before you reply again. Why don't you try giving sources for all of your claims. Outside of the Bible. Everyone who has addressed you has asked for your evidence and you have either played dumb as in your responses to Pleco. Or dodged the whole thing without addressing it. This is a good way to become branded as raving background noise, such as GK Paul, Ergo123, etc. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 11/30/2006 15:31:18 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 15:36:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Please cite what?
I said: "And why is there no mention of this event outside the bible (i.e. roman records, or other writings from the same time period" and you said "There is."
So please cite writings outside the bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
The Bible does not mention a dead man walking around. In fact Jesus was very much alive to where he even had some of the eye wittiness touch his flesh. That is my whole point. Those who saw him die would not give up there life for a dead man. Only a live one.
Non-responsive.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
I know there weren't any xboxs, so you'd think if people noticed dead men walking around someone (perhaps even a silly Roman) would have made note of it.
Where did anyone say he was out walking around? He ascended to heaven after 40 days. Those 40 days it is said that he appeared with the apostles and over 500 other eye witness on many occasions.. Nothing about being a nomad wondering around Rome
So only believers reported this. Hmmm...
Also I do not find a 500 eyewitness account. Can you cite that?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Assuming for argument's sake that a man named jesus existed and was crucified for being what in modern terms would be a terrorist, you don't think in an age before xboxs that some rumor about a popular rebel could get started and easily believed by people looking for a messiah?
I am sure that is a plausible scenario. What I am saying is that no terrorist could die a public death, and then after his death convince 1000's, many of which had witnessed his death, that he was not dead, but rather alive. And then to do such a convincing job, even though he is dead, that these 1000's, many of whom witnesses his death, would now in turn die a brutal death, just so they could deny that he was dead, even though they saw him die themselves. Me thinks only the resurrection itself could accomplish such a feat.
You have never backed up the 1000s number.
And by word of mouth, people who want to believe will by faith alone (like you, for example). Look at the millions of followers of different religions for proof of that. Look at all the UFO believers...do you think they acutally have seen UFOs?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I see no evidence to believe they are. If you have any evidence you want me to look at I will be glad to.
I said by using your standards all religions have equal truth values. The evidence you provide for the truth value of your religion is evidence for the truth value of others. So, the evidence I give you is YOU. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 11/30/2006 15:41:06 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 16:52:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am sure that is a plausible scenario. What I am saying is that no terrorist could die a public death, and then after his death convince 1000's, many of which had witnessed his death, that he was not dead, but rather alive.
What sources can you cite, to show that many out of 1000's actually witnessed Jesus after his resurrection? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 21:03:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have a belief that is BASED on evidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, who witnessed Jesus Christ's death, and then they would die themselves before they would renounce that he had risen indeed. That is powerful evidence!
No. That is just the story as record by anonymous authors. Rising from the dead was not an uncommon thing for gods to do. The gospels are only powerful evidence to the faithful. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 21:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
The Bible does not mention a dead man walking around. In fact Jesus was very much alive to where he even had some of the eye wittiness touch his flesh. That is my whole point. Those who saw him die would not give up there life for a dead man. Only a live one.
But Matthew (27:52,53) does record the dead rising from the grave and walking through the city. It is surprising that the other anonymous authors don't include a detail that not too many eye witnesses would soon forget. Much less the earth quakes (27:51). |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
