Atheists:

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradwill911
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, there are resurrections in many traditions. Of course they will be deemed myths by christianists. Well, yes, that is the point. A myth points to an experience one might have for themselves.

The most recent actual resurrection account that I have read is in a near contemporary account in *Autobiography of a Yogi *by Parmahansa Yogananda.

Veritas, I completely respect your study of “facts,” yet facts are contents. I am speaking of experience in a modality of knowing studiously ignored by the Church, christianists in general, and people who have not experienced that for themselves. In thes regard, perhaps you have disregarded certain statements I made I previous post, or you are reading them selectively?

In any case, it matters not. It seems you are satisfied with your position. No one of us changes unless that is experientially challenged. Conversation on here is just that, and is, it seems to me, too often used for self verification.

About your quote, from the first time I read it, I understood it to mean that facing the Truth implies the internal process of re-ordering the world on the basis of new data. That was my experience. My world died and was re-born in an instant of perception. It took years to sort it out. Not the fundametal fact of it, but how to speak it. People who that happens to are either instantly re-wired, and/or go through some perieod of re-adjuistment. You see, thay are dealing with an experiential actuality, not book learning or transmitted tradition. Therefore, science (organized thinking from a known, experiential premise) or suffering (discovery of the premise by inadequacy over time of the false premises) In any case, death is the great leveler, and reports from the edge of that, despite semantic distortion, tend to support something more fundamental that Catholicism. In the mean time Catholicism is perfectly adequate for the unquestioning, or those who have concluded on insufficient data. The Church, nevertheless, has all this knowledge, but in such cryptic form, I’d personally go somewhere else, where it is simpler and up front.

P.S. Phantasm; calm down. Shouting entrenches your opponent. Poor tactic.
In many traditions?
I know of Mythra, but then again his followers fell off, being that ;
  1. They had no proof of any Resurrection.
  2. No Holy Spirit to carry them thru persecutions
  3. He didn’t fulfill any of the three hundred prophecies.
Other than one other supposed tradition of a resurrection - there aren’t too many claims.

Now truly, there were obviously many who claimed prior to Christ [including Mythra] to be the Messiah, but they all died in ways that didnt fulfil the intricacies of scriptures.

So therefore, who cares about them.
Added - they didnt teach like Christ did. They were more ‘in it’ for power.

Next…
 
Time for a history lesson.
A few things to keep in mind:
  1. If one is going to study the gospels, one must be aware of the historical standard with which they are written. You can’t judge ancient writings by modern standards. It isn’t fair.
  2. The language of the gospels is Greek, so the rules and conventions of the Greek language must be observed.
  3. It was an oral culture that was known for memorization. Rabbis were known to have the entire old testament memorized. This is understandable, considering the fact that most people could not read or write. This makes legend very hard to develop.
  4. When stories were passed down in those times, the most important thing to them was the main message. Ten to Forty percent of the material was considered to be secondary and could be changed, as long as the message core was kept. Coincidentally, the discrepancies of the Gospels are Ten-Forty percent of the material…
  5. The Gospels were written under different perspectives, so they will have differences.
Ok, now some facts:
First, the historical figure of Jesus did exist. He is referenced by Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus, all mentioning Jesus or the Christian persecution.
Second, the gospels are meant to be biographies. So Historians generally look at the similarities between biographies. The gospels have enough similarities to authenticate their reliability, but just enough differences to refute a conspiracy.
Third, the gospels we have today are nearly identical to the originals. We have 24,000 copies of the gospels, which agree 99.5%, and their dates are within a few decades of the originals. There is no reason to doubt their accuracy.
Fourth, the gospels are the closest historical accounts to the actual fact that we have. As an example: The earliest accounts of Alexander the Great that we have are from the first and second centuries, but Historians do not doubt these accounts, even though the time gap is over 400 years. The only reason why people doubt the gospels is because they have it out for Christianity.
Fifth, the historical details of the gospels are astounding. One example: Luke was an excellent historian. In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error.

Bottom line: It is folly to doubt the historical reliability of the gospels. The evidence for them is too strong.
 
Not really sure where to jump in or even if I should. I know I’m not going to convince anyone that their belief is incorrect, no one likes to be told that they are wrong. I’m no different. If an atheist or Muslim tells me I’m wrong, I go on the defensive too.

What I believe is helpful with these types of discussions is just simple question and answer.

Why do you not believe in a god?
  • I would assume that the answer is more in depth than, “Well, a Christian God is just as likely as a Muslim God or Hindu gods or a purple unicorn, etc.” That doesn’t really answer the question at hand. I agree, absent of tradition of some sort, you could convince someone of the likeliness of any of these.
Why are you not Hindu?
Why are you not Muslim?
Why are you not Buddhist?
Why are you not Christian?
Why are you not _______ ?

These are the questions that I think atheists should be prepared to answer. I also believe a Christian should be prepared to honestly answer why they do believe in God and why they do believe in a Christian God rather than the God or gods from these other traditions. Admittedly, I’m not familiar with every religious tradition and only vaguely familiar with some of the non-Christian traditions. I’m more familiar with Islam since I have a close Muslim friend. It’s not an easy exercise, and I’m a devout Catholic.
Your kidding right do you know how may gods and goddesses and mythical creatures there are? The answer for not believing in all of them is the same. Accept for Medusa’s and Faeries… Because I want to believe…
 
In many traditions?
I know of Mythra, but then again his followers fell off, being that ;
  1. They had no proof of any Resurrection.
  2. No Holy Spirit to carry them thru persecutions
  3. He didn’t fulfill any of the three hundred prophecies.
Other than one other supposed tradition of a resurrection - there aren’t too many claims.

Now truly, there were obviously many who claimed prior to Christ [including Mythra] to be the Messiah, but they all died in ways that didnt fulfil the intricacies of scriptures.

So therefore, who cares about them.
Added - they didnt teach like Christ did. They were more ‘in it’ for power.

Next…
If thousands of claims of sons of god were around at the time. It is likely that one of them may survive through the holy wars…
 
One other thing - the pagan mythological ‘gods and goddess’s’ havent revealed themselves then, now or ever.
In fact - you never see any ‘updates’ on messages they have…do ya?

You never hear anything at all. Their silence - like their statutes - are pretty stone cold to the world.

AND lastly - when God the Creator of all gives a message - He gives it even for those who do not believe in Him for their sake.
Myths are all about themselves. Ever notice that?

It would seem as gods they don’t much care for humanity. At least in the mythological accounts I have read.

Proof of God is in the message.
If it isn’t from a Creator then it wont be for the world’s benefit to know the Creator.

I mean, who cares about Venus, Zeus and Apollo if all they are about is their own wars in Heaven and such.?
BTW - the Greeks finally gave up mythologiy because the statutes never talked to them. 😉 Never healed anyone and didn’t even bother to write.
 
If thousands of claims of sons of god were around at the time. It is likely that one of them may survive through the holy wars…
Not quite sure what you mean.
There were not thousands of Messiah’s…and in fact - none of them claimed to be God’s Son. Only the Annointed One - the Messiah - the Savior.
They didnt come peacefully, instead they were provoking wars and usurping positions of power.

Jesus came in totally the opposite.
He was the only one Who knew how He should be, and thus fulfilled the scriptures without attempting to do so deliberately.

When thru His Passion, He didnt request that they crown Him, spit on Him, mock Him and slap Him, scourge Him as well as crucify Him.

In those days you would die by one method or the other - but not both.

His bones weren’t broken - and He didnt tell them after He died not to break them…

It all worked out the way sciprutres said His death would happen.
Through no choice or fault of His own.

Does that help you skim off the fakes from the truth?
 
Athiesm is illogical.
In fact the most illogical.

Even Native Americans who had no one to teach them anything showed proof of the scriptures being true.

God said in ancient times that He would put His laws into the hearts of those who do not know Him.
SO here we have Native Americans who praised and worshipped a God they didnt
Aboriginal people had / have a very complex and sophisticated means of worship, that resembled nothing of their European colonizers brand of Christianity.

It resembles nothing of Christianity and to suggest that all aboriginal peoples had a similar religious faith is just laughable.
**
You are the one who premised this idea, therefor you must be the one who proves it true.

Where is your evidence for such a claim?**

Just one example of how wrong you really are;

Inuit

Their religious belief is grounded in the belief that anua (souls) exist in all people and animals. Individuals, families and the tribe must follow a complex system of taboos to assure that animals will continue to make themselves available to the hunters. Many rituals and ceremonies are performed before and after hunting expeditions to assure hunting success.

An underwater Goddess Sedna or Takanaluk is in charge of the sea mammals. She is part human and part fish. She observes how closely the tribe obeys the taboos and releases her animals to the hunters accordingly. There is an corresponding array of deities who release land mammals; these are Keepers or Masters, one for each species.

The Angakut or Shaman is the spiritual leader of each tribe. He is able to interpret the causes of sickness or lack of hunting success; he can determine the individual or family responsible and isolate the broken taboo. In a manner similar to Shamans in may other cultures, he enters a trance with the aid of drum beating and chanting. This allows his soul to leave his body and traverse great distances to determine the causes of sickness and other community problems.
 
This presupposes that mankind needs to be saved in the first place. :rolleyes: ( which it does not)
Even so, Christianity remains the only religion whose resurrection account claims to save people from sin.
 
And you know because…?

What proof do you have that what you believe is correct?
**This is your belief, in which you first made the supposition with which I responded. Therefor it is incumbent upon you to prove your premise true.
**
 
You don’t believe in the wind right?

You can only see how it affects everything - but the wind itself is invisible.
IS the wind really there? Or is it a figment of imagination?
Yes, wind is invisible, but you can feel it. It is in the sense of touch. 🙂
 
Aboriginal people had / have a very complex and sophisticated means of worship, that resembled nothing of their European colonizers brand of Christianity.

It resembles nothing of Christianity and to suggest that all aboriginal peoples had a similar religious faith is just laughable.
.
DID I say identical?:shrug:Care to show me where I said that?
No - I said they worshipped a Creator and praised Him.

Did I get into all the splits of gods they had? No.
BUT the ‘truth’ is this - they believed in a greater being who made them and the world.

At no time did they have the opinion that they self created into existence.

The Laws of a Creator and knowing what is good vs what is bad is also God’s laws.

Giving birth and teaching a child - is good.
Loving the member in whom you marry and have children - is good.
Protecting one anthoer is good.

BUT BELIEVING in a Creator is best.
You are the one who premised this idea, therefor you must be the one who proves it true.

Where is your evidence for such a claim?


Just one example of how wrong you really are;
How is this proof of what you believe is right or wrong? And what evidence are you serving?
Inuit

Their religious belief is grounded in the belief that anua (souls) exist in all people and animals. Individuals, families and the tribe must follow a complex system of taboos to assure that animals will continue to make themselves available to the hunters. Many rituals and ceremonies are performed before and after hunting expeditions to assure hunting success.

An underwater Goddess Sedna or Takanaluk is in charge of the sea mammals. She is part human and part fish. She observes how closely the tribe obeys the taboos and releases her animals to the hunters accordingly. There is an corresponding array of deities who release land mammals; these are Keepers or Masters, one for each species.

The Angakut or Shaman is the spiritual leader of each tribe. He is able to interpret the causes of sickness or lack of hunting success; he can determine the individual or family responsible and isolate the broken taboo. In a manner similar to Shamans in may other cultures, he enters a trance with the aid of drum beating and chanting. This allows his soul to leave his body and traverse great distances to determine the causes of sickness and other community problems.
What does an Inuit have to do with what you believe?:confused:
 
This is your belief, in which you first made the supposition with which I responded. Therefor it is incumbent upon you to prove your premise true.
You said mankind didnt need saved.

So where is your proof?
 
You said mankind didnt need saved.

So where is your proof?
What are you talking about? Man is always doomed-- not even a thousand crucifixions can save us! :eek: As a human animal, we will always have faults, we will always be in danger of a natural phenomenon, a personal problem, a mental/physical defect, and more! It’s how you deal with it that can save you personally.
 
Yes, wind is invisible, but you can feel it. It is in the sense of touch. 🙂
Then you agree that for something to exist it doesn’t need to be seen.

I feel God - even if you do not - as an example then we could say you live in an arid area - and therefore; may not feel wind

That is the same as saying you cannot feel grace - but that is not true for those who do feel God and see how He affects the world around them.

Therefore - you can agree then - that being invisible is not the measure for existence.
 
Then you agree that for something to exist it doesn’t need to be seen.

I feel God - even if you do not - as an example then we could say you live in an arid area - and therefore; may not feel wind

That is the same as saying you cannot feel grace - but that is not true for those who do feel God and see how He affects the world around them.

Therefore - you can agree then - that being invisible is not the measure for existence.
Not quite. Your feeling of God’s existence is an internal, personal, and emotional feeling. When you think of something (imaginary or not) that is pleasing to you, you get a nice feeling. 🙂

But, wind. That’s an external feeling. It can actually move things, physically.

The feeling of wind and the feeling of your perception of a god are two totally different feelings.

Nice try, though. I really do respect that. :yup:
 
What are you talking about? Man is always doomed-- not even a thousand crucifixions can save us! :eek: As a human animal, we will always have faults, we will always be in danger of a natural phenomenon, a personal problem, a mental/physical defect, and more! It’s how you deal with it that can save you personally.
Depends on Who is being crucified. If it is God, then yes it is sufficient for mankind;s salvation.
 
What are you talking about? Man is always doomed-- not even a thousand crucifixions can save us! :eek: As a human animal, we will always have faults, we will always be in danger of a natural phenomenon, a personal problem, a mental/physical defect, and more! It’s how you deal with it that can save you personally.
It is very true that we are always doomed.
For this life has an ending. Without living correctly for the next one, our existence is bane.

You are not getting out of this life alive.

So what purpose do you suppose we have in gaining knowledge that goes no where and will only be replaced tomorrow when we are forgotten?

Yesterday’s great inventions are today’s ancient past.

And moreover, in many years not even the most prestigious among us will be remembered. So we gain nothing in this life, and without a purpose - why do we exist?

This life is meaningless and we rot in the ground at it’s conclusion.

Man may be brilliant, but man is not responsible for the laws of God which supercede our own preferences.

Fess up - if the Bible was man made - it certainly would be more appealing to all of man than just 1/3.

If man were to create a fictional Being and call it God - wouldnt that man - let alone men of different eras - create a God that allowed adultery, homo relations, hate - revenge - and whatever else our little hearts really do think we want?
 
Not quite. Your feeling of God’s existence is an internal, personal, and emotional feeling. When you think of something (imaginary or not) that is pleasing to you, you get a nice feeling. 🙂

But, wind. That’s an external feeling. It can actually move things, physically.

The feeling of wind and the feeling of your perception of a god are two totally different feelings.

Nice try, though. I really do respect that. :yup:
Then I’ll provide another example. The number 3. It only exists in the mind, not in reality. If it does exist in reality, then would you show me a concrete physical manifestation of the number 3 in nature. Not a representation of 3, but the actual number 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top