Debate: Was Jesus actually resurrected and other arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter VictoriousTruther
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You cannot have the resurrection and christianity as whole.
 
So there is equal support for the resurrection as there is for original sin. . . at least I hope you are not claiming this but i’m being implied that. The resurrection is one claim among many others that are not in the same situation as the resurrection depiction. They deal with events not supported by or couldn’t be supported by testimony along with proclamations on what had happened when he died with a why as well as how. But many of these are worse than the resurrection claim as I don’t see any christians throwing out arguments for the existence of an angel that moved the rock or that there had to be a Jesus to save us from the existence of Original sin.

There is a difference between a resurrected person named Jesus, a historical person named Jesus, and a Christian Jesus (As i’ll call it) that is both real as well as resurrected with assorted ad hoc dogma stapled onto it from a particular denomination with no supporting reasons at all.

As a hypothetical: Does accepting the resurrection of Jesus (With resurrection being defined very specifically and it needs to be to avoid begging the question) mean all the rest of a particular denomination of christianity and its dogma are all also instantly correct? What arguments have been presented for the angel, for the miracles he performed that have only been claimed to have happened in the bible as far as I know of (Please be free to correct me), or the existence of original sin <— how would you accept this dogma without an ad hoc reason or with a literal genesis (Course I’m not claiming you are claiming these particularly statements but this gets the basic point across what ever denomination you yourself may argue for and need to support thusly).
 
Every claim that christianity makes should be analyzed completely and wholly independent. If it cannot stand on its own and those claims that support cannot also stand on there ad infintium then I might as well just start digging the grave now.
 
I like how GK Chesterton says Original sin is the one Christian doctrine that can be proved. All you have to do is look at the world around you.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t really tell me anything. . .

Is this equivalent to the “the world is so designed just look at the trees”.
 
If one was truly wise they could look at the trees and see signs of God in them.
VictoriousTruther said:
What does this tell me. . ?
Click to expand...
Just look at the world around you and ask yourself how did we get ourselves into such a mess? People lying, stealing, murdering, adultery, all forms of immorality, rape, war, etc. Was there ever a time when humans in their origin were prestine, uncorrupted, like a glacial lake before man polluted it, or were they always this way? If you believe they were always corrupt then why so? And do you think then there is any hope for mankind? If you think that at one time humans were innocent, something like the innocence of animals, or of newborn babies before they have the capacity to sin, then you believe in original sin.
 
Last edited:
I cannot sacrifice my intellect nor my own rationality for the presumption that beauty present in nature has any bearing on the existence of an interactive god. What is the difference between an undesigned universe and a designed universe? Nothing, as far as I know of and thus you seem to be pushing your biases to far.

In what way do we get ourselves into this mess. . . there are reasons held by those who seek to do things horrendous in the public or social eye as of now. This is more a job for psychology than it is the personification of guilt or evil that christians (Like you) seem to have prominently in many denominations. What would an uncorrupted person or thing be? How would you define corrupted without some subjective human personification or feeling independent of why these things happen in the first place? I would not claim they always corrupted because you haven’t given me a definition of what that would mean.

Should I say the universe is evil because it doesn’t favor humanity separate from its home. Or that the earth is good in a moral way because it allows humans to inhabit it. These are personifications that I will not abide by and neither should you.

Fourth, in what way are babies or animals innocent, this would also need a definition independent of how we should subjectively personify them.

Fifth, hope for mankind is a subjective issue that many will take sides from all over the board but is dependent on how the larger societal issues that have now been prominent continue to shape the direction of our world.
 
Last edited:
VictoriousTruther said:
I cannot sacrifice my intellect nor my own rationality for the presumption that beauty present in nature has any bearing on the existence of an interactive god.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about beauty? One can reason from the existence of trees or of indeed the existence of anything to a Creator.
VictoriousTruther said:
What is the difference between an undesigned universe and a designed universe? Nothing, as far as I know of and thus you seem to be pushing your biases to far.
Click to expand...
That seems to be either an argument from ignorance or begging the question. Perhaps an undesigned universe is an impossibility? But since you say you don’t know what the difference is then it is just your own bias to say that they are the same.
 
Last edited:
VictoriousTruther said:
What would an uncorrupted person or thing be? How would you define corrupted without some subjective human personification or feeling independent of why these things happen in the first place?
Click to expand...
That seems to be like throwing the baby out with the bath water, that is to throw the idea of corruption out by saying we don’t have a definition that everyone can agree on. To try to define corruption is as simple as asking how should things ought not to be. Should people be committing murder, adultery, theft, unjust war, bribery, etc? If not then some sort of corruption, which is really a lack or deprivation of how a thing out to be or behave, has occurred. I think most sane people would agree with that definition.

If you look at a lake in its prestine condition and then compare it to its post polluted condition then you can easily recognize it has been corrupted. Or even to compare a polluted lake with another unpolluted one. Such a corruption is easily recognized by even the most naive without even being able to define all the nuances of the word corruption.
 
Last edited:
VictoriousTruther said:
Fifth, hope for mankind is a subjective issue that many will take sides from all over the board but is dependent on how the larger societal issues that have now been prominent continue to shape the direction of our world.
Click to expand...
That is the one thing that Christianity does offer, hope for mankind. Let him who has eyes to see perceive it.
 
Who said anything about beauty? One can reason from the existence of trees or of indeed the existence of anything to a Creator.
Click to expand...
Not really. . . we do not know both scientifically and philosophically how our reality came to be, done. There really shouldn’t be any question about this unless you have some untapped well of incorruptible conclusions to what resulted in our reality.
That seems to be either an argument from ignorance or begging the question. Perhaps an undesigned universe is an impossibility? But since you say you don’t know what the difference is then it is just your own bias to say that they are the same.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between a designed or an undesigned universe: Either we are in a world of an undesigned nature or a world with a pocket watch on a beach of pocket watches that is indistinguishable from a universe of pocket watches that is itself a pocket watch. Its like trying to distinguish what the color of a painting is when it is only one color and we have only experienced this one color yet were supposed to have a list of colors from which to choose one from. It is a meaningless question to pose.
 
So you are presupposing that there is this evil part of reality that is making it seem detrimental to human life and thus because human life that is being threatened and other organisms as well that there is some personification of it or principle in nature? You are presupposing some principle of reality that makes people ought to be detrimental to their fellow humans? In what way is the universe ought to be, in what way would humans ought to be, please support this in an un ad hoc nature.

You could either define corrupted as detrimental to our human condition (Both either physical or mentally) or the change inherent in nature that you really really hate. I know you do not like people dying or that people kill other people and thus there must be some inherent prime principle to all of reality putting humans first and making them the accused but please just stop personifying these things as it makes me feel bad for you.
 
That is the one thing that Christianity does offer, hope for mankind. Let him who has eyes to see perceive it.
Click to expand...
Hope in blind faith or through comforting selfish beliefs?
 
VictoriousTruther said:
Not really. . . we do not know both scientifically and philosophically how our reality came to be, done. There really shouldn’t be any question about this unless you have some untapped well of incorruptible conclusions to what resulted in our reality.
Click to expand...
If you don’t know how the universe came to be then you should be open to possible best explanations for its existence like an intelligent designer. Unless you have some how ruled out this possibility there is no reason to dismiss it as unlikely other than because of personal bias.
VictoriousTruther said:
What is the difference between a designed or an undesigned universe: Either we are in a world of an undesigned nature or a world with a pocket watch on a beach of pocket watches that is indistinguishable from a universe of pocket watches that is itself a pocket watch. Its like trying to distinguish what the color of a painting is when it is only one color and we have only experienced this one color yet were supposed to have a list of colors from which to choose one from. It is a meaningless question to pose.
Click to expand...
Whether the universe is designed or not is not a meaningless question to ask. You are the one who asked it and then said it was meaningless. If it was meaningless than why did you bring it up?

If we lived in a universe full of crying monkeys then we would ask why is there a universe full of crying monkeys? Is a universe full of crying monkeys inevitable? Or did someone design it to be that way? Of course I ask this to bring a little humour into our discussion.
 
Last edited:
VictoriousTruther said:
So you are presupposing that there is this evil part of reality that is making it seem detrimental to human life and thus because human life that is being threatened and other organisms as well that there is some personification of it or principle in nature?
Click to expand...
No, I was simply observing the corruption of human nature and a possible divine solution.
 
VictoriousTruther said:
You could either define corrupted as detrimental to our human condition (Both either physical or mentally) or the change inherent in nature that you really really hate. I know you do not like people dying or that people kill other people and thus there must be some inherent prime principle to all of reality putting humans first and making them the accused but please just stop personifying these things as it makes me feel bad for you.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really make any sense your last sentence.
 
A universe that came into being five minutes ago is possible. A universe that exists as the result of the vote of a council of Greek gods is possible. Does that make these likely or reasonable explanations when the only reason given to accept them is ‘but it could have’? In WHAT way would an intelligent designer be accepted except for ad hoc or question begging reasons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top