I am an atheist thread 4

[c659smith]

This shows what you know about reason. I am not making impossible claims (such as saying that people rise from the dead). If you make such a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU.I understand just fine, I just have a need of evidence before I start believing something that sounds so much like fantasy…So once again, the god you invent gets credit for all that is good, and poor us get credit for all that is bad…
Does this sound reasonable to you?Clearly, you have no facts attached to your belief. I knew that, I am glad you do too.
None of it can be proven, that is why you should treat what you believe as belief and not as fact.

The resurrection of Christ is an event of history. It didn’t occur in some fantasy land or some special category of religious history. It happened in real space-time. Its occurrence was just as real and concrete as my posting here tonight. We should seek to discover whether it is true or false in the same way we investigate any other historical event, such as the civil war.
Would this way of proving evidence suffice for you that Jesus was resurrected?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Capital punishment is something I am opposed to anyway, but he does more than that. When this life is over, he attends to the eternal torture of those who disobeyed (according to the bible).

This is why it so incredibly frustrating talking to you. You change topics so frequently, it is impossible to get anywhere. You realized you had no leg to stand on (besides “I don’t like it”) with regards to the imposition of the death penalty, so you went to hell. It has already been explained to you at great length that your “love me or burn” understanding of hell is not in line with Catholic teachings. So why do you keep bringing it up?

I don’t mind illiterates, but I would expect a book backed by the creator of the universe to be a little better than the average angry illiterate rantings of the O/T.

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

By the way, isn’t that Jesus guy credited with saying something like “I am not here to change the bible”?

That Jesus guy did say something kind of close to that. You’re probably referring to “not here to change the law, but to fulfill the law.” Which refers to the fact that the law is unchanging, but had not been fully revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament.

Am I just supposed to take your word on that, NE?

I’m just telling you what the Catholic church teaches (as far as I understand it, anyway).

Others, equally studious of the bible reject the notion that Jesus was a god. Why should I listed to either? Is there something to recommend your interpretation over someone elses?

My friend, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t seem especially worthwhile to discuss biblical interpretation, when we both know you’re just going to shrug and say “Well, I don’t believe the Bible anyway.” What is the point?

 

[Jonathan82]

Hi Jonathan,

I would like to recommend some books for you to read related to this subject:

Sacraments in Scripture: Salvation history made present. (Tim Gray)

Scripture Matters: Essays on reading the Bible from the heart of the Church. (Scott Hahn)

Worthy is the Lamb: The biblical roots of the Mass. (Thomas J. Nash)

I think you will find much food for thought in these books.

Thanks Armor of God I appreciate it.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Thanks Armor of God I appreciate it.

You’re most welcome. If you want to start off small, the book on the Sacraments in Scripture by Tim Gray is pretty thin, at 96 pages. Also, in the Catechism, there is information on the Canon of Scripture, relating the Old Testament to the New Testament
(CCC 120 -130 – especially 128 -130).

 

[Aleii]

Hopefully someone that could remember can answer that to its fullest but I remember small things like, sacrificing animals having slaves, among other things. those things were all accepted in the OT.

I mean he goes over things that I cant remember all. I would go look it up right now but Im gonna watch the latest Rambo movie right now:thumbsup: …

I will return!!!

I look forward to reading your reply after your research. I have not before heard it definitively stated that none of the OT besides the 10 commandments should be read literally, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Enjoy Rambo

 

[Jonathan82]

Yes I need to research that.Some of the examples I made he did change at least that I know of. But I will see into that. I am curious myself because I know that being Catholic we rely mostly on the New testament.

And as for Rambo I downloaded a bad copy so I haven’t seen it yet haha.

You gotta love watching a man in his 60s take on a whole army by himself.

 

[_A]

I’m back,

So what is proof and what is truth?

What is extraordinary and what is ordinary?

What is evidence?

These are the questions that must be answered by you for a benchmark should be established before one tries to meet such a heavy burden for you.

For your benchmark is already there with the words “you invented” and “fantasy” why that was quite a prejudicial statement by you.

If you can say what specifically it is that you are claiming, I can tell you what evidence I would accept.

 

[_A]

I understand just fine, I just have a need of evidence before I start believing something that sounds so much like fantasy…

Your quote above

In giving sound evidence that ten Men had eyewitness testimony of Christ rising from the dead.

That they went throughout the world and stated this testimony.

That they were ridiculed, tortured, stoned, and crucified for this eyewitness testimony.

For to disbelieve that had happened would give no account on how the Christian Church rose to the pre-dominant religion in the civilized world in less than 300 years.

Now the answer I received back on this eyewitness testimonial evidence that ten men saw, ate, talked with, and touched Jesus was a delusion.

For the reasoning on disputing the evidence of these ten men having the same hallucination at the same time, interacting with this hallucination at the same time, were delusional all at the same time. and this delusion lasted for some decades until their horrible tortured death all for this delusion without renouncing such a delusion or lie under these extraordinary physical and mental conditions just does not compute.
I think the claim that this was a delusion or hallucination is more extraordinary and has a better chance of Christ rising from the dead. For this was not a belief but an eyewitness account by these 10 men(the Apostles)

That Christ was buried in a tomb and the tomb was was vacant in 3 days that was guarded by Roman soldiers.

The body was stolen ?

Who would have such motives ?

the Jews–documented the empty tomb and would not steal the body as definitely not in own interest, as this caused their down fall

the Romans–Documented the empty tomb .and would create a martyr on what they wanted to destroy. would take more of the populace against the establishment. do not think so.

the Apostles–Then they died for a lie? don’t think so for not in human nature.

I have set the reasonable ground for proof now the job you have is to disprove eyewitness and testimonial evidence.

Such evidence can sentence a man to death in todays society as is real evidence. (beyond a reasonable doubt) unless you can disprove the evidence with facts and sound reason then the evidence stands and we will use an alternate juror to come up with the verdict based on sound and real evidence.

Now can you?

It looks like you are suggesting that if 10 men died believing something, then it must be true. That is not good enough for me. There were about that many who suicided by crashing planes on 9/11. Their belief was just as strong.

 

[_A]

I’m lost. Who were you talking about when you said “I think seeking worship is not loving”, if not God?

Priests, who seek it for their ‘holy mother church’, the pope, when he goes to his balcony and waves (though he may be seeking worship for his god), the people who wrote the bible seeked to have people worship.
Also, doesn’t your god seek worship according to the most popular definitions? I just don’t think seeking worship is loving in any context I can imagine.

 

[_A]

The resurrection of Christ is an event of history. It didn’t occur in some fantasy land or some special category of religious history. It happened in real space-time. Its occurrence was just as real and concrete as my posting here tonight. We should seek to discover whether it is true or false in the same way we investigate any other historical event, such as the civil war.
Would this way of proving evidence suffice for you that Jesus was resurrected?

The facts of biology say that after a person is dead, they stay that way. For me to believe otherwise, We would need a few teams of medical professionals and biologists monitoring such an event.
Can you arrange another demonstration, or is your god not able to do these tricks except in old books?

 

[_A]

This is why it so incredibly frustrating talking to you. You change topics so frequently, it is impossible to get anywhere. You realized you had no leg to stand on (besides “I don’t like it”) with regards to the imposition of the death penalty, so you went to hell.

Your bible does not merely describe a god who uses the death penalty, he uses something MUCH worse - eternal torture.

It has already been explained to you at great length that your “love me or burn” understanding of hell is not in line with Catholic teachings. So why do you keep bringing it up?

It is perfectly in line with what is taught in the bible. The catholic notion of hell is the one described in the bible, isn’t it? Did the pope invent a new hell?

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Don’t you think that if the boss of the whole universe was writing a book, it would be really accurate? The bible is full of inaccuracies and mistakes, such as a scientifically illiterate nomad might make…why couldn’t your god do better?

That Jesus guy did say something kind of close to that. You’re probably referring to “not here to change the law, but to fulfill the law.” Which refers to the fact that the law is unchanging, but had not been fully revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament.

So he was not going to change the law, such as stoning those who work on the sabbath.

I’m just telling you what the Catholic church teaches (as far as I understand it, anyway).

I have less reason to believe them than I have to believe you, NE.

My friend, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t seem especially worthwhile to discuss biblical interpretation, when we both know you’re just going to shrug and say “Well, I don’t believe the Bible anyway.” What is the point?

When you say, ‘the bible’ you suggest that there is ONE bible. There are dozens of different versions, and even whole different books.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Ah, A… I wish I knew how to quit you!

OK, let’s talk hell. You clearly have a problem with “eternal torture”. I don’t blame you, it’s a rough idea. Would you mind explaining exactly what it is you dislike about it? Is it the eternal, or the torture, or both? Or is it a matter of who goes to hell? Or something else?

When you say, ‘the bible’ you suggest that there is ONE bible. There are dozens of different versions, and even whole different books.

There’s one Vulgate, with many different translations. I don’t know what you mean by “whole different books”. But this is probably an unprofitable tangent, don’t you think?

 

[Jonathan82]

We shouldn’t forget about Purgatory either.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

We shouldn’t forget about Purgatory either.

Ay yi yi. One thing at a time!

 

[phooney]

If god is imaginary, I guess just regular life is the catholic version of hell? i.e. an absence of god

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If god is imaginary, I guess just regular life is the catholic version of hell? i.e. an absence of god

Not really. You have to remember that according to the Catholic definition, God is the source of all goodness. Further, God’s goodness is reflected to an extent in “regular life”. That nice feeling you get on a sunny day? That’s from God.

So, if we’re right, then hell is certainly worse than regular life. It’d be like regular life, minus anything good.

And let me be clear. The catechism teaches (and the church has always held, as far as I know) that the absence of God is the primary suffering in hell. It doesn’t say that the absence of God is the only suffering. For all I know, all the medieval images are exactly spot on. I don’t think that’s the case, for a variety of reasons, but it’s possible. So please, lurkers, don’t read my posts and say “Well, absence of God doesn’t sound so bad, I guess I’ll just go sin.”

The bottom line is that we know very little about the real experience of hell, other than that it is tragically worse than the alternative.

God bless!

 

[phooney]

If it exists of course

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If it exists of course

Obviously.

This is the first argument I’ve been involved with where I’ve been repeatedly asked to add “unless I’m wrong” after my statements. Isn’t that always implicit in any discussion? 2 + 2 = 4 (unless I’m wrong). Kind of clunky.

 

[phooney]

Yes, I’m sorry, I didn’t read your last post carefully enough. Not really concentrating at the moment. I really like my Led Zeppelin DVD and Page is rocking out a Stairway to Heaven guitar solo

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Yes, I’m sorry, I didn’t read your last post carefully enough. Not really concentrating at the moment. I really like my Led Zeppelin DVD and Page is rocking out a Stairway to Heaven guitar solo

No sweat. Enjoy your Zepplin. Myself, I’m rocking out to Peter Kreeft at the moment.