Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Hey, a virgin can definitely have a baby. You just need some in vitro fertilization(in a petri dish or Fallopian tube).

If a human woman is inseminated by human sperm in any fashion, she is no longer a virgin.

There is zero proof that ghosts can impregnate virgins. There is no proof that virgin-impregnating ghosts exist. There is no proof that ghosts exists.

Therefore, your virgin-impregnating ghost-god does not exist except in your imagination.

[Christianbookworm]

If a human woman is inseminated by human sperm in any fashion, she is no longer a virgin.

There is zero proof that ghosts can impregnate virgins. There is no proof that virgin-impregnating ghosts exist. There is no proof that ghosts exists.

Therefore, your virgin-impregnating ghost-god does not exist except in your imagination.

If a zygote is placed in her uterus and she gives birth without ever having sex, she's a virgin! Artificial insemination is not the same as sex, dimwit!

[psstein]

Gary says he's interested in evidence, but when presented with leading scholars who argue against his view, he prefers we go with some guy on YouTube who we've already responded to.

Gary's just a fundamentalist whose switched sides. He didn't know how to analyze an argument before and he doesn't know how to do so now.

If Gary doesn't overcome his ego and return to Christianity, I hope he keeps doing what he's doing. His bad argumentation is quite likely to draw more and more people to Christianity.

The New Atheism is evidence of God.

To quote the biblioblogger N.T. Wrong, "The fundamentalists are still fundamentalists; they've just switched sides."

On the horizon, Jesus mythicism.

[Gary]

Gary says he's interested in evidence, but when presented with leading scholars who argue against his view, he prefers we go with some guy on YouTube who we've already responded to.

Gary's just a fundamentalist whose switched sides. He didn't know how to analyze an argument before and he doesn't know how to do so now.

If Gary doesn't overcome his ego and return to Christianity, I hope he keeps doing what he's doing. His bad argumentation is quite likely to draw more and more people to Christianity.

Nick, let me save you some time and ink: Gary is a fundamentalist. Gary is a fundamentalist. Gary is a fundamentalist.

If denying the reality of silly, superstitious, ancient tall tales makes me a fundamentalist, then I am proudly a fundamentalist. I am a fundamentalist for Reason and Science. I am a fundamentalist for naturalism and a fundamentalist against super-naturalism. I am a fundamentalist against threatening children that if they do not obey an invisible being they will be punished forever in some dark torture pit. Your belief system is sick and sadistic. You can try to white wash it all you want by claiming that Hell is just a state of shame, but the evidence is that the earliest Christians believed that people burn, forever, in a literal Hell. If they are wrong on this doctrine, then they very well could be wrong about having seen a ghost eat broiled fish with them and then later levitate from a mountain top into outer space.

So "spin" yourself out of that one, Nick. If the ancient Christians were wrong about the doctrine of Hell, how then can you be so sure that they weren't wrong about an alleged reanimation/resurrection that none of the authors of the Bible actually saw themselves??

Yahweh doesn't exist, Nicky. He is the figment of your imagination.

[Christianbookworm]

And over here you can see a goofy fundy atheist primate preforming goofy antics kids! Next, we can see a silly Christ myther perform anachronistic tricks with Quetzalcoatl and Jesus.

[Gary]

And over here you can see a goofy fundy atheist primate preforming goofy antics kids! Next, we can see a silly Christ myther perform anachronistic tricks with Quetzalcoatl and Jesus.

Answer the question, Wormy: The early Christians believed that Hell was a place of literal fire and eternal, horrific torment. Most modern Christians today have white-washed this horrific, sadist, barbaric belief and made Hell into nothing more than a shameful adult "time out" corner. If the early Christians were wrong about the doctrine of Hell, how then can you be so sure that they weren't wrong about an alleged reanimation/resurrection that none of the authors of the Bible actually saw themselves??

[One Bad Pig]

Nick, let me save you some time and ink: Gary is a fundamentalist. Gary is a fundamentalist. Gary is a fundamentalist.

If denying the reality of silly, superstitious, ancient tall tales makes me a fundamentalist, then I am proudly a fundamentalist.

It doesn't. This is just more of your usual "If...[fanciful false statement] is true, then [what Gary asserts] is true."

[tabibito]

Hypnotise.gif

No - I'm not getting sleepy.

[Gary]

Much as I detest podcasts - that was actually worth all the agony.

So - God commanded genocide. It then is a matter of faith that there is some over-ride to the general principle that genocide is wrong, and which God is competent to evaluate. That seems to me a reasonable position to hold. I can't think of any circumstances that would make genocide acceptable - so I'm not going to try to advance an example in support of the proposition. This simply comes down to vesting trust in God and in his somewhat superior ability to exercise a proper judgement.

Good for you, Tab, you are starting to think for yourself! I'm being 100% serious. PLEASE people, THINK about your beliefs and how some of them are so outrageously contrary to your own morality! When is it EVER moral to intentionally target infants and small children for slaughter? Ask yourselves this question, "If you had been there that day when Saul and the Israelites attacked the Amalekites, would you have chased down screaming, terrified toddlers and chopped them to pieces with your sword?? Would you really have done that?

[Gary]

It's complicated. You can check out some articles on Christianthinktank if you're interested. It was war in ancient times, not genocide per se.

So in your god's morality, targeting infants and toddlers for slaughter is sometimes, in some circumstances, in some time periods, justified and moral??

Sounds like a sick, sadistic very circumstantial morality to me.

[tabibito]

So in your god's morality, targeting infants and toddlers for slaughter is sometimes, in some circumstances, in some time periods, justified and moral??

Sounds like a sick, sadistic very circumstantial morality to me.

Well yes - I wouldn't expect a bigoted atheist to see it any other way.

Thankfully, the New Covenant is not the same as the Old -

It is not negotiated: God unilaterally sets the terms and conditions

In consequence, the need to follow such a command will not arise - Christianity doesn't include the bad laws that Israel worked under.

[Gary]

Thankfully, the New Covenant is not the same as the Old -

It is not negotiated: God unilaterally sets the terms and conditions

In consequence, the need to follow such a command will not arise - Christianity doesn't include the bad laws that Israel worked under.

Ok, Tab, you just cracked open the door of rationality, don't slam it shut just yet.

IF Yahweh exists, and IF Yahweh is the Creator, and IF Yahweh is all-powerful, then Yahweh can define "good" and "moral" and "just" as he pleases. Might makes right. But please at least admit that chopping the little arms and legs off of screaming, terrified little boys and girls is not moral, at least by your own standard of morality. If Yahweh ordered and condoned this brutal act, he did so because "might makes right", NOT because his actions were "good", "moral", or "just".

[tabibito]

As the pod cast pointed out, ordinarily, there are things that are reprehensible, but there are times when the reprehensible can become justifiable.

I won't use the example that was presented in the pod-cast.

Ordinary circumstances - killing a man and eating him would be immoral, unjust, and vicious. However, I can envisage circumstances where "ordinarily" would not apply.
I can't envisage circumstances where wholesale killing of babies and small children could be justified. So - I'll just assume that my abilities to comprehend and evaluate valid reasons are somewhat less than are God's.

[Christianbookworm]

What if the only other option was to leave them in the desert to die a slow death? The Israelites didn't have the resources to care for those kids and living in Ancient times meant dying young period. Sometimes, you have to shoot the dog.

[tabibito]

What if the only other option was to leave them in the desert to die a slow death? The Israelites didn't have the resources to care for those kids and living in Ancient times meant dying young period. Sometimes, you have to shoot the dog.

Israel did have the resources on at least one of the occasions. There is record of one instance where a king of Israel spared the life of a man in defiance of God's order, and that man returned with armies a few years later to pretty much wipe the ground with the king who spared him. That could conceivably be a factor with regard to children - a matter of preventing revenge attacks in their adulthood. But it doesn't play a part with babies.