Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
    Fundy atheist talking point, inevitable progress of history. Drink!

    "God is dead," or so He was in 1966. That generation would be the last to see religion as a part of culture. We're now nearly 50 years later. Religion is alive and well.


    Exactly how many times has the demise of religion been predicted?

    And they accuse us of false prophecy.

    And if Gary wants to say something about Jesus being wrong about His prophecies....
    http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...eDeeWarren.mp3

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Exodus 21:20-21 permit slave owners to beat their slaves so that they are unconscious for 2-3 days!
      Yawn there is no passage in Exodus 21 that says anything about being unconscious. someone has rightfully pointed out to you that until you address the language an ancient document is written in you are just being sloppy in your scholarship. the passage is

      20*“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21*Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

      the word punished means avenged in Hebrew and avenging a death would mean the death penalty (this being a chapter that earlier addresses the death penalty for murder). Second the contrast makes clear that that no particular situation of slave beating is being specified - what precedes it in context is a fight that comes from a disagreement.


      18*“If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19*if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.


      so rather than your blather and assumption specific to a master's right the fight the law addresses may be of any kind and contextually - a contention between them without reference to who started it - not specifically a right for a man to beat his slave. important in determining the death penalty was intent. The law already indicated causing bodily injuries left the slave master open to consequences of losing the slave. Property rights did not apply.

      The ambiguity of this passage is found in "if he remains alive". The word here "amad" properly means to stand or remain. As far as i can see it is never used in the sense of unconscious in a coma or even bed ridden, The english alive is supplied by translators and is not a hebrew word translated. So if the slave is killed regardless of who started it the law calls for the death of the master and in cases where the slave MIGHT have succumbed to something else the law requires leniency on the death penalty.

      The whole - this is about the right of a master to beat his slave in the middle of a chapter talking about physical altercations of all shapes and people is just a read in to the text arising out of other experiences with slavery (particularly southern American brutality). No one back then could control a beating so that the person died only two plus days later so the idea that a slave owner felt free to beat his slaves within death is nonsense. he was putting himself under penalty of death AND losing his investment.

      P.S. I am very much aware of skeptics such as yourself being so lazy you claim examining the context and the language is fudging the text.
      Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-07-2015, 09:07 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Hey Gary. See if you can read this without mentally collapsing. (Well collapsing further.)
        http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sommer01.php
        Dear Readers:

        I nor any other skeptic will ever "stump" Christian apologists. No matter what discrepancy or error I or anyone else points out in the Christian holy book, Christians will have a ready resolution or "harmonization" for why there is no real contradiction or discrepancy. Why? Answer: Because they have had two thousand years sitting around in monasteries or seminary study halls to come up with them! For instance, any sixth grader can read the first two chapters of Genesis and see that the two chapters describe two completely different creation stories. Only someone for whom the Bible MUST be true, will not see this. In addition, once science and medicine discover that the literal interpretation of a particular Bible passage is false, Christians suddenly take the position that they never believed the literal interpretation to have been true from the beginning.

        Dear people, PLEASE look past the smoke and mirrors of Christians "experts" and see Christianity for what it is: one big, supernatural, fairy tale written by ancient, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant people.

        You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated. You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense! Don't fall for the "spin" that you can't know anything without reading "experts" books on this tall tale. Tall tales are tall tales. They are not real. You do not need to study tall tales.



        From my opening statement in my debate with Nick, I have repeatedly stated that it is unnecessary for skeptics to read dozens of books by Christian "apologists". Why: Because the Christian story is a fairy tale, and fairy tales are not real.
        Last edited by Gary; 09-07-2015, 09:17 PM.

        Comment


        • Yep. So we Christians must read everything Gary wants us to.

          Gary will not read anything that challenges his worldview.

          What a pathetic coward.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Yep. So we Christians must read everything Gary wants us to.

            Gary will not read anything that challenges his worldview.

            What a pathetic coward.
            I have read plenty regarding early Church history and early Christian beliefs, but there is no more need for me to read about virgin births, virgin-impregnating ghosts, or dead body reanimations than there is to read about the reality of unicorns and leprechauns. They are stupid, superstitious assertions that don't warrant one SECOND of my time or that of any other skeptic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated.
              or that everything comes out of nothing, or there are multiverses outside our own, or complex biological life assembles itself or energy and matter just exist because they exist and have no precursor, or that chance or accidents are real.

              Just thought I would round out claims of supernatural events that skeptics appeal to as well. Thank me later ;)


              You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense!

              and yet all of the things that are the alternatives of skeptics are of the same essence. resistance is futile

              You do not need to study tall tales.
              Thank you I have been telling people that for years about abiogenesis, multiverses to escape the implication of fine tuning and appealing to infinities without intelligence.

              In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person. You probably are not aware of that because you haven't thought much.
              Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-07-2015, 10:04 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                Hey Gary. See if you can read this without mentally collapsing. (Well collapsing further.)
                http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sommer01.php
                It's too long for him to read. And he might think it's okay for him to argue by weblink.
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  I have read plenty regarding early Church history and early Christian beliefs, but there is no more need for me to read about virgin births, virgin-impregnating ghosts, or dead body reanimations than there is to read about the reality of unicorns and leprechauns. They are stupid, superstitious assertions that don't warrant one SECOND of my time or that of any other skeptic.
                  And your wordview is just as ridiculous to us as your strawman view of our worldview is to you! Silly hominid!
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                    or that everything comes out of nothing, or there are multiverses outside our own, or complex biological life assembles itself or energy and matter just exist because they exist and have no precursor, or that chance or accidents are real.

                    Just thought I would round out claims of supernatural events that skeptics appeal to as well. Thank me later ;)





                    and yet all of the things that are the alternatives of skeptics are of the same essence. resistance is futile



                    Thank you I have been telling people that for years about abiogenesis, multiverses to escape the implication of fine tuning and appealing to infinities without intelligence.

                    In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person. You probably are not aware of that because you haven't thought much.
                    "In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person."

                    No. Ask the overwhelming majority of scientists: There is no need to assume the supernatural is the cause of anything. There is no need to jump to the conclusion that a "ghost god done it" just because we do not yet know the answer to all of life's mysteries. We simply say, "We don't know the answer...yet" and leave it at that.

                    At one time thunder, lightning, and comets were deemed to be the acts of a God simply because humans didn't have enough information to know that there are natural causes for these events. We may one day learn the answer to "where did everything come from" but until we do, we do NOT need to assume that there is a supernatural cause. Time and time again in human history we have discovered that what we thought are supernatural events are simply natural acts of nature.
                    Last edited by Gary; 09-07-2015, 11:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                      And your wordview is just as ridiculous to us as your strawman view of our worldview is to you! Silly hominid!
                      Your fundamentalist, literalist world view is a minority. Even a large segment of Christianity has abandoned the belief in a bodily resurrection and a virgin birth. Your positions are considered by most educated people to be silly nonsense.

                      Comment


                      • Drink!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Your fundamentalist, literalist world view is a minority. Even a large segment of Christianity has abandoned the belief in a bodily resurrection and a virgin birth. Your positions are considered by most educated people to be silly nonsense.
                          A belief in the bodily Resurrection is ontologically necessary to be a Christian, you dimwit.
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary
                            You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated. You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense! Don't fall for the "spin" that you can't know anything without reading "experts" books on this tall tale. Tall tales are tall tales. They are not real. You do not need to study tall tales.
                            You have a couple of problems with this assertion.
                            First and foremost - the people of that time were as much aware of these matters as anyone today is.
                            Second - the unbelieving people of that time found the claims as ludicrous as you yourself do.
                            Third - It only takes the acceptance of one miracle as verified beyond reasonable doubt to know that the natural order can be circumvented.
                            Fourth - There is a preponderance of evidence in support of the claim that miracles, beyond reasonable doubt, do occur.
                            Fifth - The nature of the miracle is irrelevant: if the natural order can be suborned, that is sufficient supporting evidence for the occurrence of other miracles, however outlandish those miracles might seem. It remains however, that claims of miracles cannot be accepted just because the claim is made.
                            Sixth - Once it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that miracles occur, no number of scholars declaiming the fact will have any influence on a reasonable person: the scholars are known to be arguing from a position of ignorance.

                            You haven't made anything like a good case for the idea that miracles don't occur, though you have gone a little way toward demonstrating that there are some who will fake the capacity to perform them. There are fake doctors, police, and researchers of all sorts. Their existence has no bearing on the possibility of real doctors, police, and researchers.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 09-07-2015, 11:35 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                            Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

                            "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              A belief in the bodily Resurrection is ontologically necessary to be a Christian, you dimwit.
                              Only to a fundamentalist.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                You have a couple of problems with this assertion.
                                First and foremost - the people of that time were as much aware of these matters as anyone today is.
                                Second - the unbelieving people of that time found the claims as ludicrous as you yourself do.
                                Third - It only takes the acceptance of one miracle as verified beyond reasonable doubt to know that the natural order can be circumvented.
                                Fourth - There is a preponderance of evidence in support of the claim that miracles, beyond reasonable doubt, do occur.
                                Fifth - The nature of the miracle is irrelevant: if the natural order can be suborned, that is sufficient supporting evidence for the occurrence of other miracles, however outlandish those miracles might seem. It remains however, that claims of miracles cannot be accepted just because the claim is made.
                                Sixth - Once it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that miracles occur, no number of scholars declaiming the fact will have any influence on a reasonable person: the scholars are known to be arguing from a position of ignorance.

                                You haven't made anything like a good case for the idea that miracles don't occur, though you have gone a little way toward demonstrating that there are some who will fake the capacity to perform them. There are fake doctors, police, and researchers of all sorts. Their existence has no bearing on the possibility of real doctors, police, and researchers.
                                You are delusional, Tabby.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X