Originally posted by robrecht
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostNeither. I'm merely saying that Paul and later gospel writers used some terms differently.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View Post
What proof do you have that Paul believed that the resurrected body was the reconstituted and Spirit-vivified bones and flesh of the dead believer and not a new "spiritual body", that has the outward appearance of the former earthly body, that will arise out of their graves?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWell, then I guess it comes down to the intentions of the OP. Are they here to engage and learn, maybe even challenge their own knowledge prowess about the subject, or are they here just to rant and rave and spew anti-Christian polemics? Like I said, in regards to the latter, been there done that; it's boring.
This thread is under the category of "Apologetics": reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
It is not under one of the Christian threads restricted to Christians; to discuss prayer requests or other intra-Christian topics. I am here presenting an argument against the probability of the central claim of Christianity: supernaturalism. I am here to present an argument in favor of reason and science, over resurrected dead bodies; levitating dead bodies; water-walking bodies, etc. I am not hear to learn the philosophical and theological intricacies of these supernatural/magical beliefs. I am here to prove these beliefs as very, very highly improbable, and because they are so highly improbable, that no educated, rational person should believe them to be any more real than the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI think this is why general evangelism is so ineffective. I'd wager this board is full of former Christians who got the standard sales pitch. It's easy for some Christians to think themselves true evangelists by giving the boring boilerplate rather than getting their hands dirty and presenting viable belief options. Few of them would know how to effectively convey the Primacy of Christ view (or even know what it is) for example. There's a lack of sophistication in the mission field, and I think that explains the rise in skepticism. This is my humble opinion based on lots of observation and reading.
Dear Christian friends: Imagine if the Mayans still followed their ancient religion and believed the following: Although they do not perform any human sacrifices today, they honor and justify the human sacrifices done in the past as necessary, good, and holy. These sacrificed humans appeased the anger of God, giving the Mayan people the forgiveness of their evil doings against God. In other words, the shed blood of the tens of thousands of people who were sacrificed on Mayan alters for hundreds/thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Spanish atoned for the sins of the Mayan people.
How beautiful, right?
"What??" you say. "That is sick and barbaric!"
But dear Christians, have you ever stepped back and examined the underlying principles of your own (primitive) belief system? The Christian belief system can be boiled down to this:
"The Creator God was furious that humans ate his forbidden fruit. He cursed them to hard labor, sickness, suffering, and death. However, to redeem humans from his righteous fury for forbidden-fruit-eating, he sent himself, in the form of his Son, to be killed in a human sacrifice, so that his shed blood would atone for the sins of the entire people, thus appeasing the anger of...himself."
That is absurd, folks! That is crazier and more nonsensical than the beliefs of the Maya!
And imagine if educated Mayans came up with all sorts of philosophical and varied theological constructs for this core belief. What if there is an orthodox verison, a reformed version, and an evangelical version. Wouldn't you listen to these educated people chatter away about which version of this human sacrifice based belief system is correct and think to yourself: These people are certifiably NUTS!
That is how we former Christians/now agnostics or atheists see YOU.
It is madness, folks. Sheer madness. You can dress Christianity up with all kinds of fancy philosophical constructs, but bottom line: It is a belief system based on human sacrifice!Last edited by Gary; 02-13-2016, 03:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAre you sure the two are perfectly synonymous? It was my understanding that what you refer to as "Holy Spirit epistemology" is simply to do with the self-authentication of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, while Reformed Theology is the view that belief in God is properly basic. I can see how there's overlap between the two, but maybe you're more read up on the subject. Also, it's my understanding that Plantinga and Craig have slightly different views on Reformed Theology, which I suppose makes sense since Plantinga is a Calvinist and Craig is a Molinist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostLet me address this complaint.
This thread is under the category of "Apologetics": reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
It is not under one of the Christian threads restricted to Christians; to discuss prayer requests or other intra-Christian topics. I am here presenting an argument against the probability of the central claim of Christianity: supernaturalism. I am here to present an argument in favor of reason and science, over resurrected dead bodies; levitating dead bodies; water-walking bodies, etc. I am not hear to learn the philosophical and theological intricacies of these supernatural/magical beliefs. I am here to prove these beliefs as very, very highly improbable, and because they are so highly improbable, that no educated, rational person should believe them to be any more real than the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostThere are no viable belief options to orthodox/traditional Christianity. It is certainly viable (reasonable and rational) to be a Christian in the sense that you follow the humanistic and pacifist teachings of Jesus the man. But there are no reasonable and rational belief options regarding Jesus Christ the offspring of the copulation (allegedly in some non-sexual, non-physical manner) between a divine ghost and a human virgin; the reanimated-from-the-dead man/god, who currently rules the universe from somewhere in outer space (or in another dimension, if you are really avant garde.)
Dear Christian friends: Imagine if the Mayans still followed their ancient religion and believed the following: Although they do not perform any human sacrifices today, they honor and justify the human sacrifices done in the past as necessary, good, and holy. These sacrificed humans appeased the anger of God, giving the Mayan people the forgiveness of their evil doings against God. In other words, the shed blood of the tens of thousands of people who were sacrificed on Mayan alters for hundreds/thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Spanish atoned for the sins of the Mayan people.
How beautiful, right?
"What??" you say. "That is sick and barbaric!"
But dear Christians, have you ever stepped back and examined the underlying principles of your own (primitive) belief system? The Christian belief system can be boiled down to this:
"The Creator God was furious that humans ate his forbidden fruit. He cursed them to hard labor, sickness, suffering, and death. However, to redeem humans from his righteous fury for forbidden-fruit-eating, he sent himself, in the form of his Son, to be killed in a human sacrifice, so that his shed blood would atone for the sins of the entire people, thus appeasing the anger of...himself."
That is absurd, folks! That is crazier and more nonsensical than the beliefs of the Maya!
And imagine if educated Mayans came up with all sorts of philosophical and varied theological constructs for this core belief. What if there is an orthodox verison, a reformed version, and an evangelical version. Wouldn't you listen to these educated people chatter away about which version of this human sacrifice based belief system is correct and think to yourself: These people are certifiably NUTS!
That is how we former Christians/now agnostics or atheists see YOU.
It is madness, folks. Sheer madness. You can dress Christianity up with all kinds of fancy philosophical constructs, but bottom line: It is a belief system based on human sacrifice!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostWhat proof do you have that Paul believed that the resurrected body was the reconstituted and Spirit-vivified bones and flesh of the dead believer and not a new "spiritual body", that has the outward appearance of the former earthly body, that will arise out of their graves?Last edited by Adrift; 02-13-2016, 04:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostThey aren't, and I shouldn't have said that. They are related. Craig's view is based on Plantinga's points, such as self authentication being akin to the beliefs of Dufrense from Shawshank Redemption who knows epistemelogically (reliably) that he's not guilty of his wife's murder. Craig uses that example to compare the feelings of "theistic belief" surety to the certitude an innocent convict feels. I can't find the reference, but I could look for it if you want. Could be an interesting conversation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI'm curious, have you actually read any of Plantinga or Craig's books on this subject, or is this all just from bits and pieces you've gleaned from webpages?
Let's say I hadn't though. In terms of comprehending what these things are, what fundamental part am I misunderstanding about religious epistemelogical certitude and how it's arrived at?
The part about Dufrense was from a blog, I believe, although Plantinga used a more generic term rather than a character from a movie.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI don't really see how your question follows directly from anything I wrote, or cited from Witherington. But you've claimed to have read N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God; So why don't you tell me?
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostYou're like a synthesized, automated Richard Dawkins. All the phrases are recycled from his lexicon. You should at least try to emulate the braver and more linguistically superior Christopher Hitchens or Thomas Paine. I think they were more respectful, but I may be wrong. I'm not a student of any skeptic orator.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostNo, but I don't think one needs to read both books to understand the subject of the inner witness.
Let's say I hadn't though. In terms of comprehending what these things are, what fundamental part am I misunderstanding about religious epistemelogical certitude and how it's arrived at?
What indeed?...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
230 responses
1,124 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:44 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment