you get what you deserve when all you offer for proof is "i believe.." "i feel.." etc. or quote bible. give us tangible proof or reasonable argument and you'll get respect. quote bible or preach and we'll kick your ass. darkhorse, you got anything to offer up in support of your god, i'd like to hear it. i am willing to listen and consider reasoned arguments. but no bible thumping or pulpit preaching please. give an atheist reason to believe!
That is the problem with you LS...you don't read what i say in full...you take one piece and take it out of context...you say you want proof, but in reality, all you will accept is a picture....You will not even accept the fact the Jesus Christ as a lving man ...which even the jews will acknowledge he lived but they do not believe he was the son of God...which is fine, but you do not believe in written works of him or anything esle in the bible....but i must say, judging by your standards, many things are debatable...for instance, did Henry the 8th exist? did Augusta Caesar rule? there is little or no proof of that if we apply your burden of proof..same can be said for many fo the great scholars and philosophers of all time....so what is the standard or burden of proof you will accept and will it be applied to all things including science?
ok, if you are serious, let's start here: i need a reasoned argument supporting your notion that jesus christ is a supernatural being and not merely mortal man or myth. let's hear it....
I read yesterday on the historical evidence of Christ and learned some things I hadn't thought of before. The church that He inspired started almost immediately after His death. There were lots of baptisms going on and meetings were happening everywhere and growing. The people that were baptized and were attending those meetings were alive when He was and could easily have witnessed Him. If they had their doubts about His authenticity as a living human then why did their numbers grow so fast and the church spread as far and as fast as it did. The people who accepted Him were going against their religious leaders and culture and faced some danger in taking their new stand. The apostles all died martyrs and still didn't renounce Him. Other religions have been based on mythical characters but in nearly all cases it took many decades or even centuries to get started when the character was either long gone or never existed. In Christs case there were tons of witnesses around to set the record straight.
Wow! This thread experienced a meltdown like I' haven't seen in awhile on et. Anyway, I'll be glad to respond to anything YOU write. You have toned things down drastically and will give me an occasional jab or insult, but I feel that I don't have to worry about you suddenly blashpheming God or resorting to the 'yo mama' crap... And, yes, I'll try not to fragment the thread. But I've read a lot about this stuff and so I reserve the right to occasionally bring up something that I think is relevant to other parts of the thread. I disagree that this thread exists entirely in isolation. That's mostly true but not always entirely... You asked why I did not respond to axeman: it's because of his name. He clearly has an axe to grind and I've lived through two of his cussing and swearing and blaspheming sessions against God and I'm done with it. I don't care if he's the reincarnation of Thomas Huxley, I'm not listening to it anymore. You don't have my worldview and so you cannot imagine how offensive that is. If he had insulted me, I could probably have lived with that... So you've expressed interest in discussing Genesis and the "bus incident". Which do you want to try first? Also: if I seem oblivious to what some other people are saying, it's probably because I am: I have several people on ignore.
I do not hold the notion the Jesus Christ is a supernatural being...I believe he is the son of man...but if you want to start a serious discussion , I would like to focus on the things he said rather then the things he did. The reason? You do not believe because you were not there so it would be waste of time. referring to Jesus's teaching....he was so ahead of ANYONE of that time or this for that matter..Have you read any of his words? Seriously? When a whore was chased down in the street he came to her aid and picked up a stone as the others had to throw at her...He asked " let those who are without sin be the first to cast the stone"....they all walked away.....think of how many common phrases of today come from his words? the example above, turn the other cheek, the good samaritan ect
"..a world in which natural wills were exercised but had no reverberating effect on others, including those technically undeserving of that effect, would be an impossible one..." This still fails to dismiss the negligent god case. Review my example of allowing the kids to fall off the cliff as you stand idly by and prevent the deadly trap. An evil man created this trap to kill the children. Another man, perceives the danger, sees the kids coming, steps in the way, and yells "STOP!! Its a trap", thus preventing the children from falling to their deaths. Did this man just somehow NIX the evil mans free will? Of course not. God could do the VERY same thing. If the good man was not around, and god appeared in front of the doorway and yelled "STOP!! Its a trap", thus preventing the children from falling to their deaths, this does not somehow magically cause the evil mans free will to disappear. God is playing the role of moral third person, just like the good man. He did not CONTROL anyone's decision making process in any way. Everyone involved STILL had free will. And yet, evil was still diverted. If god, knowingly sits idly by in situations like these, where free will is not affected, and innocents die, where he could easily play the role of a third party, then I can only conclude that he is not there or not moral, or powerless. peace axeman
If god, knowingly sits idly by in situations like these, where free will is not affected, and innocents die, where he could easily play the role of a third party, then I can only conclude that he is not there or not moral, or powerless. peace axeman _____________________________________________ Isn't it partly a matter of timimg. If He stepped in every time an innocent was going to die then there would be no death ever of innocents. Since all must die, then the question is when as, there are only two real alternatives, now or later. So the problem for God may be to prevent now and allow later or allow now.
When a police officer prevents your death NOW, by shooting the criminal that is about to shoot you in the head, THAT does not seem to be a problem right? So the problem for THE POLICE OFFICER may be to prevent now and allow later or allow now. Notice... if the police officer did NOT prevent your death NOW, and stood idly by, and let the criminal take your life, he would be in deep shit. There is no problem. The police officer and god should do the moral thing and prevent your death. God could stop the bullet in midair for example, or a put a magic force field around you. In both cases, the criminal still had the free will of CHOICE to pull the trigger and shoot at you. peace axeman