(October 27, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 10:04 am)Drich Wrote: Paul was speaking to those who believed traditional jewish beliefs on Resurection. The Saducees taught and believed that their were no resurection. Paul is dispelling this idea with a logical train of thought. It starts with the miricals the Apstoles could do. They attributed those works directly to God. Now if they were not of God then God would not support their ministry with the signs and wonders that He did. That means God also supported their doctrinal ministry as well, which included the resurection. Paul is setting up a retorical question, when he asks this question.

Understandably, 'proof' for them' is not 'proof' for us.

So if you can not wrap your mind around the possiblity of a biblical resurrection because you have tainted it with a disbelief in magic and you assoceiate that word only with magic, then lets take a fresh look.

Let's look at just definations/principles of what is being discussed, and apply them to terms you know and can understand.

So ask yourself is it possible for anyone to die (in any way shape or form) and be brought back to life? Well, yes of course they can. we have all sorts of proceedures and technology that help us do this. (Again remember we are looking to see if it is even physically possible on any scale, or do we cease to exist when clinical death occurs.)

Now take your answer and apply it to the defination of 'resurrection' which is to be brought back to life from the dead, and you have your answer is resurrection possible? Yes it is possible, it is a proven fact. You just have to get past your own limitations you place on God, and what is being discussed.

Once an animal life form is dead, it's dead.  There's no resurrection.  Imagine if the last chicken you ate came back to life as you was eating it.  If an animal is resuscitated then it wasn't dead.  The next time you go to a funeral resurrect the corpse.  You are supposed to be an adult.  Stop believing in zombies and ghosts.  This is the modern world.  Your beliefs belong with dead cave men.  The more you spout them the more you appear to be bat shit crazy.

So your saying once an animal dies no other animal can ever share the exact same DNA profile? That once something has completely died nothing of it can ever be recreated?

Again, open your closed mind. Look past your familiarity with the words used in the bible, and look at what they are actually describing.

We ourselves are on the door step of resurrecting/copying/Cloning our own bodies... How is it then (In your mind) completely out of reach of God?

(October 28, 2015 at 10:52 am)Drich Wrote: We ourselves are on the door step of resurrecting/copying/Cloning our own bodies... How is it then (In your mind) completely out of reach of God?

Because Gaud isn't a thing, Drippy.

(October 28, 2015 at 9:58 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 9:45 am)Drich Wrote: It was commonly believed that the messiah was deliver the jewish people from the Roman authority, and at the time (After jesus before the destruction of the temple) tensions between jews and the romans were high. The romans sought any means to keep the jews under control, and the new christians (who were still considered to be jews by much of rome) were (leadership not the followers at that time) were targets for the Jews and the romans. Which is why Paul was imprisioned so many times beaten and stoned, and ultimatly imprisoned by rome/nero and executed/beheaded.

So if literal flogging, prison, stoning, and being beheaded is not to be considered 'dangerous' by you then on that note I will have to conceed to your point.

I have no complaints about the majority of your reply except for this bit, and only because it's a red herring that doesn't address the original question. You're quite right about the tension between the Romans and the Jews, but that still doesn't make Paul's statements in the epistles, circa 45 CE, automatically or inherently dangerous to him, let alone a "death sentence". We certainly have evidence that, 20 years later, the Christians were being persecuted in places like Rome, on the orders of Emperor Nero who sought to blame their minority for his own actions as a political distraction... many, many Christians were executed in that decade by Nero's orders. 

But that doesn't point to him being in danger from the Romans when he wrote that, nor of the Jews outside the centers of their power in Jerusalem. The Romans were actually known for their tolerance of "wrong" religions that came in from the border provinces, and allowed free practice thereof, so long as you accepted Roman rule. That's why Tacitus makes a derogatory comment about religions coming to Rome to "find their centre", when he is describing the deaths of the Christians Nero had murdered-by-trial.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". - Annals of Tacitus, 15:44

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

Simple question, Was Paul's unwavering dedication to God and his position in the Church the reason Nero had Him Beheaded?

That said I will conceed, at the time Paul wrote romans the danger to him was not as great to being identified as an apostle as it was when he finally died. My point however was he did endure several (Passion of the Christ) style floggings, several stents in prison, being stoned all by Rome, for pushing this religion all between the time the letter was written and when he died 20 years later. Signing his name to this letter and clearly pointing out what he believed made him a threat to rome because Rome decided that this for of judaism was what was causing the civil unrest in that region. Which painted a small target on Paul and it grew till he was beheaded by Nero.

Well I'd say scapegoating is the reason Paul was beheaded, along with a lot of other Christians. Nero was insane. They're no more to blame for the scapegoating and murders than the Jews targeted by the insanity of Hitler and his followers. But, like those Jews, Paul would hardly have renounced the central belief of his identity, even after that scapegoating began.

While I agree with most of what you've written here, recently, I'd say that the willingness to go ahead and self-identify even in the face of danger indicates only the degree of zeal, but is not proof of concept. As we have pointed out in a recent thread, atheists are frequently (and openly) discriminated against in this country, yet many of us "sign our names" and otherwise identify openly as atheists because we believe we are right about this, damn the consequences. Others prefer to fly under the radar. Yet I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider the zealous among us to be evidence that our position is correct, would you?

(October 28, 2015 at 10:42 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 10:10 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes. When a person is lied to, and facts are distorted deliberately to make a point which is not really there, it is hardly surprising that they would question the honesty of the person who lied.

I think it would be loving and merciful to assume that the person is genuinely mistaken and attempt to gently bring them to the truth, rather than call them a liar. Go figure. 


Your position is basically that you treat a person well unless you don't like him for some reason. Pretty low bar.

My position is called the Tit-For-Tat Rule. In short, it means "be altruistic to others until you see they are not playing by the rules, then treat them as they treat you". You can read about it, here.

(October 28, 2015 at 10:52 am)Drich Wrote: We ourselves are on the door step of resurrecting/copying/Cloning our own bodies... How is it then (In your mind) completely out of reach of God?

"God doesn't exist" is a fucking good place to start.

(October 28, 2015 at 10:52 am)Drich Wrote: We ourselves are on the door step of resurrecting/copying/Cloning our own bodies... How is it then (In your mind) completely out of reach of God?

We can clone a human being we have cloned animals there is a moral ethical issue when cloning a human being. The other thing 
is as well the vatican and over all many people would have issue with cloning a human being. We can clone body parts so yeah that's a thing. 
Also god of the bible doesn't exist.

(October 28, 2015 at 11:32 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: My position is called the Tit-For-Tat Rule. In short, it means "be altruistic to others until you see they are not playing by the rules, then treat them as they treat you". You can read about it, here.

Interesting read, particularly:

The most admired standard of behavior, in the West, at least, is the Golden Rule, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone knows its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Almost no one follows it.

So, Sagan agrees that people don't live up to Biblical standards.

(October 28, 2015 at 11:37 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 11:32 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: My position is called the Tit-For-Tat Rule. In short, it means "be altruistic to others until you see they are not playing by the rules, then treat them as they treat you". You can read about it, here.

Interesting read, particularly:

The most admired standard of behavior, in the West, at least, is the Golden Rule, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone knows its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Almost no one follows it.

So, Sagan agrees that people don't live up to Biblical standards.

Sagan is saying what Paul is saying, according to your interpretation. What Sagan goes on to do is question whether the Golden Rule is even all that great of an idea, and why that might be so. You really should read the whole article.

Okay y'all, I have to drive to St. Louis now (2 hours away) for an MRI scan on my injured neck. I'll be gone until this evening. Have fun with the discussions!

-Rocket