(October 29, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Drich Wrote: So are we all ready for chapter 2?

Certainly not you.  You still think chapter 1 is real.

The bible makes for great bird cage liner.

Hey, birds need something to read when they shit, too.

(October 29, 2015 at 4:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, birds need something to read when they shit, too.

Right, but shouldn't they at least be reading something of quality? Like Marmaduke or something?

(October 29, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 4:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, birds need something to read when they shit, too.

Right, but shouldn't they at least be reading something of quality? Like Marmaduke or something?

My parrot prefers Ziggy

(October 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 11:20 am)Irrational Wrote: Paul was living quite a privileged life to be honest. Who exactly had the power and will to torture him at the time? The Romans didn't care back then, did they?

Paul was a wandering tent maker and a roman citizen in civil life. The only people that had the authority to detain a citizen had to do so under the authority of Rome. Paul even uses his status to circumvent a kangaroo court/trial in one instance, but could not escape capture and persecution by rome. Towards the end of his life Rome took a very hostile view against Christianity, and imprisioned, flogged, and executed Christians because they were viewed as enemies of the state, because most officals did not understand the religion fully, but feared the rapid growth. That is why ALL of the Apostles were eventually executed except John, who was banished to the prison Island of Patmos for the rest of his life. They all died in very bad ways as to serve as a warning to others.

Ok, suppose it's true that he was beheaded (Hard to tell if this was true or not), what exactly is special about that again? If he had schizophrenia and truly believed his views (even though they're not true), he would've still let himself be executed.

Lots of people out there who are ready to die for all sorts of beliefs. This isn't something exclusive to Christians.

Not more of this die for a lie shit? How many times!

Something doesn't have to be a lie to be untrue. People can be mistaken. And when you're mistaken, you don't know you're mistaken, because you're mistaken. It's only a lie when you deliberately mislead someone. Why do some people think no one from that era could ever be mistaken?

What this broken argument is sneakily trying to say is no one would die for a falsehood. That's not the same thing, as it assumes everyone is aware at all times which of their beliefs are actually true. This is clearly not the case, and can never be the case.

(October 30, 2015 at 4:16 am)robvalue Wrote: Not more of this die for a lie shit? How many times!

Something doesn't have to be a lie to be untrue. People can be mistaken. And when you're mistaken, you don't know you're mistaken, because you're mistaken. It's only a lie when you deliberately mislead someone. Why do some people think no one from that era could ever be mistaken?

What this broken argument is sneakily trying to say is no one would die for a falsehood. That's not the same thing, as it assumes everyone is aware at all times which of their beliefs are actually true. This is clearly not the case, and can never be the case.

At least in the case of the death and resurrection of Jesus, I think that a mistake is unlikely.  Remember, that the distinction that is being made  is not just what is believed to be true, but people who are claiming to have seen what they are reporting.  Jesus death was public, and it is likely Romans would have ensured that the sentence was carried out.  Also in that culture, you didn't send a dead body to a funeral home, so those closest to him, would have personally prepared the body for burial.  As to the resurrection, what is going to lead to mistakes is a lack of familiarity, proximity, or time.  I don't think that any of these are lacking in the account of Jesus's resurrection that would allow for the claim that they where just mistaken.  There are also multiple testimonies so multiple people would need to be mistaken in the same way.

Why do you think that they where mistaken?  

I agree that people can be mistaken about what they believe.  And that we may/do not know when we are mistaken.   But I don't think that gives us license to just assume that what we do not want to believe is a mistake.  If that where the case, and I didn't want to believe the genome comparisons show's 95-98% similarity between humans and chimps, then I might assume a mistake was made, and come up with a story that what was really compared was Chip's DNA who is a bartender on the corner.   So humans are really 95-99% similar to Chip the bartender and not chimpanzee's. However, I have no support or evidence for my story, and it is not a matter of reason, but my not wanting to accept the evidence.

It is way more likely they were mistaken, or just plain made it up. People get mistaken all the time. They also make things up all the time.

It was also written by non-eye witnesses 30 years after the event, so they didn't see anything. They heard rumours.

(October 30, 2015 at 7:51 am)robvalue Wrote: It is way more likely they were mistaken, or just plain made it up. People get mistaken all the time. They also make things up all the time.

It was also written by non-eye witnesses 30 years after the event, so they didn't see anything. They heard rumours.

Why?  Do you have any support for your assertions here?