(February 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Some of us atheists are nicer than others, but like any group.

I don't think Min was that out of line: Disciplus' post was terribly condescending.

Speaking of, I've got a question for you, Disc: what convinced you to believe. So far, all we've gotten out of you is the assertion that you have evidence, and speculation as to what people you've never met from another culture might have done, but you've yet to present anything real. Why not do that?

(February 24, 2014 at 7:45 pm)discipulus Wrote: Nice try. I commend you.

But alas...

Jesus was the Lamb of God who was slain. Christ I believe will always bear those marks in His wrists and His feet and His side so that we will always remember what an awesome sacrifice He made for us.

It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!!

None of the zombies in Matthew 27:52-53 were Christians.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 8:00 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think we're chasing down a red herring. The issue isn't that George A Romero-style zombies lurched around; it's that people known to be dead came back to life and interacted with friends and relatives. Why did nobody outside the story write this down? How did that news not make it back to Rome?

Most N.T. scholars posit that since Matthew labels these resurrected people as "saints", that these were more than likely godly men and women that lived during the O.T.

If this indeed were the case, no one alive at the time would have recognized them because no one alive would have been alive when these "saints" had been alive.

But let me be charitable Stimbo. Let us posit that these "saints" were people who had recently died and were therefore recognizable to those who had known them....

How many Romans do you think were personally acquainted with these "saints"? Remember now, Rome was a pagan empire. Romans in general did not associate with those "strange Jewish folk". How many Romans do you think would have known these "saints" well enough to say: "Hey look! Over there! That is old Sam walking around, I knew him from Synagogue!!! He died ten years ago, now look at him! He is just as jubilant and full of energy as he was the day he slipped on the marble stairs and busted his head open!!"

I think you get my point.....

Come on Stimbo think about it.....

And even if I grant that the above was probable, what do you think the Roman intellectuals and politicians and historians would have said if one of their fellow Romans ran up to them and said: "Gee whiz! I just saw a man I knew. His name was Sam. Ten years ago he slipped on the marble stairs and busted his head open and died. Guess what guys???? I just SAW HIM WALKIN AROUND AND HE SAID HEY TO ME!!!!"

If you people treat me with polite disdain because I mention the supernatural, what do you think their response would have been????????


"Oh Oh hurry Tom, go get the stylus and tablet, we have to write this in the history books!!!!!!!!!"

No Stimbo....no

You and I both know it.

What's the point of writing that they "appeared to many" if no one knew who the zombies were? Were Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel some of the zombies? If so, what would be the point if no one knew who they were? I hope they didn't stink like Lazarus.

(February 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm)discipulus Wrote: News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

We don't rely entirely on the testimony of reporters to "prove" that 9/11 was an actual thing that happened. If the only "evidence" of an attack on the World Trade Center was a handful of inconsistent, if not contradictory, stories told by a tiny group of people who swore to God they saw it all happen, would you believe them based just on that? If your behavior was consistent, you would have to.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 8:38 pm)discipulus Wrote: I thank you for giving me the chance to show you that I care for you. I am seeing what real love really is. It can never be defeated by any amount of hate.

Quote:I will be here to take whatever you can throw at me and when you are finished I will have my arms opened wide to you as a friend.

(February 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: But why is it reported that way?

Apparently, 'god' is a little shaky on details!

Which is one of those convenient ways to dodge the problem. Claim that god "inspired" the Bible in order to give it the weight of authority. Then claim that he did so via "fallible men" to paper over the confusing and/or contradictory passages. Presto! The Bible is a perfect document for leading men to god, except when it isn't, but that's okay!

---

(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: If that is how you see it. In my sight their divergence in details lends credibility to their accounts. It would be mighty suspicious if all four men recorded every single event exactly the same. I am sure some here would charge them with conspiring together if this had been the case!!!!

"It is a conspiracy, they copied one another!!!!" would be the charge then.....

Some people cannot be satisfied it seems.... hock:

That works both ways, though. If the accounts vary, you can say that it makes them seem more credible since they are the accounts of various eyewitnesses who may have seen different things from their perspective. If they had been much more consistent, you could say it makes them more credible because the accounts were inspired by god and therefore, would be guided by one perspective.

Some people are perhaps too easily convinced it seems...

---

(February 24, 2014 at 8:00 pm)discipulus Wrote: Most N.T. scholars posit that since Matthew labels these resurrected people as "saints", that these were more than likely godly men and women that lived during the O.T.

If this indeed were the case, no one alive at the time would have recognized them because no one alive would have been alive when these "saints" had been alive.

Then how did Matthew figure out that this happened, when no one else --absolutely no one else!-- seems to have? We are left with a bit of a conundrum: a bunch of the saints of old were resurrected and wandered into town. Did no one recognize them? If so, what happened next? Did they just assimilate into the local town or province as if nothing happened? Did they try to convince people they were the saints of old and perhaps suffer mockery and execution as a result? Did they ever dispense any words of wisdom? I guess not.

They came to life, "appeared to many people" and then disappeared in puffs of dust or something. Nothing notable comes of this "sign" from god. That is very, very weird, isn't it?

(February 25, 2014 at 5:19 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm)discipulus Wrote: News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

We don't rely entirely on the testimony of reporters to "prove" that 9/11 was an actual thing that happened. If the only "evidence" of an attack on the World Trade Center was a handful of inconsistent, if not contradictory, stories told by a tiny group of people who swore to God they saw it all happen, would you believe them based just on that? If your behavior was consistent, you would have to.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 8:38 pm)discipulus Wrote: I thank you for giving me the chance to show you that I care for you. I am seeing what real love really is. It can never be defeated by any amount of hate.

Quote:I will be here to take whatever you can throw at me and when you are finished I will have my arms opened wide to you as a friend.

I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether the WTC attack actually happened the same way I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether or not the events recorded in the gospels actually happened. In this way my methodology is consistent.

(February 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm)discipulus Wrote: I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether the WTC attack actually happened the same way I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether or not the events recorded in the gospels actually happened. In this way my methodology is consistent.

You saw pictures of Jesus ministering on the news? Now you're just flat out lying. You do not use the same standards of evidence with current events.

(February 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm)discipulus Wrote: I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether the WTC attack actually happened the same way I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether or not the events recorded in the gospels actually happened. In this way my methodology is consistent.

You saw pictures of Jesus ministering on the news? Now you're just flat out lying. You do not use the same standards of evidence with current events.

Constructing a strawman and then attacking it is a logical fallacy.

I never said I saw pictures of Jesus on the news ministering to people nor did I claim to use the same standards of evidence with current events. In fact, your last sentence is hard to even understand. Maybe you should rephrase it?

Lets face it... the bible was written by primative people that had no sense of pretty much anything.. The bible is not accurate. The bible cause/d people to do f-ed up things. The bible has poetry. The bible is the most sold book ever, but not most read.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:31 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Some of us atheists are nicer than others, but like any group.

I don't think Min was that out of line: Disciplus' post was terribly condescending.

Speaking of, I've got a question for you, Disc: what convinced you to believe. So far, all we've gotten out of you is the assertion that you have evidence, and speculation as to what people you've never met from another culture might have done, but you've yet to present anything real. Why not do that?

Why is it that when I tell an atheist that I love and care for them that the accusation of being condescending is leveled at me?

It has happened before. Not on here, but on another forum.

Would you like to explain to me why you think I am being condescending?

Minimalist said some things to me and I responded to them by saying that no matter what he said about me that I still cared for him.

Why is this a problem for you?

If you can answer that, then I will answer your question.

---

(February 25, 2014 at 7:12 pm)truthBtold Wrote: Lets face it... the bible was written by primative people that had no sense of pretty much anything.. The bible is not accurate. The bible cause/d people to do f-ed up things. The bible has poetry. The bible is the most sold book ever, but not most read.

Lets face it....the bible was written by men of God that had great insight into many things. The bible is accurate. The bible cause/d people to do many wonderful things. The bible has poetry. The bible is the most sold book ever and the most read.

See how easy that is.

Anybody can type words on an internet forum. What makes what you said true and what I said false?

Do you have any arguments or evidence for your views? Or am I just supposed to take what you have said on faith?