Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 8, 2024, 7:42 am

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 25, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(June 25, 2015 at 12:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: So where does evidence come in?

From God where else[?]

[...]

From reality, for those who aren't addle-brained.

Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 25, 2015 at 11:01 am)Godschild Wrote:
(June 24, 2015 at 10:43 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

This is proof of what, maybe your ability not to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

Someone please tell me we have a Hall of Irony here, oh god my sides.
[Image: bbb59Ce.gif]

(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 26, 2015 at 3:34 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote:
(June 25, 2015 at 11:01 am)Godschild Wrote: This is proof of what, maybe your ability not to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

Someone please tell me we have a Hall of Irony here, oh god my sides.

Make one! This would be a decent start.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 25, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(June 25, 2015 at 11:25 am)Tonus Wrote: There really is no emotion that would favor the devil's offer.  Even stuff that isn't practical would favor taking god's offer.  Any story where so few people make such a clear and obvious choice has to be suspect.  It goes against everything we know about ourselves as a species and as individuals.
You must not pay much attention to what's going on in the world, it's money, wealth, things, all the things Satan would have use to pay attention to, why, so we will be distracted from God. He pulled this on Eve, he told he of the great wealth of knowledge she would gain, again and again greed.
I am unaware of anyone today who had it made clear to him by god and satan that they both exist and that they have something to offer. Eve, for example, knew god personally and spoke with the serpent directly. If she understood the stakes, she chose a path which she knew would lead to her death. The Israelites who were freed from bondage by god saw his hand in action directly. They knew what god offered and what he was capable of. Jesus' disciples knew him personally and saw him in action. They knew who god was and what he could and would do.

Even Christians today do not claim to experience god or Jesus in this manner. If people are driven by certain desires --that often can be identified as evolutionary traits-- in the absence of any gods, that makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is when people who knew god --on the basis that the Biblical characters did-- nonetheless make decisions that can only possibly end badly, when the only other option was the best possible outcome ever. Unless they were clinically insane or abysmally stupid, there is no way they make such a bad choice.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Man, it's like GC never read Genesis 2:17, which is the only warning god gave Adam and Eve about eating the Fruit. "Don't eat it, or even touch it, or you shall surely die." The warning makes it seem that the Fruit itself will kill them, not god as a result of exiling them and cursing them.

Regarding their naivety, their sudden lack of naivety in all of chapter 3 is what tipped god off that they ate the Fruit.

So, again, the point remains - god created a horribly designed garden. He didn't baby proof it at all, and he blames the baby for what happened. Not an entity I would willingly follow.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Good thing you're using a minimal facts approach since there are so few facts in evidence for the claims being made.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 26, 2015 at 2:01 am)Godschild Wrote: Why do you think Adam and Eve were naked?

Because god likes to watch?
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 25, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(June 25, 2015 at 12:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: So where does evidence come in?

From God where else, it's a personal relationship, God deals with each one who accepts his Son in ways that benefit them.

GC

This is not evidence, even by the loosest definition of the term.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
QUOTE

Quote:"7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons"
So got "invented man woman and Janome sewing machines (with the builtin apron pattern) at the same time!
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 26, 2015 at 11:43 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Man, it's like GC never read Genesis 2:17, which is the only warning god gave Adam and Eve about eating the Fruit.  "Don't eat it, or even touch it, or you shall surely die."  The warning makes it seem that the Fruit itself will kill them, not god as a result of exiling them and cursing them.

Regarding their naivety, their sudden lack of naivety in all of chapter 3 is what tipped god off that they ate the Fruit.

So, again, the point remains - god created a horribly designed garden.  He didn't baby proof it at all, and he blames the baby for what happened.  Not an entity I would willingly follow.

You opened yourself for this so take it and shut up. Eve's the one who added to God's commandment the words "even touch it," God never said that, so now we know who lives by the hearsay and not by actually reading the Bible, what a dope you have made of yourself, thanks for the opportunity to vent a little. A good weekend to you.

GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 3496 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 9316 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 20691 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 17825 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 13379 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 41918 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 29761 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 20745 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 383614 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 7859 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)