(July 19, 2015 at 9:14 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 8:10 am)Stimbo Wrote: And the police say "that's fine and good, Randy, but we have thirteen dead and injured with bullets in their bodies that the ballistics report says came from the gun your wife was recorded on CCTV as firing, as well as her fingerprints on the weapon found in her possession when she was picked up."

Call me when you have anything even accidentally similar to that for your (or any) god.

If you served on the jury and you were presented with such evidence by the prosecutor, you would have no choice but to convict my wife of the crime, would you?

Given such compelling evidence over your "but I know she would never do that", I would have to go where the evidence leads, yes. The fundamental difference between your hypothetical and the resurrection story you're trying to equivocate is that in order for you to do that, you have to turn that physical and forensic evidence into thirteen anonymous dead and injured people who existed solely for the purpose of the story and who disappear without trace afterwards, an empty gun and a jury instructed to come up with an alternative explanation.

(July 19, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Did Lucas claim to be writing history? If we were to throw him in prison and threaten him with death, would he be willing to die rather than deny that Obi-Wan Kenobi rose again (v. being a fictional character in a story he made up from scratch). Lucas would think you were nuts for even asking the question.

Conversely, the gospel writers were not willing to recant their claims that Jesus rose from the dead because they did not believe - they KNEW - that he had risen, and no amount of torture or even death could persuade them to deny it.

None of that was in your five minimal 'facts', so I see no need to include it in mine.

(July 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes, by the thousands, actually. You raise a good point.

Acts 2:41
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

3,000 in one day.

Out of 5-7 million.  My source is archeological records and yours is the bible?  Even so ...  

There is nothing in fucking Acts that is worth the paper it is printed on.  Pure propaganda.  Worthy of Goebbels.

(July 19, 2015 at 2:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -so sayeth Randy's big book of bedtime stories.  I doubt that the authors could -count- that high in the first place.

"1...2....3..er, I mean 1....",  it's a loop yall catholics can't seem to get passed.  You'll never make it to a hundred that way, let alone 3k.

At some point, you may actually interact with the material. I doubt it, but as a Christian, I have hope for you, yet.

(July 19, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: So, just to be clear: would you have any choice but to convict my wife if you saw that evidence against her?

In U.S. courts and other courts from the British tradition,  the jury really has two options and they aren't guilty and not guilty.  They are guilty and not proven.  Legally, juries don't find people innocent, at best they find that the government has failed to prove them guilty.

On the strength of eyewitness testimony alone, with no corroborating physical evidence, I'd find "not proven."  Your knowledge of your wife and the fact that the prosecution hadn't been able to find any physical evidence would add to my comfort in that verdict.   But, add the physical evidence I listed, and it's guilty, guilty, guilty no matter what you think you know about your wife.

So, based upon all the evidence that Stimbo listed, you would have no choice but to convict my wife of the 13 murders.

Fair enough. I would too, if the evidence was strong enough.

But that's just it, Jenny, God is not in the business of FORCING anyone to make a decision based on evidence. That would be coercive.

He provides just enough clues for each soul to find and follow IF you are so inclined, but He does not force Himself upon you.

(July 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes, by the thousands, actually. You raise a good point.

Acts 2:41
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

3,000 in one day.

Out of 5-7 million.  My source is archeological records and yours is the bible?  Even so ...  

And then day two...day three...day four...

Even today, there are only about 14-20 million Jews worldwide. Consequently, I'd have to conclude that God has blessed the Christians mightily over the past 20 centuries while the Jews...not so much.

However, Revelation tells us that the day is coming when Kaninchen and her people will be powerful evangelists for Jesus the Messiah.

Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

Quote: It wasn't "preaching and converting" that spread the faith, it was "rape and pillage".

That's not exactly a fair representation of how it was done though.  Estimates are that 5% of the population were xtian in the early 4th century but the appellation "xtian" conveyed a number of different meanings because there were so many groups which later were classified as "heretical."  The group which supported Constantine were the ones who won and as the 4th century rolled along and the various Roman emperors simply made it impossible for loyal citizens NOT to become xtians.  Of course, many became Arians which was something of an ass-kicking for the proto-orthodox but eventually they were proscribed out of existence.

Among the barbarian tribes in the 4th century the church merely contented itself with getting the various chieftains to call themselves xtians.  They were still the same murdering thugs that they were they day before but that did not matter to the church.  It was all about power.  Among the tribes if theking said he was a xtian then it was treason for any member of the tribe to claim not to be.  It was an effective mechanism perhaps best demonstrated by the massacre of Verdun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

Quote:The Massacre of Verden, Bloodbath of Verden, or Bloody Verdict of Verden (German Blutgericht von Verden) was a massacre of 4,500 captive Saxons in October 782. During the Saxon Wars, the Saxons rebelled against Charlemagne's invasion and subsequent attempts to christianize them from their native Germanic paganism. The massacre is recorded as having occurred in what is now Verden in Lower Saxony, Germany.

We have no idea how many times similar scenes were repeated as the bloody churchies spread their bullshit across Europe.  They controlled the writing and they resisted writing anything which detracted from their holy horseshit.

Would one of the mods delete the duplication.

(July 19, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 9:14 am)Randy Carson Wrote: If you served on the jury and you were presented with such evidence by the prosecutor, you would have no choice but to convict my wife of the crime, would you?

Given such compelling evidence over your "but I know she would never do that", I would have to go where the evidence leads, yes. The fundamental difference between your hypothetical and the resurrection story you're trying to equivocate is that in order for you to do that, you have to turn that physical and forensic evidence into thirteen anonymous dead and injured people who existed solely for the purpose of the story and who disappear without trace afterwards, an empty gun and a jury instructed to come up with an alternative explanation.

Actually, the point I'm driving at is that while you may have evidence that is so compelling that you have no choice to but to convict, God does not offer evidence that forces you to decide one way or the other. The clues are sufficient, but no coercive.

(July 19, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Did Lucas claim to be writing history? If we were to throw him in prison and threaten him with death, would he be willing to die rather than deny that Obi-Wan Kenobi rose again (v. being a fictional character in a story he made up from scratch). Lucas would think you were nuts for even asking the question.

Conversely, the gospel writers were not willing to recant their claims that Jesus rose from the dead because they did not believe - they KNEW - that he had risen, and no amount of torture or even death could persuade them to deny it.

None of that was in your five minimal 'facts', so I see no need to include it in mine.

Incorrect. Point #2 states that the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Either they saw him or they didn't.

If they did, then they knew that He was risen and they never wavered in that conviction.