Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Minimalist]

Yea that's what I thought.

Randy only reads the purported writings of St. Flatulence of Padua.  He was martyred when while trying to lead a group of xtians out of Padua through the sewers he tried to light up a fart to illuminate the way and blew up his own asshole.

[tonechaser77]

See that's just the point Randy. I've read across the lines. I've read Jesus supporters by believers, Jesus supporters by atheists, mythicists and the likes. I don't just read one area and run with it. As I've said at least 3 or 4 times in this thread, I land where the evidence leads and makes most sense.

It's quite obvious that you have not done the same. The fact that you dismiss something without truly studying the subject thoroughly proves that you're just another person presupposing belief and backing into it by cherry picking your works.

You, my friend, are a fraud in the worst degree. It's a shame to watch you regurgitate information that has been disproven time and time again.

[Esquilax]

No, Equislax, in what is quite possibly my last response to you, I'm going to point out that in response to a few idiots who keep trying to say that Eve had NO knowledge of "good" whatsoever prior to eating the apple in a blatant attempt to place ALL the blame for her disobedience on God, I'm saying that Eve was intelligent enough and endowed with sufficient understanding of right and wrong to know that disobeying God was a VERY BAD THING.

Seriously? You're just going to persist in this sophistry? Fine then: Eve had no knowledge of good in the relevant sense, that would equip her with the ability to make an informed decision on the subject. It's the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, after all; if your assertion is that Eve had this knowledge prior to eating the fruit, then what did the fruit confer to her that was any different than what she already knew? It had some effect, the narrative makes that clear, but you're asserting that she was already in possession of what the fruit supposedly confers.

Stop and think for just once, okay? Are you really going to insist that God gave Adam and Eve a command that they could not obey?

You mean like, say, "be free from sin to enter heaven," while simultaneously considering every human to possess original sin, making this impossible?

Yes, yes, Jesus, but: Jesus is a new testament figure, meaning there was a period of a long ass time, in the old testament, in which god truly did give a command that it was impossible to obey. Or does the catholic church no longer accept the doctrine of original sin? It's so hard to tell, what with all that infallible doctrine changing so often.

[Cyberman]

Or you could just simply re-state your "points" is a more carefully worded post to which I might respond.

It's up to you.

Yeah; I'm not your bitch, Randy. It's up to you to make the effort to at least try to understand what is being presented. Which of course you do.

[Minimalist]

I'm going to point out that in response to a few idiots who keep trying to say that Eve had NO knowledge of "good" whatsoever

Er, Randy.  What kind of a fucking idiot keeps thinking that "Eve" was any more real than Mother Goose?  Insisting fairy tales are real is not going to get you anywhere.

[Mr.wizard]

I thought he gave us free will, why would he want us to submit our will to him.

Bingo!

We choose freely to submit our will to God. If we did not have free will, then it would not be called "submission", would it?

Why give us free will and then set up a system that punishes us for using it?

BZZZZ! Oh, I'm sorry...wrong answer. God didn't punish us for "using it". He holds us accountable for using it to choose wrongly. There is no punishment for choosing to be obedient.

Also saying it's an allegory does not solve the moral dilemma that the story creates. It is a system that portrays morality as doing what your told whether or not you even understand why and that in my opinion is not a moral system.

I'm not sure about whether a moral dilemma exists or not, but doing what we have been told works in just about every area of our lives from the time we are small children until we taking our medications in a retirement home like the doctor ordered.

Even in the account of Adam and Eve, God did tell Adam why:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

"Don't eat the fruit, Adam. It will kill you." Sounds like "why" Adam should have obeyed to me.

But on a more serious note, I think it is fair to say that if you were to engage in a serious study of Christianity, you would find more "why" answers to your questions than this brief exchange suggests.

Not when it comes to morality, you really are being told what to do regarding morality from the cradle to the grave? No of course not, we make moral decisions all the time with regards to the reality in which we inhabit, without someone telling us what to do.

So the plan was to give us free will, so we could not use it and submit to gods will and if we didn't we would be punished. Yep that sounds pretty much like what I just said was part of an immoral system in my last post.

Why do you keep putting that god told them they would die in bold? Why would they be worried about death when they don't even know what death is, remember they where the first two people nobody had ever experienced death. Since they had no knowledge of death, good, or evil then laying out this as a consequence would not be a deterrent. Its like telling a dog to "not jump on the couch or I'll shoot you", then we he jumps on the couch and you shoot him, you say, "well I told him I would shoot him but he chose to do it anyway"

[Tonus]

I've never met anyone either, I have been made aware of the fact Satan exists, it comes from God and now by what I see in many people. God has made it abundantly clear He exists in my life and has everything to offer that's good. Satan on the other hand is called the deceiver, he would rather people believe he doesn't exist, it's to his advantage for people to believe this and Satan has nothing to offer, he's now a pawn in God's great plan and he hates it.

If Satan gets what he wants when people aren't able to get close enough to god, then god should foil his plans.  Why give Satan what he wants?

You know what I find really strange about Eve's attitude when she dealt with the serpent, she told him before hand she would die and even added to the commandment from God about toughing the fruit as if to emphasize that she wasn't going to eat it. Seemed to me she knew that no matter what the serpent said she would die if she disobeyed God.

God said they were a stubborn, hardheaded clan and that this attitude would come to bite them, low and behold it did. The great problem the Israelites had was they believed they owned God because He told them they were a special people, they forgot to ask why He considered them special and when God told them they didn't believe what they heard.

That's what I mean.  Even a stubborn person who had seen what they had seen would have had to understand the situation, and why acting against god made no sense.  I may not like that it is raining outside, but if I have to go out I will get my umbrella.  That these people made such bad decisions in light of what they knew is impossible to believe.

Right they had a physical encounter with Christ and understood clearly what God was capable of.

And this is something that is not offered to everyone today.  If the people who experienced Jesus were capable of stumbling or even turning against him, then it means that there is something in our design that leads us to make extraordinarily bad decisions.  If this were the case, then god has deliberately stacked the deck against most of humanity.  That goes completely against the idea that he is a loving person who wishes for everyone to be saved.

Christ told Thomas you have believed because you saw, but blessed are those who will believe without seeing. Because of our faith in the unseen God we can be blessed with the same knowledge that those who saw Him had, does this make sense to you?

I think that Jesus was telling Thomas that --having seen all the things that he had done already and his predictions about his own resurrection-- he should've trusted his fellow disciples and not been so suspicious.  I don't think it means that we are blessed if we believe something with no evidence whatsoever.  Otherwise we are blessed for not believing in god just as you might be blessed for believing in him.  Without a basis for belief, faith is meaningless.

Since there is a God that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

But no one has convinced me that there is a god. And the evidence leads me towards the conclusion that there isn't one. For me, the world as it exists makes more sense as the result of unguided events, not the hand of a benevolent and loving deity who wants me to be saved, but leaves me in a situation where the odds make it very likely that I will fail, and blames me for failing. That's not what good, fair, and just people do.

Enjoy the weekend and stay safe.

[Randy Carson]

See that's just the point Randy. I've read across the lines. I've read Jesus supporters by believers, Jesus supporters by atheists, mythicists and the likes. I don't just read one area and run with it. As I've said at least 3 or 4 times in this thread, I land where the evidence leads and makes most sense.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you land where YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION leads and makes the most sense to your fallible understanding?

It's quite obvious that you have not done the same. The fact that you dismiss something without truly studying the subject thoroughly proves that you're just another person presupposing belief and backing into it by cherry picking your works.

You, my friend, are a fraud in the worst degree. It's a shame to watch you regurgitate information that has been disproven time and time again.

Rubbish. It is not necessary for me to spend hundreds of hours reading the list of crappy books that you have poured over just so I can say that I've read them.

There's a REASON why real scholars pay no attention to Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, and Acharya S.

There's a REASON why knowledgeable ATHEISTS pay no attention to Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, and Acharya S.

Have you spent time reading books denying the holocaust, also?
Do you deny that man ever landed on the moon?
Do you believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance or that all the Jews stayed home from work that day because they knew?

Waste your life on ridiculous conspiracy theories if you want. I don't need to read up on BOTH sides of the argument to know stupid people write stupid books. But I can see that you are eager to lap up all that these folks have to say. That's no surprise, really...

2 Timothy 4:3
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

[Esquilax]

I'm going to point out that in response to a few idiots who keep trying to say that Eve had NO knowledge of "good" whatsoever

Er, Randy.  What kind of a fucking idiot keeps thinking that "Eve" was any more real than Mother Goose?  Insisting fairy tales are real is not going to get you anywhere.

To be fair, I think Randy has said previously that he believes the story is allegorical?

[Randy Carson]

No, Equislax, in what is quite possibly my last response to you, I'm going to point out that in response to a few idiots who keep trying to say that Eve had NO knowledge of "good" whatsoever prior to eating the apple in a blatant attempt to place ALL the blame for her disobedience on God, I'm saying that Eve was intelligent enough and endowed with sufficient understanding of right and wrong to know that disobeying God was a VERY BAD THING.

Seriously? You're just going to persist in this sophistry? Fine then: Eve had no knowledge of good in the relevant sense, that would equip her with the ability to make an informed decision on the subject. It's the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, after all; if your assertion is that Eve had this knowledge prior to eating the fruit, then what did the fruit confer to her that was any different than what she already knew? It had some effect, the narrative makes that clear, but you're asserting that she was already in possession of what the fruit supposedly confers.

Stop and think for just once, okay? Are you really going to insist that God gave Adam and Eve a command that they could not obey?

You mean like, say, "be free from sin to enter heaven," while simultaneously considering every human to possess original sin, making this impossible?

Yes, yes, Jesus, but: Jesus is a new testament figure, meaning there was a period of a long ass time, in the old testament, in which god truly did give a command that it was impossible to obey. Or does the catholic church no longer accept the doctrine of original sin? It's so hard to tell, what with all that infallible doctrine changing so often.  

Have you ever read a book of Catholic theology? If so, which one?