RE: Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.
November 13, 2012 at 5:17 am
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 5:21 am by Kirbmarc.)
Quote:Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing)
False dicotomy. Someone can be convinced of something wrong and be wrong even if he isn't a liar or mentally impaired.
Quote:There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend
Legends don't need much time to develop. Word of mouth acts quickly. And there is evidence of embellishment, both in the books that were rejected by the church because they presented more contradictions and in the canonic gospels.
Quote:Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.
I suppose you have never heard of neurosciences and psychology. Anyway, this is a strawman comparison. A punch in the face isn't an extraordinary claim, resurrection is. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A series of partisan books isn't enough evidence to back up an ordinary claim, let alone an extraordinary one.
Quote: God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God.
Even reason alone won't help your case.
The concept of the christian god is wholly unreasonable and riddled with contradictions. The concept of god in general doesn't fare much better: the infamous proofs of Thomas Aquinas have been shown to be circular and groundless since the times of Immanuel Kant.
Most philosophers nowadays reject any rationalistic "proof" of god. Even theologians don't prove god, they just presume that he exists.
Quote: But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).
This is would be true if you were an Epicurean and believed that your god lives in his specific domain. Your presumed god acts in the natural world, therefore any specific claim of an act with natural consequencies (i.e. a resurrection) falls within the scope of a naturalistic analysis.
Quote:Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands
Not true: read here.
