RE: Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!
November 3, 2013 at 2:54 pm
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2013 at 3:15 pm by WesOlsen.)
Aractus
Just a couple of things
"Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him. "
Like all the dead Taliban and Islamic millitant elders who knew full well that by taking on a leadership role that every living second of every living hour involved a huge degree of risk. The comms tactics of Osama Bin Laden were quite commendable from a tactical point of view (during the heydey of his field-based millitant campaign any way) but he knew he was still a viable target, as do the countless numbers of millitant elders who issue rules AND fight on the front line. Not that i'm congratulating them on their bravery, but since we're talking about cults (which christianity presumably doesn't cosntitute as) it's worth noting that leaders of lunatic movements are dying in their droves, daily.
Also my other question to you, and i'd like you to be as honest as possible please with this one > If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person, and that the biblical accounts, despite their disagreements and contradictions here and there, are 100% accurate in that when they say Jesus rose from the dead that he absolutely must have etc..........If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down (and if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies). If all of this...........then why don't you accept Mohammed as the final prophet and Islam as the sugar-daddy sexy man that he evidently is?
. Immediate followers documening his every day actions and teachings - Check
. Lots of fantastic stories of superhuman feats (flying around on a horse, night flights to the holy city etc) - check
. Corroborated accounts from non Islamic sources during and immediately after his lifetime, confirming that this bloke definitely existed and that he had many followers who died for him (why would they die for him if it was a hoax? You say suicide bombers are indoctrinated but that Jesus' followers were/are presumably not indoctrinated) and that he actually rode in to battle himself knowing full well he might die (why would he not do this unless he was sure of his convictions?) - check
. A massive fan club, both at the time and throughout history until now, because if people followed him then it means truth - check
. Really mundane and uninspiring rules regarding trading livestock, slaves and wives, none of which point to any recognition of a future civilisation that didn't center around tedious desert tribal culture - oh boy CHECK dat ya'll
"The Muslim faith is based on a demonstrable lie - multiple lies in fact. Muslims accept the Bible as holy scripture, but are taught that it has been modified beyond repair. Well, the qumran scrolls put that theory to bed completely. They would have to come up with a whole new explanation as to why God would allow "completely corrupted" scriptures to exist for 800 straight years, etc."
Why would god create a plan, but then allow things to exist that might jeapordise that plan? You mean, why would god give his mission to the world, and tolerate something that competes with it/makes an erroneous claim? Why would a god do any number of innane things that's he purported to have done in the bible then? Muslims accept that the Quran is an updated and final message, to overwrite previous messages, much in the same way as the new testement did by overwriting the old testement.
....
With all your biblical scholarship aside, your case rests on two main asumptions:
1. Everything that is written in the bible must be 100% truth. You're prepared to concede some room for debate on certain specifics such as exact numbers and dates, but the superhuman shit doesn't set alarm bells ringing, citing that only a sincere person would die for their beliefs, rather than a mentally ill person? (A mentally ill bloke stabbed a girl to death on a Birmingham bus a few months back because he heard voices telling him to do it, he did it knowing that he would throw his whole life away by being locked up for it, now why would he ruin his life like that?)
and
2. Other texts of equal worth have been written, before and since, including the huge Islamic texts that overwrote existing abrahamic texts (just as the new testement did with the old) and the adventures of Joseph smith which is kinda like an add on pack to the bible more than a replacement. For some reason you picked Christianity out of the sack rather than the other ones.
Thoughts please.
Just a couple of things
"Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him. "
Like all the dead Taliban and Islamic millitant elders who knew full well that by taking on a leadership role that every living second of every living hour involved a huge degree of risk. The comms tactics of Osama Bin Laden were quite commendable from a tactical point of view (during the heydey of his field-based millitant campaign any way) but he knew he was still a viable target, as do the countless numbers of millitant elders who issue rules AND fight on the front line. Not that i'm congratulating them on their bravery, but since we're talking about cults (which christianity presumably doesn't cosntitute as) it's worth noting that leaders of lunatic movements are dying in their droves, daily.
Also my other question to you, and i'd like you to be as honest as possible please with this one > If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person, and that the biblical accounts, despite their disagreements and contradictions here and there, are 100% accurate in that when they say Jesus rose from the dead that he absolutely must have etc..........If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down (and if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies). If all of this...........then why don't you accept Mohammed as the final prophet and Islam as the sugar-daddy sexy man that he evidently is?
. Immediate followers documening his every day actions and teachings - Check
. Lots of fantastic stories of superhuman feats (flying around on a horse, night flights to the holy city etc) - check
. Corroborated accounts from non Islamic sources during and immediately after his lifetime, confirming that this bloke definitely existed and that he had many followers who died for him (why would they die for him if it was a hoax? You say suicide bombers are indoctrinated but that Jesus' followers were/are presumably not indoctrinated) and that he actually rode in to battle himself knowing full well he might die (why would he not do this unless he was sure of his convictions?) - check
. A massive fan club, both at the time and throughout history until now, because if people followed him then it means truth - check
. Really mundane and uninspiring rules regarding trading livestock, slaves and wives, none of which point to any recognition of a future civilisation that didn't center around tedious desert tribal culture - oh boy CHECK dat ya'll
"The Muslim faith is based on a demonstrable lie - multiple lies in fact. Muslims accept the Bible as holy scripture, but are taught that it has been modified beyond repair. Well, the qumran scrolls put that theory to bed completely. They would have to come up with a whole new explanation as to why God would allow "completely corrupted" scriptures to exist for 800 straight years, etc."
Why would god create a plan, but then allow things to exist that might jeapordise that plan? You mean, why would god give his mission to the world, and tolerate something that competes with it/makes an erroneous claim? Why would a god do any number of innane things that's he purported to have done in the bible then? Muslims accept that the Quran is an updated and final message, to overwrite previous messages, much in the same way as the new testement did by overwriting the old testement.
....
With all your biblical scholarship aside, your case rests on two main asumptions:
1. Everything that is written in the bible must be 100% truth. You're prepared to concede some room for debate on certain specifics such as exact numbers and dates, but the superhuman shit doesn't set alarm bells ringing, citing that only a sincere person would die for their beliefs, rather than a mentally ill person? (A mentally ill bloke stabbed a girl to death on a Birmingham bus a few months back because he heard voices telling him to do it, he did it knowing that he would throw his whole life away by being locked up for it, now why would he ruin his life like that?)
and
2. Other texts of equal worth have been written, before and since, including the huge Islamic texts that overwrote existing abrahamic texts (just as the new testement did with the old) and the adventures of Joseph smith which is kinda like an add on pack to the bible more than a replacement. For some reason you picked Christianity out of the sack rather than the other ones.
Thoughts please.
