MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

No no, you don't get to just bullshit your way through this. I'm not going to let this pass: you believe inanimate matter came to life and suddenly began to think and talk to each other. Adam and Eve were created from dirt and a rib, aka: inanimate matter/ And they really did just suddenly start talking and thinking, they didn't have billions of years to scaffold up to that point.

If what you said above is synonymous with my belief of life only coming from life, and consciousness only coming from consciousness, then yeah, I believe it.

So your own beliefs are patently more ridiculous than even the most simplified version of abiogenesis, but it gets worse for you too, because even straw-biogenesis doesn't involve a magical space wizard who can survive outside of reality doing magic to turn inanimate matter living.

So it makes more sense to you to believe that a mindless and blind process was able to create consciousness and vision? It couldn't think, but it created the mind...and it couldn't see, but it created vision?

If believing in that is the price of atheism, I will stick with my intelligent design theory.

And one could easily remind you that it is you who believes that all that inanimate matter came into being from nothing and magic too.

Actually, I believe it all came from something....God. I just can't get myself to believe that life can come from nonliving material...not just any life, but intelligent life. Can't do it.

Your own beliefs are far more ridiculous than the ones you're making fun of, so where exactly do you get off acting so condescending to everyone else? You don't get to pretend your religion is somehow more well founded a belief just because you've decided it's okay to pretend the answer involves an intentional agent performing a golem spell

Golem spell? You believe that nature performed a golem spell, too!!!! Your Mother nature is apparently more powerful than my god, because your mother nature was able to do it without thinking, or seeing. My God actually had to think and see to create...your's didn't.

; that belief is ridiculous, and there's no evidence for it.

You say that shit as if there is evidence for abiogenesis

It doesn't suddenly become rational just because it superficially corresponds with what we can confirm to be true about human creations and design. It still involves fucking magic from a genie.

Right...when I see or hear about magic, I expect there to exist a magician at the beginning/end of it. Since when have you seen/heard of a magic trick performed without the magician...makes a lot of since, doesn't it?

I've never seen life from nonliving material, or intelligence from non-intelligence.

So is your fucking god.

Looks like someone is upset. I understand, naturalism is very, very tough to defend.

... Assuming we take the bronze age verbal telephone game the early christians played to be an accurate source for these scattered, non-contemporaneous vague references to be accurate. My contention is that we have no reason to do so, you don't get to respond to me by just pretending that it is anyway.

Bullshit. It can't be a telephone game if we have testimony from someone that is right at the source of the message.

Have you ever played the telephone game? Now try doing that over unsourced magic claims, from uneducated folk, across vast distances. Written records at least have the benefit of being objective; you're relying on word of mouth, which is notorious for not only mutation, but inaccuracy, and you're trying to say that is clarity?

Bullshit. The Jews were people of oral tradition...traditions, speeches, sermons, songs, oracles, etc....all of these things were passed down from generation to generation in a time when there were no telephones, tape recorders, camcorders, television, internet, social media, etc. These things were carefully preserved and sacred...and Paul still remembered the creed that was given to him word for word, 20-25 years after he received it.

So keep on trying, boss man. Keep on with the feeble objections...you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

Are you that unaware of your own religion? Do you not know of the numerous interpretations of Revelations that place the antichrist as a deceiver styling himself after the messiah and performing great feats to lead the world astray? Your own fucking religion already has ideas about how one can discredit a messianic figure. Not to mention all the stuff about magic and witchcraft; all they'd have to do is claim that the source of his power isn't divine.

According to my own fucking religion, the messiah has already come...and we know and expect there to be clones of the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords...but we worship the innovator, not the imitators.

"This man is a servant of the devil! Yes, he may heal the sick and feed the hungry, but he does so to sway you! The source of his power is satanic, and though he appears beneficent now, his true desires are for you to turn away from god!"

Was that so fucking hard?

When the going its tough, change the context. We were first talking about Jesus and his situation with the miracles and stuff..now you are changing the context from that and putting it in the context of the antichrist.

So apparent, and so sad.

Here's that reference I don't have to back up my position. You really should, you know, think for a minute before you make declarative statements about what others do and do not have, you ignorant bullshit artist.

I can post material that back up my position...so what?

Do you deny the inquisitions, crusades and commands to kill those of other religions from christianity? They're pretty well established, historically. Not to mention, as I fucking said to begin with, I wasn't just talking about straight up violence, but missionary work, indoctrination, and so on. I know strawmen appeal to you for whatever reason, but when I literally say what I meant in the very next paragraph, and you quote that paragraph too, it's not like you can pretend not to know what I said. Everyone knows that you're lying.

I understand that you are not used to be corrected when you spew your false shit...I understand...but, you've been wrong and corrected on so many other occasions, we may as well go ahead and keep the party going...first off all, I mentioned the fact that Christianity spread fairly quick back then and is now the #1 religion in the world with just over 2 billion followers...

You then came up with some nonsense about how the only reason it spread so fast was because of the crusades, violence, and blah blah blah...

I had to then inform you that the Crusades was stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christianity began and that Christianity had already had its fair share of followers before that, so you can't use the Crusades as a reason why Christianity is where it is today (quantity-wise) if it was already in the millions before the crusades.

And now above you completely ignore what I said by going on some irrelevant tirade yet again about how violent the crusades was...

sigh

People, people.

I posted the previous paragraph you responded to here so that everyone else can see it too. Does anyone else know what this lunatic is going on about, calling this the genetic fallacy? Do you even know what the genetic fallacy is, H_M?

Yes, and I call it how I see it.

---

What happens now?

I told her she didn't have to get smart and all she had to do was say "I don't know".