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

[Free]

Hey dude, you brought up his site. All I am asking from you is to bring me one good argument from it.

If you can't do that, then you are as useless as tits on a nun.

Still waiting for you to cite chapter and verse where Paul confirms the historical Jesus. You did, after all, tell us that this proves your case.

Anytime now.

I placed in a specific order so that you might have a chance at grasping the reality:



Jesus described as Christ and as flesh:

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Jesus was crucified:

1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him being crucified.

This flesh of Jesus Christ died:

1Th_2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_5:6 For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus Christ died during Paul's Time:

Rom_5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Most of this is just from 1 or 2 leters. This stuff is everywhere.

If you need more, i feel sorry for you.

---

Who said I could read the contents of their mind? Why do you suggest something that is impossible as if it's something I would be capable of doing?

I don't need to read minds, since many of them poor out the contents of their minds on this forum.

What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. When you accuse them of bias you speak not to the content of their position but the motive that underlies it, intimating that they didn't come to their beliefs through rational observations, or with any justification, but because they had decided to hate on christianity no matter what. An accusation of bias carries with it the idea that the position reached is an unfair and unjustified one, but since you have- as I pointed out- no way of determining what the given motivation is, you have no justification for accusing any of us of bias.

Either way, the revulsion exists and is obvious. POINT.

Not all revulsion is the result of bias. Sometimes it comes from a reasoned evaluation of the concept in question; I don't dislike child abuse, say, because I'm just biased against child abusers. I dislike it for reasons, reasons you both dismiss and diminish by throwing around accusations of bias.

Again, am I not capable of reading their posts? I am not speaking of bias in general, but specifically anti-Christian bias.

Why is it that just restating your initial fallacious point rebuts my argument? You aren't speaking of bias at all, you're speaking of dislike and relabelling it bias, which might make it easier to dismiss everything anyone has to say, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate determination.

You are seeing a position, in the posts on this forum, and then extrapolating a motivation from that, when none is stated and you have no means of determining one. That's what I take issue with.

And are you trying to tell me that it doesn't exist here? Are you trying to say that it is completely unreasonable when someone on your forums says something to the effect of "I hate Christianity" that I cannot reasonably conclude that they are biased against it?

No, you can't make a justified accusation of bias based solely on the sentiment "I hate Christianity," because that gives you no indication of bias. It gives you an indication of hate, but in saying it's bias you're claiming that the position itself is the motivation, that there is no reason this hypothetical poster hates christianity other than that he decided to, that his position isn't based on facts or experience, but on an unthinking dogma. You don't get to do that for people you've never met.

Many comments on this forum regarding Christianity and religion are obviously biased since they are designed to influence in a particular, typically unfair direction.

If you think it's unfair then make the case for that. But don't just make blanket dismissals and disrespect the people involved by dictating to them what their motivations are; did the possibility that they might honestly believe what they're saying for reasons, and not as part of some internal crusade, not occur to you?

For fuck sakes this is an atheist site, and you want to pretend there's no bias against religion here?

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If you took the time to actually know us, though, I think you'd have a harder time justifying your insulting, glib dismissals of us so far. The great majority of us have christian loved ones, christians we respect and deal with every day, even christian posters here who were treated with a great deal of friendliness when they came to our board without being overly aggressive or presumptuous.

Yet further, many of us have shared our stories, detailed the reasons why we disbelieve at length varying from highly personal accounts of deconversion, to lifelong agnostics and atheists discussing the things they've seen which confirm or trouble their beliefs.

Not a one of us has just said "I hate christianity because I hate it, and that's why I'm an atheist." So perhaps you can see my frustration at people like you who walk into the board out of nowhere, and in less than a day presumes to know enough about people that I like a great deal, who have written more about their beliefs than I could possibly read in 24 hours, to dismiss them as nothing more than biased. To negate their stories and experiences as though they don't matter, and reduce their opinions to little more than the standard persecution fairytale that so seems to attract you lot. To assume they have nothing to say, because what they've said disagrees with what you believe more virulently than you'd like.

You're a believer, so you've probably never experienced this to the degree that many of us have, but what you're claiming here is indicative of the kind of erasure and dismissals some of us deal with even to this day. That's why this shit gets my goat so badly, because you don't even really realize what you're doing, or why what you're saying is a hideous overreach of boundaries.

You don't get to tell us what we believe or why. Stop trying to.

You can't seem to admit that this site is full of atheists with bias against Christianity and theists.

Bias is simply this:

"Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

In regards to religious issues, both atheists and theists employ this kind of bias.

Google This in Google's Advanced Search:

"I hate theists" -doesn't site:atheistforums.org/

"I Hate Christianity" site:atheistforums.org/

Then come talk to me. Enough said.

I have no clue why you would take this absolutely indefensible position. Bias exists everywhere, with everybody, to certain degrees. It is perfectly normal for people to be biased to some degree.

Here's a fine example of the hate you claim you don't have here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-13724-p...#pid307644

Dude, that is very bad, but it's not the worst. No need to argue about this.

It's over.