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

[His_Majesty]

It's clear what he intended. He wanted to establish a historical Jesus in part one, which he failed to do. He then wanted to establish that the gospels were reliable sources in part two, which he failed to do, especially since this is impossible to do. Part three would have built on that to say that since the gospels are reliable accounts we should trust them when they talk of the resurrection.

Awww, aren't you a bright one?? First off, I could CARE LESS whether or not you people are convinced by the arguments..the point of me even joining this wonderful forum is not to get converts (although that would be fine), but to be able to answer objections to my faith, especially regarding something like the Resurrection which is admittedly difficult to prove due to the fact that the arguments that are given is based on historicity, which can be quite subjective.

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

Even if we had authentic letters from Pilate or ten more people that LIVED during the time and in that location that testified to Jesus, would you be a Christian then??? Can you honestly say that you would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior if that was the case? The probability of that happening is on the low scale, huh.

So it isn't about "compelling" evidence...it is about our jobs...my job is to present to you the best evidence for my case, and your job is to object to that case...plain and simple, and if that is the way it has to be, then let it be.

But we are all responsible for our own eternal destiny, and the eternal afterlife destination that each of us will have is a lot longer than the finite amount of time we lived on earth denying the existence of God.

think about that.

As he has failed to provide compelling evidence of part one, and made no attempt at part two, I think that the matter should be closed out and this thread devoted to pictures of kittens.

I think the matter should continue, which will allow for more intellectual spankings of both you, and your counterparts on here.

[robvalue]

Hey, shall I do some of my own claims again? That always seems to help in these situations.

OK.

I just got off the blower with God, and he says for you apologists to pack up shop because you got it all wrong. He created the universe by accident and then lost his password and can't get back in to delete it.

Hope we're all clear now? I actually talked to God. So this trumps all the evidence you think you have. So unless you can prove me wrong, it's thread closed.

[Free]

No. I didn't poison the well, at least not in regards to the original accuation from Stmbo, which was part of what you quoted.

It is not poisoning the well to observe someone who's skepticism appears to be dishonest, since it is not pre-emptive.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of anti-Christian bias pre-empt my comments regarding it.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of a hatred of religion pre-empt my comments regarding it.

So, essentially it's not poisoning the well if you're right, which we've already established you could not possibly be as you don't know the people you're accusing of bias.

You think I cannot read the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum? I cannot see the bias in the words that are expressed? I'm somehow blind to the disgust many atheists here have towards religions?

Do I really need to research the forum in it's entirety and bring out 10 quotes of specific people who display such behavior? Or, would it be suffice to say that one of your prolific posters pointed that out herself just a few pages back?

Please don't preach to me about "intellectual honesty." I'm not seeing much of that in your posts to me.

[Silver]

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics.

Why does there need to be Christian apologetics?

First of all, can your god not defend himself? He must not be that great a god if he must rely upon his followers to defend him.

Secondly, if the bible is as full of wisdom and absolute universal truth as its blind adherents claim, then why does what is written in it need to be defended? Can it not stand up to tests of skepticism all on its own?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Try it and see.

Also, if you feel you have a legitimate complaint, report it through the usual channels or PM a member of Staff. Stop whining about it in open thread.

There you go being unnecessarily cruel again!

[abaris]

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

Pretty dull sword still, isn't it. As far as apologetics go - I like that word, since it implies apologizing for something that can't be proven - you're certainly not the sharpest tool in the box.

And point taken, I don't give a single shit. Especially, if the arguments are coming from someone, who even refuses to look up scientific basics and presents criminal quacks like Howind as their heroes. That may be a big name where you're coming from, but here it's only another word for ignorance. And that's using a friendly word.

I'd like to move to part 3, but I need to know whether the forum God's are going to stretch out their almighty hands and fuck with my post for the simple fact that they don't have anything else to do on here besides watch me and find out ways they can limit my effectiveness.

Effectiveness in doing what exactly?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd like to move to part 3, but I need to know whether the forum God's are going to stretch out their almighty hands and fuck with my post for the simple fact that they don't have anything else to do on here besides watch me and find out ways they can limit my effectiveness, even if it is just by unjustifiably merging my threads just so they can hi-five each other and have themselves a few beers and a good night's sleep.

[Whateverist]

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics.

Why does there need to be Christian apologetics?

Perhaps on account of a deep seated and well justified sense of guilt?

[Thumpalumpacus]

How the hell was the merge for "ease of reading" when you have a jam packed 100+ page full of shit?

If you do not like that the content you post is shitty, do something about it.

[Esquilax]

What the hell do you mean "dozens of irrelevant threads"? Every single one is relevant, and if they aren't then why is there so much activity on each one then?

The amount of activity a thread has in no way reflects upon its relevancy.

I wanted to discuss the topic in a ORDERLY fashion instead of one giant ass thread that is jam packed with hundreds of pages.

For one, your constant divergences within the thread put the lie to that claim. For another, everyone else seems to manage an orderly and logical progression of argumentation in single threads; aside from being able to claim victory at the beginning of each new thread for the preceding one, how exactly does a large thread impede your ability to properly arrange your argument? We have a thing called a quote function, which allows us all to recall specific posts we wish to discuss, obviating the need to go trawling through hundreds of pages, after all.

There is only 4 (maybe 5) parts to it, and each part is its own set of work so each sub-topic had its own thread, where each topic could be discussed.

Got damn, is that asking for too much?

That is the conclusion the staff came to. We won't let anyone else make five threads on the same topic, why should we make an exception for you just because you won't stop whining about it?

I felt it was unwarranted, just something to do so you can say you fucked with me.

I don't care what you felt; unlike you, I seem to be able to recognize that you don't know any of us, don't know what the contents of our minds are, and don't have access to the staff thread where this issue was discussed, and the determination made. I do have access to that thread, so I can safely tell you that you're wrong, so quit being so presumptuous.

How the hell was the merge for "ease of reading" when you have a jam packed 100+ page full of shit?

Maybe you shouldn't write so much shit, then?

It's for ease of reading because now the entirety of your argument is in the one place; your second part didn't differ that strongly from the first, you know. Your vile and aggressive conduct certainly hasn't changed in between them.

Awww, aren't you a bright one?? First off, I could CARE LESS whether or not you people are convinced by the arguments..the point of me even joining this wonderful forum is not to get converts (although that would be fine), but to be able to answer objections to my faith, especially regarding something like the Resurrection which is admittedly difficult to prove due to the fact that the arguments that are given is based on historicity, which can be quite subjective.

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

So, you don't care if you convince any of us, but you came here to "sharpen your sword" in christian apologetics, and christian apologetics is specifically the practice of rationally defending christianity from objections... wouldn't the yardstick for how successful your apologetics are as arguments be how convincing they are to other people? I mean, that's how we measure the success of arguments, via their effectiveness at doing what arguments do, which is convincing other people of a position.

So basically, you've come here to practice your apologetics, yet you don't care about the one measure by which you could determine whether you're actually getting better at it or not. That either says a lot about your thinking abilities, or your confidence. Given what I know of your grotesquely inflated ego, probably both.