Why don't we know the date Jesus rose up from the dead?

[fr0d0]

Well if those are the words of Hitler... then he is clearly saying that he's a Christian. As what he says is also clearly contrary to Christ's stance, I could be confident in saying that he isn't a Christian at all, but another, along with several popes, who used religion to further their own greed for power.

[Minimalist]

Not the "No True Scotsman" argument again, Frodo.

There are thousands of xtian sects. Who can say which, if any, of them are "right."

[fr0d0]

Yeah... when the no true christian is actually not Christian... you have to draw the dumb line somewhere.

They're all right, as long as they pass the basic qualification. Otherwise I'm gonna insist on calling you a Christian Min if you're gonna include ppl who believe the opposite.

[Minimalist]

But Hitler declared himself a xtian. I've run across fundies who maintain that if he "really" accepted jesus before he pulled the trigger then he is "saved" and merrily smiling in heaven while all those shitty jews he murdered are burning in hell.


You know, Frodo, the more I think about xtians the more fucked up I think they are.


Not all of them, of course. Just the true believers!



Anyway, you won't catch me calling myself a xtian. I think they are all assholes.

[fr0d0]

Well yeah there's nothing stopping Hitler being an actual Christian... I'm only going on the words quoted. Of course he could have been a genuine Christian at any time, and before he died and go to heaven. It doesn't matter how bad you are, there's always a chance for you. That's why churches/ Christianity can be made up of the worst ppl out.

[Minimalist]

For once we agree.



Okay twice, counting the libertarian shit.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yeah... when the no true christian is actually not Christian... you have to draw the dumb line somewhere.

Nonsense.It is impossible to tell a person's beliefs only from their actions.

Hitler did no more than vast numbers numbers of Christians as individuals and the Church as a matter of policy,over centuries. It's a matter of degree. That the church did not murder millions more was not through moral compunction,but pragmatism. I have no doubt even today large numbers of 'real 'Christians would happily murder a whole range of opponents if they could.

So what? I consider the argument irrelevant. Religions are invented by humans to meet a range of human needs. They reflect the societies which invent them. Religion does not make bad people good people, nor good people bad people. The contradictions within most religions force the individual to cherry pick the emphasis of his personal beliefs. This is almost invariably followed by a life long exercise in doublethink,whereby the believer is able to deny any such contradictions exist.

Religion does not make stupid,gullible, ignorant people smart or wise. Such people use their religion to assuage their terrors, sometimes doing evil things through the manipulation of evil people. Intelligent and pragmatic believers use their beliefs to justify their self interested behaviour.


EG Religious terrorism is ALWAYS a political act accomplished by manipulating the gormless. At the other end there are the scary happy clappy churches which justify bourgeois greed with their fatuous prosperity. theology. Unsurprisingly,the most prosperous in those enterprises tend to be their ministers and administrators.

[fr0d0]

Yeah... when the no true christian is actually not Christian... you have to draw the dumb line somewhere.

Nonsense.It is impossible to tell a person's beliefs only from their actions.

Hitler did no more than vast numbers numbers of Christians as individuals and the Church as a matter of policy,over centuries. It's a matter of degree. That the church did not murder millions more was not through moral compunction,but pragmatism. I have no doubt even today large numbers of 'real 'Christians would happily murder a whole range of opponents if they could.

Of course, we cannot know what a person is thinking. I was going on the evidence of the words presented, and we can clearly conclude that it is anti Christ. We can do that for any act too... judge if it's Christian or not. The label is meaningless... at any point in time a Christian is just like anyone else... with the choice to do good or bad.

So what? I consider the argument irrelevant. Religions are invented by humans to meet a range of human needs. They reflect the societies which invent them. Religion does not make bad people good people, nor good people bad people. The contradictions within most religions force the individual to cherry pick the emphasis of his personal beliefs. This is almost invariably followed by a life long exercise in doublethink,whereby the believer is able to deny any such contradictions exist.

Religion does not make bad people good, but it's aim is just that. An intelligent study of it is not contradictory, but clear. There are grey areas... but you have the background in which to make an informed decision.

Sure : Religions are invented by humans to meet human needs.

Religion does not make stupid,gullible, ignorant people smart or wise. Such people use their religion to assuage their terrors, sometimes doing evil things through the manipulation of evil people. Intelligent and pragmatic believers use their beliefs to justify their self interested behaviour.

Both are prejudiced points of view, and I don't deny that happens. That isn't the purpose or result intended or in the main practiced though.

EG Religious terrorism is ALWAYS a political act accomplished by manipulating the gormless. At the other end there are the scary happy clappy churches which justify bourgeois greed with their fatuous prosperity. theology. Unsurprisingly,the most prosperous in those enterprises tend to be their ministers and administrators.

Yep. Religion is a beautiful and delicate thing. To redress the smart dumb balance : it gets sorely abused.

[Minimalist]

Okay, to drag this thread back on topic lets see if the xtians can sort out all these fuck-ups in their allegedly "inerrant" writings.

C. THE RESURRECTION

1. Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.”
b. According to Mark 16:1, “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.”
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, “the women who had come with him out of Galilee.” Among these women were “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.” Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

2. Who did they find at the tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?
a. According to Mark 16:8, “they said nothing to anyone.”
b. According to Matthew 28:8, they “ran to report it to His disciples.”
c. According to Luke 24:9, “they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”
d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord. bismika tombstone Contradictions on Jesus (Alleged) Trials, Death and Resurrection

[Minimalist]

Hmmm.....48 hours and no takers.

Not surprising.