Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Astreja]

I don't see any real-life Jesus posting here.

 

All I see is a believer quoting a book of questionable authorship.

[midniterider]

Just now, LuthAMF said:

Hebrews 1:1,2

He already has.

 

Is a relationship with Jesus just reading the bible? Or actually having a live two way conversation ? Or something else? 

[LuthAMF]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Please support this claim by producing a direct quote from me in which I say jesus never existed.  Otherwise, yet another unfounded assertion. 

Seriously?

*"A logical argument that is based upon a faulty assumption can only lead to equally faulty conclusions.  Your initial assumptions are a) that jesus existed, b) that he was all that the bible cracks him up to be, c) that he indeed rise from the dead, and d) that John (among other witnesses) supported the purported messiahship of jesus."*

 

You consider all my assumptions to be faulty. So when I say Jesus existed you consider that "faulty" thus denying he existed.

[LuthAMF]

3 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Is a relationship with Jesus just reading the bible? Or actually having a live two way conversation ? Or something else? 

Why do you care?

[midniterider]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Why do you care?

 

There's nothing on Netflix to watch.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You consider all my assumptions to be faulty. So when I say Jesus existed you consider that "faulty" thus denying he existed.

You are putting words in for me that I never said, nor even implied.  I never said that I consider your assumptions to be faulty.  What I said was:

 

Until you can demonstrate that these assumptions are not faulty, you cannot assert that faith in these claims is logical.  

 

The onus is on you to support your assertions.  It is up to you to demonstrate that your assumptions are not faulty.  You have not done so.  Instead, you have only made yet more unfounded assertions and cast accusations which you also cannot support.  

 

Like every other christian who has come here, you can do nothing more than mock what you do not understand, assert what you do not know,  and evade what you cannot answer.  You have clearly demonstrated these patterns in this thread.

 

I have no further use for you.  We're done here.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

So when I say Jesus existed you consider that "faulty" thus denying he existed.

 

How does that even follow? You are not understanding basic logic if you think someone saying that your assumptions are faulty equate to them taking a position on those assumptions.

 

Take the jellybeans in a jar example. The number of beans in the jar are either odd or even. I'm going to assume we both agree on that yes?

 

If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

[Astreja]

18 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

How does that even follow? You are not understanding basic logic if you think someone saying that your assumptions are faulty equate to them taking a position on those assumptions.

 

Take the jellybeans in a jar example. The number of beans in the jar are either odd or even. I'm going to assume we both agree on that yes?

 

If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

 

At least with jellybeans you can pour them out of the jar and count them.

 

We currently have no way to verify the Bible's claim that someone named Jesus came back to life after several days in a tomb.  Knowing what we know about medical science, that claim definitely requires hard physical evidence to substantiate it, and the Bible is simply not up to our evidentiary standards.

 

The claim that there was an ordinary mortal man named Jesus is not an extraordinary claim.  However, the dearth of evidence in the contemporaneous historical record circa 30-40 CE would suggest that if there was a historical, mortal Jesus he was not all that important or well-known in his own lifetime.

[mwc]

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

So, quite simply I can say biblical faith in Jesus is logical because he demonstrated that he was who he claimed to be by raising himself from the dead.

     There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

 

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

But even before that, He never told anyone to "believe" apart from action before witnesses. Now I'm certain you dismiss all of this and poopoo the notion that any of it actually happened. That's what is done here. But the LOGIC used by the witnesses was such that John could write 1John:1-2. And this is a mere drip of information. Consistency is observable. 

 

     He has to counter a belief that jesus didn't actually exist, or should I say hadn't yet come, with the belief that jesus actually did exist.  He simply asserts his position.  How do we know which one is true?

 

          mwc

 

[LuthAMF]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You are putting words in for me that I never said, nor even implied.  I never said that I consider your assumptions to be faulty.  What I said was:

 

Until you can demonstrate that these assumptions are not faulty, you cannot assert that faith in these claims is logical.  

 

The onus is on you to support your assertions.  It is up to you to demonstrate that your assumptions are not faulty.  You have not done so.  Instead, you have only made yet more unfounded assertions and cast accusations which you also cannot support.  

 

Like every other christian who has come here, you can do nothing more than mock what you do not understand, assert what you do not know,  and evade what you cannot answer.  You have clearly demonstrated these patterns in this thread.

 

I have no further use for you.  We're done here.

That is precisely the epitome of what I observe here and elsewhere in these discussions: that disgusting aire of superiority and pompous disdain. "I have no further use for you." Indeed. My world is crushed. 

*"Like every other christian who has come here, you can do nothing more than mock what you do not understand, assert what you do not know,  and evade what you cannot answer.  You have clearly demonstrated these patterns in this thread."*

Your brilliance is evident in that one grossly uncharitable blanket statement (a logical fallacy itself) so don't lecture me on assertion and accusation. You do *the exact* things of which you accuse me.

You "mock what you don't understand, assert what you do not know,  and evade what you cannot answer." And you have mastered evasion for sure alongside the other "mastery" I noted.

 

It is abundantly clear that while you may not be ignorant of historical defenses for certain recorded events, you are willing to take the machete and sunder them from reality and reason. And I "have no further use" for that, thank you.

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

5 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

At least with jellybeans you can pour them out of the jar and count them.

 

We currently have no way to verify the Bible's claim that someone named Jesus came back to life after several days in a tomb.  Knowing what we know about medical science, that claim definitely requires hard physical evidence to substantiate it, and the Bible is simply not up to our evidentiary standards.

 

The claim that there was an ordinary mortal man named Jesus is not an extraordinary claim.  However, the dearth of evidence in the contemporaneous historical record circa 30-40 CE would suggest that if there was a historical, mortal Jesus he was not all that important or well-known in his own lifetime.

 

[LuthAMF]

51 minutes ago, mwc said:

 There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

That is simply a poor and extremely shallow grasp of Christian theology. John 2:19 is no metaphor.

[LuthAMF]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

How does that even follow? You are not understanding basic logic if you think someone saying that your assumptions are faulty equate to them taking a position on those assumptions.

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Take the jellybeans in a jar example. The number of beans in the jar are either odd or even. I'm going to assume we both agree on that yes?

 

If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

That is a category error.

 There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

 There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

 

Nowhere in your answer did you come close to answering my question. I didn't even come close to touching theological issues in my post.

 

It's very simple, and I'll give you a hint, there is only one correct answer. If you still have trouble, the answers is either yes or no. Take a crack at it - you have a 50/50 chance of getting it right based on random chance alone.

 

 If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

[mwc]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

That is simply a poor and extremely shallow grasp of Christian theology. John 2:19 is no metaphor.

     It is a metaphor since a body is not a literal temple (it would be a simile if they used words like "like").  That's where the confusion comes from in that passage.  He refers to a metaphorical temple of the body while the Jews refer to the literal, physical, temple building.  We're then later told that, as it turns out, his body was the temple in question and it was raised up (the metaphorical not literal temple).  This should be a fulfillment of the sign, where he states he would raise the temple up, but it states that he was raised from the dead and not that he had raised himself from the dead.  He is always raised from the dead.

 

          mwc

 

[LuthAMF]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

How does that even follow? You are not understanding basic logic if you think someone saying that your assumptions are faulty equate to them taking a position on those assumptions.

 

Take the jellybeans in a jar example. The number of beans in the jar are either odd or even. I'm going to assume we both agree on that yes?

 

If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

Im sorry but this 

There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

is attributed to me as giving you answer. That statement came from mwc.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

How does that even follow? You are not understanding basic logic if you think someone saying that your assumptions are faulty equate to them taking a position on those assumptions.

 

Take the jellybeans in a jar example. The number of beans in the jar are either odd or even. I'm going to assume we both agree on that yes?

 

If you say the number in the jar is even, and I reply, I don't believe the number in the jar is even, am I making a claim that the number is therefore odd?

jesus said that he who is not for me is against me.  This kind of black and white thinking leads people in general, and religionists in particular,  to falsely dichotomize scenarios that often have multiple possibilities.  More circumspect people are immediately aware of the potential for more than two options.

 

In truth, a person could be for Buddha without being against jesus, as their teachings are often in harmony with each other.  In the jellybean example, someone could have cut one jellybean in half and put only half of it in the jar along with the rest of the jellybeans.  This would render the total number of jellybeans as a fraction, which would be neither odd nor even.

 

There is more than black and white in this life.  It is important to open one's mind to the multiplicity of potential outcomes in every situation, as a closed mind consistently limits one's own options.  Put succinctly, there are no gray matters for those with no gray matter.

[midniterider]

Waits for LuthAMF to give us something other than bluster. The substance so far seems to be "I'm right and you're wrong" along  with assumptions that the bible is true. Did you want to 'anger' us back to Jesus? 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

jesus said that he who is not for me is against me.  This kind of black and white thinking leads people in general, and religionists in particular,  to falsely dichotomize scenarios that often have multiple possibilities.  More circumspect people are immediately aware of the potential for more than two options.

 

In truth, a person could be for Buddha without being against jesus, as their teachings are often in harmony with each other.  In the jellybean example, someone could have cut one jellybean in half and put only half of it in the jar along with the rest of the jellybeans.  This would render the total number of jellybeans as a fraction, which would be neither odd nor even.

 

There is more than black and white in this life.  It is important to open one's mind to the multiplicity of potential outcomes in every situation, as a closed mind consistently limits one's own options.  Put succinctly, there are no gray matters for those with no gray matter.

But the "what if" game is endless and generally only serves to confuse. We have a straightforward question  and a straightforward answer can be given:

No, LogicalFallacy, you have not made an outright  positive claim that the number of jelly beans is odd. But it seems to me to be weaseling for no apparent purpose. How this equates to Jesus? You tell me.

[LuthAMF]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

Waits for LuthAMF to give us something other than bluster. The substance so far seems to be "I'm right and you're wrong" along  with assumptions that the bible is true. Did you want to 'anger' us back to Jesus? 

 

 

Sorry you see it that way.

"Assumption" is quite the popular word amongst you all. But I understand assumption to mean something accepted w/o proof. That is NOT the case with scripture etc---which is why we're all here. To discuss that. Supposedly, anyway.

 

"Im right and  you're wrong"???Hardly. Have you actually read what is said to the "religious" who enter here?

That is the default opinion and there ought to be a banner atop each page stating that. I was warned "Enter At your own risk!"  

Now I know everyone here just wants the highest quality dialogue and only wants us to provide that, but watch what happens in discussions regarding scriptural authority. Never met an atheist who does not say "I'm right and you're wrong."

[midniterider]

So let's discuss scripture.

 

You mentioned scriptural authority. Authority over whom or what and why? I dont think it has any authority. 

 

(Edited...twice)

[LuthAMF]

18 minutes ago, midniterider said:

So let's discuss scripture.

 

You mentioned scriptural authority. Authority over whom or what and why? I dont think it has any authority. 

 

(Edited...twice)

Certainly not surprising given this current forum. Authority must come from God who has spoken. If that is flatly and outright denied, the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying "Prove God." Since we cannot physically "show" you God, which is what you all demand, what good does it do to discuss authority with You?

 

That is not a concession, by the way. 

 

[sdelsolray]

This one is full of himself, folks.  Empty suit, Mr. Mere Assertion, all claims and no evidence or supporting arguments.

 

He's not very entertaining, at least not yet.  I would hope he would try to support his mere assertions.  That way he would likely start using more logical fallacies.  So far he's only used some flavors of the tu quoque, the "hey look over there" and, of course, the ad hominem, which seems to be his favorite.

[LuthAMF]

31 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

This one is full of himself, folks.  Empty suit, Mr. Mere Assertion, all claims and no evidence or supporting arguments.

 

He's not very entertaining, at least not yet.  I would hope he would try to support his mere assertions.  That way he would likely start using more logical fallacies.  So far he's only used some flavors of the tu quoque, the "hey look over there" and, of course, the ad hominem, which seems to be his favorite.

Don't talk about midniterider that way.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

and, of course, the ad hominem, which seems to be his favorite.

He doesn't employ it nearly as well as christfuckems did.