... malevolent bully.

[Tigger]

Instead now of giving your book the authority and absolute rectitude it had in days of yore, you are now forced to accommodate the nonsense it spouts more and more, and to "interpret" its meaning. "He" is a pretty crap deity if he (no caps) can't make himself (no caps, doesn't merit it) understood forever.

I have no problem understanding Jesus. He made himself quite understandable, IMO.

By the way, it's not my book. It is a collection of early manuscripts.

If Jesus existed, you don't have to worship him. If he did exist , he was just a guy, ffs. You're arguing about the existence of Big Daddy here, not son or spook.

I can bind my copies of "The Beano" together and call them a collection of manuscripts, but it'll still be a book of stories with more consistency than yours has. It doesn't mean I'll live by Dennis the Menace's ethos either. And Denis must exist, for he's been referred to in another publication - The Dandy. And I was a member of his fan club, so there's more evidence. I have a hairy badge. As it were. Praise Dennis. Ludicrous.

[Epictetus]

Just because it's been the norm, born originally of ignorance and superstition, does that make it the correct way to proceed in the 21st century?

Indeed. To try to foist this Bronze Age belief system on people living in the 21st century is just insane. The ancients knew nothing about plate tectonics, bacteria, the true scale of the universe, genetics, evolution, human physiology, the existence of the New World, and on and on. Insofar as they held opinions on such matters, they were mistaken; and if they were mistaken about these things, then it's not unlikely that they were mistaken about the existence of their gods.

Also, as Tigger pointed out:

We have science, empirical experimentation and historical documentation that debunks much of what your book of fairy stories tells us.

[Bruce Burleson]

not really. you have some scriptures, most of which contradict each other internally which support your belief that one single person in the history of the entire universe somehow reanimated post-mortem. I have the solid mountains of evidence, much of which can be seen in the calm graveyards all over the world, that billions upon billions of people have died and never come back from that point. and I don't have to rely on faith or belief. it's a fact.

you seriously expect us to believe that you happen have hit upon the one magical person in the entire universe who is immune to the laws of nature despite everything we understand about those laws...?

No, I don't expect you to believe, until you have an experience that causes you to believe. What I expect is irrelevant.

Your mountains of evidence merely show that everyone who has died stayed dead, except for Jesus. I have evidence that everyone who played the lottery lost, except the person who won.

[Bruce Burleson]

But they're still personal revelations. Just as worthy as a revelation you or I might think we've had. No?

The difference is that it is YOUR revelation, not someone else's. You don't have to do a lot of convincing when it is you that had the experience. You evaluate the experience, and either it produces faith or it doesn't. If it convinces you, that is all that matters.

[Bruce Burleson]

If Jesus existed, you don't have to worship him. If he did exist , he was just a guy, ffs. You're arguing about the existence of Big Daddy here, not son or spook.

I can bind my copies of "The Beano" together and call them a collection of manuscripts, but it'll still be a book of stories with more consistency than yours has. It doesn't mean I'll live by Dennis the Menace's ethos either. And Denis must exist, for he's been referred to in another publication - The Dandy. And I was a member of his fan club, so there's more evidence. I have a hairy badge. As it were. Praise Dennis. Ludicrous.

If you have a personal revelatory experience with Dennis, who is an acknowledged cartoon character, by all means, put your faith in him. The lack of consistency in the Bible is of no import to me. I evaluate each individual book on its own merits. I conclude that it is giving a basically historical picture of Jesus, notwithstanding some serious problems with some aspects of it. It's not an either/or situation. You keep the wheat and throw away the chaff.

[dj357]

If Jesus existed, you don't have to worship him. If he did exist , he was just a guy, ffs. You're arguing about the existence of Big Daddy here, not son or spook.

I can bind my copies of "The Beano" together and call them a collection of manuscripts, but it'll still be a book of stories with more consistency than yours has. It doesn't mean I'll live by Dennis the Menace's ethos either. And Denis must exist, for he's been referred to in another publication - The Dandy. And I was a member of his fan club, so there's more evidence. I have a hairy badge. As it were. Praise Dennis. Ludicrous.

If you have a personal revelatory experience with Dennis, who is an acknowledged cartoon character, by all means, put your faith in him. The lack of consistency in the Bible is of no import to me. I evaluate each individual book on its own merits. I conclude that it is giving a basically historical picture of Jesus, notwithstanding some serious problems with some aspects of it. It's not an either/or situation. You keep the wheat and throw away the chaff.

When the wheat has become infected by rank chaff you've got to throw it all away. Especially when your understanding of the universe is based upon such rotting wheat. Not only are you expecting us to believe that Jesus happened to the only person in the history of the universe who cheated death, and broke the laws of nature, but we're also expected to believe that a totally subjective experience that you had somehow lends weight to these claims?

Either Jesus was divine or he was just some guy. Your personal revelatory experiences, while important to you, import absolutely no meaning into your beliefs or your claims.

[Bruce Burleson]

Indeed. To try to foist this Bronze Age belief system on people living in the 21st century is just insane.

Jesus was Iron Age. I'll try to help you iron these issues out.

The ancients knew nothing about plate tectonics, bacteria, the true scale of the universe, genetics, evolution, human physiology, the existence of the New World, and on and on. Insofar as they held opinions on such matters, they were mistaken; and if they were mistaken about these things, then it's not unlikely that they were mistaken about the existence of their gods.

Whether someone rose from the dead has nothing to do with these issues. It is a simple matter of whether a particular event occurred or not. If it occurred, then there is an argument that Jesus is exactly who he said he was.

(quoting) We have science, empirical experimentation and historical documentation that debunks much of what your book of fairy stories tells us.

Again, it is not my book. There is no science, empirical experimentation or historical documentation that debunks the resurrection of Jesus. Ya got nothin!

[Epictetus]

Your mountains of evidence merely show that everyone who has died stayed dead, except for Jesus. I have evidence that everyone who played the lottery lost, except the person who won.

And where's your "mountains of evidence" to prove that a dead man came strolling out of his tomb like a zombie? (Incidentally, having seen first hand the decay that ensues after death, I find it highly unlikely that anyone, including your beloved Jesus, is capable of coming back. Go pay a visit to your local morgue. You'll find bodies aplenty, all in various stages of decay).

[Bruce Burleson]

When the wheat has become infected by rank chaff you've got to throw it all away. Especially when your understanding of the universe is based upon such rotting wheat. Not only are you expecting us to believe that Jesus happened to the only person in the history of the universe who cheated death, and broke the laws of nature, but we're also expected to believe that a totally subjective experience that you had somehow lends weight to these claims?

Either Jesus was divine or he was just some guy. Your personal revelatory experiences, while important to you, import absolutely no meaning into your beliefs or your claims.

Again, I expect you to believe nothing until you have had your own revelatory experience, at which point you will believe. The laws of nature are merely descriptions of what happens. You don't really "violate" them. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the laws of nature need to be adjusted. Let me know when you have finished.

[Bruce Burleson]

Your mountains of evidence merely show that everyone who has died stayed dead, except for Jesus. I have evidence that everyone who played the lottery lost, except the person who won.

And where's your "mountains of evidence" to prove that a dead man came strolling out of his tomb like a zombie? (Incidentally, having seen first hand the decay that ensues after death, I find it highly unlikely that anyone, including your beloved Jesus, is capable of coming back.

It is unlikely. Winning the lottery is likely, but it happens. Life on earth is unlikely, but here we are having fun!

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

[Feck]

Indeed. To try to foist this Bronze Age belief system on people living in the 21st century is just insane.

Jesus was Iron Age. I'll try to help you iron these issues out.

The ancients knew nothing about plate tectonics, bacteria, the true scale of the universe, genetics, evolution, human physiology, the existence of the New World, and on and on. Insofar as they held opinions on such matters, they were mistaken; and if they were mistaken about these things, then it's not unlikely that they were mistaken about the existence of their gods.

Whether someone rose from the dead has nothing to do with these issues. It is a simple matter of whether a particular event occurred or not. If it occurred, then there is an argument that Jesus is exactly who he said he was.

(quoting) We have science, empirical experimentation and historical documentation that debunks much of what your book of fairy stories tells us.

Again, it is not my book. There is no science, empirical experimentation or historical documentation that supports the resurrection of Jesus. Ya got nothin!

Where is he then ? If you try "you can't prove it didn't happen" i will just laugh The bible is true because it says it's true (even the bits that are not )???

[dj357]

Again, it is not my book. There is no science, empirical experimentation or historical documentation that debunks the resurrection of Jesus. Ya got nothin!

bbbbuuuuuzzz - wrong. Billions upon billions of dead people, plants and animals VERSUS one story. I think the evidence is clear.

Whether someone rose from the dead has nothing to do with these issues. It is a simple matter of whether a particular event occurred or not. If it occurred, then there is an argument that Jesus is exactly who he said he was.

Actually the details of the event itself are key to determining whether the event could have even been possible. I just farted and a fairy winked into existence beside me. You cannot just say either it happened or it didn't because clearly the physical probability of it happening, based on the actual mechanisms at work, is key to figuring out whether it happened or not.

The reanimation of dead flesh is impossible. If jesus was crucified and died, then he died. He could not possibly have come back. The chemical, biological and physical processes surrounding death and life are so well understood that we definitely say, that if jesus truly died (i.e. brain death) he could not have come back to life.

Again, I expect you to believe nothing until you have had your own revelatory experience, at which point you will believe. The laws of nature are merely descriptions of what happens. You don't really "violate" them. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the laws of nature need to be adjusted. Let me know when you have finished.

Personal Relevatory Experience is, as has already been pointed out to you, irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claim that jesus died and came back to life.

And no, the laws of nature are not descriptions of what happens. You begin with a model based on predictions and observations and through that you discover the underlying mechanics of the processes at work. The Laws of Nature, as we understand them now, and as they relate to the chemical death of the brain show us that it is impossible for the dead to come back to life. If the Laws of Nature were such to allow the dead to come back to life, we would simply be wrong about our understanding of those Laws and Jesus' apparent resurrection would simply be a fact of nature and nothing divine in the slightest. However, in the entire history of the universe, there has never been a single documented case of someone returning from terminal brain death. This is not simply because we've never seen it. It's because it is not possible.

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Since all you have is incoherent stories from the bible and a Personal Relevatory Experience, which is inadmissible as evidence for your claim, you do not win. Also, every single person who has ever died and not come back to life is another piece of evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

[Epictetus]

There is no science, empirical experimentation or historical documentation that debunks the resurrection of Jesus. Ya got nothin!

Actually, I think it's you who's "got nothing". You're believing something on the basis of someone's say-so, that's all; that, combined with mere wishful thinking. Just like the adherents of all other religions (Mormons, Muslims, and so on). There's not a shred of tangible evidence to support the idea that Jesus (or Lazarus, or Jairus' daughter, or all those OT saints, etc.) came back to life. Just as there isn't any evidence that Balaam's donkey spoke Hebrew fluently, or that Samson single handedly slew a thousand armed Philistine soldiers, and so on.

[Epictetus]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

You’re making a pretty extraordinary claim, with consequences for humanity as a whole (consider the doctrine of hell, the “imminent return of Jesus”, and so on) . So I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you back it up with evidence. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to do just that. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. So what do you have?

As for the Iron Age/Bronze Age distinction, my point is simply that your belief system is primitive--in the pejorative sense of the word. (Although, in fairness to myself, I was referring to the OT, parts of which, I think, are believed to have been written toward the end of the Bronze Age. At any rate, if I'm wrong, this doesn't change my point).

For myself, I tend to think the apostle Paul was on to something when he said: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

“Who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

[Hermit]

Bruce, the god you believe in, the biblical god, is a bully ... Christian religion uses this character to bully people into submission. The resulting morality/behaviour (level of personal conduct of each individual) are irrelevant to this - the fact is, the being described in the bible is, as has been so eloquently put: "... arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully."

And yet, people introduce their children to it and admonish faithful submission and worship.

Jesus does not fit this description at all. For me, the Old Testament description of God was colored by the barbaric nature of the people, and Jesus came in part to correct our perception of God. I read the OT to help me understand the historical and cultural context of the New Testament, but I don't consider it to give an accurate depiction of the nature of God. I rely almost completely on the NT portrayal of Jesus for my concept of the Deity.

If the new testament is regarded as a reliable historical source regarding the life and attitudes of Jesus, you'll have quite a problem explaining his stance on the old testament. According to Matthew 5:17 he fully supported the god of the old: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

But, I suppose, as with all so called holy texts you can - it could in fact be argued that you must - pick the bits that suit your taste and ignore the ones that don't.