Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Long post, but I do appreciate the information. I totally understand where you are coming from. But yes, I would disagree or have opposing viewpoints for almost everything you said. But it would do little good for either of us to rehash the same points over and over.
There are millions of people here in America with gullible or silly beliefs every day, and that has nothing to do with religion. There are tons of news stories, real and fake, tons of rumors, that way too many people believe. So gullibility or silliness would not be anything solely related to religion.
But I wholeheartedly dispute and deny that all those who believe in God are gullible, and certainly think you are mis-using both words, and I'd even say the definitions you provide support my stance. On the topic of religion, sure, youth are taught a specific religion from their parents. Perhaps here, you could say they are "easily deceived", but certainly no parent would intentionally deceive their child on this issue. Should they blindly accept this their whole life? This is where I meant No, they should learn and do their own research when they are older, and make their own choice. And I would guess a large majority do this! We see that because some leave the faith for good, some leave for a while then learn more later and come back, some change Christian denominations, and some have their faith confirmed even more so by what they learned. And then, when they are fully informed themselves, they will continue the cycle to pass their faith to their children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
But I wholeheartedly dispute and deny that all those who believe in God are gullible, and certainly think you are mis-using both words, and I'd even say the definitions you provide support my stance. On the topic of religion, sure, youth are taught a specific religion from their parents. Perhaps here, you could say they are "easily deceived", but certainly no parent would intentionally deceive their child on this issue. Should they blindly accept this their whole life? This is where I meant No, they should learn and do their own research when they are older, and make their own choice. And I would guess a large majority do this! We see that because some leave the faith for good, some leave for a while then learn more later and come back, some change Christian denominations, and some have their faith confirmed even more so by what they learned. And then, when they are fully informed themselves, they will continue the cycle to pass their faith to their children.
I don't believe in the existence of a creator God myself. The best scientific evidence indicates that E=MC2 (matter is one of the forms that energy takes), that energy can neither be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of energy, and that the process of matter/energy interacting with itself is responsible for the process known as quantum mechanics, which is responsible for all change. Everything that occurs does so for natural reasons. No God is observed, or required.
The evidence that the universe operates on it's own with no divine or supernatural guidance is really a product of the 20th century. Overcome thousands of years of ancient religious assumptions obviously is not going to occur overnight. The process is in motion however.
I don't consider people who believe that the universe was created by God to necessarily be gullible, however. The belief that their must have been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe seems obvious in the same way that it seems obvious that the earth is at the center of creation and the heavens revolve around the earth. It's just that detailed investigation has revealed what what seems obvious at first glance simply is not so.
Believing that a corpse once came back to life and subsequently flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds entirely on faith, however, requires a very high level of gullibility. Like believing that Muhammad flew up to heaven astride a flying steed, or that he once split the moon in two and then restored it again (Quranic verses 54:1-2). This story might seem perfectly and obviously silly to a non Muslim Christian or Jew, who yet at the same time unquestioningly accepts the story of Joshua fixing the sun in the sky for about 24 hours (Joshua 10:12-13). People who do not challenge the incredible/unrealistic/silly stories they are fed are being gullible. And as Edgar Welch discovered, being gullible can turn you into the laughing stock of the world. People should be taught to think for themselves. Instead, people are taught to believe what they are told.
Parents do not "intentionally" deceive their children. They tend to teach their children to believe exactly as they were taught to believe. And part of the belief system passed from parent to child inevitably declares that growing up to be a good person requires believing exactly as their parents believed.
I was raised Pentecostal, but became an atheist by default when I was 13. Because I realized that religious claims are far to silly to be true. Fortunately my parents thought it was a "phase" I was going through and did not throw me out. But I have heard many stores of individuals who were thrown out of there homes by their parents for not believing as they were instructed to believe. Which helps to explain why individuals overwhelmingly believe what they were told to believe. And goes a long way to explaining why a map of the world demographics of religions reveals that religions are concentrated into distinct areas of the world.
People overwhelmingly tend to subscribe to the belief their parents instructed them to believe in. For Muslims, challenging one's lifetime of religious indoctrination is a death sentence. To be fair, it was not all that long ago that challenging the truth of Christianity was a death sentence as well.
"So if a person has done due diligence (for them), and believes something, I don't think you can equate that with being gullible." - MattMN
"And then, when they are fully informed themselves, they will continue the cycle to pass their faith to their children." - MattMN
"Due diligence" invariably means buying into the believe that one's parents instructed them to believe, doesn't it! Because flying up to heaven on a flying steed is silly, but for a reanimated corpse to fly up to heaven, that is perfectly reasonable. Or vise-versa, depending on which area of the world you happened to be born in.
People who do not challenge the incredible/unrealistic/silly stories they are fed are being gullible.
I agree with this. But I also stated I believe many people DO challenge/research/learn on their own as they get older, and then make their own decisions. At this point, their choice is no longer considered gullible.
Quote:
... People should be taught to think for themselves. Instead, people are taught to believe what they are told.
As a child, yes. As an adult, no. Again no no no. It's not "this is how it is so shut up an be quiet and believe it." In my experience, there is plenty of encouragement for dialog and questions along the way for children.
Quote:
Parents do not "intentionally" deceive their children. They tend to teach their children to believe exactly as they were taught to believe. And part of the belief system passed from parent to child inevitably declares that growing up to be a good person requires believing exactly as their parents believed.
Perhaps this depends on the parents. If a child does not grow up to believe exactly as their parents believed, are they not considered a "good person"? Perhaps in some families, but this would be more a cultural thing, not a religious thing. It would be like growing up being taught good manners, then the child has bad manners. This does nothing to indicate religion is false or bad.
Quote:
"Due diligence" invariably means buying into the believe that one's parents instructed them to believe, doesn't it!
Absolutely not. That's why I listed several various scenarios that could come out of due diligence, and they all happen.
Is it "hard to believe" someone could have been raised from the dead? Absolutely. But yes, people do really believe this, even after doing extreme due diligence on the issue. Are you free to not believe it? Absolutely.
Ultimately I believe you will always feel anyone who is religious is "gullible." It seems to be a favorite label of yours. And based on the very definition of the word and my two posts on it, I contend it's a false label. You can certainly think they are "wrong" but you should not think they are all "gullible."
I agree with this. But I also stated I believe many people DO challenge/research/learn on their own as they get older, and then make their own decisions. At this point, their choice is no longer considered gullible.
As a child, yes. As an adult, no. Again no no no. It's not "this is how it is so shut up an be quiet and believe it." In my experience, there is plenty of encouragement for dialog and questions along the way for children.
Perhaps this depends on the parents. If a child does not grow up to believe exactly as their parents believed, are they not considered a "good person"? Perhaps in some families, but this would be more a cultural thing, not a religious thing. It would be like growing up being taught good manners, then the child has bad manners. This does nothing to indicate religion is false or bad.
Absolutely not. That's why I listed several various scenarios that could come out of due diligence, and they all happen.
Is it "hard to believe" someone could have been raised from the dead? Absolutely. But yes, people do really believe this, even after doing extreme due diligence on the issue. Are you free to not believe it? Absolutely.
Ultimately I believe you will always feel anyone who is religious is "gullible." It seems to be a favorite label of yours. And based on the very definition of the word and my two posts on it, I contend it's a false label. You can certainly think they are "wrong" but you should not think they are all "gullible."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
I agree with this. But I also stated I believe many people DO challenge/research/learn on their own as they get older, and then make their own decisions. At this point, their choice is no longer considered gullible.
All four Gospels indicate that Joseph of Arimethea brought the corpse of Jesus to his personal new tomb on Friday afternoon after the crucifixion. All four Gospels are unanimous that the tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. Does this represent undeniable proof that the corpse of Jesus returned to life? And if your answer is that it does not, can you really consider yourself to be a Christian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
As a child, yes. As an adult, no. Again no no no. It's not "this is how it is so shut up an be quiet and believe it." In my experience, there is plenty of encouragement for dialog and questions along the way for children.
People should be prepared to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions by the time they are grown, I agree. Is it reasonable to expect all of the years of indoctrination to be placed in abeyance while they consider all of the possibilities so they can reach their own conclusion? Or is it reasonable to suppose that years of indoctrination will have already pretty well settled the matter for most people by the time they are grown?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Perhaps this depends on the parents. If a child does not grow up to believe exactly as their parents believed, are they not considered a "good person"? Perhaps in some families, but this would be more a cultural thing, not a religious thing. It would be like growing up being taught good manners, then the child has bad manners. This does nothing to indicate religion is false or bad.
This depends on the denomination. Many Catholics believe that anyone who leaves the church is lost to God. Many Protestant groups feel the same way about Catholicism. And then there are the JW's and Mormons, and, well Let me put it this way. I am constantly informed by Christians that not every who claims to be a Christian is a true Christian. It's always possible to tell a true Christian however. A true Christian is invariably the person I am talking to.
Remember Tevye's decision to expel and shun his daughter Chava, because she wants to marry a non Jew? It broke his heart but it violated his beliefs, and his beliefs were that the children should do as the Papa decides. Only in the US would this be considered unreasonable and overbearing. In many cultures it is common practice. People's entire lives are directed and dictated by whatever ancient silly nonsense their parents happen to subscribe to. Breaking that chain is understandably difficult to do.
If you have never seen, "Fiddler on the Roof," find it and watch it. It is a terrific movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Absolutely not. That's why I listed several various scenarios that could come out of due diligence, and they all happen.
Do you consider yourself to be very familiar with the religion of Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? How much consideration have you actually given to the possibility that all religions are nothing more than ancient superstitious foolishness? If the honest answer is, "no not really," then how much "due diligence" have you actually shown? For most people "due diligence" involves immersing themselves even further into the belief system they were indoctrinated into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Is it "hard to believe" someone could have been raised from the dead? Absolutely. But yes, people do really believe this, even after doing extreme due diligence on the issue. Are you free to not believe it? Absolutely.
We are both free to believe that Santa has flying reindeer as well. And we both reject it, pretty much for the same reason. Because by any honest consideration the story contains elements which are flatly silly. But then we were never really indoctrinated (nudge nudge wink wink)into believing in Santa by our parents. Does the fact that you were told unequivocally that the story of the flying reanimated (ascended/resurrected) corpse of Jesus was unquestionably true by your parents and other adults, have an effect on retaining the belief in Jesus while at the same time rejecting your belief in Santa, do you suppose?
Am I REALLY comparing the story of flying reindeer with the story of the flying corpse of Jesus? Well, in the Santa story there were eight flying reindeer (sometimes nine), and only one Jesus in the Jesus story. But the reindeer did not have to return to life first, which sort of evens things up. So if you find this comparison irritating, try to imagine how foolish this all seems from my point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Ultimately I believe you will always feel anyone who is religious is "gullible." It seems to be a favorite label of yours. And based on the very definition of the word and my two posts on it, I contend it's a false label. You can certainly think they are "wrong" but you should not think they are all "gullible."
The only way you can believe what it is you believe is to simply accept on faith that it must all be true. You are REQUIRED to be gullible. Gullibility is necessary for your belief to continue. Abject gullibility has been transformed into a virtue among the gullible. But of course if the gullible KNEW they were gullible, it would be the end of their gullibility.
I don't believe in the existence of a creator God myself. The best scientific evidence indicates that E=MC2 (matter is one of the forms that energy takes), that energy can neither be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of energy, and that the process of matter/energy interacting with itself is responsible for the process known as quantum mechanics, which is responsible for all change. Everything that occurs does so for natural reasons. No God is observed, or required.
...
Most folks have no idea what E=MC² means. Or time dilation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The only way you can believe what it is you believe is to simply accept on faith that it must all be true. You are REQUIRED to be gullible. Gullibility is necessary for your belief to continue. Abject gullibility has been transformed into a virtue among the gullible. But of course if the gullible KNEW they were gullible, it would be the end of their gullibility.
So after 75 posts, I haven't seen any attempts to prove the resurrection (which could mean I've missed a few posts).
So I'll try. (Swoon theory).
Ok so I'm going out on a limb here but apparently it is entirely possible to survive crucifixion. 'Descending into hell for three days' would pretty much sum up the after effects of being crucified and survived.
A Roman soldier pierced his side with a spear and blood and water came out. That would have released the pressure from fluid build up around the heart and might have saved the man. (Not my idea). Piercing a dead body would hardly cause blood flow, no? Dead bodies don't bleed! Well, not the dead bodies I have cut open anyway (non human bodies).
Apparently, Josephus describes how he had three of his companions taken down off the cross and being attended to by a physician and one survived. Apparently, medically it is possible to survive crucifixion if one is taken down early enough and considering that one can take up to three days to die on the cross.
So, being taken down after only a few hours, being attended to by a physician, taking three days to 'recover', it all seems possible that the man could actually have survived the cross.
Why would he have appeared to have died? The sponge on a stick, dipped in vinegar and held to his mouth so he could drink? The sponge containing dried drugs of the day? It's possible he could have gone into a swoon state.
Of course that would mean that he did not actually die on the cross but hey, it would explain the resurrection. No?
So after 75 posts, I haven't seen any attempts to prove the resurrection (which could mean I've missed a few posts).
So I'll try. (Swoon theory).
Ok so I'm going out on a limb here but apparently it is entirely possible to survive crucifixion. 'Descending into hell for three days' would pretty much sum up the after effects of being crucified and survived.
A Roman soldier pierced his side with a spear and blood and water came out. That would have released the pressure from fluid build up around the heart and might have saved the man. (Not my idea). Piercing a dead body would hardly cause blood flow, no? Dead bodies don't bleed! Well, not the dead bodies I have cut open anyway (non human bodies).
Apparently, Josephus describes how he had three of his companions taken down off the cross and being attended to by a physician and one survived. Apparently, medically it is possible to survive crucifixion if one is taken down early enough and considering that one can take up to three days to die on the cross.
So, being taken down after only a few hours, being attended to by a physician, taking three days to 'recover', it all seems possible that the man could actually have survived the cross.
Why would he have appeared to have died? The sponge on a stick, dipped in vinegar and held to his mouth so he could drink? The sponge containing dried drugs of the day? It's possible he could have gone into a swoon state.
Of course that would mean that he did not actually die on the cross but hey, it would explain the resurrection. No?
CARM of course accepts the Gospel accounts as reliable. But it's remarkable that they never stop to wonder why, if Pilate was bending over backwards to let Jesus off with a flogging (which he would have ordered to be little more than a slap on the wrist for getting him out of be so early) he wouldn't have been a very willing participant in the plan of Arimathea's to see that Jesus survived.
Thus the swoon would be thanks to the wine the soldiers administered as soon as the High Priest and his cronies had left, the tomb guard would have have been guarding an empty tomb they knew better not to check - if they didn't help with rolling the stone back themselves.
There are of course serious objections to this, but they only serve to case doubt on some aspects of the gospel claim - that Pilate was at all inclined to let Jesus off, or the that he ever appeared in his ne imperishable body still with the new imperishable holes in. It does nothing to make Mr Slick's apologetics convincing to me any more than to Rachel.
You pointed it up - is what I'm getting at. If one goes by the gospels, a plot (rather than a natural swoon) is undeniable other than by confirmed denialists, but if one doesn't go by the gospels, the CARM apologetic is twice removed from whatever the facts of the matter were.
Most folks have no idea what E=MC² means. Or time dilation.
The most profound message of E=MC², perhaps the most profound discovery in human history, is that matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. Right up there next to the observation that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thus is existence explained.
So after 75 posts, I haven't seen any attempts to prove the resurrection (which could mean I've missed a few posts).
So I'll try. (Swoon theory).
Ok so I'm going out on a limb here but apparently it is entirely possible to survive crucifixion. 'Descending into hell for three days' would pretty much sum up the after effects of being crucified and survived.
A Roman soldier pierced his side with a spear and blood and water came out. That would have released the pressure from fluid build up around the heart and might have saved the man. (Not my idea). Piercing a dead body would hardly cause blood flow, no? Dead bodies don't bleed! Well, not the dead bodies I have cut open anyway (non human bodies).
Apparently, Josephus describes how he had three of his companions taken down off the cross and being attended to by a physician and one survived. Apparently, medically it is possible to survive crucifixion if one is taken down early enough and considering that one can take up to three days to die on the cross.
So, being taken down after only a few hours, being attended to by a physician, taking three days to 'recover', it all seems possible that the man could actually have survived the cross.
Why would he have appeared to have died? The sponge on a stick, dipped in vinegar and held to his mouth so he could drink? The sponge containing dried drugs of the day? It's possible he could have gone into a swoon state.
Of course that would mean that he did not actually die on the cross but hey, it would explain the resurrection. No?
Here is an alternate possibility for you to consider. No swoon theory. No mixed up tombs theory.
Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
The day after the crucifixion chief priests went out to Joseph's tomb, and finding it covered with a large stone, and owing to the nature of the day (the Sabbath and Passover) did not open and search it, but instead secured what was an already empty tomb! Why was the tomb already empty? Because Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, never intended that his brand new family crypt should be the final resting place for Jesus, but only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body. Because the day was late and his tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus had been crucified. The next day when the priests secured Joseph's tomb, the body of Jesus was already being relocated to it's actual intended final resting place by his disciples.
And so exactly what the priests feared the disciples intended to do is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty. Six weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and began to circulate the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Something only they witnessed, according to them.
So where would that final resting place have been? It was a strong custom among the Jews to bury their dead with family members. Any family of any substance had a personal family crypt where family members were interred together. Rich folks like Joseph could afford hand cut family crypts to be constructed. Folks of lesser means tended to use natural caves and caverns, usually with the family named carved at the entrance. If Joseph the rich man truly wanted to honor Jesus, he would have had the body transported home to be buried with is own family, not inter him with Joseph's family. Home to his family in Galilee, about 65 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. All down hill.
So, is this they way things actually played out? There is no way to know just how much of the story is valid. This particular accounting makes perfect sense however. It DOES NOT lead to supposing that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away I am afraid.
Very good. and does fit the story. Of course CARM will point to Matthew saying it was faked up lie arranged with the High Priest to cover up a resurrection that they knew had been predicted and had now been fulfilled. No suggestion of "Damn' it was true - we'd better repent and hope he comes to forgive us!" No, them Jews are too wicked for that.
But surely Matthew is eyewitness? Not to the Angel descending and scaring away the tomb guard because the women arrive after that to find the stone door open. So just how did one of Jesus' scattered disciples know all this?
Of course Apologists can invent explanations .."Well maybe one of those soldiers repented and converted to Christianity, and he talked to the disciples and told them the true tale.."
And maybe not, because, aside from Matthew being demonstrably a Greek Christian who couldn't read Hebrew and didn't understand the scriptures, none of this story filtered down to anyone else. No tomb guard, no descending angel. Given that the Synoptics at least all have the angel inside the tomb giving the resurrection message (give or take some editing and amendment) and John doesn't, -this being evidence of a common text the three used - that this staggering event is only in Matthew is strong evidence that he made it up. Just as Luke made up the Nazareth assassination attempt.
So by far the best conclusion that fits the facts is that there was no tomb guard. The tomb was opened as soon as Arimathea thought it was safe. This story eventually got out and indeed was circulating in Matthew's day. So in order to counter it he invented this daft Tomb guard story that nobody else has heard of.
That's the conclusion that really fits the evidence, but CARM doesn't think it though. Just takes the Gospel story as true and put all doubt aside. That is why apologists get made to look foolish all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
