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.
You know, like 120 posts later I still have to explain myself, especially to Mike, what the title of this thread really means. Mike spent the first three or four posts trying to convince me that Jesus wasn't imaginary; that he really lived. I get that. I acknowledged a Jesus character probably lived and was crucified; I mean the legend had to start somewhere.
Don't deny that you have doubts about whether an historical Jesus even lived when you specifically stated your doubts in post #59 and contrasted the mortal man Jesus with the Jesus you say ''is imaginary.'' You have doubts that Jesus as a mere man even existed; ''...just a mortal man if he actually lived'' means that you think that Jesus as a mortal man, as opposed to the Biblical Jesus, may not have actually lived.
Post #59
''There are innumerable things that should tip Christians off that Jesus is imaginary or just a mortal man if he actually lived--no historical references, gospels written by anonymous individuals 50-100 years after this Jesus character supposedly lived,''
But my point was that the death of the man who was killed does not mean that the Biblical Jesus was imaginary. The death of that man does not mean the what the Bible says about Jesus is wrong. Again, Jesus made no promise that his disciples would be protected from harm.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-27-2018 at 09:31 AM..
This post is idiotic. Any one will die if they get shot by arrows or a gun. Athiests cant even understand that fact.
no, we understand that.
theist need to understand there are different types of atheist. There is no official "sects", but we are so different the notion applies.
one sect is only glad that a theist was killed. it appears they don't much care about anything else. Like fundie theist don't care care.
others apply the same rules to theist as we do atheist. We do this because god has little bearing on us. and since our parents did their jobs we don't much care about religion either way.
The rule we apply to this situational situation is simple. Anybody that "invades" a country uninvited can be hurt or killed.
you will see these people apply double standards to our situation in the states.
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm sorry, but where does Jesus promise ultimate physical protection when we go out into the world and keep us from dying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You're making the same mistake that many fundamentalist Christians make by taking everything it says overly literally. While there is much that is literal in the Bible there is also much metaphorical language. Matthew 17:20 and 21:21 which you distort, speak of faith moving mountains/cast into the sea in 21:21. The language is obviously metaphorical or proverbial for overcoming great difficulties as in the case of Isaiah 40:4, 49:11; 54:10; 1 Corinthians 13:2.
Since, like Thrillobyte, you seem to be claiming that Jesus made a promise that his disciples would be protected from harm, all you have to do is post the verse where he supposedly made such a claim. And Mark 16:9-20 is regarded by scholars as not being authentic, so you can't legitimately use anything contained in that passage to argue your case. But Jesus made no such promise, and as I've shown, what Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 say argues against any such claim that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from harm.
You can continue to insist that Jesus was speaking literally about being able to literally move a literal mountain with faith, but to do so makes you just as mistaken as fundamentalist Christians who insist that the Genesis creation accounts are literal.
So then the question becomes "To what degree should I rely on God/Jesus to protect me from harm? What does "I will protect you from harm" really mean in the Bible?
Obviously John Chau had a literal interpretation of dozens of verses in the Bible about God protecting his life. But this only points up to how chaotic and disorganized Christianity is when a Gallup poll finds that 31% of Christians believe in a literal interpretation and 47% believe in a metaphorical interpretation (numbers skewed slightly to reflect secular opinions). So again when a Christian read these verses how should s/he interpret them? Literally or metaphorically?
Quote:
Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life. Psalm 138:7
Quote:
You save me from violent people 2 Samuel 22:3
Quote:
The LORD will keep you from all harm— he will watch over your life Psalm 121:7
I could list a dozen more explicit promises in the Bible that God will keep His people safe from what reads to be physical harm. They read as literally and explicitly as one could hope if he were looking for an ironclad guarantee of safety from arrows flying at him.
But Mike and Jeff want to bend the meaning now because evidence demonstrates in the starkest of realities how badly these promises by God completely fail. I mean Mike and Jeff aren't going to stand there and contradict the news headlines so they have to find a more rational means of explaining away the verses' failure to deliver on what the words promise. And metaphorical fills the bill.
But choosing to interpret metaphorically is pretty subjective, isn't it? I mean when God Himself promises to keep you from harm that's a pretty potent promise. But when we look at reality it reads like empty words. How do Christians get around this cognizant dissonance?
Here's one: those Old Testament promises were under the Mosaic Covenant. Under the New Covenant of Jesus they were invalidated. More specifically they were conveniently converted from physical protection to spiritual protection. How that for some fancy two-stepping footwork?
However you try to explain this stuff away it all reads "pure excuse-making" and "rationalizing" and it's a shame that is what good Christians are forced to resort to when reality collides head-on with the Bible.
Really? I quoted Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2, both of which show that Jesus, far from promising that his disciples would not be killed, said that they would be. So which of us is ignoring what the Bible actually says? You are every bit as dishonest as you say Christians are.
You crafty bugger I was the one pointed out that Jesus warned the disciples of the fatal consequences when you tried to pretend that Jesus not specifically saying he would protect them nullified the promise to answer the prayers of the faithful up to and including shifting mountains about, buit not apparently fending off arrows.
Of course one might argue that Jesus had warned him in a dream that he'd stop a couple of arrows, but he joyfully went to martyr's death anyway. You can if you like. That seems your only leap out of the corner you painted yourself into.
So then the question becomes "To what degree should I rely on God/Jesus to protect me from harm? What does "I will protect you from harm" really mean in the Bible?
Obviously John Chau had a literal interpretation of dozens of verses in the Bible about God protecting his life. But this only points up to how chaotic and disorganized Christianity is when a Gallup poll finds that 31% of Christians believe in a literal interpretation and 47% believe in a metaphorical interpretation (numbers skewed slightly to reflect secular opinions). So again when a Christian read these verses how should s/he interpret them? Literally or metaphorically?
I could list a dozen more explicit promises in the Bible that God will keep His people safe from what reads to be physical harm. They read as literally and explicitly as one could hope if he were looking for an ironclad guarantee of safety from arrows flying at him.
But Mike and Jeff want to bend the meaning now because evidence demonstrates in the starkest of realities how badly these promises by God completely fail. I mean Mike and Jeff aren't going to stand there and contradict the news headlines so they have to find a more rational means of explaining away the verses' failure to deliver on what the words promise. And metaphorical fills the bill.
But choosing to interpret metaphorically is pretty subjective, isn't it? I mean when God Himself promises to keep you from harm that's a pretty potent promise. But when we look at reality it reads like empty words. How do Christians get around this cognizant dissonance?
Here's one: those Old Testament promises were under the Mosaic Covenant. Under the New Covenant of Jesus they were invalidated. More specifically they were conveniently converted from physical protection to spiritual protection. How that for some fancy two-stepping footwork?
However you try to explain this stuff away it all reads "pure excuse-making" and "rationalizing" and it's a shame that is what good Christians are forced to resort to when reality collides head-on with the Bible.
As I told you, as long as God wants you to remain alive on this earth you will be. But when it's time for you to die, you will die.
Ecclesiastes 3:2a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
James the brother of John was martyred as stated in Acts 12:2. Stephen was martyred as stated in Acts 7:57-60. And so obviously, the Bible does not teach that the disciples of Jesus will be protected from death when it is their time to die.
You apparently don't have sense enough to realize this. So rant on.
You crafty bugger I was the one pointed out that Jesus warned the disciples of the fatal consequences when you tried to pretend that Jesus not specifically saying he would protect them nullified the promise to answer the prayers of the faithful up to and including shifting mountains about, buit not apparently fending off arrows.
Of course one might argue that Jesus had warned him in a dream that he'd stop a couple of arrows, but he joyfully went to martyr's death anyway. You can if you like. That seems your only leap out of the corner you painted yourself into.
I don't appreciate being misrepresented. Nor do I appreciate being called dishonest. I addressed Thrillobyte in post #40 long before you decided to post on this thread. I posted both Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 both of which state that Jesus said his disciples would be killed.
As long as God wants a person to remain alive on this earth he will be protected from death. But when it's time to die, it's time to die.
And I told you to post where it says anywhere in the Gospels that Jesus promised he would protect his disciples from death in all instances.
I have also shown that Jesus' reference to moving mountains was not literal but metaphorical or proverbial.
I don't appreciate being misrepresented. Nor do I appreciate being called dishonest. I addressed Thrillobyte in post #40 long before you decided to post on this thread. I posted both Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 both of which state that Jesus said his disciples would be killed.
As long as God wants a person to remain alive on this earth he will be protected from death. But when it's time to die, it's time to die.
And I told you to post where it says anywhere in the Gospels that Jesus promised he would protect his disciples from death in all instances.
I have also shown that Jesus' reference to moving mountains was not literal but metaphorical or proverbial.
Mike, don't be dense. We're atheists. Saying that, "As long as God wants a person to remain alive on this earth he will be protected from death" is something we don't believe in, in the least. You believe whatever you want to, but to say something in a post means nothing to the person who's reading it if they have a completely different belief than yours.
Mike, don't be dense. We're atheists. Saying that, "As long as God wants a person to remain alive on this earth he will be protected from death" is something we don't believe in, in the least. You believe whatever you want to, but to say something in a post means nothing to the person who's reading it if they have a completely different belief than yours.
Of course you don't believe it. I do however and I am going to answer on that basis and from the perspective of the Bible. But the issue here is whether the text states that Jesus made a promise to his disciples that they would not be killed as both Thrillobyte and Transponder are claiming, or if he in fact said that his disciples (at least some of them) would be killed. And I have shown that he did say that they would be killed which means that he made no promise to the contrary. I've told Transponder to post where in the Gospels Jesus ever made a promise that his disciples would not be killed, and he has not done so. He can't because there is no such verse.
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.
Love it. Anyone want to explain why atheists continue to oppose the burning of witches even though nobody believes that there actually are witches?
I was the one pointed out that Jesus warned the disciples of the fatal consequences when you tried to pretend that Jesus not specifically saying he would protect them nullified the promise to answer the prayers of the faithful up to and including shifting mountains about, buit not apparently fending off arrows.
