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.
Quite so. We have to be clear about what Jesus claim is being made. There are several
(1) a Historical Jesus - a real man upon whom Christianity is based and whom may or may not have been like the Jesus of the gospels.
(2) the christian Jesus who talked like a Paulinist Christian and who may or may not have actually expressed those views.
(3) a resurrected Jesus in heaven who is acting as a god, directing and protecting those who believe in him and try to do his will.
(4) an inspirational figure or teacher who (real or not) is a good role-model.
(3) is the one we are talking about here. (1) and (2) are not relevant to this discussion.
As we often say to religious apologists, nothing can be known 100%. But, given the firm claims and assurances of Christian beliefs, when they don't pan out, the evidence surely is strong that they are not true.
I can agree with all of that. But that's different than the title of the thread.
I can agree with all of that. But that's different than the title of the thread.
I can't agree. That Chau's mission, supposedly inspired by the resurrected Jesus in heaven, failed, id compelling evidence that the resurrected Jesus in heaven does not actually exist, and was just in his own head - and is in just in the heads of all the other believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I tell you what. Since you have now definitely proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is imaginary, message me when the following headline shows up on the front page of the Washington Post: OBSCURE POSTER PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT JESUS IS IMAGINARY.
Maybe Jesus was busy.
Maybe Chau misread the bible.
Maybe Jesus didn't agree with Chau.
Maybe Jesus was imaginary to Chau.
Maybe Chau was just plain crazy.
Yes. That is the apologetic to get over the suggestion of the thread that the failure of Chau's mission shows that the resurrected Jesus does not exist.
Jesus is not the Jesus Christianity is supposed to be if he is 'too busy' to make sure Chau's mission succeeded. It's the old polemic of 'can find car -keys but not prevent disasters'.
In which case missionaries are misreading it, too and should cease their activities immediately.
And perhaps Chau was -not crazy, exactly - but deluded, in which case why can't all Christians and indeed religious believers, be deluded?
This is the wider implication of the thread -topic.
I tell you what. Since you have now definitely proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is imaginary, message me when the following headline shows up on the front page of the Washington Post: OBSCURE POSTER PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT JESUS IS IMAGINARY.
Maybe Jesus was busy.
Maybe Chau misread the bible.
Maybe Jesus didn't agree with Chau.
Maybe Jesus was imaginary to Chau.
Maybe Chau was just plain crazy.
Please go back and read my post #399. You obviously skipped right over it. IF you HAD read it you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Hint: it has to do with "prima facie" cases and "being declared dead in absentia".
The "glorious savior risen and ascended son of God in heaven right now" Jesus is imaginary just like imaginary friends children create for playmates. No difference. Children may base their imaginary friend on a historic person like Edward from Prince and the Pauper but Edward is still an imaginary friend.
Please go back and read my post #399. You obviously skipped right over it. IF you HAD read it you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Hint: it has to do with "prima facie" cases and "being declared dead in absentia".
The "glorious savior risen and ascended son of God in heaven right now" Jesus is imaginary just like imaginary friends children create for playmates. No difference. Children may base their imaginary friend on a historic person like Edward from Prince and the Pauper but Edward is still an imaginary friend.
I think the main problem is you both have a point.
hes right and you are right. you clearly meant the deing and flying away part.
I lean your way because the fact is nobody died, woke up, and flew away. but I can see, like he said, that not mattering to some people.
It would certainly help when doing stand up comedy that is getting a bit near the PC line, to keep saying "Only kidding, only kidding!"
Exactly. There can be a perception (even i sometimes feel like it and joke about it) even though I know better, that the Mods are like the inquisition (without the red hats and Guy - Fawkes make -up) that will leap in through the door and seize any poster who has broken one of the many forum blasphemy laws and administer Correction and if necessary, temporary excommunication if they are sufficiently miffed.
It is almost a shock to find one actually arguing on the boards like one of us common mortals and fills one with a sense of dread to lean that a poster whom one had a debate with and to which you had dished out some tasty Home truths has been elvated like a Boddhisattva to Modhood and is even now sharpening her bolt of lightning.
But it isn't that at all. They are just like any other poster except that they have powers to step in and whack across the knuckles anyone who is getting out of line, screw up and throw in the wastebasket any essay which has the word "Wanker" in too often and can even send an infractious child out of the class.
If I am anything like the Spanish Inquisition--the Monty Python version, of course--I am Ximinez, the one coming through the door and trying to say what I say and revising and editing myself. That's one of the funniest features of the whole sketch (to a word freak like me).
Chapman: *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
(JARRING CHORD)
(The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain (Palin) enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles (Jones) has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang (Gilliam) is just Cardinal Fang)
Ximinez:NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)
Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
(JARRING CHORD)
(The cardinals burst in)
Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn! (To Cardinal Biggles/mensaguy) I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
I understand your point and agree that what happened proves nothing except that the man was a fool.
Yes. I have to agree with Phet and modify my position. There Are some excuses and it doesn't 'without doubt' prove that Jesus doesn't (not didn't) exist. But it does underline and point up some very pertinent questions about faith and the granting of prayer. Bottom line is, this is hard to explain away if Jesusgod exists. It makes perfect sense if he doesn't and people like John Chau are deluded, a danger to themselves and to others and (in this case) were showing contempt for human Law. This guy was a social criminal, and that he was doing it through religious conviction is no more excuse than the Bali bomber, whose happy smiling face as he was convicted still haunts me,
Yes. I have to agree with Phet and modify my position. There Are some excuses and it doesn't 'without doubt' prove that Jesus doesn't (not didn't) exist. But it does underline and point up some very pertinent questions about faith and the granting of prayer. Bottom line is, this is hard to explain away if Jesusgod exists. It makes perfect sense if he doesn't and people like John Chau are deluded, a danger to themselves and to others and (in this case) were showing contempt for human Law. This guy was a social criminal, and that he was doing it through religious conviction is no more excuse than the Bali bomber, whose happy smiling face as he was convicted still haunts me,
Agree.
The problem with the premise of this thread is proof. That's my whole point. There is no proof here. Is it a small piece of the puzzle coming together that points toward a valid reason for disbelief? Of course.
We atheists often demand proof from religionists, and we often make it quite clear what proof might consists of. And we don't accept anything less than proof. We need to be just as demanding with ourselves and not call something proof when it's not proof.
It reminds me of some You Tube videos that are entitled something like "Reporter Destroys Donald Trump". And yet, a day later, there's Donald Trump. Not destroyed at all.
It's a problem our society has quite often, particularly in politics, but often in religion -- overreach.
Yes. I have to agree with Phet and modify my position. There Are some excuses and it doesn't 'without doubt' prove that Jesus doesn't (not didn't) exist. But it does underline and point up some very pertinent questions about faith and the granting of prayer. Bottom line is, this is hard to explain away if Jesusgod exists. It makes perfect sense if he doesn't and people like John Chau are deluded, a danger to themselves and to others and (in this case) were showing contempt for human Law. This guy was a social criminal, and that he was doing it through religious conviction is no more excuse than the Bali bomber, whose happy smiling face as he was convicted still haunts me,
Well, people are critical of the title of the thread, not the message. But you know I only had so many characters to fit in the title space. I couldn't cram the entire idea in there so people simply have to piece together the threads I wrote in order to get where I'm coming from. Granted, "Dead missionary proves Jesus is imaginary" is not proof--until you read subsequent posts. In that case there's "prima facie" tons of proof--enough to declare Jesus "dead in absentia" (the Jesus of 2000 years ago), and declare the Jesus son of God of today imaginary and simply move on.
By the way, phetaroi, are you BaptistFundie in disguise? Why do I get the odd feeling I've been conversing with him all this time i.e. circling around the bush for 10 posts and not getting anywhere.
Well, people are critical of the title of the thread, not the message. But you know I only had so many characters to fit in the title space. I couldn't cram the entire idea in there so people simply have to piece together the threads I wrote in order to get where I'm coming from. Granted, "Dead missionary proves Jesus is imaginary" is not proof--until you read subsequent posts. In that case there's "prima facie" tons of proof--enough to declare Jesus "dead in absentia" (the Jesus of 2000 years ago), and declare the Jesus son of God of today imaginary and simply move on.
By the way, phetaroi, are you BaptistFundie in disguise? Why do I get the odd feeling I've been conversing with him all this time i.e. circling around the bush for 10 posts and not getting anywhere.
I checked the newpaper today, as well as CNN and MSNBC. I didn't see anything about the collapse of christianity based on your "proof".
You make some good points, but you way overreach, and as a result you diminish your position. It's hyperbole.
Me Baptist Fundie? I guess you really haven't been keeping up. I consider him to be a nemesis.
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.
That is the apologetic to get over the suggestion of the thread that the failure of Chau's mission shows that the resurrected Jesus does not exist.
and if necessary, temporary excommunication if they are sufficiently miffed. 
tons of proof--enough to declare Jesus "dead in absentia" (the Jesus of 2000 years ago), and declare the Jesus son of God of today imaginary and simply move on.
