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.
Who is it that accepts the miraculous and unbelievable claims for Alexander?
That is NOT what I said, Raf. I said his existence is accepted DESPITE those miraculous claims but Christ is not.
Quote:
Let's see what we have if we strip away the miraculous and unbelievable claims from both of them...
1. An extraordinary military leader who conquered most of the known world before he was 30 years old and whose existence is confirmed by records, coins, statues, cities, his enemies and his battles.
2. An itinerant, rebel rabbi whose outspoken criticism of the establishment got him killed (allegedly) who's existence is confirmed by...nothing.
Which one do you think has most significance to our lives today?
Clearly, we would EXPECT to find a great deal of historical evidence for such a leader as #1, not so much for #2 in that era. Yet, you expect to find the same kind of evidence from eras where recording insignificant people like #2 would not be expected to happen. BUT, as to who has more significance to our lives TODAY, #2 wins hands down. You should ask yourself why that is after so many millennia. And don't insult my intelligence by claiming it is entirely the result of coercion across centuries, cultures, nations, generations and millennia!
That is NOT what I said, Raf. I said his existence is accepted DESPITE those miraculous claims but Christ is not. Clearly, we would EXPECT to find a great deal of historical evidence for such a leader as #1, not so much for #2 in that era. Yet, you expect to find the same kind of evidence from eras where recording insignificant people like #2 would not be expected to happen. BUT, as to who has more significance to our lives TODAY, #2 wins hands down. You should ask yourself why that is after so many millennia. And don't insult my intelligence by claiming it is entirely the result of coercion across centuries, cultures, nations, generations and millennia!
You're arguing idealistically, Mystic. You refuse to see facts. Here are the facts: we have tons of evidence Alexander existed, forget the stories of the supernatural stuff. period. He existed. The evidence proves it. We haven't a shred of evidence Jesus existed outside the New Testament, so there's good reason not to believe he existed--at least as a god come to earth to save men from their sins. We actually have no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth at all as well, but we grant there's a possibility an ordinary man named Jesus existed upon which the religion was based. Otherwise for some it's hard to figure out why Christianity came into existence in the first place. But without some corroborating evidence how are we supposed to believe the nonsense Christians invented about Jesus?????????
I tell you again:
If God the Father wanted us to believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind He would have left us evidence so incontrovertible...so indisputable...so convincing, that it would take a madman, a lunatic to deny Jesus was the son of God.
But God the Father left us no such evidence. WHY?
I've asked that question a dozen times and no Christian has ever attempted to explain it to me, except to make the idiotic argument that God the Father DID leave us indisputable evidence in the form of the gospels. Such nonsense does a disservice to Christians as a whole because it's like saying, "God did leave us evidence there was a worldwide flood. It's Noah's ark."
You're arguing idealistically, Mystic. You refuse to see facts. Here are the facts: we have tons of evidence Alexander existed, forget the stories of the supernatural stuff.
Seems to me that was the point, that we should look at the evidence and not think that the presence of "supernatural stuff" undermines it.
Quote:
He existed. The evidence proves it.
And the fact that his biographies were written some 400 years after his death doesn't affect the reliability of those biographies.
Quote:
We haven't a shred of evidence Jesus existed outside the New Testament,
That the church renamed a collection of documents "The New Testament" doesn't magically strip them of their reliability, at least on certain points. As Ehrman and others have said, there's more evidence that Jesus existed than most figures of antiquity. That's just the fact; and it doesn't matter that the church later claimed that evidence as its own for the purposes of constructing "The Holy Bible".
Quote:
so there's good reason not to believe he existed--at least as a god come to earth to save men from their sins.
You know that isn't what people normally mean by "Jesus never existed". I don't know why you keep wording it that way when you know it's misleading.
Quote:
We actually have no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth at all as well, but we grant there's a possibility an ordinary man named Jesus existed upon which the religion was based.
That would be the man they call "Jesus of Nazareth". And we've plenty of evidence for him, far more than to stop at "Oh it's possible a man named Jesus existed"
Quote:
If God the Father wanted us to believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind He would have left us evidence so incontrovertible...so indisputable...so convincing, that it would take a madman, a lunatic to deny Jesus was the son of God.
I would actually agree with this, with some minor alterations. I think it follows logically that if a god wanted us to believe now that Jesus was his son, etc., he would have left us evidence (well, actually, absolute proof) of that. But you can see that when we take that statement and make it logically airtight, you don't have much of an argument there against Christianity...
And of course, it's not being convinced that god exists and Jesus was his son that would save us (on the hell doctrine), it's coming to accept god and Jesus and follow them, etc. Some argue that it's possible the maximal number of people are coming to Christianity (and being saved) with the way the world is arranged now, and that making god's existence/Jesus' relation to god more obvious wouldn't increase that number. They don't have to prove that is the case, mind you, just that it's possible, and that draws out the failure of this sort of anti-theistic argument.
And naturally, if Universalism is true, there's no reason to demand that we know the full truth about Jesus before we die either way.
Quote:
I've asked that question a dozen times and no Christian has ever attempted to explain it to me, except to make the idiotic argument that God the Father DID leave us indisputable evidence in the form of the gospels.
I agree that that's a bad (or "idiotic") argument. But I feel the same way about a lot of what the anti-theists have to say.
Quote:
Such nonsense does a disservice to Christians as a whole because it's like saying, "God did leave us evidence there was a worldwide flood. It's Noah's ark."
Yes! Sort of like the mythicists. They deny evidence and marginalize themselves unnecessarily, for the sake of an agenda that's actually harmed by their arguments (not helped).
I agree that that's a bad (or "idiotic") argument. But I feel the same way about a lot of what the anti-theists have to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Based on this statement, you don’t understand the difference between atheism and anti-theism.
How does that follow? The difference between atheism and anti-theism is that atheism is the absence of belief in any god, and anti-theism is the opposition of belief in god. And I'm intentionally speaking of those who put forth really bad arguments against the existence of god as part of that opposition. Things like the problem of evil argument, the Euthyphro, etc.
This would be the only justification for anti-theism that we should accept. We should demand that any group of people who opposes a worldview lay out a good case for why that worldview is false/invalid.
This would be the only justification for anti-theism that we should accept. We should demand that any group of people who opposes a worldview lay out a good case for why that worldview is false/invalid.
What do you mean ‘justification’ or ‘good case’ for anti-theism? We clearly aren’t on the same pitch - lol.
You're arguing idealistically, Mystic. You refuse to see facts. Here are the facts: we have tons of evidence Alexander existed, forget the stories of the supernatural stuff. period. He existed. The evidence proves it. We haven't a shred of evidence Jesus existed outside the New Testament, so there's good reason not to believe he existed--at least as a god come to earth to save men from their sins. We actually have no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth at all as well, but we grant there's a possibility an ordinary man named Jesus existed upon which the religion was based. Otherwise for some it's hard to figure out why Christianity came into existence in the first place. But without some corroborating evidence how are we supposed to believe the nonsense Christians invented about Jesus?????????
I tell you again:
If God the Father wanted us to believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind He would have left us evidence so incontrovertible...so indisputable...so convincing, that it would take a madman, a lunatic to deny Jesus was the son of God.
But God the Father left us no such evidence. WHY?
I've asked that question a dozen times and no Christian has ever attempted to explain it to me, except to make the idiotic argument that God the Father DID leave us indisputable evidence in the form of the gospels. Such nonsense does a disservice to Christians as a whole because it's like saying, "God did leave us evidence there was a worldwide flood. It's Noah's ark."
You put this very well. I agree with your assessment completely.
What do you mean ‘justification’ or ‘good case’ for anti-theism? We clearly aren’t on the same pitch - lol.
I mean that a person isn't justified (rational or morally correct) in opposing/antagonizing theism unless and until they can give a good argument for why we should think theism is false. Think about it. Would it automatically be okay to oppose any other worldview? Or would you be expected to have a good reason for doing so? I think the same should go for theism. No reason to oppose it? Then don't.
You're arguing idealistically, Mystic. You refuse to see facts. Here are the facts: we have tons of evidence Alexander existed, forget the stories of the supernatural stuff. period. He existed. The evidence proves it. We haven't a shred of evidence Jesus existed outside the New Testament, so there's good reason not to believe he existed--at least as a god come to earth to save men from their sins. We actually have no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth at all as well, but we grant there's a possibility an ordinary man named Jesus existed upon which the religion was based. Otherwise for some it's hard to figure out why Christianity came into existence in the first place. But without some corroborating evidence how are we supposed to believe the nonsense Christians invented about Jesus?????????
I tell you again:
If God the Father wanted us to believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind He would have left us evidence so incontrovertible...so indisputable...so convincing, that it would take a madman, a lunatic to deny Jesus was the son of God.
But God the Father left us no such evidence. WHY?
I've asked that question a dozen times and no Christian has ever attempted to explain it to me, except to make the idiotic argument that God the Father DID leave us indisputable evidence in the form of the gospels. Such nonsense does a disservice to Christians as a whole because it's like saying, "God did leave us evidence there was a worldwide flood. It's Noah's ark."
This is actually kind of cool. it left evidence to the exact opposite. and you didn't care back then.
why not?
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.
. It's really late here. I'll address Vic's argument tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard.
