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.
the same can be said of God creating man, we are right here baring witness to Gods creation of man.
There simply is no witness to the non-life resurrection to life within natures natural balance, yet so many of you believe in it. Hate to point it out guy, but believing in something without evidence is what most call faith.
Pneuma, The second quote command has to have a slash in front of it to properly display the quoted material.
I would accept the 'resurrection' account if it were not so woven with inconsistencies and contradictions and the physical impossibility of flying away.
.
actually the inconsistencies and contradictions support the account as if there was none then people would call it a conspiracy.
That You could accept the resurrection but not the flying away I find kind of weird. I mean if you can believe in one supernatural event why not the other?
* Least likely, is that correct English? My books say yes, but to me it reads strange.
Harry, I can't see that anyone else answered, so I will provide the lesson for the day (not to be confused with "The Lesson for the Day" that someone will read in church tomorrow!).
Jawohl... "least likely" is correct English, in the way you used it. You might say "X is less likely than Y" if you were providing a comparator in the same sentence. You would say "X is the least likely explanation" as a more absolute statement, meaning the very least likely... less likely than all other choices.
actually the inconsistencies and contradictions support the account as if there was none then people would call it a conspiracy.
That You could accept the resurrection but not the flying away I find kind of weird. I mean if you can believe in one supernatural event why not the other?
There's nothing supernatural about reviving after clinical death. I used inverted commas with 'resurrection' to indicate that it was not an actual resurrection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I would accept the 'resurrection' account if it were not so woven with inconsistencies and contradictions and the physical impossibility of flying away.
There are indications that survival of the crucifixion is medically possible but the stories as written tend to indicate the disciples took the body away.
I'll give you an example. A group of women go to the tomb and find it empty. An angle tells them to go and tell the twelve the Jesus has arisen but the women were afraid so they went away and told no one. Firstly, this differs markedly from other accounts and secondly, they went away and told no one - right?
actually the inconsistencies and contradictions support the account as if there was none then people would call it a conspiracy.
A familiar apologetic but wrong.
Sure. two or more witnesses standing up in court and reciting the xsame story word for word would sound suspicious. The same story told in different words is what we would expect.
Where it is wrong is that the Synoptics DO recite the same the same story word for word in many places, thos showing an original common text they All worked from (including Mark as i keep saying ) and where they don't agree, it is evidence where they added their own inventions to it and sometimes inventions that wildly contradict each other.
This, so far from standing up in court. would get them jailed on a perjury charge.
Quote:
That You could accept the resurrection but not the flying away I find kind of weird. I mean if you can believe in one supernatural event why not the other?
In principle I agree. Though a lot of atheists and bible-critics won't (but they disagree with me on a lot of other things, too ) True, miracles don't normally happen. Of they did they wouldn't be miraculous. But If Jesus was a one off miracle -worker, then that miracles don't normally happen isn't a reason to claim that as evidence that he didn't do them.
On the other hand, the fact that Luke has Jesus flying off into the sky and nobody else does, is a reason to doubt the claim, while the claim of the bodily resurrection in four gospels (five if you count Peter's gospel (1) is to be taken as generally attested.
(1)"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.
10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep? And a response was heard from the cross, Yes." (Gospel of Peter)
the same can be said of God creating man, we are right here bearing witness to God's creation of man.
There simply is no witness to the non-life resurrection to life within natures natural balance, yet so many of you believe in it. Hate to point it out guy, but believing in something without evidence is what most call faith.
You are right, believing in something without evidence is what most call faith but I am not talking about anything for which we have no evidence.
And by the way, God creating man is called magic. Ok so the myth does not claim out of nothing. The myth has it that God made a clay image of a man then breathed life into it. That's the magic part. The myth goes on to say that God then took a bone from the man and made a woman for the man.
It's a strange story if you think about it. God decides to create man but forgets to create a woman. Why not just make a clay image of a man and a woman and breath life into both of them? There must have been a plan surely? Afterall, God made the clay image of a man to include all his man bits so clearly there was a need for a woman, right?
Hi Harry everything is good, thanks. I post in fits and jerks sometime here for a month or 2 at a time then take a break specially during summer months. Wife would kill me otherwise. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
explain why?
As I see it if there is a God it is logical to believe in the supernatural, thus to believe in God and not the supernatural would be illogical.
Actually you may be correct. Valid logic is based on the form of the argument, not it's content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Harry that sounds to me like you are trying to get around the problem and not addressing it. Life, however you define it, had to come from somewhere. So stating it is just an undirected chemical reaction does not answer the question imo.
No, life is an exorgenic chemical reaction*, so it is a subset of chemistry. Pretending life and non-life are distinct is inventing a problem that does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Yes and this is unfortunate for to really discus both worldviews science has to play a big part in it, otherwise the only worldview that is really being discussed is the Christians because both worldviews cannot be set side by side to see which one actually holds the truth. tis a shame.
We can avoiding the science while talking about the world view. And it would be on topic as the OP is about two different world views. So two questions. Why do you think evolution is a myth invented by scientists, and how do you explain religious scientists also accept evolution?
You are right, believing in something without evidence is what most call faith but I am not talking about anything for which we have no evidence.
And by the way, God creating man is called magic. Ok so the myth does not claim out of nothing. The myth has it that God made a clay image of a man then breathed life into it. That's the magic part. The myth goes on to say that God then took a bone from the man and made a woman for the man.
It's a strange story if you think about it. God decides to create man but forgets to create a woman. Why not just make a clay image of a man and a woman and breath life into both of them? There must have been a plan surely? Afterall, God made the clay image of a man to include all his man bits so clearly there was a need for a woman, right?
Eve was an omniscient afterthought
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.
) and where they don't agree, it is evidence where they added their own inventions to it and sometimes inventions that wildly contradict each other. 
) True, miracles don't normally happen. Of they did they wouldn't be miraculous. But If Jesus was a one off miracle -worker, then that miracles don't normally happen isn't a reason to claim that as evidence that he didn't do them.