Christmas Presents For Random People
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Christians
92 Answers
There is no concrete evidence of the resurrection of Jesus - in fact it's possible that he didn't die on the cross - so why do you believe?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland, I've had a busy morning. Where have you been anyway? Are you ok?
I don't really know what you're taking about Theland when you say 'adapting a viewpoint, a belief and now only considering the evidence'. I was asked to give my reasons for believing he survived, so I have. Although there is no proof one way or the other, I was once a Christian and believed as you do. However, I have since looked at the available evidence objectively, which with all due respect I feel is more than you can say, and the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Jesus survived.
To say, as NJOK does, that the majority of historians believe he died proves nothing. Are we supposed to go along with that because they presumably are 'experts'? Experts said that the world was flat at one time - and if a train travelled at more than about 20mph its passengers would be killed - and people believed them simply because they were 'experts', so not necessarily a good idea in my opinion. You may as well say that Christians know all about Christianity and they believe the bible is god's word, so therefore it is.
Have you asked yourself why educated non-believers who talk, study and think about this subject don't believe? The reason is because they haven't taken other people's beliefs on board, they don't have pre-conceived ideas, they have looked at the evidence objectively and they have reached the most logical solution.
I don't really know what you're taking about Theland when you say 'adapting a viewpoint, a belief and now only considering the evidence'. I was asked to give my reasons for believing he survived, so I have. Although there is no proof one way or the other, I was once a Christian and believed as you do. However, I have since looked at the available evidence objectively, which with all due respect I feel is more than you can say, and the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Jesus survived.
To say, as NJOK does, that the majority of historians believe he died proves nothing. Are we supposed to go along with that because they presumably are 'experts'? Experts said that the world was flat at one time - and if a train travelled at more than about 20mph its passengers would be killed - and people believed them simply because they were 'experts', so not necessarily a good idea in my opinion. You may as well say that Christians know all about Christianity and they believe the bible is god's word, so therefore it is.
Have you asked yourself why educated non-believers who talk, study and think about this subject don't believe? The reason is because they haven't taken other people's beliefs on board, they don't have pre-conceived ideas, they have looked at the evidence objectively and they have reached the most logical solution.
Naomi, have a look back at what I actually wrote.
I said that the majority of historians saying one thing doesn't constitute proof. It just explains why so many people do believe that Jesus died of crucifixion. Which I think is what you asked.
It doesn't mean it actually happened. And by the same token, a sensationlist conspiracy theory doesn't prove that it didn't.
That's history for you.
I said that the majority of historians saying one thing doesn't constitute proof. It just explains why so many people do believe that Jesus died of crucifixion. Which I think is what you asked.
It doesn't mean it actually happened. And by the same token, a sensationlist conspiracy theory doesn't prove that it didn't.
That's history for you.
NJOK, I re-read your post, and it still comes across as though you believe these historians findings to be evidence of the resurrection.
However, I do agree with you that nothing constitutes proof one way or the other. We can only consider the evidence available and come to our own conclusions.
And you are right - that is history for you. People over the ages have twisted history into all sorts of shapes in an effort to distort or to conceal the facts.
However, I do agree with you that nothing constitutes proof one way or the other. We can only consider the evidence available and come to our own conclusions.
And you are right - that is history for you. People over the ages have twisted history into all sorts of shapes in an effort to distort or to conceal the facts.
History is limited and often contradictory, nobody can deny that.
Many Christian scholars do not believe the Resurrection and Ascension happened as described in the New Testaments, and some do not believe in them at all. You don�t have to believe in miracles to believe in the existence of Jesus and a divine being.
As said previously, you have chosen a different path. I am happy for you and will make no attempt to try and convince you that my belief is right and is the one for you.
So why do you continue incessantly to try and corrupt my faith and beliefs and convert me to the acceptance and agreement your own non-Christian beliefs as though you are the only one that is right? Naomi, is the existence of Christianity and all other Abrahamic faiths keeping you awake at night, you certainly seem to be very self conscious of it.
Many Christian scholars do not believe the Resurrection and Ascension happened as described in the New Testaments, and some do not believe in them at all. You don�t have to believe in miracles to believe in the existence of Jesus and a divine being.
As said previously, you have chosen a different path. I am happy for you and will make no attempt to try and convince you that my belief is right and is the one for you.
So why do you continue incessantly to try and corrupt my faith and beliefs and convert me to the acceptance and agreement your own non-Christian beliefs as though you are the only one that is right? Naomi, is the existence of Christianity and all other Abrahamic faiths keeping you awake at night, you certainly seem to be very self conscious of it.
To follow on from Octavius ..... a parallel example ..... I have no interest in trainspotting, bird watching, cycling, or mountain climbing, but good luck to those who find these things fulfilling. Yet, I could not expend time and energy debating with such people, why they shouldn't do these things because I don't myself. Oh poo! What a lousy analagy ... but ... you know what i mean.
...and when was the last time birdwatchers affected the life of a non-birdwatcher in any non-trivial way, Theland?
It's not about people having a problem with a person going to a building and talking to a non-existant being. That's your business. However, when a bunch of people decide to support political candidates because of some percieved shared view regarding the desirablity of starting wars in the middle east because they think this will bring back their sky god, you're into different territory.
When Mani tries to convert a co-worker's sexuality because his religious beliefs tell him they're immoral, you're into different territory.
When I am unable to go to the theatre and see intelligent, thought-provoking shows because someone else has decided it would be bad for me, you're into different territory.
When a cancer charity is bullied into not accepting the proceeds of a benefit show by the cast of the above show, because someone else has decided it would be immorral, you're into different territory.
When was the last time a trainspotter did any of those things?
It's not about people having a problem with a person going to a building and talking to a non-existant being. That's your business. However, when a bunch of people decide to support political candidates because of some percieved shared view regarding the desirablity of starting wars in the middle east because they think this will bring back their sky god, you're into different territory.
When Mani tries to convert a co-worker's sexuality because his religious beliefs tell him they're immoral, you're into different territory.
When I am unable to go to the theatre and see intelligent, thought-provoking shows because someone else has decided it would be bad for me, you're into different territory.
When a cancer charity is bullied into not accepting the proceeds of a benefit show by the cast of the above show, because someone else has decided it would be immorral, you're into different territory.
When was the last time a trainspotter did any of those things?
Waldo - the difference is in peoples differing views of morality. Absolute or relative.
As usual you have raised a lot of points at once. A tall order to answer them all at once.
The cancer charity would not accept money from the proceeds of, say, child porn? Obviously not. So, sliding along the scale of morality, black and white becomes grey and blurred. This is an example of that situation. Differing views on morality.
As usual you have raised a lot of points at once. A tall order to answer them all at once.
The cancer charity would not accept money from the proceeds of, say, child porn? Obviously not. So, sliding along the scale of morality, black and white becomes grey and blurred. This is an example of that situation. Differing views on morality.
I presume you are referring to an individual (Mani) with immoderate opinions Waldo? Although I wish you wouldn�t as it makes the whole thread confusing when you don�t know who or what you are on about. So this general dissension is down to one person?
I thought an educated man would realise that wars are based on politics, power, ambition and wealth. I don�t understand your comment about political candidates and religion. Are you saying that all Christians are political activists and warmongerers? That may historically be so, but only under the false banner of faith, still a medieval thought practiced in the Middle East, agreed. I haven�t started any wars.
Homophobia is not the preserve of Christians. I remember in my youth, skinheads actively wandering around my local streets �queer-bashing�. I never saw them at church. I have a friend who is an atheist and thinks paedophilia and homosexuality are crimes which deserve equal retribution.
Who tells you what to watch and what not to watch? Oh you mean like the Life of Brian when Catholics said �down with this sort of thing�? I remember watching it in Ireland shortly after it was release and me and my family thought it was hilarious. It hasn�t affected my viewing, so why yours?
I am confused as to why someone who has no belief, little understanding, and no patience for a religion which they feel is an anomaly against their own natural instincts and incongruity in others, is so affected by me being a Christian.
I thought an educated man would realise that wars are based on politics, power, ambition and wealth. I don�t understand your comment about political candidates and religion. Are you saying that all Christians are political activists and warmongerers? That may historically be so, but only under the false banner of faith, still a medieval thought practiced in the Middle East, agreed. I haven�t started any wars.
Homophobia is not the preserve of Christians. I remember in my youth, skinheads actively wandering around my local streets �queer-bashing�. I never saw them at church. I have a friend who is an atheist and thinks paedophilia and homosexuality are crimes which deserve equal retribution.
Who tells you what to watch and what not to watch? Oh you mean like the Life of Brian when Catholics said �down with this sort of thing�? I remember watching it in Ireland shortly after it was release and me and my family thought it was hilarious. It hasn�t affected my viewing, so why yours?
I am confused as to why someone who has no belief, little understanding, and no patience for a religion which they feel is an anomaly against their own natural instincts and incongruity in others, is so affected by me being a Christian.
I don't think you can separate the two, Theland.
It's getting into a recognised logical fallacy called 'The no true Scotsman' fallacy, which is by Antony Flew. (You might know him because in 2004 he expressed deist views after years of athiesm, and consequently has become the lazy Christian's poster boy for showing even clever people can believe in God (by lazy I mean the fact that it's a) one person, so how much weight should be accorded to it b) most of 'em don't even understand the difference between deism and theism and c) it's just parrotted, not that it doesn't prove that even clever people can believe in God)
Anyway, the fallacy goes as follows (changed from Scotsman to Christians, for clarity): Alan does something, percieved as bad. Ben observes that no Christian would do what Alan has done. Then Carl, who is a Christian does what Alan does. This proves Ben is wrong that no Christian would do it, but rather than accept that, Ben merely says, 'Ah, but no *true* Christian would do what Alan and Ben did.'
You cannot continually dissassociate all Christians who do something wrong from Christianity, and claim it is unaffected by it - even if you maintain Christianity the message is distinct from Christianity the relgion. Somewhere along the line, you have to accept there is a causal relationship between these two factors.
It's getting into a recognised logical fallacy called 'The no true Scotsman' fallacy, which is by Antony Flew. (You might know him because in 2004 he expressed deist views after years of athiesm, and consequently has become the lazy Christian's poster boy for showing even clever people can believe in God (by lazy I mean the fact that it's a) one person, so how much weight should be accorded to it b) most of 'em don't even understand the difference between deism and theism and c) it's just parrotted, not that it doesn't prove that even clever people can believe in God)
Anyway, the fallacy goes as follows (changed from Scotsman to Christians, for clarity): Alan does something, percieved as bad. Ben observes that no Christian would do what Alan has done. Then Carl, who is a Christian does what Alan does. This proves Ben is wrong that no Christian would do it, but rather than accept that, Ben merely says, 'Ah, but no *true* Christian would do what Alan and Ben did.'
You cannot continually dissassociate all Christians who do something wrong from Christianity, and claim it is unaffected by it - even if you maintain Christianity the message is distinct from Christianity the relgion. Somewhere along the line, you have to accept there is a causal relationship between these two factors.
"I presume you are referring to an individual (Mani) with immoderate opinions Waldo? Although I wish you wouldn�t as it makes the whole thread confusing when you don�t know who or what you are on about. So this general dissension is down to one person?"
Hardly. However, he is one individual well known (and reviled) upon this board, whose actions are a direct result of his religious convictions. Like Theland, you're making the fallacious 'No True Scotsman' defence.
"I thought an educated man would realise that wars are based on politics, power, ambition and wealth. I don�t understand your comment about political candidates and religion. Are you saying that all Christians are political activists and warmongerers? That may historically be so, but only under the false banner of faith, still a medieval thought practiced in the Middle East, agreed. I haven�t started any wars."
'No True Scotsman'. Right wing Christians in the United States support candidates that share their attitude towards the Middle East. It is a well known, understood and kowtowed to part of the electorate, instrumental in helping Bush win the Presidency.
Cont....
Hardly. However, he is one individual well known (and reviled) upon this board, whose actions are a direct result of his religious convictions. Like Theland, you're making the fallacious 'No True Scotsman' defence.
"I thought an educated man would realise that wars are based on politics, power, ambition and wealth. I don�t understand your comment about political candidates and religion. Are you saying that all Christians are political activists and warmongerers? That may historically be so, but only under the false banner of faith, still a medieval thought practiced in the Middle East, agreed. I haven�t started any wars."
'No True Scotsman'. Right wing Christians in the United States support candidates that share their attitude towards the Middle East. It is a well known, understood and kowtowed to part of the electorate, instrumental in helping Bush win the Presidency.
Cont....
"Homophobia is not the preserve of Christians. I remember in my youth, skinheads actively wandering around my local streets �queer-bashing�. I never saw them at church. I have a friend who is an atheist and thinks paedophilia and homosexuality are crimes which deserve equal retribution."
So what? The argument being that other people are idiots does not absolve Christians of their behaviour.
"Who tells you what to watch and what not to watch? Oh you mean like the Life of Brian when Catholics said �down with this sort of thing�? I remember watching it in Ireland shortly after it was release and me and my family thought it was hilarious. It hasn�t affected my viewing, so why yours?"
No True Scotsman. Okay, so how was I supposed to go and see Jerry Springer the Opera when Christians objecting to its content forced nine theatres to pull out of the tour as a direct, cited consequence of their protests.
"I am confused as to why someone who has no belief, little understanding, and no patience for a religion which they feel is an anomaly against their own natural instincts and incongruity in others, is so affected by me being a Christian."
As I say, if you want to go and pray to your sky god and sing a few Crowded House-Lite songs or whatever, it's none of my business, and I don't care. If your beliefs inpinge on my rights to go about my lawful business, then I care.
So what? The argument being that other people are idiots does not absolve Christians of their behaviour.
"Who tells you what to watch and what not to watch? Oh you mean like the Life of Brian when Catholics said �down with this sort of thing�? I remember watching it in Ireland shortly after it was release and me and my family thought it was hilarious. It hasn�t affected my viewing, so why yours?"
No True Scotsman. Okay, so how was I supposed to go and see Jerry Springer the Opera when Christians objecting to its content forced nine theatres to pull out of the tour as a direct, cited consequence of their protests.
"I am confused as to why someone who has no belief, little understanding, and no patience for a religion which they feel is an anomaly against their own natural instincts and incongruity in others, is so affected by me being a Christian."
As I say, if you want to go and pray to your sky god and sing a few Crowded House-Lite songs or whatever, it's none of my business, and I don't care. If your beliefs inpinge on my rights to go about my lawful business, then I care.
Octavius, thank you for your concern, but the subject doesn't keep me awake at night. I contribute to R&S because I'm interested in history and in particular religious history. I thought this was an open forum, but clearly you don't welcome opinions that contradict your own.
Theland: I have no interest in birdwatching and therefore would not waste my time debating that. I do however, have an interest in religion - so your analagy wasn't parallel or even close to parallel. You're absolutely right - it was a rotten example.
Waldo: Well said.
Theland: I have no interest in birdwatching and therefore would not waste my time debating that. I do however, have an interest in religion - so your analagy wasn't parallel or even close to parallel. You're absolutely right - it was a rotten example.
Waldo: Well said.
Naomi - Opinions that contradict my own are fine, that is what makes the world go round. I think if you are questioning your own beliefs then fine. Your posts just seem to be a constant attack on Christian beliefs � I was worried you weren�t getting out enough.
Waldo, if my belief's impinge upon your rights to go about your lawful business then I must of course stand up and apologise, but surely watching anything associated with Jerry Springer is insipid. Wasn�t it shown on BBC? If you must advocate peoples freedom to do whatever they so wish (without being trodden down), then why should the same not apply to me? Or do I not get a say because I am Christian?
The original question refers to Christians and their belief. I am a Christian and I have contributed to the post, if you must play the trivialities of setting me apart from the Christian �no true Scotsman (yawn)� � particularly Right Wing American Ones � then so be it. You tag me as a Christian guilty of all those crimes you have pointed out, but when I say I personally am not guilty of those things you insinuate I cannot therefore be a Christian. Thanks to your well-substantiated cerebral prose, I have seen the light.
Waldo, if my belief's impinge upon your rights to go about your lawful business then I must of course stand up and apologise, but surely watching anything associated with Jerry Springer is insipid. Wasn�t it shown on BBC? If you must advocate peoples freedom to do whatever they so wish (without being trodden down), then why should the same not apply to me? Or do I not get a say because I am Christian?
The original question refers to Christians and their belief. I am a Christian and I have contributed to the post, if you must play the trivialities of setting me apart from the Christian �no true Scotsman (yawn)� � particularly Right Wing American Ones � then so be it. You tag me as a Christian guilty of all those crimes you have pointed out, but when I say I personally am not guilty of those things you insinuate I cannot therefore be a Christian. Thanks to your well-substantiated cerebral prose, I have seen the light.
Octavius: Attack is an odd word to use. My posts are simply an attempt to discover a modicum of logic in Christian belief. Resorting to sarcasm to further your argument is a sorry response to intelligent debate.
The original question doesn't refer to the wider issue of Christians belief. It refers to the logic of believing, without proof, the reality of the resurrection.
The original question doesn't refer to the wider issue of Christians belief. It refers to the logic of believing, without proof, the reality of the resurrection.
