An open letter to religious people

[shaolinmonk]

Just to reiterate what Monkey B said and to clarify:

it is written in the Bible that once Jesus had fallen unconscious (and from this most likely died) he was pierced with a sword and blood and water came out. This is now accepted as a sign that someone is dead, the fact that it was recorded probably seemed a small detail when it was written but is now a very important factor in proving Jesus did die on the cross.

Second, you can call the Bible 'just a book' written by some odd-bods having an elaborate practical joke, if Jesus had faked his own death he would have needed a lot of help to do it and these guys would know about it. Why then were they prepared to die for their beliefs? Many died horrific deaths, if they knew it was all a scam I doubt they would be willing to endure such tortures.

[Frank]

Andy Monkey B & Shaolinmonk, I think our own day-to-day experience furnish us with more than enough examples of people doing silly things for obscure reasons. Being publicly hamstrung for bizarre beliefs is one thing I can count many of my friends, and even myself, having done.

The leap of logic is not severe to suggest that:
1- It is 'just a book', albeit one with an incredibly significant following
2- There are very distinct and real motives that could lead people to falsify items in such a book.

With this (and a few other unstated major premiss) in mind I don't think it's unfair to be sceptical of the claims you folks are making given your seemingly overt credulity towards Bible.

The assumption made that 'the witnesses are correct' isn't the only tenuous assumption being made. That they are telling the truth, that they are not making typically human mistakes, that they are not falsifying bits without noticing to cover up stuff they don't exactly remember etc.

There is then little, in my view of the evidence (which, I'll admit, is hardly the stance of an authority, rather it is very far from it!) to support the belief that the Bible is the be-all-end-all account of truth and facts except this belief itself.

But then, I really could have missed something.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 23:38, 1st Aug 2008
So, could he have slipped into a coma, survived a wound meant to kill, and revived after three days of convalesence in a tomb? I suppose so, but it would have required either extraordinary luck and timing, or the complicity of his Roman executioners. Since it was Roman practice to leave victims on the cross for some time, to ensure their deaths... and since the Romans had absolutely nothing to gain by keeping this troublemaker alive, I think both possibilities are extremely unlikely.

The possibilities we have here are
1. No such events took place
2. They/some did take place but without breaking any natural laws
3. No, he really was god incarnate and it all happened. All the natural laws are now suspended because the supernatural is now known to exist. Magic and surviving death are now perfectly legitimate.

Arranging them in order of probability you must see how insane it is to even consider 3.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 02:14, 2nd Aug 2008
(why die for something that you know is a lie?). If he 'retired', then why after 40 days? he went through a LOT in 3 years, and even more in the 3 days, to throw it all away so quickly. And it would also make him a liar. the stuff he said before his crucifixion certainly don't fit the profile of an evil man trying to start a cult of his own.

Lying is not the only explanation for falsehoods. Delusions certainly help. How many people exist today who truly think they are god incarnate? You'll find them everywhere. How many of them have popular followings? Slightly less but they are there. How many of these disturbed individuals would be martyred if they were executed by the state? How many people see apparitions or visions everyday? You can easily see how it could've happened.

Your criteria for abandoning nature to believe in magic is rather low and so lest you become a hypocrite you must also believe in other magical stories, such as the resurrection of Odin.

Also, it wouldn't be jesus that would be lying, it would be those who attributed the words to him.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 10:48, 2nd Aug 2008

The possibilities we have here are
1. No such events took place
2. They/some did take place but without breaking any natural laws
3. No, he really was god incarnate and it all happened. All the natural laws are now suspended because the supernatural is now known to exist. Magic and surviving death are now perfectly legitimate.

Arranging them in order of probability you must see how insane it is to even consider 3.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

I was simply refuting the 'zombie' argument, Haunted. I've no wish to get into the metaphysics of this debate.

Although, I do feel inclined to point out a fairly typical flaw in your reasoning. In arguing this entire "resurection" debate, it's in the habit of those arguing against to assume that the resurrection of Jesus would violate the natural laws because human beings can't come back from the dead.

IF, and let me re-emphasise this because I know this is a point of contention, IF there is a God, or at least some sort of superior being(s) then it stands to reason that we can't assume that Jesus was *human* or possessed of a human physiology. Ergo, we can't assume that crucifixtion, being stabbed in the side, or flayed alive would be fatal to whatever he may have been - even within the laws of nature. No autopsy was done on the body, so it may well be the case that everything done to it was survivable due to a differing biology.

The point is, you can't successfully argue against God by assuming human properties for Jesus and then saying his 'resurrection' was impossible. It's a dead-end argument since it rests on an assumption, that Jesus was merely human, that is categorically denied by the opposition, not to mention the subject himself.

Since we don't have a body to subject to examination, a successful argument has to engage with the idea of God directly, otherwise the idea of Jesus will always have a 'get-out-of-logic-free' card.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[Haunted]

If the existence of an omnipotent god has first been established it would be easy to argue 'hey he's god, he can survive that'.

Jesus was god because he rose from dead, he rose from the dead because he was god....repeat ad infinitum.


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Frank]

I think an interesting point to note here would be the variations on the themes of Jesus being God. If I'm not mistaken this was a large point of contention leading up to the council of Nikaea. Woops, wrong universe. Council of Nicea.

Anyway: The point was that people were very split on the case of the divinity of Jesus. This is an example which arises in Islam too: Jesus (and Muhammed?) were prophets, but not divine. They spoke the Word of God, but they weren't actually God. In Christianity, and Catholicism particularly at least Jesus, God, the Spirit...all aspects of the one being.

Now, I don't agree (for now, at least) with LonelyPilgrim's assertion that one cannot assume Jesus having an abnormal physiology. Arguing sceptically or conservatively, it's a very difficult assumption to take on board.

That said, I do think the claim that "Resurrection is impossible!" must be suspended (or, at least, questioned) when considering this stuff. It's safe to return to this as a reason to reject the 'Jesus story' but I do concur with LonelyPilgrim's point that it is not a sufficient stance from which to argue against God directly.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 16:15, 3rd Aug 2008
That said, I do think the claim that "Resurrection is impossible!"

I never said impossible.
If the existence of an omnipotent god has already been established then absolutely anything (resurrection, magic etc) goes. If resurrection (or magic or something that can only be explained by god) has been established as true then it would imply that there is such an omnipotent intelligence. However, the existence of god has not been established, nor has the resurrection or any other magic for that matter and so the only way out is to board the circular logic train and close your eyes.

Jesus rose from the dead because he is god, he is god because he rose from the dead. I know the bible is true because the bible tells me so I know the bible is true...

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Haunted, you're the missing the point. The claim is that miracles, such as the resurrection of Christ, are possible, but only through the agency of God. Saying, "Oh, but we can't replicate miracles" or "But they don't happen everyday in predictable patterns" can not logical refute the premise, since we are not God. All we can prove is this fact: we are not God.

IN other words. A is necessary and sufficient for B where A is God and B is miracles. But B is not necessary for A, therefore an absence of B at any given time is not a refutation of the existence of A.

So arguing against God from the stance that miracles are impossible under the natural laws (aka impossible for *us* to recreate) is a logically insufficient argument. Fundamentally, if you want to change people's minds about God, you've got to argue on their premises. Constantly repeating "But it's insane, it violates these scientific rules of the universe! Why can't you see that?" is the equivalent of beating your head against a brick wall. It *might* be true, but it's not convincing.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[macgamer]

Quoting creepy old man from 03:42, 2nd Aug 2008
'you that they believe you are going to be eternally tortured in hell by their 'merciful' [G]od.

God does not torture anyone in Hell. Everyone in Hell chose to be there by their own free will. They rejected God and so enter a state so far removed from His presence, that it is tortuous.

We have been made to know, love and serve God in this life and the next, so to choose to deliberately and entirely remove oneself from His presence must be unimaginably horrible.

The crucial point here is that God has given us free will to choose believe in Him or not. Where we end up after death is our look out, with the help of His Grace of course and thanks to the Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. (I don't want to stray into Pelagianism!)

[macgamer]

Quoting Frank from 10:00, 2nd Aug 2008
There is then little, in my view of the evidence (which, I'll admit, is hardly the stance of an authority, rather it is very far from it!) to support the belief that the Bible is the be-all-end-all account of truth and facts except this belief itself.

But then, I really could have missed something.
[/i]

Well we would have to discuss the historicity of the Bible.

An interesting point to consider it that the Bible outside the context of the Church is just a book.

[WashingtonIrving]

Quoting macgamer from 22:49, 3rd Aug 2008

Quoting creepy old man from 03:42, 2nd Aug 2008
'you that they believe you are going to be eternally tortured in hell by their 'merciful' [G]od.

God does not torture anyone in Hell. Everyone in Hell chose to be there by their own free will. They rejected God and so enter a state so far removed from His presence, that it is tortuous.

We have been made to know, love and serve God in this life and the next, so to choose to deliberately and entirely remove oneself from His presence must be unimaginably horrible.

The crucial point here is that God has given us free will to choose believe in Him or not. Where we end up after death is our look out, with the help of His Grace of course and thanks to the Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. (I don't want to stray into Pelagianism!)

This is exactly how the "real world became a myth" and it is what sent us down the route taken by human thought for the last 2000 years. It took the rise of science to lead to fully-fled dualism, but we got there. Basically, for anyone who ever studied philosophy, this is why you had to endure Kantian metaphysics. Because, of course, there must be something more real than this laptop I am using to type on...

The bible as just a book - now thats more like it. Obviously the Bible is a fantastically valuable book. But, just as I don't take any other book as the ultimate authority on absolutely everything...



[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[creepy old man]

"God does not torture anyone in Hell."

So maybe he does not actively torture people, but he does nothing to stop them from being tortured. Allowing his son to be crucified 2000 years ago is not enough. Millions of people who have lived since the crucifixion never even had any idea that Jesus existed because they were from non-Christian areas. If God or Jesus was going to offer salvation to humankind, why did he only allow some people to know about it? Did he just forget about everybody else?

"The crucial point here is that God has given us free will to choose believe in Him or not."

I never said I don't believe in God, just that I don't believe in Jesus. And I don't care if you think that I'm going to burn in hell, because I don't believe in such a place. Actually, I feel sorry for people like you who spend their whole lives fearing they may get on God's bad side and end up burning for eternity. That's got to be pretty scary.

To me, the God that most Christians seem to believe in seems anything but loving and kind. It's a pretty evil thing to create imperfect, flawed creatures and then punish them horribly for being imperfect, even if they spent their whole lives being selfless and good. So people like Gandhi and Anne Frank are burning in hell right now because they didn't praise Jesus and help inflate his ego? I simply can't respect, let alone worship, a selfish god who puts narcissism before the well-being of his creations.

I don't have a problem with people thinking Jesus is holy, and I don't hate Christians. I'm just really tired of people telling me about hell and about how as a non-Christian I have no idea what it's like to "love God." Christianity is only one interpretation of God, not the only one and not necessarily the correct one!

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting creepy old man from 06:07, 4th Aug 2008

To me, the God that most Christians seem to believe in seems anything but loving and kind. It's a pretty evil thing to create imperfect, flawed creatures and then punish them horribly for being imperfect, even if they spent their whole lives being selfless and good. So people like Gandhi and Anne Frank are burning in hell right now because they didn't praise Jesus and help inflate his ego? I simply can't respect, let alone worship, a selfish god who puts narcissism before the well-being of his creations.

In my experience, this isn't *most* Christians' perception of God, though it is certainly the most vocal Christians'; the ones you notice.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 19:20, 3rd Aug 2008
Haunted, you're the missing the point. The claim is that miracles, such as the resurrection of Christ, are possible, but only through the agency of God. Saying, "Oh, but we can't replicate miracles" or "But they don't happen everyday in predictable patterns" can not logical refute the premise, since we are not God. All we can prove is this fact: we are not God.

I don't recall mentioning anything about repeatability or predictability. We can't replicate the big bang but we know it happened. We can't predict (very well) supernova's but they also tend to happen.

IN other words. A is necessary and sufficient for B where A is God and B is miracles. But B is not necessary for A, therefore an absence of B at any given time is not a refutation of the existence of A.

It is if A specifically needed B in order to be divine. What's the point of believing in the christian god if there was no sacrifice? What you are saying is that it is impossible to argue against a deistic type of god, and I agree.

So arguing against God from the stance that miracles are impossible under the natural laws (aka impossible for *us* to recreate)

No not AKA it doesn't work like that. A is not impossible if scientists can't reproduce it. If there is no plausible mechanism e.g. information cannot travel faster than light therefore real time communication with Mars is impossible. If NASA had landed people on the red planet and you were watching the live footage and it showed real time conversations with ground control, you would know instantly that it was faked. No need to reproduce it.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[macgamer]

Quoting creepy old man from 06:07, 4th Aug 2008
Millions of people who have lived since the crucifixion never even had any idea that Jesus existed because they were from non-Christian areas. If God or Jesus was going to offer salvation to humankind, why did he only allow some people to know about it? Did he just forget about everybody else?

We do not know who will or will not be rewarded with eternal life. Jesus instructed His apostles and disciples to go out and spread the Good News. So it is our look out to ensure that everyone hears.

However this is an issue of free will. It is not the fault of those who grow up in the Middle East as Muslims for example. They might never hear of Jesus or if they do, they aren't at liberty to believe and I don't just mean it might be illegal to convert.

The same could apply to someone growing up in Britain today, where society has become very anti-religious. These individuals might not be open enough to belief and could be considered less free to do so.

Everyone has a conscience, although it might be less well formed, which allows individuals to judge whether their actions are moral or not. So you cannot say that these people certainly hell bound.

One must be compassionate in these things, as God no doubt is.

It's a pretty evil thing to create imperfect, flawed creatures and then punish them horribly for being imperfect, even if they spent their whole lives being selfless and good. So people like Gandhi and Anne Frank are burning in hell right now because they didn't praise Jesus and help inflate his ego? I simply can't respect, let alone worship, a selfish god who puts narcissism before the well-being of his creations.

See above and God indeed did not create flawed creatures, however you are correct we are damaged. It is the problem of human nature that religion attempt to address.

Christianity's answer to this is original sin and latter actual sin. In baptism, the issue of original sin is addressed. Through the sacraments we receive God's graces (actual and sanctifying) which provide us what we need to follow His teaching.

[Edited for typing errors.]

[munchingfoo]

Quoting macgamer from 14:19, 4th Aug 2008


The same could apply to someone growing up in Britain today, where society has become very anti-religious. These individuals might not be open enough to belief and could be considered less free to do so.

Maybe I am missing something here, but this sounds like utter bollocks. In what way is UK society anti-religious? If you had argued that UK society is no longer dominated by Christianity, and that now a person is free to choose religion, or not, and if they choose religion, then which one they prefer then I'd agree with you. This is the way a free society should be. In what way is UK society ant-religious?

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Bob]

You're all completely insane!!!

Why are you wasting your time arguing about such nonsense?

Us non-Christians can be content in the fact that anything that comes out a Christians mouth is complete s*** and not worth considering.

The Christians can think what they want and therefore be content because they are clearly brain dead insecure morons.

[creepy old man]

'Jesus instructed His apostles and disciples to go out and spread the Good News. So it is our look out to ensure that everyone hears.'

I don't know about you, but I think that Almighty God could have done a much better job of informing people (as he did with the flood - I know he promised not to do that again, but he could have done something else with the same magnitude and less damage). It's really not fair to entrust flawed sinners with making sure everybody knows about Christ's sacrifice. So because the apostles failed to make the news known to everyone, those who didn't ever hear about Jesus should be punished? It makes no sense that someone should be eternally punished for not worshiping a god they never even heard about.

'Everyone has a conscience, although it might be less well formed, which allows individuals to judge whether their actions are moral or not. So you cannot say that these people certainly hell bound.'

According to traditional Christian belief, they are if they do not believe in Christ's sacrifice. Therefore someone who spends his entire life dressed in rags, feeding the starving, catching rapists, and saving puppies will certainly go to hell if he is not a Christian. That was the point I was making earlier.

'God indeed did not create flawed creatures, however you are correct we are damaged.'

Yes, he did. He created me, and I am naturally flawed. Of course, you will argue that Original Sin is not His fault, it's Eve's. Well, He created Adam and Eve, and they were clearly flawed themselves as they were incapable of resisting temptation.

[Haunted]

Quoting Bob from 14:46, 4th Aug 2008
You're all completely insane!!!

Why are you wasting your time arguing about such nonsense?

Us non-Christians can be content in the fact that anything that comes out a Christians mouth is complete s*** and not worth considering.

The Christians can think what they want and therefore be content because they are clearly brain dead insecure morons.

If all christians were something benign and harmless like the Church of England, and the state had no church, and the bishops were expelled from the house of lords, and when judges don't make insane decisions positively discriminating in favour of the mystics (the sikh girl is now the only girl at her school exempt from the jewellery rule), and when religious organisations start paying tax like every other organisation (except the charitible ones, and no, one collection plate a week is not enough to be considered a charitable organisation), then there wouldn't be a problem.

Any theists wish to defend any of that?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn