Raf

Folks are certainly entitled to those beliefs, but as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." The new heavens and new earth are an assertion. Accusing people of being blind to them is a convenient way of sidestepping the fact that there is no evidence in favor of the assertion. Perhaps we are blind to the new heavens and the new earth for the same reason we are blind to pixie dust and the Loch Ness Monster: They are figments of the imagination of human beings. There is an end to our world here in the physical. But that doesn't make the spiritual more important unless the spiritual can be established to exist. I remember writing in another thread (and in a comPLETEly different context) that if you step back far enough in time, you can dismiss and minimize just about any atrocity, especially those committed in the name of a god. So God tells you to kill a baby, and you do it, figuring the baby gets eternal life in heaven/paradise, so from the eternal perspective, how much harm did you REALLY do? Yeah, that's a problem there. And it's not academic. Don't make me look up the verses where God commands Israel to kill heathen babies, or the honest-to-evilness exposition by the contemptuous William Lane Craig who argued with a straight face that the real victims of that episode were the Hebrew soldiers who had to carry it out. [Yes, he really said that. No, it's not out of context. Yes, he was serious]. Anyway, it's a LITTLE unfair to cman to make this point in response to what he posted, as I am SURE his meaning was much more benign. Nonetheless, I am compelled to respond with my reasons for rejecting the words of that post. [I re-read this post and I seem a little harder on cman than I intended. I hope I can convey that while I disagree with what was written, I do so respectfully, and my heart is to explain why. Things got a little hairy between us a couple of weeks ago and I am not intending to resume any hostility that I previously exhibited].

I think what believers don't realize about stories like this is how capricious, whimsical and arbitrary it makes God look. "See, he did it for so and so!" And all it makes us realize is the number of times he did NOT see fit to intervene. He has his reasons. Who are we to question? Yeah, we have every right to question. We are the recipients of failed promise after failed promise. He's lucky we think he doesn't exist: it's literally his only redeeming quality. Once you've eliminated his existence from consideration, it's impossible to be angry at him. It's impossible to hate him. Suddenly it's just ... the world looks exactly like you would expect the world to look if there were no God. "I survived a crash that killed three people! Praise God!" Do people who say such things even hear themselves?

"I wouldn't argue." Because it's not worth it. Chockfull thinks my answer fails to consider a possibility. I think Chockfull's position is batcrap crazy [heh heh heh]. Nothing to argue. We disagree and neither will budge. Who wants tea?

And I would not argue with that response as far as foreshadowing is concerned. I would argue in the sense of fulfilling prophecy, like the verse about the virgin beIng found with child.

First of all you are free to look at these verses any way you want. If you're asking for my response, I will offer it: Foreshadowing is a deliberate literary device. You would have to ask yourself whether the authors/writers actually intended the one to foreshadow the other. I contend they were human authors and had no such intention.

Actually, no. There was a hunt for reliable information about the fates of the apostles, but almost all of it was based on conjecture (including Peter and Paul's deaths in Rome, though we at least know Peter and Paul existed). Some apostles had multiple executions. In short, the best evidence we have for the resurrection, for which there is no evidence, is the fate of the apostles, for which there is no evidence.

yu vThe red thread is, um, how to put it politely... Bulls hit. It's a way for Christians to force their interpretation of scripture onto the O.T. when it's just not there. Like that verse about "he shall be called a Nazarene," which had flupall to do with Jesus. Yeah, the song in Psalm 119:54 his not Christ. Neither is Hosea's latter rain

When I first came out as atheist, I started a thread you can probably still find here called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" It took a look at a number of questionable OT positions (and I think one or two NT, but mostly OT) that are inconsistent with a God who is the author of morality. But if you are to take the position that morality is objective (spoiler alert, it's not) and that certain moral standards are absolute (like rape among humans is always wrong and the victim is the person who was raped), then you have to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is frankly not moral. Is it moral to prescribe the death penalty for picking up sticks between dusk Friday and dusk Saturday? No. Of course not. But Yahweh (allegedly) did that. It's sociopathic! "But it was another time." SO WHAT!?!?! So what you're describing here is a clash between what the Bible actually says about Yahweh (and by extension Jesus) and your own understanding of what actual morality is. And then you have to defend your own morality against the (absolutely and demonstrably false) premise that there is no such thing as morality without Yahweh because he is where we get morality from. HE MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT. Morality does not come from religion. Religion comes from morality. And it is not "objective," which is why our culture rejects a slew of Old Testament pronouncements as immoral. We may have once thought, incorrectly, that eating shellfish or mixing fabrics was immoral. We know better today.

Not interested in the video, but interested in sharing my thoughts on any questions you have about your journey. For instance, I would caution very much against allowing your faith to be undermined by whatever challenges your children or grandchildren are facing. My journey from faith coincided with the autism diagnosis of my son and the illness and death of my sister from ALS. To this day I struggle to explain to people that the coincidence of timing was just that, a coincidence. They think I'm angry at God for allowing my son to have autism or my sister to die. The truth is my rejection of faith had a lot more to do with the paucity of evidence for the claims of and about the first century church. Gonna stop here because I see a lot of posts have gone up since I started replying to the thread, so let me read them before I answer. But you are far from alone, Charity. I've walked this walk. Happy to discuss.

Ohhhh!!!!!! I'll never forget the feeling that came over me when I realized that the firmament was a giant glass wall, the sky is blue because it's holding back an ocean, and the sun, moon and stars are all in the firmament and not in outer space (because there's no such thing). It's batcrap insane, I tell you.

I think a lot more people would consider the position I am exploring in another thread - that the religion of Christianity was not founded by a historical Jesus. Jesus, as revealed by Paul, is a celestial figure. Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 12 after his resurrection rather than the 11 because the story of Judas' betrayal hadn't been made up yet. Paul didn't get the Lord's Supper from the gospels. The gospels got the Last Supper from Paul! When Paul talks about the crucifixion in "spiritual" terms rather than temporal, he's not inventing a spiritual explanation for what happened on earth. He's reporting what actually happened in heaven, the only place Jesus existed in his eyes. Why doesn't Paul mention the empty tomb when he talks about the evidence for the resurrection? Because it didn't happen on earth. Why does Paul actually BRAG that he got his info about Jesus from Jesus himself and absolutely positively not from the Apostles? Because the Apostles didn't know a historical Jesus any more than Paul did. Those stories were made up later. Anyway, that just answers the question Penworks posted and has nothing specifically to do with actual errors in PFAL. Sorry. I'll report myself to the idiot who started the thread.

And I would say that he is entitled to how he feels, but his statements have been made before and corrected before, so after a certain point it's a matter of actual fact. I invite anyone and everyone to go through the threads in Doctrinal and Open and About the Way. "Christian" posts are everywhere, and the overwhelming majority are unchallenged. We do have one subforum where such challenges are the norm and not the exception. Spend a disproportionate amount of time in that forum and you may leave with a disproportionate understanding of what happens at GSC. [For anyone still unaware, modcat5 and Raf are the same person]

I wouldn't put much stock in what Muslims think is historical. They accept as historical that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Oh yeah? Prove it didn't happen!

Best wishes. You're welcome back any time, whether I like it or not.

Exactly. But that is just one of many points raised in the article.

Trying to refrain from replying until I have time, but thank you cman for posting that wikipedia link, which neatly sums up most of the "evidence" mythicists need to overcome to be taken seriously. Some of that is easy. Some of it, not so much. The expert consensus is the easiest argument to overcome because in this field, the expert consensus is ludicrously biased in favor of tradition. When I hear about the consensus of experts, I tend to expect overwhelming evidence in favor of that consensus, not overwhelming excuses about why we shouldn't expect to find evidence even though, no, seriously, we should. The notion that we would have to reject other historical figures if we held Jesus to a more rigorous standard is also incorrect. I would submit that such claims would be refuted by asking for an example, one example, of a historical figure whose existence is taken for granted but for whom LESS evidence exists than for Jesus. You won't find one. What you'll find instead is a Jesus that has more in common with Robin Hood and King Arthur than with Nathan Hale and Alexander Hamilton. Amyway more later

Can't reply without violating my own admonition. Let's just say given the alternatives, I'd prefer killing the conversation. That said, Nathan, you and Mark were able to disagree with me without making it about me. It's not impossible.

I was going to come up with a clever comeback but I am not that clever. Well done.

This is actually Bram Stoker's Dracula

ok. Though I reserve the right to make "The Fate of the Apostles" as a separate thread. :)

Oldies, we were kind of dismissive of this post. Are you satisfied with my response? Or would you prefer greater detail? The lack of evidence for the martyrdom of the saints was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in my journey from faith, so it's not a topic I avoid. But in terms of THIS conversation, I think YOU get to decide whether I've adequately addressed it.

Alan, My humblest apologies. There actually ARE threads about me. You know that because you participated in them. And that was fine, because I made that/those thread(s) about me, so it was fair game. This thread is not about me. It's about a particular topic. In addressing that topic any one of us is welcome to accept or reject evidence that's presented. A healthy discussion allows challenges that are presented in good faith, and responses in good faith. [Dismissive posts are not conducive to a healthy conversation and are just being spit on this thread out of frustration at being unable to address the topic. I am treating those posts with the respect they earned. Yours is not one of those posts]. I cannot tell if you are citing scripture to address the topic at hand, in which case it would be fair game, or to express your disappointment at my personal journey, in which case you are off topic. Indirectly, you could make the case that one reason I am no longer Christian is my realization that the claims of the Bible cannot withstand honest inquiry [and those claims that can withstand inquiry are not really a big deal]. And this thread would be an example of one such claim. But that still doesn't make ME the topic and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing on that course. Thanks.

Seriously, did not insult his intelligence. Insulted his post. If it did a Good Job of reflecting his intelligence, that would be insulting the poster.

My attorney returns calls.

You're not. Let's return to topic.