[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[dangull]

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

What your saying is Saton is a reason for a lot of evil in the world?

 

[kuzushi]

What your saying is Saton is a reason for a lot of evil in the world?

He's the original cause of all of it.

 

[Baldseagull]

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

Cop out.
If your God is all powerful, he allows it at the very least.

 

[Baldseagull]

He's the original cause of all of it.

Where did he come from?

 

[kuzushi]

Cop out.
If your God is all powerful, he allows it at the very least.

Yes, he does.

 

[pastafarian]

Can you please provide evidence that god exists,?

That's a very good question.
God has set it up for you so that you can logically work your way towards finding him.

You establish whether Jesus was real or not.
You establish whether he was crucified or not.
You establish whether his disciples sincerely believed in his resurrection or not.

If you get that far, you then have to explain why they believed in it.
If you conclude that it is because it happened, then you are on the threshold of answering the question.

LOL
You are all over the shop.

God hasnt set up anything apart from a creation story how he started everything that is total bollocks and a lie.
When you can realise you have been lied to on the basics, you will understand Gods dont exist and no existent Gods dont have kids

 

[pastafarian]

No. I have a picture of Jesus, though.
View attachment 162560

Thanks for clarifying your imagined hypothesis isn’t even possible.

Waste of time you bringing it up really.

Your pic looks like a badly sketched young Rolf Harris

 

[pastafarian]

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

God obviously.
You choose to worship him but he sounds like a lunatic.

what sort of psycho drowns everyone on the planet apart from a handful of people in a boat.
Apparrently he (and jesus) heals people of all sorts of ailments if you pray to them, but both refuse to heal amputees and give them back their limbs.
Why would you worship idiots that discriminate against disabled people?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Out of curiosity, what is your area of historical expertise?


I'm not trying to convince anyone that he was the Son of God.
I'm making the case that the Christians who knew Jesus personally during his ministry were convinced of the truth of the resurrection, which is why Christianity established itself and thrived despite its leader being murdered and despite the persecution.


Yes. In his case it was not a title. It was his surname.

1. Primarily 19th and 20th century labour history - now - what is your area of historical expertise? Indeed do you claim to have any expertise in any academic field?

2. Caesar was not his surname - his surname was Iulius (the Roman nomen). Caesar was the Roman cognomen which was a name that arose from factors like personal characteristics, personal habits, occupations, places of origin or heroic exploits etc. During the period of the Roman Republic (when Julius Caesar lived) Romans were known by their praenomen and nomen - so for Julius Caesar his known name at the time would have been Gaius Iulius. It was only during imperial Rome that the cognomen became the dominant method of identifying an individual. One of the most prominent patrician families in Rome at the time were the Gens Julia - which resulted in the nomen Julius.

3. Now - let's deal with the resurrection - In the Middle Eastern cultures of this period, encountering the 'dead' and the 'shades of the dead' was common - there were celebrations of the dead (like the Day of the Dead in Mexican culture or Halloween in Western Christian societies). I do not subscribe to hallucination hypothesis (in my view this comes from a narrow biblical understanding of the period rather than a much wider historical and cultural context). I would subscribe to the argument that it was in keeping with the cultural norms of the 'shade' or spirit or ghost of the dead person residing in the 'underworld' - like all societies, Judean culture borrowed much from other societies of the period and of times past (from the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Babylonians and the Romans etc.). The 'cult of the dead' existed and was practiced by people in the Palestine of the period.

4. Furthermore - the resurrection myth (and the ascension myth) was common in many cultures and societies and, like was often the case, newly emerging religious groups adopted and adapted ancient religious myths and claimed them as their own. It was primarily a tradition in Near Eastern cultures and included the likes of the Egyptian god Osiris - the Mesopotamian god Dumuzid - the Greek god Dionysus - the goddess Persephone - the Phrygian god Attis - Hindu gods Ganesha and Krishna - The Sumerian god Tammuz - etc. I assume that you would agree with me that these gods do not exist and their resurrection are myths. Me - I just add one more resurrections myth to the list.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

Oh - so it is the work of the devil

Got it - I don't believe in him either - it is an excuse for fundamentalist Christians to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

No. I have a picture of Jesus, though.
View attachment 162560

Oh yea - the Christ with medieval Western European features for a Middle Eastern man.

Out of interest - are you a creationist as well?

 

[pastafarian]

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

You were asked a question
why would a 'loving' God impose such cruelty on young innocent children?

You have done your usual and responded with a question instead of answering,
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

Answer the question put to you

 

[BadFish]

You were asked a question
why would a 'loving' God impose such cruelty on young innocent children?

You have done your usual and responded with a question instead of answering,
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?

Answer the question put to you

God is always testing us, if we don't pass his tests we are send to damnation for eternity. A bit like the old 11+.

God is fair and loving of us all.

 

[BadFish]

Deuteronomy 23:2 is also interesting. Remind me, was Joseph Jesus's Dad?

Fair I think.

But come Jesus's second coming there aren't going to be many people in heaven.

I have checked my family tree and my great great grandfather was born out of wedlock (the bastartd!).

@kuzushi what do I do here, is this one of the bits I can ignore?

 

[BadFish]

Let's all remember how busy Jesus was. You are all asking him to change this, do that, heal them. The bloke was under the pump.

John 21:25
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

It's not like his dad gave him the ability to be everywhere and everything all at the same time. God tested him with earthly failings ( he didn't make us like totally in his image - very few people have the ability to be everywhere at once, my wife seems to manage it . . . And Taylor Swift . . . And f***ing Michael MacIntyre . . . Not many others though).

So yeah Jesus was busy and god moves in mysterious ways. (Say that @kuzushi, perfect for tricky questions ).

 

[Robinjakarta]

I thought Polycarp was a Pokemon.

This is Polycarp.

 

[kuzushi]

I just want you to admit that you need faith, because there is no proof, instead you keep insisting that you have facts that prove it.

Yes, absolutely, you do need a bit of faith. I've never said you didn't, and I haven't said I can prove it.
I do, however, believe that the evidence points strongly towards the truth of the resurrection

God is looking for faith. I think faith and love are the things that impress God. Nothing else does.
Being rich, or clever, or good-looking... none of these things impress God one bit.

I don't believe in magic, and if God wants me, he can talk to me directly, not via an old mistranslated book, and strange men in frocks.

God wants to see faith in us. He's set things up so that you can find him if you seek him, but not if you don't want to.
It's clear that the followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead, which is why they proclaimed the gospel despite fierce opposition, even Bart Ehrman agrees, yet people on this thread won't accept that. It's not as if you have to believe in the resurrection, you can believe Bart Ehrman's group hallucination theory. Won't explain the empty tomb or the Shroud of Turin, though.

 

[kuzushi]

Yes, absolutely, you do need a bit of faith. I've never said you didn't, and I haven't said I can prove it.
I do, however, believe that the evidence points strongly towards the truth of the resurrection

God is looking for faith. I think faith and love are the things that impress God. Nothing else does.
Being rich, or clever, or good-looking... none of these things impress God one bit.

God wants to see faith in us. He's set things up so that you can find him if you seek him, but not if you don't want to.
It's clear that the followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead, which is why they proclaimed the gospel despite fierce opposition, even Bart Ehrman agrees, yet people on this thread won't accept that. It's not as if you have to believe in the resurrection, you can believe Bart Ehrman's group hallucination theory. Won't explain the empty tomb or the Shroud of Turin, though.

I get why people are shying away from admitting the obvious fact that the early Christians believed that Christ rose from the dead.
It does leave you with a choice between the resurrection being true, which would mean having to believe in God, or Bart Ehrman's group hallucination theory.

 

[BadFish]

I get why people are shying away from admitting the obvious fact that the early Christians believed that Christ rose from the dead.
It does leave you with a choice between the resurrection being true, which would mean having to believe in God, or Bart Ehrman's group hallucination theory.

Brilliant you are really pinning them down to two possibilities.

Keep going so they all forget any other possibilities.

You've nearly got them . . . group hallucination or God.

 

[kuzushi]

1. Primarily 19th and 20th century labour history - now - what is your area of historical expertise? Indeed do you claim to have any expertise in any academic field?

Cool. Do you lecture at a university?
No, I don't claim any expertise in any academic field.

2. Caesar was not his surname - his surname was Iulius (the Roman nomen). Caesar was the Roman cognomen which was a name that arose from factors like personal characteristics, personal habits, occupations, places of origin or heroic exploits etc. During the period of the Roman Republic (when Julius Caesar lived)

Yes. Caesar was not a Roman Emperor.
A lot of people think he was, but in fact his successor Octavian was the first Roman Emperor, during whose reign Jesus was born.

Romans were known by their praenomen and nomen - so for Julius Caesar his known name at the time would have been Gaius Iulius. It was only during imperial Rome that the cognomen became the dominant method of identifying an individual. One of the most prominent patrician families in Rome at the time were the Gens Julia - which resulted in the nomen Julius.

Ah. I knew that Caesar was part of his name, not a title. Although subsequently it did become a title for Roman Emperors, and is the origin of the German Kaiser and Russian Czar.

3. Now - let's deal with the resurrection - In the Middle Eastern cultures of this period, encountering the 'dead' and the 'shades of the dead' was common - there were celebrations of the dead (like the Day of the Dead in Mexican culture or Halloween in Western Christian societies). I do not subscribe to hallucination hypothesis (in my view this comes from a narrow biblical understanding of the period rather than a much wider historical and cultural context). I would subscribe to the argument that it was in keeping with the cultural norms of the 'shade' or spirit or ghost of the dead person residing in the 'underworld' - like all societies, Judean culture borrowed much from other societies of the period and of times past (from the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Babylonians and the Romans etc.). The 'cult of the dead' existed and was practiced by people in the Palestine of the period.

This is interesting.
You don't subscribe to the hallucination hypothesis, you subscribe to the argument that it was in keeping with the cultural norms of the 'shade' or spirit or ghost of the dead person residing in the underworld. Is this your explanation of how Christianity began?

4. Furthermore - the resurrection myth (and the ascension myth) was common in many cultures and societies and, like was often the case, newly emerging religious groups adopted and adapted ancient religious myths and claimed them as their own. It was primarily a tradition in Near Eastern cultures and included the likes of the Egyptian god Osiris - the Mesopotamian god Dumuzid - the Greek god Dionysus - the goddess Persephone - the Phrygian god Attis - Hindu gods Ganesha and Krishna - The Sumerian god Tammuz - etc. I assume that you would agree with me that these gods do not exist and their resurrection are myths. Me - I just add one more resurrections myth to the list.

The difference is that, unlike Osiris and Dionysus etc, Jesus is a real person, and we know exactly where the idea that he rose from the dead came from: from his followers who started proclaiming it more or less immediately after his crucifixion.