[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

Here's a table showing my understanding of where we stand:

_________________ 1_______________2____________ 3____________4
Kuzushi__________Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________Yes
CaptainDaveUK____Yes____________Yes___________Yes__________Yes
Bald Seagull_______Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________?
Bart Ehrman______ Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________No
Blues guitarist_____ ?______________?______________?___________ ?
Triggaar__________Yes____________Yes____________?____________No
Bad fish__________Yes*____________?___ _________?____________No
Guinness Boy_____?_______________?_____________?_____________?
@wellquickwoody __Unsure__________?_____________?_____________?






*I may be persuaded that a yes could be assumed for number 1 with the caveat that I accept that it is likely that a dude named Jesus was around at the time and was preaching about stuff and caused some difficulties for the powers that be.

 

[Baldseagull]

What I'm about to write doesn't apply to everyone here, but to a few.

What I've found is that people have tried to ridicule me for holding the view that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, even though this is the view of scholars who are experts in the field, and yet you are trying to paint me as the arrogant one. Surely it's more arrogant to mock someone (not saying you have, you might have done but I've lost track of exactly who has) where you are the one in the wrong, and not even bother to research the facts or be open to changing your view.

People don't have to accept it any more than they have to accept the holocaust (unless they are in Austria), or that the earth is a sphere, but don't mock the one who is holding the correct (in terms of expert consensus) opinion on the matter, and if he sticks to his opinion, don't accuse him of arrogance, or being mad or an idiot or intransigence.

I have good evidence for the Holocaust and the Earth being largely spherical, but there are also some accepted scientific facts that I struggle to accept despite there being good evidence for it.
What you are claiming is not as basic as whether Jesus lived or not, almost all have agreed it is most likely that he did, and was crucified and that some people claimed that he was seen walking about after the crucifixion.
What you are saying, is that all the evidence available leaves you with no doubt that Jesus was the son of God and that by following him you will be rewarded with everlasting life in heaven, that we all should see that too, and that we will all go to hell unless we do.

 

[kuzushi]

This is one of the most astonishing posts I have ever read on NSC.

Stunning!

You don't get to frame the discussion in his manner.

This part of the discussion has been done to death. Surely we can move on.

It's okay. I think it's good. Just answer the questions and we can pop you in the table.

 

[kuzushi]

I have good evidence for the Holocaust and the Earth being largely spherical, but there are also some accepted scientific facts that I struggle to accept despite there being good evidence for it.
What you are claiming is not as basic as whether Jesus lived or not, almost all have agreed it is most likely that he did, and was crucified and that some people claimed that he was seen walking about after the crucifixion.
What you are saying, is that all the evidence available leaves you with no doubt that Jesus was the son of God and that by following him you will be rewarded with everlasting life in heaven, that we all should see that too, and that we will all go to hell unless we do.

That is a great summary of it, yes. Look at the table. Just a couple more yeses and we're there!

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don't think anyone is expecting any minds to change (do we ever).

I have found it quite interesting though. I guess trawling through threads you find tedious is an occupational hazard for you mods.

Sorry for subjecting you to that and feel free to thread ban me so I can actually get some work done in the mornings

We don't trawl through every thread. No one has the time for that, which is why there's a report function.

I'm vaguely interested in the thread as a committed atheist. And your contribution and Trigs and, indeed David in Southampton are all fine.

As a mod my interest piques when I see people claiming facts that are not established facts, using that to keep score and generally acting like they're standing on a doorstep in a suit. There literally isn't another football forum in the world that would put up with that, maybe with the exception of one for Utah Saints or Salt Lake City whatevers.

 

[kuzushi]

We don't trawl through every thread. No one has the time for that, which is why there's a report function.

I'm vaguely interested in the thread as a committed atheist. And your contribution and Trigs and, indeed David in Southampton are all fine.

As a mod my interest piques when I see people claiming facts that are not established facts, using that to keep score and generally acting like they're standing on a doorstep in a suit. There literally isn't another football forum in the world that would put up with that, maybe with the exception of one for Utah Saints or Salt Lake City whatevers.

It's a thread about Christianity!
Surely all opinions should be given space. People are free to challenge. We don't want censorship, do we?

 

[kuzushi]

As a mod my interest piques when I see people claiming facts that are not established facts

The only facts that I'm claiming are that Jesus lived, was crucified, and that his disciples believed that he rose from the dead. These are established facts.
I admit that everything else is my interpretation of those established facts.

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course I would like it if you all started believing in Jesus and decided to follow him, but even if you don't, even if you reject Jesus, I'll accept that as long as you do so based on the established facts

The only reason any atheist would not follow him is because the facts say he's not the son of God.

ie. the facts that most scholars agree on

Those are not facts. You're starting to become obtuse.

. I've mentioned Bart Ehrman quite a bit in this thread. That's because he's an example of someone who knows the New Testament very well (he is one of the leading NT scholars in the world), and accepts the facts relating to the resurrection for which we have clear evidence

No they are not facts and no there isn't clear evidence.

Got to go, but will reply properly later

 

[kuzushi]

The only reason any atheist would not follow him is because the facts say he's not the son of God.

If he rose from the dead, doesn't that help to back up his claim of being the son of God?

Those are not facts. You're starting to become obtuse.

It's what scholarship says.

No they are not facts and no there isn't clear evidence.
Got to go, but will reply properly later

OK. I look forward to seeing your reply.

 

[BadFish]

Here's a table showing my understanding of where we stand:

_________________ 1_______________2____________ 3____________4
Kuzushi__________Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________Yes
Bald Seagull_______Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________?
Bart Ehrman______ Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________No
Blues guitarist_____ Yes____________Yes___________Yes__________ No
Triggaar__________Yes____________Yes____________?____________No
Bad fish__________Yes____________Yes____________?____________No
Guinness Boy_____?_______________?_____________?_____________?

My answer is non binary sorry. I disagree with this over simplification.

 

[BadFish]

It's okay. I think it's good. Just answer the questions and we can pop you in the table.

I have already answered them and your table misrepresents my answers.

 

[kuzushi]

My answer is non binary sorry. I disagree with this over simplification.

OK. We can change your answers.
At the moment we've got you down as yes/yes/?/no

Edit: Put you as ?/?/?/no for the time being, pending more info from you.

 

[Insel affe]

It's a thread about Christianity!
Surely all opinions should be given space. People are free to challenge. We don't want censorship, do we?

It is a message board about football and primarily Brighton & Hove Albion.
No one is threating to censor you, you do seem over zealous though, you do not seem to understand many people choose not to follow or believe in Jesus or your God.
We seem to be going round and around in circles, just because you want to get your point across that you are right.
When it is many folks belief you are wrong.

You won't let go though will you.

 

[BadFish]

OK. We can change your answers.
At the moment we've got you down as yes/yes/?/no

Edit: Put you as ?/?/?/no for the time being, pending more info from you.

Yes and no doesn't cover it. I try not to deal in absolutes like this. It leads you to the Darkside you know .

 

[Stato]

3. Do you agree that his disciples believe that he rose from the dead? 'The sincere belief of the Twelve that Jesus appeared to them alive after his death is widely accepted as historical bedrock by almost all scholars and is a key fact in what Gary Habermas calls a “minimal facts argument” for the resurrection of Jesus.' https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/62/62-2/JETS_62.2_341-51_Breitenbach.pdf (I'm not asking whether you believe that they were right in this belief, just whether you accept that this is what they believed)

I don't really care about the outcome of the argument, but I do care about intellectual honesty. Theology is not history and it is not science. The evidence you have provided is a paper from a private Christian University founded by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr. It cannot be trusted as a non-partisan academic source. It is an institution that teaches 'Creation Studies', not evolution. It is not an academic source that truly believes in the scientific method. It is an institution that was founded to promote the beliefs of a certain strain of Christianity.

By all means argue from a position of faith. That cannot be challenged. However, if you are going to cloak your faith in the trappings of academia, please either provide objective and disinterested sources, or indicate where your sources are partial.

 

[kuzushi]

Yes and no doesn't cover it. I try not to deal in absolutes like this. It leads you to the Darkside you know .

My take on it is different.
I think yes and no can bring clarity, which takes one away from darkness and towards the light.
Take science, for example. It's built upon assumptions to a certain extent, but we tentatively move forwards once we feel we've established certain principles well enough. Then, when we have more data, we update our model as necessary. What we don't do is constantly remain in doubt. We construct models and theories so as to be able to move forward. We have to, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. If you are going to sit on the fence forever, never sure whether or not Jesus lived, how can you come to any kind of conclusion at all? There's definitely enough evidence for point 1, for starters.

 

[kuzushi]

I don't really care about the outcome of the argument, but I do care about intellectual honesty. Theology is not history and it is not science. The evidence you have provided is a paper from a private Christian University founded by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr. It cannot be trusted as a non-partisan academic source. It is an institution that teaches 'Creation Studies', not evolution. It is not an academic source that truly believes in the scientific method. It is an institution that was founded to promote the beliefs of a certain strain of Christianity.

By all means argue from a position of faith. That cannot be challenged. However, if you are going to cloak your faith in the trappings of academia, please either provide objective and disinterested sources, or indicate where your sources are partial.

Fair point. I'll edit that out.

 

[Baldseagull]

That is a great summary of it, yes. Look at the table. Just a couple more yeses and we're there!

I am agnostic on whether all 12 believe they saw him, maybe a couple did and the rest didn't want to feel left out or have one of the others ruling the roost because they saw him when others did not, peer pressure to say they saw him when they did not.

Assuming, and it is an assumption, that Jesus was walking about a few days after he was crucified for 6 hours, I think the most plausible explanation is that he was taken down from the cross before he was dead and survived the experience. He would not be the only person in history to have survived crucifixion.
Pilate was not keen on executing him according to the Bible, and hoped the flogging would satisfy the blood lust of those that he had offended, perhaps a reason why he permitted his body to be removed after just 6 hours. The other guys up on crosses were still alive at the point Jesus was taken down. and had their legs broken to hasten the process, supposedly, you would need to take some of the weight of your body on your legs to be able to breathe during a crucifixion. Jesus' legs were not broken.

Do you accept that a good number of Elvis fans said they had seen him alive after his death?

 

[kuzushi]

Theology is not history and it is not science.

There is some overlap, though, especially when it comes to Christianity, which is founded on an historical event, ie. the crucifixion and purported resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[BadFish]

My take on it is different.
I think yes and no can bring clarity, which takes one away from darkness and towards the light.
Take science, for example. It's built upon assumptions to a certain extent, but we tentatively move forwards once we feel we've established certain principles well enough. Then, when we have more data, we update our model as necessary. What we don't do is constantly remain in doubt. We construct models and theories so as to be able to move forward. We have to, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. If you are going to sit on the fence forever, never sure whether or not Jesus lived, how can you come to any kind of conclusion at all? There's definitely enough evidence for point 1, for starters.

I will die on my fence!!

I may be persuaded that a yes could be assumed for number 1 with the caveat that I accept that it is likely that a dude named Jesus was around at the time and was preaching about stuff and caused some difficulties for the powers that be.

I am not going to be bullied into trimming my thoughts into a binary answer that does not do my thoughts justice on the other two though.

For the record, I find the current discussion to be silly and pointless. Summing up other people's answers in this manner is (once again) disingenuous. As GB said you are either trying to 'win' this discussion or convert people to your way of thinking.