[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[Bold Seagull]

You've omitted the rest of what I said.
They not only wrote the New Testament (9 separate authors, apparently), but they were crucified, stoned to death, burned at the stake and fed to lions.
Thomas apparently travelled as far as Kerala in India to spread the gospel, where he ended up being killed.

There must be a reason for them to do all that, mustn't there?
If you reject the actual resurrection as the reason for them doing it, what else could have inspired all this.
As alternatives there is Bart Ehrman's group halluncination theory, or, well what else is there?

Starting to feel a bit sorry for you that you have religion without faith.

 

[birthofanorange]

There must be a reason for them to do all that, mustn't there?
If you reject the actual resurrection as the reason for them doing it, what else could have inspired all this.
As alternatives there is Bart Ehrman's group halluncination theory, or, well what else is there?

There's only a reason (which could be anything) IF it even happened.
Still, you believe it, so that should be all that matters to you.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes, perhaps there are more possibilities.
Feel free to add to the list.

I don't need to add to the list, because I've already done so elsewhere in this thread, as have several others. You're just blinding ignoring those posts.

Remember, you're talking about a whole load of people who were sincerely convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead.

No, no I'm not. We don't have proof that even one individual thought they saw him. Not one.

Remember, you are talking about many billions of people who don't believe he rose from the dead.

You're talking all Jesus's remaining disciples, plus other friends and followers:

Nope. We don't know that any of that's true.

 

[Triggaaar]

as you can see now we are discussing how we can be sure that Jesus rose from the dead

Almost. We're really discussing how we can be sure that he didn't.

 

[Baldseagull]

You've omitted the rest of what I said.
They not only wrote the New Testament (9 separate authors, apparently), but they were crucified, stoned to death, burned at the stake and fed to lions.
Thomas apparently travelled as far as Kerala in India to spread the gospel, where he ended up being killed.

There must be a reason for them to do all that, mustn't there?
If you reject the actual resurrection as the reason for them doing it, what else could have inspired all this.
As alternatives there is Bart Ehrman's group halluncination theory, or, well what else is there?

How do we know they were crucified, stoned to death, burned at the stake and fed to lions?

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm saying that if he didn't rise from the dead, his followers would have known and wouldn't have bothered writing the New Testament, spreading the gospel, or dying as martyrs.

Yep, because no one in the history of man has ever lied.

You're right, I am sure, but you can be too if you follow the logic where it leads without prejudice.

Bless you.

The only person posting with prejudice here is you. The rest of us have nothing to gain and (quite literally) everything to lose by not following Jesus were it to make any sense.

If you were 80% sure Jesus wasn't resurrected, and you thought there was a 20% chance he was (and the son of god and all that jazz), it would make sense for you to keep following the idea, because there's a 1/5 chance you get to heaven, and don't go to hell, and a 4/5 chance it doesn't matter what you do. The point being, you think it's quite a risk for you to follow the logic and conclude that the bible is wrong. That's not a risk you want to take.

Whereas the rest of us are quite happy to follow the logic wherever it leads. It's only because there is zero doubt that we still don't believe. If there were any doubt in our minds, it would make sense for us to go along with it, just in case it gets us to heaven.

 

[Triggaaar]

I wonder whether you could be the person to explain it. Tell me please, birthofanorange, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why his followers bothered writing the New Testament, spreading the gospel, and dying as martyrs.

Firstly, remember that the people who wrote the New Testament were not alive 2,000 years ago, and they never met Jesus.

But when they were alive, there was very little understanding of science and the way the world works, so just about everyone thought some sort of god had to have made everything. Then it's just a case of picking which god they liked the story of - some of them chose Christianity, and some wanted to write down some of the myths and legends they'd heard. Some of these later got passed off as gospel.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Firstly, remember that the people who wrote the New Testament were not alive 2,000 years ago, and they never met Jesus.

But when they were alive, there was very little understanding of science and the way the world works, so just about everyone thought some sort of god had to have made everything. Then it's just a case of picking which god they liked the story of - some of them chose Christianity, and some wanted to write down some of the myths and legends they'd heard. Some of these later got passed off as gospel.

There are many, many other religions where followers believed enough to write holy books. Does that mean that they are also true?

 

[Triggaaar]

There are many, many other religions where followers believed enough to write holy books. Does that mean that they are also true?

Well following @kuzushi logic, they must be.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

On a day when only two other people have posted on my thread about the women's ashes test, this thread reassures me that mine is not the most pointless conversation on here.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Removed because I don't want to start that conversation again.

 

[kuzushi]

Almost. We're really discussing how we can be sure that he didn't.

Yes, I get the feeling that that is what you are doing.
It puts me in mind of 1984 by George Orwell, where events from the past are put down the memory hole.
It seems that at the end of the day logic can only take you so far. The last bit you need faith for.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It seems that at the end of the day logic can only take you so far. The last bit you need faith for.

As an engineer, this is certainly something I can relate to.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You've omitted the rest of what I said.
They not only wrote the New Testament (9 separate authors, apparently), but they were crucified, stoned to death, burned at the stake and fed to lions.
Thomas apparently travelled as far as Kerala in India to spread the gospel, where he ended up being killed.

There must be a reason for them to do all that, mustn't there?
If you reject the actual resurrection as the reason for them doing it, what else could have inspired all this.
As alternatives there is Bart Ehrman's group halluncination theory, or, well what else is there?

Same as the reason for 9.11. Except those martyrs were murderers also.

The reason is psychotic delusion.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On a day when only two other people have posted on my thread about the women's ashes test, this thread reassures me that mine is not the most pointless conversation on here.

"I may be a dinosaur but I don't really like cricket, and I don't really know why I feel the need to say that, but I just have."

Or something.

Personally I'm really glad that women's cricket is on the up. And I'm so bored of tedious naysayers. I remember being ridiculed for liking punk rock. 'Where is the musicianship? It's just a noise'. Absolute tossweaselry.

 

[BadFish]

They had a very recent thread about how football TV coverage camera angles that progressively got odder as religious themes crept in. Fairly sure Mustafa started this thread as bait for Kuzushi tbh. Perhaps he really is making profits for Bozza.

The Devil is currently in charge of tv camera angles (if you need further proof, look no further than VAR and the Hotspurs of Tottenham). Just as Beelzebub gave us FIFA to tempt us from the holy and good Sensible Soccer he has tempted us with being able to see the players better.

But does not the bible give us the true translation for 'cant see the wood for the trees' as 'cant see the game for the players. (Lynam 23:5).

Did Lynam not also say. 'begone your pitchside devilry and bless us with a flying overhead camera so we shalt see the goalkeeper protecting his hole of glory's (Lynam 23:7)

Pray for the goodness of sensible soccer, or that whole pitch view in Football Manager with the players just being dots.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

"I may be a dinosaur but I don't really like cricket, and I don't really know why I feel the need to say that, but I just have."

Or something.

Personally I'm really glad that women's cricket is on the up. And I'm so bored of tedious naysayers. I remember being ridiculed for liking punk rock. 'Where is the musicianship? It's just a noise'. Absolute tossweaselry.

There's another, much older, thread rather misleadingly titled "Women's Ashes" that started with how the women's ball is smaller and seems to be the vent for all the people who feel a need to externalise their contempt for women's sport.
Mine is a more traditional cricket thread.
That is: occasional statements of the score, with little to no interaction between any of the individuals posting on the thread.
In all seriousness, while I'm not happy about it, the Australian Women's team is one of the all time great sporting teams. They're class.
Out of interest (I'm not going to worry about derailing this particular thread), what was the punk rock you liked back then? It doesn't obviously lead straight to the "mad obscure electric crap" you're into nowadays.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There's another, much older, thread rather misleadingly titled "Women's Ashes" that started with how the women's ball is smaller and seems to be the vent for all the people who feel a need to externalise their contempt for women's sport.
Mine is a more traditional cricket thread.
That is: occasional statements of the score, with little to no interaction between any of the individuals posting on the thread.
In all seriousness, while I'm not happy about it, the Australian Women's team is one of the all time great sporting teams. They're class.
Out of interest (I'm not going to worry about derailing this particular thread), what was the punk rock you liked back then? It doesn't obviously lead straight to the "mad obscure electric crap" you're into nowadays.

Ah, music.

Well, the first English punk we got to hear on the radio was Neat Neat Neat, by the Damned. Then White Riot was released. I went in, balls deep, chopped of my hippy hair, changed all my clobber, found a peer group I could relate to, and went back to Brighton (77 - I was at uni in London) and it was a summer of Wrist Action (oo, er, missus), Piranhas, Joby and the Hooligans, etc., trips to London (Roxy and Vortex), then back to uni in September.....more gigs and by early 78 was drifting into the next phase...we had Magazine, The Cure, The Comsat Angels, The Chameleons, Theatre of Hate....but let me stop you there.....all the while I was also listening to....

Bowie, Peter Hammill, Tuxedomoon, all amounts of dub reggae (I Roy, U Roy, Prince Jazzbo, Pribce Far-I and of course, the Upsetter), the original Ultravox, Gary Newman, and soon in the early 80s we had SPK, Portion Control, Three Teens Kill Four, Chris and Cosey, And Also The Trees . . . but there was other stuff, Grand Master Flash, Robert Wyatt, and soon on the scene Madonna! Prince!

By 1983 the pigeon hole had been enlarged into a f***ing great tunnel.

I can do that all again with different artists, standin' on me 'ead.

 

[BadFish]

Ah, music.

Well, the first English punk we got to hear on the radio was Neat Neat Neat, by the Damned. Then White Riot was released. I went in, balls deep, chopped of my hippy hair, changed all my clobber, found a peer group I could relate to, and went back to Brighton (77 - I was at uni in London) and it was a summer of Wrist Action (oo, er, missus), Piranhas, Joby and the Hooligans, etc., trips to London (Roxy and Vortex), then back to uni in September.....more gigs and by early 78 was drifting into the next phase...we had Magazine, The Cure, The Comsat Angels, The Chameleons, Theatre of Hate....but let me stop you there.....all the while I was also listening to....

Bowie, Peter Hammill, Tuxedomoon, all amounts of dub reggae (I Roy, U Roy, Prince Jazzbo, Pribce Far-I and of course, the Upsetter), the original Ultravox, Gary Newman, and soon in the early 80s we had SPK, Portion Control, Three Teens Kill Four, Chris and Cosey, And Also The Trees . . . but there was other stuff, Grand Master Flash, Robert Wyatt, and soon on the scene Madonna! Prince!

By 1983 the pigeon hole had been enlarged into a f***ing great tunnel.

I can do that all again with different artists, standin' on me 'ead.

I would be very interested in a playlist that plots your music journey from punk to. . .

I love musical journeys and lineage of bands and genres. Very interesting to me.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would be very interested in a playlist that plots your music journey from punk to. . .

I love musical journeys and lineage of bands and genres. Very interesting to me.

Don't tempt me. You know I'll only do it.

But in fact it would be difficult. Too many threads. Too many cul de sacs.

Given I can't hear you voice, I'll assume you not simply taking the piss