-->
@Mopac
But not, apparently, any of the NT.The Jewish people took history very seriously, and still do, because it is believed that God is revealed through it.
I reject your claim
Posts
Total:
217
-->
@secularmerlin
They don't know how to discuss. Take thang for instance he tries to use a fictional film plot to defend the fictional bible plot, that response is not something that can be taken seriously. They argue using fiction that we are expected to believe is fact, you point out contradictions and they handwave it away. I don't belittle them they belittle themselves and I am generous enough to point that fact out to them.
-->
@Mopac
Prove it.I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.
-->
@keithprosser
If they did, they'd be Christians!
It's really quite alright.
-->
@disgusted
You don't believe in anything, so what constitutes proof? Early writings of the church account the deaths of the apostles.
I did make an error though, I confused Matthew with Mathias.
Simon Peter - crucified
Andrew the First-called - crucified
James (son of Zebedee) - beheaded
John the Theologian - boiled alive in oil, miraculously lived
Philip - crucified
Bartholomew - crucified, flayed and beheaded
Thomas - pierced with five spears
Matthew - burned alive
James (son of Alphaeus) - crucified
Jude - crucified
Simon the Zealot - crucified
Matthias - stoned and beheaded
Paul - beheaded
-->
@Mopac
They are claims, I asked for proof. You won't supply any because there isn't any, all you will find are vague claims.
-->
@Mopac
every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.
I understand that you believe the bible but as I do not I have no reason to accept that Jesus and the apostles were historical figures. To explain what I mean let's look at the difference in evidence for the existence of Jesus and Alexander the great. Now no history is totally accurate s8nce they do tend to be chronicled by the winners who naturally want to paint themselves in the best possible light but in the face of all the historical writings about Alexander that agree he was a great conqueror (an oxymoron in my opinion but that is a separate discussion) the pictures of him on pottery the stone freezes depicting his exploits the statues of him etc one gets the distinct impression that someone named Alexander who conquered most of the world he was aware of actually existed. By contrast Jesus is only mentioned tertuarilu in any text other than religious (faith based rather than evidence based) for example Pliney (who is often sited as a source to prove the existence of Jesus as a historical figure) only wrote that he knew if the followers of Jesus. The mention was brief and it said nothing about Jesus himself (including not saying whether or not his followers made him up).
That in mind I would need some sufficient proof of the episodes you described to believe that they had actually happened. Further more people die for faith they cannot directly prove in the present. From Islamic suicide bombers to buhdist monks, so the mere fact that some men died for something they believed in, while arguably laudable, us not evidence that what they believe is true.
I'm sorry but your evidence is what a trial lawyer would call hearsay.
-->
@ethang5
I am awake now quite well rested thank you but if your arguments hinge on my already accepting them before you have presented them then I'm not sure how convincing we can consider them. (Someone who already believes doesn't need convincing after all).
-->
@disgusted
Take thang for instance he tries to use a fictional film plot to defend the fictional bible plot, that response is not something that can be taken seriously. They argue using fiction that we are expected to believe is fact, you point out contradictions and they handwave it away
So why didn't you say this to him rather than simply calling him laughable. This is an argument. It makes points that ethang5 could address (his willingness to do so aside) though you are patently wrongvehen you say his argument cannot be taken seriously as demonstrated by the fact that he clearly takes it quite seriously. Calling him laughable isn't an argument it is an insult and one can hardly blame the man for going on the defensive in the face of such treatment. It also likely makes it harder rather than easier for those who want to have an actual conversation with him get through his defensive nature since being treated like that since being on the permanent defensive can make other statements and questions, even non personal ones, be perceived as veiled insults.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am awake now quite well rested thank you....
Good. Perhaps now you can identify someone who cares about your imaginations? Your mom maybe?
....but if your arguments hinge on my already accepting them before you have presented them
What arguments? Sleep still in your eyes? Take as much time as you need.
....then I'm not sure how convincing we can consider them.
Why would I care how convincing you (we?) consider them? You have to still be sleeping if you are still dreaming that your "consideration" is sought or desired. Wake up man.
(Someone who already believes doesn't need convincing after all).
Neither does someone who is awake.
-->
@secularmerlin
Just because I reject theistic claims doesn't mean that I do not find them endlessly fascinating.
I am not familiar with your discussion that caused you to start this thread but I am interested in your thoughts that follow.
That being said this thread is in direct response to two ideas. One is the idea that rejecting a claim is equivalent to making the opposite claim and therefore requires a burden of proof.
We never come to a position without bias. The core beliefs we hold are built upon to form our worldview. Those core beliefs are guarded because we have so much that rests on them. So, the starting point is either theistic or atheistic/natural in its nature. So whether you reject the biblical theistic claim subconsciously or unconsciously you are not neutral. When I speak of God you will look for ways to explain Him away using your naturalistic worldview.
The other is that atheists are really believers who have just lost their way. That they "believe more than they think they do" or that they are "just angry at god" or "just want to sin" and so consciously reject something that they really believe deep down.
With Christianity, there is a distinction made between believers and unbelievers. The difference is trust. Subconsciously, however, in denying God (or the lack of evidence for God by claiming there is none) you affirm His exists in the sense that you (and all rational beings who have thought of the subject matter) believe something about God. You could not have a discussion on God without first having an idea of who/what God is. In that sense you believe. In trusting in Him you do not.
What is more, existence and what has been made bears witness to this God, as Romans 1:18 points out when people suppress that truth:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
The difference between you and me is that when I read the Bible I treated it as if God was speaking to me through the words. Having read the message, I believed God and I get to know Him through His word. You continue to deny the God revealed in the Bible and His word. So Hebrews 11:6 poses a dilemma and that dilemma is that without trusting God and His wordyou will never know Him.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Why would you trust Someone you deny exists? That is the question that Hebrews 11:6 poses. Have you read the Bible since you said you are fascinated by theism? You claim that there is no evidence of this biblical God. I disagree. It is all around you, as Romans 1 above says, and that personal knowledge is within the words spoken. Not only this, but prophecy is most reasonable and logical to believe because we have historical evidence that collaborates with the biblical revelation. I invite you to question it on the thread titled, For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Why would you trust Someone you deny exists? That is the question that Hebrews 11:6 poses. Have you read the Bible since you said you are fascinated by theism? You claim that there is no evidence of this biblical God. I disagree. It is all around you, as Romans 1 above says, and that personal knowledge is within the words spoken. Not only this, but prophecy is most reasonable and logical to believe because we have historical evidence that collaborates with the biblical revelation. I invite you to question it on the thread titled, For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe.
I suggest you go to my replies on Post 182 and 191 and start from there.
To be clear it is impossible to prove a negative and my claim is not that there is no god(s) but only that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of any god(s) that has been presented to me. Since I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence I do not believe in any god(s). I do not "believe deep down" or "believe more than I realize" I am not angry with any god(s) or indeed with any being or concept I consider to be fictitious and I do not wish to be immoral.I just reject any claim which has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
What would constitute sufficient in your mind?
One other curiosity, when you say you "do not wish to be immoral," do you recognize this quality within yourself and others then? That is the first step towards repentance, recognizing we are all guilty of wrongful actions, and not just to each other and within ourselves, but towards God. The reason many deny God is that it gives them an excuse and alibi to live life as they so please and desire. It is more convenient and pleasing in many cases to live life on your own terms than acknowledge there are objective right and wrong that we do not comply with. The problem we as Christians identify as sin is that it holds the bearer in bondage to it that he can't rid by his own merit. Just like an addiction, try quitting. That is why the NT speaks of being renewed in mind and spirit. Sin can't be shaken off by our own means. It requires an act of God (regeneration/being born anew or again) to change our nature to one that loves rather than opposes God.
Now, if you think you are not in bondage to sin, go a week, or even a day, without breaking one of those commandments laid out in Exodus 20. Try not lying once, not stealing that pen from work, not wanting something that belongs to someone else, not committing adultery in your mind (such as thinking lustfully after a woman who is not your wife), not being angry with someone, for Jesus likened anger to murder. Such thoughts can lead to murder. The ironic thing is some people believe they have none of these qualities that the Bible identifies a sin. What is more, sinning offends an eternal Being, according to the Bible.
So what is at stake? Your standing with and before God if you are wrong.
-->
@Mopac
It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.
-->
@ethang5
An ad hominem attack is one of the classical logical fallacies. It occurs when one interlocutor targets the other rather than the argument made by that person. If for example you tell someone to go tell their mommy or to wake up or that no one cares about them rather than addressing their argument directly. This often happens when one has no good argument to present as a way of trying to "get out of the corner" to use boxing parlance.
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is history of the church, you know, who else would care about this stuff? Many churches were founded by these apostles. For a hundred years after and more, their successors were executed too.
So what I'm getting, and I'm sure disrupted will follow is... you aren't going to believe, so nothing is really proof. You don't want to believe.
Fine then, don't believe. I don't see how you can really believe anything else in history with that approach. History has never been anything other than a fuzzy science. That isn't likely to change.
Historians of the future will have a lot of fun with this time period.
-->
@Mopac
You're attempting to sidestep valid reasons for viewing church tradition with skepticism. e.g. Church tradition has apostles dying in different, contradictory ways. You're welcome to think whatever you like about me, but without attempting to address this I think it would be better to conclude your credulity has blinded you rather than I am set against belief.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have no good reason to doubt that the apostles were martyred, and every good reason to believe they were.
And I don't appreciate you calling me credulous and blind. You are, after all, someone who denies the existence of God, which is a foolish and superstitious position. If you have been duped into adopting a position which literally denies the reality of Truth, I could just as easily call you credulous and gullible.
And I don't appreciate you calling me credulous and blind. You are, after all, someone who denies the existence of God, which is a foolish and superstitious position. If you have been duped into adopting a position which literally denies the reality of Truth, I could just as easily call you credulous and gullible.
-->
@keithprosser
The Jewish people took history very seriously, and still do, because it is believed that God is revealed through it.But not, apparently, any of the NT.
Yet the entire NT centers around OT prophecy and its fulfillment.
After AD 70 the Mosaic covenant people no longer exist in the covenant relationship they agreed to follow (Exodus 24:3) for the very reason that God took it out of the way and replaced it with a better covenant, one that was opened to all who would believe.
So, in the OT we find God making Himself known to the world of that time through the OT people, the people of the Mosaic Covenant. In the NT we see the Son, Jesus, making Himself known to the entire world through what He preached, not only then, but by what was preached to generations to come.
-->
@PGA2.0
I wanted to start with this claim as much of your position seems to rest on this idea.You could not have a discussion on God without first having an idea of who/what God is. In that sense you believe.
Firstly do you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fair big foot and the theory of atlantis in the same way? If so does that mean that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, big foot and the lost city of atlantis exist?
-->
@SkepticalOne
I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.
What do you have from the time period that says otherwise? Please list it and provide your sources. History, in the form of what was written closer to the biblical times, is on our side. Speculation through higher criticism 17-20 centuries later is on your side IF you use the liberal scholarship.
***
Eusebius (ca 260-341) wrote perhaps the most complete history of the apostles, though he merely quoted other bishops for his authority. Acts 12: 2 tells us, for example, that Herod Agrippa had James, the brother of John, executed. To this, Eusebius adds the story told by the bishop Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215)—Origen's mentor—that "the person who led James to the judgment-seat was moved when he saw him bear witness, and confessed that he himself was also a Christian."
Peter’s death is attested to by Tertullian (lived 155 – 240 AD) at the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History III.1 (4th century).
Here is a list compiled that includes church fathers who attest to the deaths:
1. James (Martyred: 44–45 A.D.) - Both Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History II.2) report that after seeing the courage
and unrecanting spirit of James, the executioner was so convinced of Christ’s resurrection, that he was executed with him.2. Peter (Martyred: ca. 64 A.D.) - According to Eusebius, Peter thought himself unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Master, and asked to be crucified “head downward.”
3. Andrew (Martyred: 70 A.D.) - As Hippolytus tells us, Andrew was hanged on an olive tree at Patrae, a town in Achaia.
11. Matthias (Martyred: 70 A.D.) - Matthias, of which the least is known, is said by Eusebius to have preached in Ethiopia. He was later stoned while hanging upon a cross.
13. Paul (Martyred: 67 A.D.) - Finally, Paul met his death at the hands of Emperor Nero when he was beheaded in Rome. (Ignatius mentions Peter and Paul's death in Ignatius: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, III)
" Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? "
- James (Martyred: 44–45 A.D.)
- Peter (Martyred: ca. 64 A.D.)
- Andrew (Martyred: 70 A.D.)
- Thomas (Martyred: 70 A.D.)
- Philip (Martyred: 54 A.D.)
- Matthew (Martyred: 60–70 A.D.)
- Nathanael (Bartholomew) (Martyred: 70 A.D.)
- James the Lesser (Martyred: 63 A.D.)
- Simon the Zealot (Martyred: 74 A.D.)
- Judas Thaddeus (Martyred: 72 A.D.)
- Matthias (Martyred: 70 A.D.)
- John (Martyred: 95 A.D.)
- Paul (Martyred: 67 A.D.)
***
At one time I would have hunted down every mention of the apostle's deaths by the early church fathers in their writings available online. Now I just rely on others to do the work for me.
-->
@secularmerlin
An ad hominem attack is one of the classical logical fallacies.
Thanks for the attempted lesson, but it has no relevance here. No one has put up an argument, or is supposed to. No one has attacked you. And no one seems to care what you think of it.
It occurs when one interlocutor targets the other rather than the argument made by that person.
No one is "targeting" you, unless you are referring to your imagination. You have not put up an argument. No one seems to care whether you have an argument or not. At least I don't. You appear to desire that I care. I don't.
If for example you tell someone to go tell their mommy or to wake up or that no one cares about them rather than addressing their argument directly.
If someone told me that, I would stop posting to them. You have no argument anyway, only imagination. If you think I am deliberately not addressing your "arguments", and I have told you that you have no arguments, and that if you did, they would be of zero interest to me, the only reason I can see for you continueing to post your cares to me is that you're dreaming.
This often happens when one has no good argument to present as a way of trying to "get out of the corner" to use boxing parlance.
I would call you deluded if you did have an argument, but as you don't, this is just your imagination. I don't care about your imagination. It certainly is not my responsibility to address. And no amount of confusion on your part will change that.
As a (sleeping) liberal, it is difficult for you to grasp that another person could have no interest in your thoughts. Believe it. When you have an argument, I may be interested.
So save the logic lessons, and the laughable idea that you could "trap" someone in a boxing ring without gloves, shoes, strength, or knowledge of boxing. Find someone who likes your weird obtuse sleep "debating" and flex your imagination there.
-->
@Mopac
I have no good reason to doubt that the apostles were martyred, and every good reason to believe they were.
You mean you have no good reason other than the place from where your claims originate (church tradition) contradicts itself on how they died...because that is quite a good reason for doubt.
-->
@ethang5
For your convenience my argument is that the genesis account is self contradictory in that one account claims that animals were made before man and another account also in genesis claims that man was made before animals.
That is my argument. You may address it or not but please stop changing the subject and resorting to ad hominem.
-->
@secularmerlin
*reads Genesis*
Don't see it animals made after man.
-->
@secularmerlin
You could not have a discussion on God without first having an idea of who/what God is. In that sense you believe.I wanted to start with this claim as much of your position seems to rest on this idea.Firstly do you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fair big foot and the theory of atlantis in the same way? If so does that mean that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, big foot and the lost city of atlantis exist?
No, no, no, and no. Where and how have these revealed themselves? How do the heavens declare their glory? Yet the concept of God has been with all or almost all civilizations. Almost all people know of God or gods. Is that true of the rest? Your list is all myth, legend, and fairy tales written by others or based on persons like St. Nicholas.
Highly improbable.
But, as I said, try making sense of origins, morality, truth, existence, without first presupposing God. It does not make sense when you dismantle the nuts and bolts of competing worldviews. Is your concept of Santa Clause the same as that of God? How do you think of God that is different from how you think of Santa Claus, other than probably denying both real existences?
As I said before, you have a belief about God but you don't know God via personal experience since you don't trust in Him. You don't see how He works for the better in your life. If you knew God you would not deny Him His existence. If you truly believed He would confirm Himself to you in all things. He would show you and help you to draw near to Him. Your life would be radically altered and affected.
-->
@Mopac
Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 specifically.
One claims man was made before animals and the other claims that animals were made before man.
-->
@secularmerlin
For your convenience my argument is that the genesis account is self contradictory in that one account claims that animals were made before man and another account also in genesis claims that man was made before animals.
I've read Genesis. It does not say so. As I said, your imagination is uninteresting to me.
That is my argument.
That isn't an argument. It is a claim. It has no basis in fact. I remain uninterested.
You may address it or not but please stop changing the subject and resorting to ad hominem
It has been addressed. Your imagination, along with your persecution complex, should be told to the appropriate professional.
-->
@ethang5
Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 specifically.
One claims man was made before animals and the other claims that animals were made before man.
-->
@SkepticalOne
You allege that there are differing accounts.
What, like was James the Just stoned to death or hit with a fuller's club?
What is so weird about him done in with a fullers club while being stoned to death? The reports are consistent in that he was chucked off the top of the temple and he was killed for confessing Jesus after being urged by the Jews to rebuke these pesky Christians.
None of these things are unusual in history, rarely are any two accounts of the same events the same. Heck, even in the bible, as previously mentioned in this topic, descriptions of the same event don't always match. In the case of King Saul? Whatbis consistent is that he was killed after a battle in war.
The 4 Gospels? They record the same events, but the accounts are different from each other. There is nothing strange about this at all. What makes it strange? If you have some wild heretical idea that the scriptures are the inerrant, infallible, perfectly preserved word of God.
The Muslims believe that kind of stuff, and it is IDOLATRY.
So none of this really effects my faith, because I know what I believe in. My God is The Truth, and my religion is personal relationship with The Truth.
You don't know my God. You don't even think my God exists. That doesn't even make sense. My God formed you in the womb, has fed you and kept you alive yournwhole life. Has healed you when you were sick, has given you EVERYTHING. Yet you don't even believe God exists.
Well, you are in serious error, and it is my hope that God leads you into acknowledgment of The Truth.
-->
@PGA2.0
Argument ad populum.Yet the concept of God has been with all or almost all civilizations. Almost all people know of God or gods.
try making sense of origins, morality, truth, existence, without first presupposing God
Argument from ignorance.
you don't know God via personal experience since you don't trust in Him. You don't see how He works for the better in your life. If you knew God you would not deny Him His existence. If you truly believed He would confirm Himself to you in all things. He would show you and help you to draw near to Him. Your life would be radically altered and affected.
bald assertion
-->
@Mopac
This raises another point if you don't mind exploring it justvquickly.it is my hope that God leads you into acknowledgment of The Truth.
We are in agreement that there is no reason to accept any claim of free will are we not?