Cpt... don't just leave this hanging, ok?   

Very good.  So... what's next?

 

 

Hey Sapient,

As I wrote before to Hamby, both you and I could copy and paste all day concerning the validity of this claim.  I did cite my sources. 

Glenn Miller has a multi-part article covering:

• Standards for determining if something is a copycat and other considerations
• Alleged resurrected gods: Adonis, Baal, Hadad, Attis, Marduk, Osiris, Tammuz, Melquart, Eshmun
• Other gods, including Osiris (again), Dionysus, Mithras, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
• The extent of pagan influences on the Gospel writers

I do not lie to myself about God and I have no reason to lie to you.  So I am glad that you feel that you can trust me.  BUT SERIOUSLY, What do I have to gain by lying to you?  There is always a motivation to lie to someone . . . what would be my motivation?

 

I trust that everyone reading this thread has noticed that Simmo asked me a question and I have answered.

  Hamby continues to want to compare a myth (Santa) with Non-fiction (Jesus - The Bible).  I have cited websites that totally refute Hamby's websites. BUT OF COURSE - only his websites are credible.  He believes that early myths were the basis for the story of Jesus Christ - I simply do not.  There is NO proof for this.  The only people who hold these views are Christ mythers.  Hamby shows the gradual aggrandizement of Santa and I have asked him for the same for Jesus - of course there is no gradual writing for Jesus.  He wants you to believe that what happened is that the authors simply looked back thousands of years and came up with the story of Christ.  I wonder?????  How did the OT writers (700 years before Christ) coordinate with the NT writers.  So if Hamby can just get the writings dating 500 years before Santa showed up that talked about Santa - That would be awesome.  Could you get that for me Hamby????  Come on, let's really compare them.   

What is amazing is that simply because Hamby can trace the myth of Santa Clause, then it applies to what ever he wants. HE BELIEVES that this is proof.  It is almost laughable.  I will simply respond to Hamby with scripture:

'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'  

 There is evidence of God all around us, but you are not convinced.  I am.  Even if someone you knew rose from the dead - you would still not be convinced.  You would believe it was a trick or an illusion - but no way that is was God.  Surely, there must be some logical explanation.  The biggest problem for Hamby and those like him is that they want empirical evidence for a philosophical question.  I wonder why he can't figure that out???

 

I don't know what QED means excpet for Quantum electrodynamics.  Oh, and by the way, I need those writings not only to be written about Santa, but by Santa as well. 

I tell you what, since Saint Nick was a real person as Jesus was, if you could just provide a writing about him 500 years before he lived, that would be great for your argument.  I need that writing to tell me about what he would do as well.  This will be awesome to make the comparison complete.

REVLyle, why would the OT authors have to communicate with the NT writers? Did the possibility ever occur to you that the NT writers read the OT and came up with a story to satisfy the "prophecies"? If someone wanted to write a sequel to a book they didn't write, all they'd need to do was read the original. The two authors don't have to collaborate in any way.

Also, there is no evidence that the NT was written by anyone who actually interacted with Jesus. The earliest book lands around 75AD if I'm not mistaken. If one of the apostles was an adult at the time of the crucifixion and lived another 40+ years to write a book of the NT in a time where 40 years was greater than the average lifespan, that'd be impressive.

Also, you keep implying that Jesus wrote things. What did he write?

-Triften 

Or, I think more precisely, "Which was to be demonstrated." In math, it is used at the end of a proof to say that the point that was proposed has been demonstrated.

In debate, it is kind of a slang way of saying, "My point has been proven."

REV, if you need a little more help, I had proposed that the only way theists can respond when they have been left no logical ground, as I left you no logical ground, is to resort to biblical rhetoric and emotional appeal. In your very next post, you did exactly that, ending up by quoting a bible verse, exactly as I had predicted you would. So, I wrote Q.E.D. Those of us in the forum who have studied debate a little bit knew that I was saying you had proven my point for me.

 

 

REVLyle, I already told you that I'm not going to debate you until you can actually tell me what my argument is.  You still haven't demonstrated that you even understand what the Santa/Jesus analogy is illustrating.  You're not even responding to my argument here.

So, it's very simple.

You tell me what I'm arguing, and then, if you want to argue against it, I'll continue to debate you.

 

REVLyle, it's getting difficult for me to stay interested in this. This quote has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

The historicity of a man named Jesus has nothing to do with my point.

How else can I say this?

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY POINT.

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY POINT.

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY POINT.

YOU ARE NOT RESPONTING TO MY POINT

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY POINT.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT.

 

Do you have any idea what my point is?

Seriously.

Do you have any idea at all?

 

Reading Comprehension, REVLyle.

See if you can make your brain work on this for a second, ok? Think really, really hard. This might be difficult for you to understand.

George Washington was a man.

George Washington did things.

There are stories written about George Washington.

One of these stories is about a cherry tree. Supposedly, George Washington said, "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet."

Here's the thing. He didn't do that. It's a myth that was made up later on.

He also didn't have wooden teeth.

He also didn't throw a silver dollar across the Potomac.

Ever heard of Betsy Ross? She didn't actually make the first American Flag.

Eli Whitney? Didn't invent the Cotton Gin. Or interchangable parts.

Robert Fulton? Didn't invent the steamboat.

Now, REVLyle. Think about this really, really hard, ok?

George Washington, Eli Whitney, Betsy Ross, and Robert Fulton were real people. Within years, or even months or days, after their deaths, there were already myths about them. These are just a few examples that came off the top of my head. Myths form about people all the time.

Let me see if I can put this into the vernacular so you can understand it.

I don't give a flying fuck if there was a man named Jesus or not. I don't give a rat's ass if Josephus' account is reliable.

There have been billions of people living on this planet, and hundreds of thousands of them have had myths told about them after they died. Thousands and thousands of those stories involved magic, miracles, and claims of divinity. There have been lots and lots of people who have claimed to be gods or sons of gods or descended from gods.

But you're saying, "There was this dude, Jesus, and he did miracles and shit. And even though no other miracle stories are true, this one is. It's true because the book that tells the story says it's true. The other books that say they're true aren't true, though. This one is true because it's true, and the others are not because they're not."

You don't get to just say that this one dude who may or may not have existed (I DON'T CARE!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER!) is the only person in the history of the world where the crazy stories of magic and deity status are actually true without providing external, falsifiable evidence.

The story itself is not evidence. It is a story. You cannot use a book to prove itself. Would you read a god damned logic book or something?

But, you will say, there are lots of books in the bible, by different authors! This proves that they're right.

Except that lots of people have written books about King Arthur, and do you know the way they all knew to write about the round table? Care to guess? Because they read the books written before them.

Yes, you will say, but King Arthur didn't claim to be god.

So?

What the fuck does claiming to be god have to do with anything? Every Pharoah of Egypt claimed to be a god. Muhammed claimed to speak directly for god. Joseph Smith claimed to get tablets straight from an angel.

But, you will say, all the books about King Arthur don't tell exactly the same story.

Right! And neither do the gospels.

A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#ref112

Let me put this in really simple terms.

Everything about the story of Jesus looks just like a myth except for one thing. People like you believe it.

That's it.

There's no external evidence suggesting that it's anything more than a myth.

Now, will you please stop bitching about me saying Jesus didn't exist. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the argument in any way. At all.

None.

Get it?

 

 

 

 

(Note to self: Read _all_ the posts before replying to make sure someone else hasn't more thoroughly made points you were getting at...) 

Please show me where I claim the bible is a conspiracy.

I merely pointed out that persons writing a sequel, didn't have to coordinate with the writers of the original work in order to do so.

And sadly, no. It doesn't fit together. The book of genesis alone has multiple versions of the same story shuffled into it, and the accounts of the crucifixion vary quite a bit.

Inspired the writing of? Or wrote himself? Is it the "Word of God" or the writings inspired by?

Also, so I have this straight, Jesus is god... so he was god before he was born... and returned to heaven after he died. So he was god and is god now... so what did he sacrifice?

-Triften

Yes I'm still watching. I still have a lot more questions, particularly for the Christians, however I will wait for REVLyle to get back with his answer to the cancer question before I ask any more. It would also be good if Christians apart from REVLyle could come into the discussion.

I'm jumping in as a Christian way late.  Simmo, you can hit me with questions or pursue lines your already on.  This thread is massive and I haven't read anything but your intro and Ben's request for more Christians. 

One thought though: Christianity says God is a person.  You say you have faith.  Do you have faith in a person or just a concept?  A healthy Christian life requires BOTH. 

I'm putting your name down on my prayer list for what its worth. 

It has been a long week and I am glad tht I can now sit down and respond to your question Simmo.  Before I do that I want to address a couple of things.  There is simply no way to respond to all who disagree with me but I do want to clear up a few things.

Archeopteryx wrote:

I also seriously doubt that most credible historians accept that the story of Jesus is absolutely true, but I'll admit that I haven't seen any actual statistics on that, but if you can link some, that would be interesting to see.

I've seen other statistics that show that the scientific and intellectual elite in the country are primarily atheistic, with a small group of agnostic theists. I'm sure you wouldn't like my source for that though.

Believe it or not I actually do agree with you that the vast majority of people in the world do NOT believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  My issue is that while they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that Jesus did miracles (healed the sick and rose from the dead) the vast majority of people DO believe the Jesus was a real person.  It is that FACT that Christ-mythers simply refuse to accept.  There are extra-biblical sources (I am aware that Christ-mythers attempt to cast doubt on even those) and the vast majority of historians believe the Jesus Christ was a real person and that he walked this earth.  I have even cited one here who is an atheist.  He does not adhere to all the extra-biblical accounts but even he admits that there is more than enough evidence to support that Jesus was a real person.

triften wrote:

Inspired the writing of? Or wrote himself? Is it the "Word of God" or the writings inspired by?

Also, so I have this straight, Jesus is god... so he was god before he was born... and returned to heaven after he died. So he was god and is god now... so what did he sacrifice?

Concerning the Word of God, it was inspired and it was written by God.  God simply used the authors to write the Bible.  Every word in the Bible was inspired by God.  The Bible is the Word of God.  If I tell my son to write a paragraph and he writes exactly what I tell him to write, who is the author.  He gets the credit for writing it, but I am the author - In the Bible we have Matthew, John, Paul, James, etc. . . but God is the author of the Bible.

Concerning the sacrifice - are you simply saying that the only sacrifice is a perpetual one?  If I say that it is a sacrifice to pay for my son's college - does that mean that after I pay all the costs - I continue to pay???  The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a sufficient payment for the sins of mankind.  It is not a perpetual payment.  Once it was paid in full, there was no need to continue paying.

 

Simmo wrote:

Another problem that has come to mind with the general Christian concept of who and how one gets into heaven or hell is this - Christians usually believe that young children are not sent to hell if they die because they have not reached the 'age of reason', being of an age where they can understand and make a decision to be a Christian. So on this basis say a 3 year old would go to heaven if they died, but if that child died at say 16 years old they would be judged and go to heaven or hell dependent upon their decision to be a Christian or not. So then if our eternal happiness or punishment rests on this, how should a Christian parent react if their 3 year old contracts cancer? If they seek medical treatment, the child recovers, lives to 16 and then dies but has not decided to be a Christian then they are going to hell (most likely, according to generally accepted Christian thinking). However had they not sought treatment for the cancer and the child dies as a 3 year old, then the child is assured of going to heaven. So by having the child cured of their cancer they are taking a risk with the child's eternal fate if they do not become a Christian in later life. Therefore the best thing to do for the sick child is to let them die. This to me seems a logical progression of thought when looking at heaven/hell concepts, however that obviously flies in the face of what should be the right thing to do. Thoughts on this? I hope I've explained my thought process well enough.

Certainly a complex question and not one to be answered in a couple of sentences. 

What I believe you are asking is "Do all infants go to heaven?"  The answer to your question is simply, the Bible does not tell us this.  The biggest problem that many have is that people such as myself are considered cruel by not saying - "Sure, they all go to heaven."  I am not a cruel person.  I am a father of three children.  I pray for them and I hope that they also believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  I cannot force them into that belief and I do not try.  I simply tell them what I believe to be true.  They will have the freedom to accept or reject the truth of Jesus Christ and they will either enjoy heaven after they die or they will endure hell.  I certainly want my children with me, but that is not up to me.

So what do I base my belief upon, the Bible of course.  The reality of life is that even when we are born we are not "innocent."  R.C. Sproul got it right when he said, "We are not sinners because we sin.  We sin because we are sinners."  So do infants deserve to go to hell - I would answer that by saying that ALL mankind deserves to go to hell, and yet God had mercy upon us and sent His Son to die in our place.  I would be neglectful to not mention one other aspect of your question.  There is one example of a child dying at an early age and his father proclaiming that he will see his child again.  This can be seen in 2 Samuel 12:23 - this story is about King David and the death of his child with Bathsheba.

Your question has to do with the issue of helping a child overcome disease and then . . . what if later in life they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Hamby then takes your question to the extreme and decides that the only logical thing for Christians to do is abort all babies.  The real issue here is the sovereignty of God.  Let me see if I can explain. 

1.  When a couple has a child that is a gift from God.  The baby is not something that should be killed because we do not like the timing, or because it is inconvenient.  I will not debate the "scientific" issues of if the child is a "clump of cells" or a "human being."  The issue is that even though a man and a woman decide to have sex, God determines when that sex results in a pregnancy.  To abort the baby is in essence to over ride God decision for human life.

2.  Who goes to heaven and who doesn't.  That is not up to us either.  Many people who post on this website understand as I do that if you believe - they cannot make you an unbeliever and if you do not believe, I cannot make you believe.  The reason that unbelievers do not believe in Jesus Christ is that God has not called him into a relationship AND they do not want to believe.  It is both.  Let me see if I can explain.  If you and I were to meet.  You can either attempt to get to know me or you can ignore me.  That is totally upon you.  ALSO even if you attempt to get to know me, only I can allow you to know me.  I can open up and let you know the real REVLyle or I can simply allow you to know nothing at all about me.  The exact same is true about God.  It is very arrogant for us to think that we can FORCE an outcome for our children.  No Christian would murder his or her child, thinking that in essence they would guarantee an eternal place for their child.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN SCRIPTURE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR.

Simmo, a person's eternal destination is between that person and God.  No one else has control over that decision.  Many times I get questions like, "What about the guy in Africa who doesn't hear about Jesus?" or "What about people who are born with a mental disorder?"  Let me conclude with this.  I believe in a great, righteous, merciful, and just God.  I do not know the answer to all those questions.  I DO KNOW that God is all those things I said to describe Him and more.  Because that is the God I serve I know that when it comes to all those tough situations He will deal with them as a God of mercy, a God of righteousness, and a just God.  The question that you, me, and all those reading this post is, "We do have the mental capacity to understand this about God and we have heard the Gospel (It is at the end of each of my posts) and what do we do with it?"  If you reject it . . . eternity in hell is in your future.  If you accept it . . . eternity in heaven awaits you.

I am not sure if there is something more specific that you wanted me to answer.  If so, then simply ask.  I hope that you are seeking God with all your heart and I hope that God is opening up to reveal more of Himself to you. 

REVLyle, you said  "No Christian would murder his or her child, thinking that in essence they would guarantee an eternal place for their child".
I am not suggesting murder at all, but rather trying to point out where things don't make sense in what most Christians seem to believe about hell and who goes there. If medical attention is not sought and we rely on God to heal or not, is that murder? Is that showing faith in God to heal? If the child dies, do we put that down to God's will? If we accept the generally held view that a child who lacks sufficient understanding to make a decision to accept or reject Jesus will go to heaven, then surely the most merciful thing we can do is let that child die rather than risk the chance of them going to hell by living to an 'age of understanding'. 
Please understand that I am not advocating this course of action and fully believe we should seek medical assistance when required - I am trying to point out where Christian understanding of heaven and hell is at odds with what should be the right thing to do.

I'm still obviously not explaining myself clearly enough. I am not trying to look at whether we should or should not seek medical treatment or rely on God to heal, I am simply trying to get across a point about where Christian thinking on heaven and hell is at odds with what we would generally see as the right thing to do, which is seek medical help. I will try again in question form for you - - Do you believe a child that dies at a young age (say 3)and not having sufficient understanding to make a decision to become a Christian) would go to heaven or hell?- If that child lives to say 18, and has the capacity to make a decision to be a Christian but chooses not to, would they go to heaven or hell?- If you answer heaven to the first question and hell to the next, then is it not then logical to think that it is better for that child to die young and be assured of heaven rather than grow up and be at risk of eternal punishment?
I can't think how else to word this. Perhaps someone else who gets the point I am trying to make can help me and REVLyle out.

Seeking medical help IS NOT at odds with our view on Heaven and Hell.  As I said before, "God's will, will be done." 

The answer to your first question:  Will a young child go to heaven or hell if they die at a young age.  We cannot say for sure.  The Bible does not have a passage to specifically tell us this.  We must look at scripture and I have already shown you the passage from 2 Sam.  David states that he will go to his little one and we know that David was a man after God's own heart..  Therefore, one must believe that his child was in heaven.  We are not told in scripture that all babies will be in heaven.  We are not told that they are not.  It is upon this point that people have different beliefs.  I do not know.  I do know that I serve a just and merciful God and He does what is right.

The answer to your second question:  If a person lives long enough to understand right from wrong and chooses to reject God, will they go to heaven or hell.  They will go to hell.  They reject the Savior.  This is no different than you rejecting the hand of someone trying to save you from drowning.  If you reject it, you die.

The answer to your third question:  Is it better that the young child die and go to heaven rather than grow up and risk going to hell.  What you are asking is a narrow view point question and one that requires omniscience, which none of us have.  That belongs to God.  This answer takes more than a yes or no answer. 

1.  Why is it narrow in thinking????  Let's go to scripture.  When we think about our world, all of us tend to have such a narrow view, both Christians and non-Christians.  We think about ourselves and what we want and what we desire.  This is something that the Christian should begin to get out of because our view should become more God-centered rather than self-centered.  What do I mean by this?  The Christian's prayer should be, demonstated by Jesus, "God's will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."  The most important thing in life is not what we want, but rather what God wants.  The Christian understands that everything, all that is created, belongs to God, even our children.  We have been entrusted with them and that is all, but they are not ours.  Even when it comes to our children, God's will be done.  So where does scripture take this into account.  The passaage out of John 9 that I quoted before is one place.  I am sure there were times that the man who was born blind thought, WHY ME?  I am sure his parents thought, WHY US, WHY HIM?  AND YET in all of that God's will was that he would be given sight by Jesus on that appointed day so that God may be given Glory.  I am sure all the mothers in Egypt thought WHY US, when all the first born were killed by God in the 10th plague.  Are they in heaven?????? I do not know.  But I will tell you this - God tells us in scripture that HE did it so that all of Egypt and Israel would see His power and strength.  Would it have been better for Pharaoh to have died at an early age and go to heaven (which again, WE DO NOT KNOW) than to oppose God.  Well, let's look at scripture...

Romans 9:10-23 - 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

 19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—  

As I said before, God is in control of Salvation.  Why do you think I am so loyal and grateful to God.  I did nothing to be saved.  God chose me as a child of God.  It is not because I am good, it is because God has mercy on me. 

2.  Why does your question require omniscience - because none of us know what God's plan is concerning our children.  It may be that God is going to take them at an early age and save them from the things of this world.  It may be that he is going to raise them up to be a great evangelist and it is through that child that thousands would come to know Jesus Christ.  It may be that God is going to raise them up to oppose Him so that His glory might be displayed when He crushes them - so that all may know that he is a great and mighty God.  You and I cannot know these things.  I certainly do not want to think of my kids serving in the latter purpose.  I hope and pray that God also calls them into a relationship and that they may know this great God that I love and serve. - But God's will be done.

 

What Simmo is saying is better illustrated using someone who already knows they are going to heaven. If this is the case, why fear death at all? In fact, if being in heaven with your god is so great, you should be happy if you get a chance to die early.

This really isn't the case, no matter what is written in the Bible or what you think your god said. The reason is, you personally decide for yourself if your god has the right to do anything based on your personal desires:

Exactly!!! Why are you loyal to God? Because he has mercy on you. God has given you an incentive to obey by appealing to your wants. Might makes right, huh? So we should sell our loyalty to the highest bidder?

What is great about your god? You say you are loyal because you have his mercy, which is pretty much like saying you'd serve Hitler or Saddam Hussein if they spared you from torture. All you've done with your god is bump the threat of torture up to an eternal amount.

Wake up! You believe in an imaginary terrorist. If your god wasn't able to scare you into compliance, I doubt you would still obey.

"God's will, will be done", you say. So, if anyone goes to hell, it is God's will, and nobody has a choice-- for if God's will is for them to obey and go to heaven, then God's will must be done, and no one would go to hell. So basically, you love a god who wants people to suffer eternally and gives them no other choice.