Spoon

[johnnylightnin]

Actually, it sounds exactly like what prehistoric man, without having the benefit of centuries of scientific and philosophical learning, would have thought a god would be - petty and jealous. But it does not sound like the behavior of an omnipotent and all-knowing god. It just had a very unsophisticated feel to it. This gets back to my point about how the more times I have read the bible, or parts thereof, the less easy it is to believe that these are actually divine revelations. They read far more like a collection of related stories of unenlightened man trying to understand the universe, define a value system, and provide for an instrument to effect societal change.

You're opinion is noted, but I don't see how you can "scientifically" make that case. You have faith that the bible is merely a collection of prehistoric fairy tales. I see an internally consistent work created by dozens of authors over thousands of years. I see fulfilled prophecy. I see men who attested to the truth of the resurrection knowing full well that it would cost them their lives. I see 500 eye witnesses who saw a man who had been dead walking on the earth and then ascending to heaven. There is certainly faith involved in my view, but it is far from blind.

[Guisslapp]

If someone tells me that someone else, who I have never met, told them that they had witnessed something that would be (under any other circumstances be impossible) I wouldn't believe it either. When that first someone said it in a letter that I didn't receive until well after they had died, it would be even less reliable. There is a reason that hearsay is inadmissible in court (except in narrow exceptions where the reliability can be more reasonably inferred). In the case of the Bible, it is hearsay within hearsay (and in most cases, within hearsay yet again). People lie, people misrepresent, and some people are just crazy. Without having a chance to personally ask the witness questions, and when the story is unbelievable, I am going to have to go with reason and say that the story should not be believed.

[johnnylightnin]

If someone tells me that someone else, who I have never met, told them that they had witnessed something that would be (under any other circumstances be impossible) I wouldn't believe it either. When that first someone said it in a letter that I didn't receive until well after they had died, it would be even less reliable. There is a reason that hearsay is inadmissible in court (except in narrow exceptions where the reliability can be more reasonably inferred). In the case of the Bible, it is hearsay within hearsay (and in most cases, within hearsay yet again). People lie, people misrepresent, and some people are just crazy. Without having a chance to personally ask the witness questions, and when the story is unbelievable, I am going to have to go with reason and say that the story should not be believed.

The letter wasn't just written to you. You may have only seen it after the author died, but that's not the case for the intended audience of the letter. Sure, people lie and misrepresent, but what possible motive could the disciples have had for perpetuating the lie? They were hunted their entire lives and most were murdered for their testimony…others died like dogs in prison. Don't these liars need a motive?

[deadawg]

If someone tells me that someone else, who I have never met, told them that they had witnessed something that would be (under any other circumstances be impossible) I wouldn't believe it either. When that first someone said it in a letter that I didn't receive until well after they had died, it would be even less reliable. There is a reason that hearsay is inadmissible in court (except in narrow exceptions where the reliability can be more reasonably inferred). In the case of the Bible, it is hearsay within hearsay (and in most cases, within hearsay yet again). People lie, people misrepresent, and some people are just crazy. Without having a chance to personally ask the witness questions, and when the story is unbelievable, I am going to have to go with reason and say that the story should not be believed.

I really enjoy reading the back and forth and the questions you are asking. They are questions that many who don't believe have. I think it all comes down to the resurrection of Christ. Would you agree that if he truly resurrected from the dead, then Christianity is true? If so, then you can look at the evidence supporting the resurrection. The most important piece of evidence for me is Simon Peter. He denied Christ three times before the crucifixion out of fear. Jesus then appeared to Simon Peter after he arose from the dead and was eventually killed for preaching Jesus' teachings. If he wasn't willing to die for his beliefs before seeing Jesus rise from the dead, why was he willing to after unless he truly saw him? I urge you to research these facts about Simon Peter for yourself and I believe you will see that historians on both sides of the argument will agree that he denied Christ three times, claims he saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and he died preaching God's word.

[Russdawg]

I really enjoy reading the back and forth and the questions you are asking.

+1 Nice to be challenged and prompted to reflect.

[Guisslapp]

Don't these liars need a motive?

1. What is the motive of someone that is crazy? Do you think people that claim to have been abducted by aliens are telling the truth? Regardless, there can always be reason to lie or misrepresent even when someone is not crazy.
2. That is the problem with hearsay. You cannot ask the witness questions to determine motive, bias, judgment, other circumstances affecting their testimony. That is precisely why it is not allowed into evidence in court.

[Guisslapp]

I really enjoy reading the back and forth and the questions you are asking. They are questions that many who don't believe have. I think it all comes down to the resurrection of Christ. Would you agree that if he truly resurrected from the dead, then Christianity is true? If so, then you can look at the evidence supporting the resurrection. The most important piece of evidence for me is Simon Peter. He denied Christ three times before the crucifixion out of fear. Jesus then appeared to Simon Peter after he arose from the dead and was eventually killed for preaching Jesus' teachings. If he wasn't willing to die for his beliefs before seeing Jesus rise from the dead, why was he willing to after unless he truly saw him? I urge you to research these facts about Simon Peter for yourself and I believe you will see that historians on both sides of the argument will agree that he denied Christ three times, claims he saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and he died preaching God's word.

Lots of people die for what they believe and, I am sure you would agree, they weren't all correct. Terrorists blow themselves up voluntarily all the time. Their conviction is not evidence that they are right, correct?

[johnnylightnin]

1. What is the motive of someone that is crazy? Do you think people that claim to have been abducted by aliens are telling the truth? Regardless, there can always be reason to lie or misrepresent even when someone is not crazy.
2. That is the problem with hearsay. You cannot ask the witness questions to determine motive, bias, judgment, other circumstances affecting their testimony. That is precisely why it is not allowed into evidence in court.

So, your answer is no.

Perhaps you're right and they were crazy, but it doesn't seem likely that this band of 12 crazy people were able to spark what became the dominant world religion within 350 years of Christ's death…all amidst incredibly harsh persecution.

[sharky]

1. What is the motive of someone that is crazy? Do you think people that claim to have been abducted by aliens are telling the truth? Regardless, there can always be reason to lie or misrepresent even when someone is not crazy.
2. That is the problem with hearsay. You cannot ask the witness questions to determine motive, bias, judgment, other circumstances affecting their testimony. That is precisely why it is not allowed into evidence in court.

Guisslapp, please read Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator. He also had just about every doubt that you have expressed. His indepth research and pursuit of the truth will interest you I believe. What have you got to lose but a few hours.

[Guisslapp]

So, your answer is no.

Perhaps you're right and they were crazy, but it doesn't seem likely that this band of 12 crazy people were able to spark what became the dominant world religion within 350 years of Christ's death…all amidst incredibly harsh persecution.

You could say the same thing about Mormonism or Islam.

[johnnylightnin]

You could say the same thing about Mormonism or Islam.

No you couldn't because without Christianity, there would be no mormonism or islam.

[deadawg]

Lots of people die for what they believe and, I am sure you would agree, they weren't all correct. Terrorists blow themselves up voluntarily all the time. Their conviction is not evidence that they are right, correct?

Correct. My point was that if he was lying about seeing Jesus resurrected, why would he suddenly be willing to die? His belief in seeing Jesus alive gave him courage to die for his convictions. I don't think that would happen if he wasn't positive. That is the difference between Simon Peter and terrorist, terrorist die for something they believe to be true. Simon Peter died for something he saw with his own eyes.

[Guisslapp]

Guisslapp, please read Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator. He also had just about every doubt that you have expressed. His indepth research and pursuit of the truth will interest you I believe. What have you got to lose but a few hours.

I prefer to read about science from scientists instead of journalists.

[Guisslapp]

Correct. My point was that if he was lying about seeing Jesus resurrected, why would he suddenly be willing to die? His belief in seeing Jesus alive gave him courage to die for his convictions. I don't think that would happen if he wasn't positive. That is the difference between Simon Peter and terrorist, terrorist die for something they believe to be true. Simon Peter died for something he saw with his own eyes.

Hearsay within hearsay. If given the opportunity to question him, maybe he could convince me.

[Guisslapp]

No you couldn't because without Christianity, there would be no mormonism or islam.

There has always been religion. Christianity wouldn't have had a shot without Judaism, as well as Greek/roman/Egyptian religions.