Religion

[Diego]

Alright. Why don't you try and read this http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... orner.html

I tried to read it, it was way to long.

It is generally a bad idea to post a link you have not read and ask someone else to read it. It is also a bad idea to use a real-life moderated formal debate as evidence towards one point, since it most likely also contains evidence for the other side, rebuttals of your evidence and a strong closing statement against your case.

Just like your link.

maby you could try and read it and get your answers frome there.

As I said, formal debates don't provide definite answers most of the time. It's "you, me, you attack me, I attack you, you finish, I finish." No solid, one-sided conclusion is ever stated or achieved amongst the debaters.

bacus All I can say is that in the bible it also said that WATER pourd frome the wounds. And the only way for that to happen is for the heart... to be wreked or somthing.

The condition of the heart has no biological bearing on whether or not water pours from a wound. The heart pumps blood throughout your body. Don't make stuff up, please.

And even if the spear was in his side, a stomak wound IS FATAL untreated with our medical expeariance. At least I'm sure it is. It is fatal.

what proof do you have that crusifying was NOT lethal?

To be a pedant, proof is more of a mathematical concept. Evidence, which is not the same, is all that can be provided. And common sense should tell you; piercing a man's hands and feet with nails is not lethal, hanging him from a cross is not lethal, leaving him for a few hours, a day or two won't kill him, unless he catches a bad cold. Asphyxia in such an angle wouldn't be an issue either.

Getting into further detail, it is virtually impossible for a man nailed to a T-shaped cross not to fall, since there in no structure in the hands that would stop the nails from ripping through the flesh under the weight of the body.

Besides, this entire point is merely a tangent--even if all crucifixions had been fatal, there is no known Roman record of a man fitting Jesus's description even remotely, being crucified. Considering that an execution through crucifixion would be an extremely rare event, and that Romans kept records even of minor delinquency, it's senseless to think that such a thing could have taken place without no one bothering to write it down.

now THAT is an asumption. And I will make an asumption to couter it. Why would Pilat ceep jesus alive? why wouldn't he kill him? Is he more dangerous dead or alive? I would think that Pilat would think he was more dangerous alive.

Now this is just poor strategic thinking. What is more dangerous, a charismatic man, or a martyr? Charismatic men draw crowds of curious people out, martyrs are dead--and inspire people to be willing to die for their same cause. That is why killing people like Hussein or Bin Laden would be really poor strategy.

And there is evidence that jesus lived and died. it is here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
and there is also an argument about it there.

Flavius Josephus, the man who made a single passing reference mentioning someone called Jesus 60 years after Jesus died? Are you seriously intending to prove the life, actions, death and resurrection of your Messiah based on "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"? Furthermore, considering a myriad of scholars (such as Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster, as your link mentions) suspect that the phrase who was called Christ wasn't originally there, rather added by later Christians.

Have you even stopped to consider that maybe there was more than one individual in the entire land of Judea by the name of Yeshua?

[Antichrist_Online]

If I remeber rightly in older versions of the bible Pilate was reluctant to carry out a sentance on Jesus, and trys to get the people to release him instead of Barabas. Choosing a non-leathal punishment (curcifixtion is only fatal due to exposure or the breaking of the legs to cause Asphyxia). Also the nailing to the cross may have been a mistranslation, as it was more common to tie people to the cross (they can leave them there for longer without falling off).

[Nalaris]

I've met more than one individual who, while disbelieving the concept of Christian faith, categorically stated that should such a God exist, they would be more than happy to eternally be damned in Hell rather than act as hypocrites and change their ways to please an arbitrary, unjust tyrant. I'm not (necessarily) agreeing with their characterization of God, but I am saying that it might be better, in a way, for man to stand up against everything and be, at least, a token of the strenght of the spirit of mankind and its personal convictions.

Of course, that was an entirely rebellious, hypothetical, Christianity-(counter)aligned line of thought, but it served the purpose of illustrating the ideology well enough, I hope.

If God threw everyone who didn't believe in him into Hell, I might consider calling him a merciless tyrant as well. But he doesn't. The only way into Hell is to believe in God, acknowledge it counciously, and still work against Him. Just not believing in him will still get you into Heaven, just a lesser degree of Heaven.

If I remeber rightly in older versions of the bible Pilate was reluctant to carry out a sentance on Jesus, and trys to get the people to release him instead of Barabas. Choosing a non-leathal punishment (curcifixtion is only fatal due to exposure or the breaking of the legs to cause Asphyxia). Also the nailing to the cross may have been a mistranslation, as it was more common to tie people to the cross (they can leave them there for longer without falling off).

Crucifixtion was meant to kill. The records from Spartacus' rebellion prove that much. It's true that Pilate didn't want to kill a man who appeared innocent of any wrong, but he was far more afraid to risk his political position. He hoped to illustrate the contrast between Christ and true criminals with Barabas, but apparently the Jews present were actually that dumb. Nailing to the cross was a special exception for Christ, all other recorded crucifixtions I know of were tied.

[Diego]

I've met more than one individual who, while disbelieving the concept of Christian faith, categorically stated that should such a God exist, they would be more than happy to eternally be damned in Hell rather than act as hypocrites and change their ways to please an arbitrary, unjust tyrant. I'm not (necessarily) agreeing with their characterization of God, but I am saying that it might be better, in a way, for man to stand up against everything and be, at least, a token of the strenght of the spirit of mankind and its personal convictions.

Of course, that was an entirely rebellious, hypothetical, Christianity-(counter)aligned line of thought, but it served the purpose of illustrating the ideology well enough, I hope.

If God threw everyone who didn't believe in him into Hell, I might consider calling him a merciless tyrant as well. But he doesn't. The only way into Hell is to believe in God, acknowledge it counciously, and still work against Him. Just not believing in him will still get you into Heaven, just a lesser degree of Heaven.

What Church do you belong to? I'm interested, as this is a belief I hadn't heard of, at least not expressed in this particular way. However, the point is a bit of a tangent, as God being a tyrant (or not) doesn't necessarily change individual, personal perceptions of Him, and, furthermore, the whole Christianity example was just that--there is a cornucopia of scenarios in which a very similar decision is valid.

[Nalaris]

I'm Mormon. A lot of what we teach makes sense, i.e. 'merciful' is an accurate adjective for God, not just a title, Lot didn't try to sacrifice his daughters to a rapacious mob in place of the three holy men visiting him, God does continue to give revelations, just like before, etc. etc.

We have a website at lds.org that should satisfy your curiousity on the subject. The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine&Covenants are good sources, and missionairies hand Books of Mormon out for free in nearly every country on the planet (we still can't get into places like China or North Korea, however...). Those three books, along with the Old and New Testaments, are the scriptures that form the basis of Mormon teachings. The missionairies themselves are generally eager to teach you a thing or twelve about Mormonism.

If that doesn't satisfy your curiousity, nothing will. Best part is, you shouldn't have to pay a cent.

[Diego]

Sounds quite interesting. Down here in Venezuela, Mormonism isn't too common (I've never seen or heard of a Moron in my life, other than in books and television). While I was somewhat familiar with the basis of the religion, I didn't know that particular belief, which I find truly necessary for the concept of a just and merciful God. The concept of "Good is by definition anything that God does, thus he can never fail to be merciful" always striked me as a cop-out.

[Solfius]

(I've never seen or heard of a Moron in my life, other than in books and television).

I envy you, Diego.


(More Rum, w00t!!!1!)

[Pie]

alright... this is a loooong thing i have to type.... gah.

To be a pedant, proof is more of a mathematical concept. Evidence, which is not the same, is all that can be provided. And common sense should tell you; piercing a man's hands and feet with nails is not lethal, hanging him from a cross is not lethal, leaving him for a few hours, a day or two won't kill him, unless he catches a bad cold. Asphyxia in such an angle wouldn't be an issue either.

Getting into further detail, it is virtually impossible for a man nailed to a T-shaped cross not to fall, since there in no structure in the hands that would stop the nails from ripping through the flesh under the weight of the body.

alright.

jesus had to carry the cross, a wooden structure strong enough to hold himself up, say, 100 pounds? 150? I don't know, 60 maby? 1 mile, or two, sure. no big deal eh? that is exoustion. he's tired. He also had to be whiped with a roman whip, wich has shards of bone and balls to bruis and laserate his back. pain. and blood loss. he's tired, in pain, blood loss, and now he has to be suspended on a cross. Now, as for nails thorugh his wrist not being strong enough, the wrist was considerd part of the hand back then. and if they would have started at the bottom of the palm and gon to the wrist than it would easaly be able to hold his weight up.

now we have at the crusifiction.

he has blood loss, he's tired, he's in pain, and now he has to be hung on cross. now, when on a cross, you have to push yourself up on your feet to breath. thus we have him being even more tired, blood loss, and more pain. And now we have the wound in his side. in the bible it said that whater was pourd in with the blood. I'm sure that this has to deal with the heart. wait... maby it was the liver. yea. the liver.

and also, dealing with a spear thrust into his side... this would have caused a large amount of things. puncture of many orgains, including small intestin, large intestin, stomack, liver, gallbladder, and causing internal bleeding. withought surgical prosedures, he certainly would have died within... say, a day posibally?

now, we have extreem blood loss, extreem exoustion, and extreem pain. heck, they had to invent a new word just to describe the pain he went through. i just forget at the moment.

And also, they would, back then, break the legs of people to speed up theyr deaths.

and now, your telling me, that a man that went through all of that, got up in a tombe, and moved aside a 5 tone stone by himself and fight off two compleatly armed roman guards? I doubt that.

[Solfius]

Fine up the point where you deal with the tomb, because your arguement that far can be supported by science and such. For example, the potential damage caused by spears, the effects of crucifixiation etc.

The problem with what follows is that you assume its true without offering proof. Are there any sources independant of the Bible that support the resurrection? You can't quote the Bible as proof because it's the legitimacy of the Bible that we are questioning, in effect, and so to prove the Bible true using the Bible as evidence isn't possible because it still hasn't shown that any evidence from the Bible is true.

For example, I could tell you that I am the King of Jamaica, and you might ask me to prove it: "Because I said so" isn't proof, but that is in effect what you're doing when using the Bible as evidence of it being true.

If you could list many independant sources corralating the stories in the Bible, you'd have a far easier time arguing your points

[Solfius]

and now, your telling me, that a man that went through all of that, got up in a tombe, and moved aside a 5 tone stone by himself and fight off two compleatly armed roman guards? I doubt that.

If the events of the crucifixtion as you described are true, then I think it's also true that a man couldn't do what is described in the quote. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the events in the quote didn't happen because they are not possible to happen.

[Pie]

without devine inervention.

Becaus the deciples saw him alive after that. They saw that.

now there are three ways that this could be true. Either they are telling the truth, and it happened.

or they were telling the truth, but they were lied to.

or they are lying.

now, I will disprove them lying by the fact that they were myrterd. they could not have absolutly lied out right, becaus they died for that.

now, i will disprove them being lied to. How could it happen? holusination? no. Even between the twelve of them, it could not of happened. and plus the wemon who went to the tome saw the tome enpty. so it could not of been a lye.

the only thing that is left is that they were telling the truth. now, you may say that many people in the islamic religion were myrterd for their beleafs, BUT, they didn't see anything important now did they? they may have seen somthing important, and that's what makes all the difference. what they were myrterd for. For beleaving that it happened, or believing that they saw it happen.

you got nothing on jesus.

[Torkess_theCommie]

and plus the wemon who went to the tome saw the tome enpty. so it could not of been a lye.

It was one woman, she could have lied too.

gah! I try to stay away from this thread!

EDIT: quotes were a bit screwy

[Nalaris]

But we have about fifteen eyewitness reports of Jesus being alive after he was clearly and obviously killed on the cross. True, they were very old eyewitness reports, but that's besides the point.

I think I know why Jesus' death was unrecorded. Pilate wanted nothing to do with Christ's crucifixtion, right? He probably pulled a few strings to make sure that Christ's execution wasn't recorded, ecspecially not as being tied to him in any way (which is impossible without suggesting that a Jewish mob did it all on their own, in which case it still would've been his job to break up the mob and save Jesus...only answer is to destroy the record and let the cult die.)

[formerly known as hf]

But we have about fifteen eyewitness reports of Jesus being alive after he was clearly and obviously killed on the cross.

There are similarly hundreds of 'eye-witnesses' to UFOs and space aliens.

[Pie]

.... 500 eye witnesses on the mount of olives.

and read the bible. In every gosple it sais differen't wemons name, but still, more than one womon.

and also, I beleave in UFO's. yep. they are actually experemental government devices. well... exept for that one above new yourk. they wanted to watch the basball game there.