Questioning The Resurrection

[thefishinthesea23]

Please cite credible research to support your assertion.

Or, should I presume this another of your personal opinions, posing as fact?

Why turn to science for some things and not others? I never understood this... Scientific evidence is required to proof everyone is born a non believer, but not for the existence of a supreme being or his resurrected son?

Sorry I hope this isn't out of order within this thread.

 

[FirmaFan]

You are correct that we are all born non-believers. If we were born believers, we would not have need for baptism to wipe away Original Sin.

A newborn child does not "need" baptism to erase original sin, the "need" only comes AFTER one believes in that one particular religious doctrine that says baptism is needed. Before that, original sin is as much of a non-belief as every other religious practice.

It is unfortunate that we are all born with Original sin on our Souls. It is also unfortunate that even after Baptism, we still experience Actual Sin, ie; sin committed after Baptism.

So says the particular religious doctrine you believe in. You speak not only as if you believe your religion is the one true religion (your faith in which I am not questioning) but also as if your religion is the only religion, the doctrine of which applies to everyone. Seeing as how I do not subscribe to your beliefs, I see no need for baptism for I do not stand for being told that simply being born has afflicted me with so-called "sin". I refuse to apologize for being human, nor will I be convinced that I somehow have a defect that can only be remedied by a particular religious belief. Do you not see how insidiously manipulative such teachings are?

 

[FirmaFan]

The Greek and Russian Orthodox, Anglican (Church of England), and some of the other Liturgical Churches are very much of the same mind on this doctrine with the Catholic Church. The true/real Christian Churches are the ones that have direct Apostolic successions of Bishops, traced all the way back to the Original 12 Apostles.

I daresay no direct lineage, bishops or otherwise, has been found linking to the original 12 apostles. Like Jesus, there is no extra-biblical evidence they even existed.

 

[kallipolis]

I will agree that people can both be predisposed to certain things and can be taught certain things, with religious belief not being an exception of this. However, the specific religious belief is always acquired, there is no innate religious doctrine that is present at birth. Hence, we are all born non-believers.

Doctrine is not present at conception but according to certain scientific research, there is a God gene.

 

[kallipolis]

You are correct that we are all born non-believers. If we were born believers, we would not have need for baptism to wipe away Original Sin. It is unfortunate that we are all born with Original sin on our Souls. It is also unfortunate that even after Baptism, we still experience Actual Sin, ie; sin committed after Baptism.

Original Sin refers to the flawed nature of human life, or our capacity for failure.

 

[kallipolis]

Like Jesus, there is no extra-biblical evidence they even existed.

I have read this comment from you very many times. What else is new in your filing cabinet?

 

[FirmaFan]

Original Sin refers to the flawed nature of human life, or our capacity for failure.

Yes, human beings are not perfect, but I don't think having my head forced under water by a priest changes that. Not being perfect is not a defect of being human, it is what it means to be human, but to say that the CURE is baptism is to simply lie in order to advance a specific religious doctrine. It's manipulative and deceitful.

Doctrine is not present at conception but according to certain scientific research, there is a God gene.

The "god gene" hypothesis sources religious or spiritual beliefs to your brain. Basically, it says it's all in your head.

I have read this comment from you very many times. What else is new in your filing cabinet?

Why must I provide anything else? If a claim is made that can not be supported by evidence, what reason do I or anyone have to believe it? Furthermore, no responsibility is upon me to show the claim isn't true when nothing has been presented to show the claim is true.

 

[kallipolis]

You aren't possibly equating religion to sexual orientation. No. Religion is always a choice. Resurrection is just a fictional story like everything written in the bible.

So you keep telling us Ad Nauseum.

 

[kallipolis]

Why must I provide anything else? If a claim is made that can not be supported by evidence, what reason do I or anyone have to believe it? Furthermore, no responsibility is upon me to show the claim isn't true when nothing has been presented to show the claim is true.

The evidence that you require is evidently not going to satisfy you - ever.

 

[FirmaFan]

The evidence that you require is evidently not going to satisfy you - ever.

Evidence is objective, falsifiable, and independently verifiable. That is the kind of evidence that is required in order to establish a claim as credible.

If you have no evidence that will satisfy me, then fine. However, could I ask what has convinced you? What evidence that wouldn't be good enough for me was good enough for you?

 

[palbert]

I wish I had a better understanding of tennis so that I could plumb the depths of this thread. What mountbankery.

 

[Stardreamer]

I will agree that people can both be predisposed to certain things and can be taught certain things, with religious belief not being an exception of this. However, the specific religious belief is always acquired, there is no innate religious doctrine that is present at birth. Hence, we are all born non-believers.

A better way to phrase it and there is some scientific theory that points to it being the case, is that we may be born with a predisposition to religious belief but that the particulars of the belief is shaped through learning. This can even be seen in how some embrace atheism with a religious like zeal. For them non-belief has filled that predisposition to believe.

 

[kallipolis]

Evidence is objective, falsifiable, and independently verifiable. That is the kind of evidence that is required in order to establish a claim as credible.

If you have no evidence that will satisfy me, then fine. However, could I ask what has convinced you? What evidence that wouldn't be good enough for me was good enough for you?

That you refuse to accept the testimonies of very many eye witnesses that Jesus resurrected into new life is evidence that you reject, and then you go on to inform us such evidence is not credible for the eye witnesses failed to take photographs, or video even then you would claim that the video was tampered with, and the pictures photo-shopped.

It is transparent that you are not open to persuasion. So be, it.

 

[kallipolis]

A better way to phrase it and there is some scientific theory that points to it being the case, is that we may be born with a predisposition to religious belief but that the particulars of the belief is shaped through learning. This can even be seen in how some embrace atheism with a religious like zeal. For them non-belief has filled that predisposition to believe.

Sound reasoning nevertheless, the militant atheist rejects any suggestion that their determination to believe that there is no God, merely evidences their rational understanding that their belief is nothing more than the rejection of theistic belief.

 

[Slaveboy]

Are you here to preach or to convince yourself that your god is fine with your support of a homosexual forum? People confuse militant atheism (makes no sense) with strong anti-theism. Also, many religions claim they have eye whitness testimonies but yours are some how more sound. Being from Greece, I'm curious why you don't accept Greek mythology. A rejection of a belief is not a belief. I don't have the belief in not believing in Fairies, Unicorns or any of the many gods you don't believe in. Not being convinced of a claim, doesn't make it a belief itself.

 

[kallipolis]

1. Are you here to preach or to convince yourself that your god is fine with your support of a homosexual forum?

2. People confuse militant atheism (makes no sense) with strong anti-theism.

3. Also, many religions claim they have eye whitness testimonies but yours are some how more sound.

4. Being from Greece, I'm curious why you don't accept Greek mythology.

5. A rejection of a belief is not a belief.

6. I don't have the belief in not believing in Fairies, Unicorns or any of the many gods you don't believe in.

7. Not being convinced of a claim, doesn't make it a belief itself.

Yet, another militant atheist posting a litany of observations clearly calculated to preach against theistic beliefs, by providing us with the predictable atheistic credo of faith claiming that there is no God under the pretext of critiquing my opinions.

You are one of many who contribute their understandings of their atheistic beliefs to this forum.

 

[FirmaFan]

That you refuse to accept the testimonies of very many eye witnesses that Jesus resurrected into new life is evidence that you reject, and then you go on to inform us such evidence is not credible for the eye witnesses failed to take photographs, or video even then you would claim that the video was tampered with, and the pictures photo-shopped.

It is transparent that you are not open to persuasion. So be, it.

Okay, fair enough, you accept the eye witness claims that Jesus resurrected as fact. I do not accept those claims because those claims were not made by eye witnesses. The bible is not eye witness testimony. No one that wrote about Jesus ever even met the guy.

 

[FirmaFan]

Yet, another militant atheist posting a litany of observations clearly calculated to preach against theistic beliefs, by providing us with the predictable atheistic credo of faith claiming that there is no God under the pretext of critiquing my opinions.

You are one of many who contribute their understandings of their atheistic beliefs to this forum.

You know Slaveboy never made the claim "god does not exist". He responded to your claims that god exists with the simple, rational "I don't believe you". His attempt at explaining the difference to you is meaningless, however, as you have shown in the past that no matter how many times in how many different ways you are corrected on this issue, you will continue to assert that disbelief in a god is a staunch religious position - "atheistic belief" - atheism is a non-belief - how can something that specifically ISN'T something else BE that something else?

 

[kallipolis]

Okay, fair enough, you accept the eye witness claims that Jesus resurrected as fact. I do not accept those claims because those claims were not made by eye witnesses. The bible is not eye witness testimony. No one that wrote about Jesus ever even met the guy.

A detective does not need to travel back in time to view the crime he is investigating to be able to piece together the evidence that will enable him to build a case that will convict the perpetrator of the crime likewise, the actual scribes who penned the stories of the Jesus events did not have to meet Jesus to place on paper the recollections of those who not only met Jesus, but spent some three and half years of their life living with him day in, and day out as a valuable friend and student of the words of life that poured out of Jesus' mouth.

 

[FirmaFan]

A detective does not need to travel back in time to view the crime he is investigating to be able to piece together the evidence that will enable him to build a case that will convict the perpetrator of the crime likewise, the actual scribes who penned the stories of the Jesus events did not have to meet Jesus to place on paper the recollections of those who not only met Jesus, but spent some three and half years of their life living with him day in, and day out as a valuable friend and student of the words of life that poured out of Jesus' mouth.

A detective relies on a lot more than second hand testimony to convict a perpetrator of a crime. A second hand account past through 2000 years of translation, revision, and modification wouldn't even be admissible.