What Is God Made From?

[Gordon]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

For two obvious reasons;

1. In relation to causes or personalities, or combinations of the two, lies or propaganda are know risks: whether it be in respect of religion, politics or personalities, it is known human behaviour. North Korean despots and proficiency at golf being a recent example.

2. That the risks of propaganda seems to have been avoided in relation to Jesus, although we have lots of special pleading based on anecdotal accounts, this must be highly significant for those supporting supernatural explanations when more routine options are available.

The underlying problem here is that in the absence of meaningful exclusion of propaganda Christians seem to over-estimate the reliability of the NT given the risk that its contents are effectively indistinguishable from fiction in relation to the supernatural elements.

[Leonard James]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

You don't know that they did ... you are just accepting the accounts that they did as true.

[BashfulAnthony]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

You don't know that they did ... you are just accepting the accounts that they did as true.

Just to interrupt this Leonard James half hour, to say: "Good to see you keeping up with your decision to post less!!" 

[jeremyp]

However, who lied to Paul?

Peter.

Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.

Maybe they were all in on it.  Maybe they were all suffering from delusion.  Maybe Peter lied to all of them. 

What about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.

What other dozens of people?  Where is their testimony?

Have you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?

Are you saying he was lying to the class?  It sounds like you watched the lecture.  Which part was wrong?

[floo]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

[Alien]

However, who lied to Paul?

Peter.

Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.

Maybe they were all in on it.  Maybe they were all suffering from delusion.  Maybe Peter lied to all of them. 

So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?

Maybe they were all in on it? With what motive?

What about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.

What other dozens of people?  Where is their testimony?

I didn't way "other dozens of people". I said "the dozen or so appearances".

Have you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?

Are you saying he was lying to the class?  It sounds like you watched the lecture.  Which part was wrong?

No, I am not saying he was lying? Why do think I was saying that?

I've started a new thread about that video and have answered there.

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

[BashfulAnthony]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

I've never seen Hinn, nor do I want to.  Yet you, an atheist, watches.  Further evidence of your strange obsession.

[floo]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

The most logical explanation is that none of that happened, it was a fantasy created by his distraught followers. Resurrection, if you are truly dead, just doesn't happen, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support such a scenario.

Besides which, if the guy did pop up three days later, why didn't he stick around for the next 2000 years instead of conveniently jetting up to heaven?

[BeRational]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

Simple.

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

[Nearly Sane]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

Simple.

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

And their names are?

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

[floo]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!

[Nearly Sane]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

why are you lying (about claims being facts)?

[Gordon]

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

This is your belief, Alan, and is a faith position.

This account is indistinguishable from fiction, and it is possible than none of this actually happened in terms of historical facts. After all, this is surely the kind of thing that propagandists for Jesus would say, wouldn't they.

So, to keep saying, as you do, that people saw Jesus after he was thought to be dead etc etc, and challenging atheists to show you 'how to do it' assumes that 'it', happened in the first place in terms of the NT narrative presenting only historical facts, and to conclude this you would have to eliminate the tendency of humans getting it wrong or making it up.

You seem unable to even grasp the possibility that it didn't happen as told, or possibly at all, and that you may be a victim of propaganda. Perhaps you re taking the NT too literally, and in doing so avoiding the possibility that it isn't reliable.     

[Jack Knave]

...
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.

I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.

You're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do.  And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity. You wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?

And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?

That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.

Or you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.

* Why go into the details of a case (as you like to do with your argument about the Christian manuscripts, NT and all that) when the foundational premise of the whole thing is flawed from a philosophical and logical standpoint?

[Jack Knave]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things.

Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?

You seem to have a poor understanding of human nature (which is what my reply was based on) or a naïve belief that the early Christians must have been good and honest. People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is. You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!

So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

why are you lying (about claims being facts)?

Which ones?

[Jack Knave]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.

Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.

Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.

[Alien]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

why are you lying (about claims being facts)?

Where have I intentionally made a false statement? That's what a lie is.

[Nearly Sane]

In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)

[Alien]

I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

This is your belief, Alan, and is a faith position.

My only claim/belief here is that no atheist will"show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Why is that a "faith position"?

This account is indistinguishable from fiction,

Er, that is your claim. Indistinguishable by whom? You?

and it is possible than none of this actually happened in terms of historical facts.

Yes, possible, but IMO very unlikely to be substantially wrong. Speaking of possibilities doesn't get us too far. What we need are probabilities.

After all, this is surely the kind of thing that propagandists for Jesus would say, wouldn't they.

And that is the sort of thing an atheist would say.

Do you not see how pointless such statements are? To try to determine whether the NT writers would say such stuff we need to look at means and motive. What motive would they have for making it up?

So, to keep saying, as you do, that people saw Jesus after he was thought to be dead etc etc, and challenging atheists to show you 'how to do it' assumes that 'it', happened in the first place in terms of the NT narrative presenting only historical facts, and to conclude this you would have to eliminate the tendency of humans getting it wrong or making it up.

So, as I have asked many times of you and others, why would they make it up? How would they get it wrong? We have 5 apparently independent reports of Jesus' death and appearances to people.

You seem unable to even grasp the possibility that it didn't happen as told, or possibly at all, and that you may be a victim of propaganda.

That is incorrect. It is a possibility, but we need probabilities.

Perhaps you re taking the NT too literally, and in doing so avoiding the possibility that it isn't reliable.   

You what? The gospels are ancient autobiographies (or very similar). They tell of what people do. You are muddled up.

[Alien]

...
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.

I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.

You're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do.  And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity.

This is incorrect. I replied to your

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

I agree that the status of my "belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity". I've not claimed that.

You wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?

Correct, unless they could give me a good reason for why I should accept those beliefs. The other religions that I have looked at in depth are Islam, JWis and Mormonism and found no good reason for believing them to be true.

So what?

And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?

That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.

Or you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.

* Why go into the details of a case (as you like to do with your argument about the Christian manuscripts, NT and all that) when the foundational premise of the whole thing is flawed from a philosophical and logical standpoint?

Because you first brought it up. It seems to me that you heard something somewhere, quoted it and got out of your depth.