Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, your worship of a god that planned the death of a baby in a shooting is exactly that.

Insensitive and debateable.

[Shaker]

You called?

[Nearly Sane]

Insensitive and debateable.

indeed you are. Worshipping a god like that. A god that chooses for babies to be shot. How do you feel worshipping such a thing?

[Rhiannon]

indeed you are. Worshipping a god like that. A god that chooses for babies to be shot. How do you feel worshipping such a thing?

Come on, NS, it's god's plan for all the little babies to go to heaven.

[Shaker]

Come on, NS, it's god's plan for all the little babies to go to heaven.

Hmm  ... but with the omnis at my disposal I could just slot them into heaven as is. I'd find all that gestation and birth business a bit, well, superfluous, like going from London to Edinburgh via Penzance.

[Sassy]

All?

Yes Sebastian,

We all arrive at the same time no matter when they died.
Judgment affects all and all will be together when it happens.

Where we spend eternity decides what we do now.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes Sebastian,

We all arrive at the same time no matter when they died.
Judgment affects all and all will be together when it happens.

Where we spend eternity decides what we do now.

So, "all will be reunited with their loved ones" , could mean "reunited"  just for a wee while then they could be split up for eternity?

[floo]

Yes Sebastian,

We all arrive at the same time no matter when they died.
Judgment affects all and all will be together when it happens.

Where we spend eternity decides what we do now.

You have no evidence that once we die we don't stay dead.

[ippy]

Yes Sebastian,

We all arrive at the same time no matter when they died.
Judgment affects all and all will be together when it happens.

Where we spend eternity decides what we do now.
[/quote

No more cheese shortages Sass, once we have gained easy access to the Moon!

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have no evidence that once we die we don't stay dead.

The New Testament.

[torridon]

The New Testament.

A bit like the evidence for the pantheon of Greek gods is to be found in the Illiad.

[Maeght]

The New Testament.

Does the record of people's beliefs really count as evidence?

[floo]

The New Testament.

And when was the NT any sort of evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does the record of people's beliefs really count as evidence?

It is also a history Maeght. Do we reject histories because they are not CCTV?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And when was the NT any sort of evidence?

From when it was written within living memory of Jesus ministry. That's a few centuries before  New Atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A bit like the evidence for the pantheon of Greek gods is to be found in the Illiad.

I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad.
How can an intelligent bloke like yourself get it so wrong?

[Shaker]

I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad.

Historians have, since history is methodologically naturalistic (as you ought to know by now).

Some others ... not really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad.

Yes they do - as not history.

How can an intelligent bloke like yourself get it so wrong?

Erm...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes they do - as not history.

Erm...

They merely dismiss the resurrection on the grounds of non naturalism. That is a philosophical stance and decision. It does not change what is written down.

You need to say why they don't and we need to judge whether the reasons are historically valid.

If you in anyway are intimating that a historian is not allowed to consider a resurrection that is just intellectual fascism on the part of whoever thinks it.

History is what happened. Not what can or cannot happen.

[Walter]

They merely dismiss the resurrection on the grounds of non naturalism. That is a philosophical stance and decision. It does not change what is written down.

You need to say why they don't and we need to judge whether the reasons are historically valid.

If you in anyway are intimating that a historian is not allowed to consider a resurrection that is just intellectual fascism on the part of whoever thinks it.

History is what happened. Not what can or cannot happen.

the irony in your last line is amazing ............ facepalm!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the irony in your last line is amazing ............ facepalm!

What can or can't happen of course is not fully understood. However physicalism helps us out here since if life is merely a particular arrangement of material then we can envisage technologies in which dead matter can be revived.

Also we do not know whether spontaneous revival is impossible.

Both these circumstances would forever forbid us from claiming impossibility and in my view invalidate the exclusion from history where impossibility cannot be achieved. We already know parthenogenesis is possible and that virgins can conceive.

[Maeght]

It is also a history Maeght. Do we reject histories because they are not CCTV?

We consider the reliability and background of the sources and evaluate them alongside other sources and physical evidence The authors of the NT were expressing their beliefs and this must be taken into account. I don't see how they can be considered as evidence for people who die not staying dead as you suggested. That is an expression of the author's beliefs.

[torridon]

I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad.
How can an intelligent bloke like yourself get it so wrong?

For history, we go to the likes of Tacitus and Livy, in whose writings Jesus gets hardly a mention.  The New Testament was written by the followers of Jesus.  It would be naïve to count that as unbiased and objective history. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We consider the reliability and background of the sources and evaluate them alongside other sources and physical evidence The authors of the NT were expressing their beliefs and this must be taken into account. I don't see how they can be considered as evidence for people who die not staying dead as you suggested. That is an expression of the author's beliefs.

Yes they believed in an environment where it was acknowledged that these things don't happen that it happened.or

It is an account of a resurrection. You are generalising without close inspection of the documentation and it's wider context.

Can Paul as the writer of the significant document the epistle over whether the resurrection happened be referred to as an ''author'' maybe but only as a letter writer, a letter of which gives us scope on a debate over an event within living memory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For history, we go to the likes of Tacitus and Livy, in whose writings Jesus gets hardly a mention.  The New Testament was written by the followers of Jesus.  It would be naïve to count that as unbiased and objective history.

Well In that case you have to place Tacitus and Livy as higher histories. The epistle which is a contemporary report on a debate on an event in living memory is in my view a more compelling snapshot of what was going on than considered and edited history which has to please certain authorities who would have access to them.