Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Answering Muslims: Muslim Student Traumatized after Teacher Mentions Ham

I think that this is pretty extreme. One can't even speak of "ham" as in pork without "traumatizing" a Muslim? Amazing. Wonder why people don't worry about traumatizing Christians. Europe, Everybody!!!!

I don't know what's worse: giving in to others walking on egg shells for really silly reasons as to not offend others or  thinking that we are being the bigger person. We're not. It's one thing to go into a Muslim household then slaughter a pig, eat a pig, and force them to eat it. Or invading their country and force our sensibilities down their gullets and taking everything they have. Those would be wrong. It's not the same things as just saying "ham" in a public place in a Western Country, like Spain.







Answering Muslims: Muslim Student Traumatized after Teacher Mentions Ham
Enhanced by Zemanta

65 comments:

  1. Wow, the level of your writing has really dropped off lately.

    I'm honestly not even sure what point you are making given the jumble of syntax, errors and typos, etc..., although I can guess from previous posts, so I'll leave you with this…
    Some kid freaks out over the mention of ham, another over the idea of common descent. Both are brainwashed idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ryan, very transparent. Just because your worldview doesn't stand up to scrutiny don't take it out one me. Have you seen your typos and errors? They have been many. Although common descent is an error, and you have failed to prove otherwise - other than faith (your definition of faith), I would never try to keep you from saying it. It just strengthens my position having yours visible. That is difference. The kid was saying you have no right to say "ham" because it offends me. I'm saying quit embarrassing yourself for your own sake. I'm not offended by the teaching of "common descent". I just think it's stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just because your worldview doesn't stand up to scrutiny

    Please substantiate this assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Substantiation:

    1. Equating disagreeing with "common descent" with being offended by ham.

    2. The thought that morality is just relative

    3. the thought that "Faith" is believing something against evidence when that is not how the Bible defines it.

    4. The thought that there is enough "good" you can perform to offset what you are.

    5. The claim that the Bible has errors and contradictions that make no sense - you still haven't proven that but you keep insisting it.

    6. You claimed that Paul taught different than Jesus - and have not proven squat.

    7. You claimed that you were a Christian but was never born-again. You can be a Christian culturally but that doesn't count without the transformation that should come in response to that belief.

    I could go on. But know this and most important: God does love you...despite you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1, both are about as stupid
    2, please substantiate the assertion that it is not.
    3, I simply quoted Hebrews 11.
    4, no idea what your talking about here. But if you are saying all people have no good in them, that's another assertion you'll need to substantiate.
    5, does your head get itchy keeping it buried in the sand?
    6, see 5
    7, I never claimed I wasn't "born-again", in fact I believe I was certainly as much as you currently believe you are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. You thinking they both stupid doesn't make them both wrong. Just you mistakened.
    2. I say morality not relative. You are making an assertion you can't prove. And if your really believe you are right you can't say I'm wrong. Therefore you refute yourself.
    3. You simply butchered Hebrews 11. Your exegesis is extremely weak.
    4. Do you to teach a child to lie? To steel? To be selfish? To be cruel and mean? No. Do you have to teach a Child to be compassionate? To tell the truth even when it is inconvenient for them? Yup. All this being the case shows what we are not good by default. And it does not say that good behavior cannot be taught even among heathens like you (I mean that in the nicest possible way) and all people.
    5. You call that a response? It's not.
    6. So, you have nothing to say. Just as I thought.
    7. Yes, you did. You said that there was no change of mind. No difference in how you think and act. Ergo - You were not born again. You don't accept your own depravity and your own sinfulness - agreeing with God that you need a savior - and I bet you never did. This means you have never been born again and you have not believed what I believe. You have no idea how Isaiah felt when He saw God in Isaiah 6 and was faced with his own inadequacy. You still think you are worthy.

    I just hope that God blesses you and all you know with Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So I had a big post typed out, but then I realized that 1-6 reduced to "so you say...".

    But for 7, there was absolutely a change of mind. Given that as every second passes, there is a change of mind (at least for me), there was most certainly a change of mind when I thought I saved from the existential threat of hell. I absolutely thought I was a depraved sinner who could only be saved by grace. And I definitely never thought I was "worthy" when I was a christian, that sort of goes against the whole point, no?

    Now however, I understand I'm neither "worthy" or "unworthy" but just do the best I can. If I do ok by my family and friends, I'm doing "good". There is no sky judge. Relax. Be yourself, but try to be better...

    ReplyDelete
  8. So I had a big post typed out, but then I realized that 1-6 reduced to "so you say...".

    No surprise. you missed the whole point - all of them. Par the course.

    But for 7, there was absolutely a change of mind. Given that as every second passes, there is a change of mind (at least for me), there was most certainly a change of mind when I thought I saved from the existential threat of hell. I absolutely thought I was a depraved sinner who could only be saved by grace. And I definitely never thought I was "worthy" when I was a christian, that sort of goes against the whole point, no?


    No, it doesn't. It's not about hell. It's about a personal relationship with the risen Christ. If you were born-again the change of mind is more than just a change of opinion. It's a change in thought process and everything about you.

    Now however, I understand I'm neither "worthy" or "unworthy" but just do the best I can. If I do ok by my family and friends, I'm doing "good". There is no sky judge. Relax. Be yourself, but try to be better...

    In other words, you are still deceived. When you are born again you can't go back any more than a person can become unborn or a butterfly can turn back into a caterpillar. If you were not rested and secured in Christ then you weren't doing it right. You will never be able to be good enough. You will never be sinless. It's not about being worthy. No one is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, do you think the kid was put up to it, or do you think he's pretty serious about his beliefs and was genuinely offended?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Ryan

    Finish the thought statement:

    So you say...and there is no rebuttal to the Word of God.

    @Hugh Watt

    I'm not sure if the child's thoughts were planted or genuine. I don't think that is the point. The point was that some Muslims think that freedom of religion for them means that everyone else curtails or change what they do in public.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's sweet that you think you speak the word of god. Delusional, but sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I didn't claim to be infallible. I said that the Bible is infallible. The fact that you think the 7 points I brought up that you hold actually makes sense. I'm not sure if its silly or sad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you're fallible (which you most certainly are), how do you know your belief that the bible is infallible is correct?

    The fact that you think the 7 points I brought up that you hold actually makes sense.

    Can you try this one again? I'm sure there's an extra word (or one missing) that would possibly make the sentence make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simple: there are not errors in the Bible - not in the translations - i mean in the autographs - and we have all the tools we need to understand what those texts says.

    In other words: I'm not sure if its silly or sad that you think the seven contentions I brought up makes your worldview make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We don't have the autographs. How on earth would you know there are not errors in those?

    Plus, you're fallible, so I don't trust you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don't trust me. Trust God. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that we know what the original autographs say.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Know" is a strong word. We don't know. Plus, since there are errors in the manuscripts (i.e. contradictions, bad translations of OT verses, etc...) then I suppose we can assume those errors where in the autographs. But we don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ryan said:

    "Know" is a strong word. We don't know. Plus, since there are errors in the manuscripts (i.e. contradictions, bad translations of OT verses, etc...) then I suppose we can assume those errors where in the autographs. But we don't know.

    So you know better than the vast major Biblical textual scholars? I doubt that you can find a single credible scholar who would agree with you. I think you assume incorrectly. "Bad translations" sounds like a really stupid assertion. The people who translated Hebrew into Greek I am certain know Hebrew a lot better than you do. You have yet to prove unexplained logical errors and contradictions in the translations we do have.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ryan:

    I read through some of what you said, and I'd like to ask, where do you think you actually stand with Christ? In one place you said you believe you were "born again," but then I see other statements that suggest otherwise.

    7, I never claimed I wasn't "born-again", in fact I believe I was certainly as much as you currently believe you are.

    Now however, I understand I'm neither "worthy" or "unworthy" but just do the best I can. If I do ok by my family and friends, I'm doing "good". There is no sky judge. Relax. Be yourself, but try to be better...


    What does this mean?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marcus: we've been over all that ad nauseum, you and I don't just have different beliefs, we have different epistemologies, and that's a more profound difference.

    Hugh: right now? I don't believe a "Christ" exists. Jesus probably existed, although maybe not, or he might have been an amalgam of several itinerant preachers.

    However, for many years I believed I was "born-again in Christ", now I realize being "born-again" is just in the mind.

    I'm a former Christian who is now an Agnostic or an Atheist depending on how you want to define those words.

    Hope that answers your question. Merry Christmas to you and Marcus.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ryan:

    Thanks for your reply.

    I don't want you to think I'm attacking you by some of my posts to you, please bear this in mind.

    Do you not see that thinking and knowing are two different things? There's a situation in Matt.7:21-27, where people are standing before Jesus at the judgment. They come with; 'Lord, have we not...' Jesus did not say they never did those things, He just said; "I never knew you."

    Point is, you may have thought you were saved, but what was that based upon?

    You say Jesus probably existed, maybe not. This is like a purgatory statement. Did He exist or not?

    Why do you say you were a former Christian? What I'm asking is, what happened to make you deny the One you once professed to believe in?
    Will you also clarify what you are now? It will save me time if you could just say if you're an agnostic or atheist. If you don't mind, define those words.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 2. I say morality not relative. You are making an assertion you can't prove. And if your really believe you are right you can't say I'm wrong. Therefore you refute yourself.

    Marcus, Since the the claim that moral facts exist is in and of itself not a moral claim, why do you think the above statement of yours makes any sense? For example, if no objective moral facts exist, a square still has four sides and you'd be wrong (and I'd be right to point it out) if you said a square had five sides.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What happened to my post to Ryan?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hugh; the one from 4:40 eastern time? I still see it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The one after that. This one:

    Ryan:

    Thanks for your reply.

    I don't want you to think I'm attacking you by some of my posts to you, please bear this in mind.

    Do you not see that thinking and knowing are two different things? There's a situation in Matt.7:21-27, where people are standing before Jesus at the judgment. They come with; 'Lord, have we not...' Jesus did not say they never did those things, He just said; "I never knew you."

    Point is, you may have thought you were saved, but what was that based upon?

    You say Jesus probably existed, maybe not. This is like a purgatory statement. Did He exist or not?

    Why do you say you were a former Christian? What I'm asking is, what happened to make you deny the One you once professed to believe in?
    Will you also clarify what you are now? It will save me time if you could just say if you're an agnostic or atheist. If you don't mind, define those words.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No worries Hugh, I more than understand it's not personal, so "fire away".

    I honestly don't think thinking and knowing are two different things. Seems they are the same with a different level of certainty. But I've "known" some things that turned out to be wrong (not even talking about my former faith) and I'm sure you have too. But from the verse from Matthew, you seem to be meaning "being acquanited with" as "know" and not "have certain knowledge". And these discussion really do seem to hinge on disagreements in definitions of words.

    When it comes down to it, my belief in my salvation, was based on how I felt, as is everyone's.

    I think what you are getting at was I wasn't actually saved because Jesus didn't know me. But how do you know Jesus knows you? I bet it's because you feel he knows you, maybe you know he knows you, but really it's that you feel you know he knows... But I really can't speak for another's experience.

    I honestly have no idea if Jesus existed and it would be dishonest of me to say one way or the other. It seems his existence is more certain that Alexander the Great's, but slightly less certain than Julius Caesar's.

    I have a more complete statement about the my loss of faith here, see the comment from 6:57am on February 12th. But in short, it all started when I discovered that the end of Mark was an addition. There was a long journey after that, but that's when the "scales fell from my eyes" so to speak.

    To clairfy my beliefs, I'm not certain enough to say there is no prime mover, first cause, or deist type god, the universe is a big and apparently strange place. So that technically makes me an agnostic, but I'm as certain as a person can possibly be that YHWH or other tribal gods and 1st century Messiahs aren't real, so that makes me an atheist.

    I guess you could say I'm a practical atheist but a technical agnostic, if that makes sense.

    Have a very Merry Christmas and I'll check back in after the holiday. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I kinda got your 2 messages. The 1st is showing, the 2nd I can see in my inbox.

    I'll get back to you in 2 days.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ryan said:
    Marcus, Since the the claim that moral facts exist is in and of itself not a moral claim, why do you think the above statement of yours makes any sense? For example, if no objective moral facts exist, a square still has four sides and you'd be wrong (and I'd be right to point it out) if you said a square had five sides.

    Let's review:
    1. You said Morality is relative.
    2. I said that Morality is an absolute.

    I agree that you are right, neither of us is making a moral claim. They are statements that cannot both be true. I should have been more specifically referred to any moral judgment you would make concerning the the event this post begins with. If Morality is relative than why not punish a teacher for using the word "ham" in a public classroom? If you do, then you have refuted yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Marcus; I don't know how Spain's legal system is set up. But saying that someone is an "idiot" for being bothered by the mention of the word ham or the word "transitional form" is also not a moral claim. I however, suspect that you weren't actually originally referring to that. It's ok to say you were wrong, try it out. Have a good Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ryan, Who's bothered by "trasnitional form"? I'm not. I just think that it doesn't fit the evidence. You can believe that without offending me. I think you are crazy to base your eternal destiny on that, but it is your call. And calling someone an "idiot" without objective evidence of their intellectual abilities regarding their values is wrong, if you believe that it is morally wrong to do so. I think that you think that it's good to do such right? You do it a lot. I did admit that claiming morality as objective or relative has nothing to do with making a moral claim. But that's not what I was driving at. One more time,slowly: You can't make a moral claim about anything if morality is relative without refuting yourself. I should have been more clear and thank you for pointing out a way to make my argument stronger.

    What are you celebrating Christmas for anyway? You doing the pagan version? According to you, Jesus isn't worthy of the hoopla. Kind of inconsistent, unless you want to redefine what Christmas means...or go back to the pagan roots of the holiday.

    That being said my God bless him with you with himself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Family and Friends Marcus. Can't think of a better reason!!! Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ryan:

    Read your link. I have to say, you lean heavily upon your feelings. You also make the mistake of presuming what you feel, others must be feeling too.

    "When it comes down to it, my belief in my salvation, was based on how I felt, as is everyone's."

    How did you come to know what others are experiencing? You can only speak for yourself, Ryan.

    I'm in two minds as to whether I should reply with Biblical quotes to answer you, since you don't believe them anyway. This, of course makes it difficult because I now have to reply primarily to your new found beliefs.

    Who did you believe Jesus was when you did the altar call? It seems from what you've said, that you neither knew then, nor now who Christ is. You're not even sure if the most spoken of Person in human history even existed.

    Have you heard of any of these people?
    A.N.Wilson? C.Hitchens? R.Dawkins?

    On "thinking" and "knowing." Firstly; when Jesus said that it was not in the context in which you put it. Let's say you read about me but you never met me. Do you not think meeting me and becoming personally acquainted with me would be the difference between thinking you know me, and truly knowing me?

    From the Feb.12 quote it looks to me as if it had not been clearly explained to you, or understood by you, what you were being asked to do. I know Methodists are often liberal, but did you know for sure before you prayed, what you were doing?

    "To clairfy my beliefs, I'm not certain enough to say there is no prime mover, first cause, or deist type god, the universe is a big and apparently strange place. So that technically makes me an agnostic, but I'm as certain as a person can possibly be that YHWH or other tribal gods and 1st century Messiahs aren't real, so that makes me an atheist."

    Ryan, the only thing you've clarified in that statement is, you're not clear on what you believe. Read it again. Because you are uncertain you say others must share in your uncertainty. How so?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ryan:

    Read your link. I have to say, you lean heavily upon your feelings. You also make the mistake of presuming what you feel, others must be feeling too.

    "When it comes down to it, my belief in my salvation, was based on how I felt, as is everyone's."

    How did you come to know what others are experiencing? You can only speak for yourself, Ryan.

    I'm in two minds as to whether I should reply with Biblical quotes to answer you, since you don't believe them anyway. This, of course makes it difficult because I now have to reply primarily to your new found beliefs.

    Who did you believe Jesus was when you did the altar call? It seems from what you've said, that you neither knew then, nor now who Christ is. You're not even sure if the most spoken of Person in human history even existed.

    Have you heard of any of these people?
    A.N.Wilson? C.Hitchens? R.Dawkins?

    On "thinking" and "knowing." Firstly; when Jesus said that it was not in the context in which you put it. Let's say you read about me but you never met me. Do you not think meeting me and becoming personally acquainted with me would be the difference between thinking you know me, and truly knowing me?

    From the Feb.12 quote it looks to me as if it had not been clearly explained to you, or understood by you, what you were being asked to do. I know Methodists are often liberal, but did you know for sure before you prayed, what you were doing?

    "To clairfy my beliefs, I'm not certain enough to say there is no prime mover, first cause, or deist type god, the universe is a big and apparently strange place. So that technically makes me an agnostic, but I'm as certain as a person can possibly be that YHWH or other tribal gods and 1st century Messiahs aren't real, so that makes me an atheist."

    Ryan, the only thing you've clarified in that statement is, you're not clear on what you believe. Read it again. Because you are uncertain you say others must share in your uncertainty. How so?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ryan:

    Trying to reply but comments aren't getting through.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ryan:

    Read your link. I have to say, you lean heavily upon your feelings. You also make the mistake of presuming what you feel, others must be feeling too.

    "When it comes down to it, my belief in my salvation, was based on how I felt, as is everyone's."

    How did you come to know what others are experiencing?

    I'm in two minds as to whether I should reply with Biblical quotes to answer you, since you don't believe them anyway. This, of course makes it difficult because I now have to reply primarily to your new found beliefs.

    Who did you believe Jesus was when you did the altar call? It seems from what you've said, that you neither knew then, nor now who Christ is. You're not even sure if the most spoken of Person in human history even existed.

    Have you heard of any of these people?
    A.N.Wilson? C.Hitchens? R.Dawkins?

    On "thinking" and "knowing." Firstly; when Jesus said that it was not in the context in which you put it. Let's say you read about me but you never met me. Do you not think meeting me and becoming personally acquainted with me would be the difference between thinking you know me, and truly knowing me?

    From the Feb.12 quote it looks to me as if it had not been clearly explained to you, or understood by you, what you were being asked to do. I know Methodists are often liberal, but did you know for sure before you prayed, what you were doing?

    "To clairfy my beliefs, I'm not certain enough to say there is no prime mover, first cause, or deist type god, the universe is a big and apparently strange place. So that technically makes me an agnostic, but I'm as certain as a person can possibly be that YHWH or other tribal gods and 1st century Messiahs aren't real, so that makes me an atheist."

    The only thing you've clarified in that statement is, you're not clear on what you believe. Read it again. Because you are uncertain you say others must share in your uncertainty. How so?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Hugh, looks like it got through. Hope you had a nice Christmas.

    How did you come to know what others are experiencing? You can only speak for yourself, Ryan.

    I didn't and you are absolutely correct, and I state that explicitly in my post, but that doesn't mean I can't come to conclusions about others experiences based on their actions and words. Like I said, the born again story/experience of every Christian I've known personally has roughly conformed with my experience. It's anecdotal for sure, I've not conducted professional polls, but since this stuff isn't supposed to be quantifiable anyway, I think I can say with a reasonable level of certainty that their experiences were from the same source as mine (i.e. manufactured). It just seems odd to me that all the Christians I've known in real life would seem to be a "false convert" waiting to happen, but all the Christians I've interacted with online are actually "True Christians".

    I know Methodists are often liberal, but did you know for sure before you prayed, what you were doing?

    I grew up in north Texas, so I don't recall any liberal theology in my church, although some of the churches I went to later when I was "struggling" were definitely liberal. But I think I had a fairly accurate picture of who Jesus was historically and of who he was supposed to be from a theological perspective and what was required of us wretched sinners to receive grace.

    I can't recall if I mentioned this in my post or not, but I do not consider my "alter call" to be my "born again" experience. I might not have been clear in my post, but it was after the psychological effects of the alter call faded and I sat with my Minister that I considered myself to be a true christian. Both were psychological events though.

    I'm familiar with who Christopher Hitchens are Richard Dawkins (although not his writings) and I'm not familiar with Wilson at all.

    I reread my attempt to clarify my belief and didn't see where it was not clear. Maybe the problem is when I say "I'm as certain as a person can possibly be..." that doesn't mean I'm 100% certain, as that's impossible, but it's close enough for the label "atheist", but not close enough to not include the label "agnostic".

    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm reading C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity. There's a chapter I'd like you to read. It's not too long, but he talks about faith. From what you've said so far it looks to me as though you had something, that when challenged was shown to be not true faith, you've admitted as much. I'd like to come back on what Lewis says, he was an atheist, he knew how they think. Faith

    ReplyDelete
  39. No Hugh, C. S. Lewis was never a "Real" Atheist. He couldn't have been. Just kidding... :)

    I've read Mere Christianity a couple of times, on both side of my faith actually. I would agree with Lewis if the body of evidence for Christianity was anywhere near as compelling as it is for anesthetics or our ability to not necessarily sink in water. He also conflates the idea that evidence against something is the same as an absence of evidence. It's my opinion that the evidence for Christianity exists in merely what is possible, not probable. Using that standard you can "prove" just about any far fetched historical conspiracy theory you wanted. Plus, given how I lost my faith, I find the whole idea that people turn away because they get in a mood to sin to mildly insulting.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Me: He also conflates the idea that evidence against something is the same as an absence of evidence

    What I mean here is that because there is no negative evidence (i.e. Jesus' bones, a eye-witness account of him not rising, etc...), he seems to consider that to be positive evidence for Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So, how did you move from being a theist to atheist? Oh, you never actually said who you believed Jesus to be.
    This short YouTube clip of a atheist who saw things differently after a while.
    Famous atheist backslides

    What I find when reading/hearing atheist objections is frequently based upon their misconceptions and misunderstanding of the Bible, God and Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You don't seem to understand what it means to prove your case. If Jesus' body had been produced Christianity would have been disproved a long time ago. You seriously miss the point. Using the skeptics claims against Christianity, don't you think the easiest way to shut Christians up would have been to bring Christ's body? Ever read Frank Morrison's, Who Moved The Stone? He was an atheist lawyer or barrister. Using the same skills to prove or disprove any other case, he converted using his God-given intellect. I gotta hear, upon what basis you came to move from theism to atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hugh; I don't think you are allowed to reference atheist backsliders if you can't even recognize that "true" Christians can backslide. There are many compelling stories out there about Christians who have lost their faith too, but I'm assuming you have to write those off as all false converts.

    As for evidence that would falsify Christianity, just bear in mind that the first public proclamation of Jesus' resurrection was approximately 50 days after his death. The implication here being that no one (Jew or Roman) even knew they needed to produce a body until such a time that it would have been pointless to do so.

    I know who Jesus was supposed to be and what the Christ is supposed to be and that they are supposed to be one in the same; God incarnate come to redeem mankind from sin, sin we cannot save ourselves from. I just didn't see the value in recounting that, I thought simply telling you I had a good understanding would suffice.

    As for my move from theism to atheism, it was first a move from Christianity specifically to agnosticism. I think the move from theism to atheism is easy if you recognize that whatever the currently unknown initial cause of the universe turns out to have been, the odds that it will bear any resemblance to anything that could bear the label "theistic" or even "deistic" are as low as any other of myriad possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ryan:

    I'm not here to talk about "true" Christians backsliding. You said:

    "However, for many years I believed I was "born-again in Christ", now I realize being "born-again" is just in the mind."

    This does not describe a Christian's conversion.

    When a Christian goes through difficult times, even though it may take some time, they eventually return to the Lord. Anthony Flew was an atheist for decades. He then began to think about things more rationally and drew the conclusion that atheism makes no sense. So, I'd say my ref' is valid. After all, who better to refer to other than they who have spent many years arguing and debating matters that you are relatively new to?

    "As for evidence that would falsify Christianity, just bear in mind that the first public proclamation of Jesus' resurrection was approximately 50 days after his death. The implication here being that no one (Jew or Roman) even knew they needed to produce a body until such a time that it would have been pointless to do so."

    Refs' please.

    "I know who Jesus was supposed to be and what the Christ is supposed to be and that they are supposed to be one in the same; God incarnate come to redeem mankind from sin, sin we cannot save ourselves from. I just didn't see the value in recounting that, I thought simply telling you I had a good understanding would suffice."

    James 2:19 You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that. And they tremble!

    Having head knowledge is not the same as heart knowledge. There's a difference between thinking and knowing!

    "As for my move from theism to atheism, it was first a move from Christianity specifically to agnosticism. I think the move from theism to atheism is easy if you recognize that whatever the currently unknown initial cause of the universe turns out to have been, the odds that it will bear any resemblance to anything that could bear the label "theistic" or even "deistic" are as low as any other of myriad possibilities."

    Then why doesn't every backslidden "Christian" become atheist, if what you said is correct? You don't just move from saying you whole-heartedly believe in one extreme to another, easily, as you put it. Flew took decades to come to his theistic beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ryan said:

    It's my opinion that the evidence for Christianity exists in merely what is possible, not probable. Using that standard you can "prove" just about any far fetched historical conspiracy theory you wanted. Plus, given how I lost my faith, I find the whole idea that people turn away because they get in a mood to sin to mildly insulting.

    Then he said


    I know who Jesus was supposed to be and what the Christ is supposed to be and that they are supposed to be one in the same; God incarnate come to redeem mankind from sin, sin we cannot save ourselves from. I just didn't see the value in recounting that, I thought simply telling you I had a good understanding would suffice.


    The thing is denying that you have sin is sin. Denying the existence of God is sin. Ryan, you say you choose to live your life without God - what better definition of "sin" is there? And you prefer to live that way.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hugh; in reference to the first public proclamation of the resurrections, see Acts 2:22-24.

    And for the record, I didn't stop being a Christian because of a difficult time, I lost my faith while reading the Bible, over many years.

    Then why doesn't every backslidden "Christian" become atheist, if what you said is correct?

    I could just as well ask why there are Muslims, Buddhists and Hindu? Why doesn't every Jew become a Christian? People aren't exactly known to be rational. In our culture, and others, belief in god is a properly basic belief, and that's the keystone to the rest of the more specific beliefs required by Christianity or other religions.

    And when you say I moved from one extreme to another easily, I don't see "theism" as the extreme, belief in a particular diety (Jesus, Allah, etc...) would be the extreme, with hard atheism (claiming to know there is no god) on the other extreme. Since I'm not a hard atheist, I wouldn't say I've moved from one extreme to the other.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The thing is denying that you have sin is sin. Denying the existence of God is sin. Ryan, you say you choose to live your life without God..."

    Yeah, that loose definition of "sin" is pretty convenient for your theology. Also, I don't chose to not believe in god.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You're getting muddled here, and you simply do not know the Scriptures. Let's go back some.

    "As for evidence that would falsify Christianity, just bear in mind that the first public proclamation of Jesus' resurrection was approximately 50 days after his death."

    If this were so, how would it "falsify" Christianity?

    Matt.28:1ff The Sabbath day was now over. It was dawn on the first day of the week. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

    This was 3 days after His crucifixion, not "50!"

    "The implication here being that no one (Jew or Roman) even knew they needed to produce a body until such a time that it would have been pointless to do so."

    Oh, really?

    Matt.27:63 "Sir," they said, "we remember something that liar said while he was still alive. He claimed, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order to make the tomb secure until the third day. If you don't, his disciples might come and steal the body. Then they will tell the people that Jesus has been raised from the dead. This last lie will be worse than the first." 65 "Take some guards with you," Pilate answered. "Go. Make the tomb as secure as you can." 66 So they went and made the tomb secure. They put a seal on the stone and placed some guards on duty.

    "And for the record, I didn't stop being a Christian because of a difficult time, I lost my faith while reading the Bible, over many years."

    Evidently, you didn't know it well.

    "I could just as well ask why there are Muslims, Buddhists and Hindu? Why doesn't every Jew become a Christian? People aren't exactly known to be rational. In our culture, and others, belief in god is a properly basic belief, and that's the keystone to the rest of the more specific beliefs required by Christianity or other religions."

    Ad hominem. Go back and see where I made my comment. Now look how you this misses the point.

    "And when you say I moved from one extreme to another easily, I don't see "theism" as the extreme, belief in a particular diety (Jesus, Allah, etc...) would be the extreme,.."

    Did you not say you believed in Jesus?

    "..with hard atheism (claiming to know there is no god) on the other extreme. Since I'm not a hard atheist, I wouldn't say I've moved from one extreme to the other."

    Do agnostics live their lives as though there is a God? Come on Ryan.

    What do you say about Flew's clip?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ryan said:

    Yeah, that loose definition of "sin" is pretty convenient for your theology. Also, I don't chose to not believe in god.

    it isn't my definition of "sin". The Bible identifies a sinner as thinking like you.

    So...you deny you have the free will to choose to believe in God? Really? You admit that you can't prove the God of the bible does not exist. Therefore you are making a choice not to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hugh; It doesn't falsify it, but it shows that the claims made by the earliest Christians were unfalsifiable, like any good conspiracy theory. I'm talking about the first announcement of his supposed resurrection to the larger community, not within the Christian community, plus Matthew post-dates Acts, and given that the Matthew author would have no way of knowing that the events depicted in Matthew 28:2-4 and 11-15 had actually occurred, I think a fair bit of skepticism is warranted here. But Acts is a little more reliable and closer to the source, and it's clear that the larger Jewish and Roman community was unaware of the notion that Jesus had risen given Acts 2:22-24.

    It's easy to claim that the Jews and Romans could have produced a body any time they wanted, but it's another to claim that they even suspected that they needed to.

    And Hugh, I wasn't saying you were irrational, holding beliefs based on properly basic pressuppositions is rational in the strictest sense. So no Ad hominem was meant, but I would like to know why all Jews don't become Christians given your question.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ryan wrote:

    and given that the Matthew author would have no way of knowing that the events depicted in Matthew 28:2-4 and 11-15 had actually occurred, I think a fair bit of skepticism is warranted here.

    Prove that please

    ReplyDelete
  52. Marcus, just read the text. Compare it to the other gospels (taking note of the position of the stone) and tell me who was there to report the action of the guards to whoever the Matthew author was.

    Additionally, I suppose the Christians could have had spies present when the Jewish authorities paid off the guards. Anything is possible, right?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Were you there when Kenneth Starr decided to try to destroy and humiliate Bill Clinton? ME Neither, but we know it happened because we saw the efforts and lengths he went through. Just like the first generation of Christians would have heard of the report of the guards and known they had been bribed because they had seen and experienced being with Jesus after the Resurrection. I mean, really? Is that the best argument you got.

    Well whatever helps you to maintain your apostasy.

    ReplyDelete
  54. What do you say about Flew's clip?

    "I'm talking about the first announcement of his supposed resurrection to the larger community, not within the Christian community, plus Matthew post-dates Acts,"

    Where'd you get your dates from? Give me the dates for these books. Also, who wrote Acts?

    "and given that the Matthew author would have no way of knowing that the events depicted in Matthew 28:2-4 and 11-15 had actually occurred,"

    They had a form of Wikileaks back then. We still use this type of evidence today! Marcus gave a good enough answer to this.

    "I think a fair bit of skepticism is warranted here."

    In other words: 'Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind!'

    "But Acts is a little more reliable and closer to the source,"

    You're a friend of Acts now. Hmmm. Do you believe the verses that talk about repenting and believing in Jesus, or is this just so you can pit Acts against Matthew?

    "and it's clear that the larger Jewish and Roman community was unaware of the notion that Jesus had risen given Acts 2:22-24."

    Jesus appeared to His disciples first, not the unbelieving. Why would He not?

    "It's easy to claim that the Jews and Romans could have produced a body any time they wanted, but it's another to claim that they even suspected that they needed to."

    Didn't you read my reply to this? Muslims would say what you said.

    You really need to clarify what you actually are, Ryan.

    ..would be the extreme, with hard atheism (claiming to know there is no god) on the other extreme. Since I'm not a hard atheist, I wouldn't say I've moved from one extreme to the other.,"

    "To clairfy my beliefs, I'm not certain enough to say there is no prime mover, first cause, or deist type god, the universe is a big and apparently strange place. So that technically makes me an agnostic, but I'm as certain as a person can possibly be that YHWH or other tribal gods and 1st century Messiahs aren't real, so that makes me an atheist."

    "Now however, I understand I'm neither "worthy" or "unworthy" but just do the best I can. If I do ok by my family and friends, I'm doing "good". There is no sky judge. Relax. Be yourself, but try to be better...


    So you are an "hard atheist"? How did you come to the conclusion that there is no "sky judge"? What I find when reading or hearing atheist/agnostic objections is often based upon their misconceptions and misunderstanding of the Bible, God and Christ.

    What do you say about Flew's clip? ☺

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hugh; I didn't watch the Flew clip. Seems based on your comments though that the conversation is over, you appear to be reading past the words and looking for "gotchas", that's a good way to miss the point entirely and not understand someone. Thanks for the conversation though and have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Apologetics." Now there's a word!
    Ok, Ryan. Just like every other opponent of Christianity. They look for holes in the Truth, but cannot defend their own position when challenged.
    I think the flew clip would've been too much for you. How could you argue against that?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sure Hugh, that's what happened. Please don't mistake not being able to defend a position with losing interest in a conversation. As for the Flew clip, I reread an a chapter of Lewis (for the third or fourth time) at your request, so be satisfied with that.

    But I have to ask Antony Flew became a Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Ryan

    Who'd Ken Starr bribe?

    That would presuppose that he did bribe someone and I didn't say that he did. As for the ones who guarded the tomb it was a well-documented fact that bribing soldiers was a well-documented. Here are two possibilities of how Christians knew the guards were bribed, given that they knew Jesus lives.

    1. One or more of the guards converted and told them.
    2. If a guard said the disciples stole the body...and no one was executed or prosecuted for breaking the seal and stealing the body of Jesus, what else could you conclude? Remember under other circumstances soldiers were executed for failure.

    Despite all of that a more fundamental point is that the Bible does not tell us how they knew. That does not mean that it's made up. You believe all kinds of things without asking how. Where is your skepticism when you say that people and potatoes have a common ancestor species? What was it? What did it look like?

    Anthony Flew did not (to my knowledge) become a Christian. But he moved from saying that there was no God to accepting that a creator made everything - something that you say you are not sure of.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Seems like a loaded question.

    I find opponents who cannot produce evidence for their accusations do just what you do. They look for an escape route. Had I said something unfair or rude I could understand. However, you made claims that are contradictory. You see fault where there is none. It's in your misreading or misunderstanding, not the text. Go back over what you've claimed to be or not be, then ask yourself, have you clearly defined what you are?
    I see this with people who say they once knew the Truth, but no longer believe it. They end up trying desperately to find meaning in something that can't possibly bring them peace of mind. I have it Ryan, but that's my experience, and this after having my faith challenged regularly.

    You cannot prove your case, not for anything supporting your prejudice against the Bible nor by way of proving your own ism, whatever that may be.

    One last thing. Taken all you've said into account, do you still say you were a Christian, for sure? I meet many Muslims who say they were Christian before converting. Yet, when I ask them to tell me what a Christian is, they can't.

    No need to reply. I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hey Hugh, I'm still here, no "escape route" necessary, but I noticed you've "escaped". However let me state (and of course no response is necessary, but I suspect you'll still read this) that I lost interest due to the one sided nature of the conversation. If you like, go back and see how many questions/statements of mine you ignored so you could pose your "gotchas".

    I was a Christian for about 25 years of my life.

    I told you what I think a Christian is now I what I thought one was when I was one, I also told you who I thought (past tense) Jesus was. Don't pretend I didn't. I suspected you actually had no interest in honest discussion.

    Marcus; if by "well documented" you mean mentioned in one non-eyewitness account but not in the other three non-eyewitness accounts, then OK.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No. What I meant it is well documented how widespread bribery and corruption were in the 1st Century Roman Empire - OUTSIDE the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Obviously, bribery is still widespread today. But I don't see how that helps your case that, given the structure of the narrative, the Matthew Author was not present to observe the alleged bribe taking place, yet it's written about as if he was. Seems this opens a whole another can of worms for you...

    ReplyDelete
  63. I don't see what your problem is. The text just states what happened. It doesn't say how the author knows it anymore than Dan Rather or Ted Koppel tells you how they know what they are reporting. There is no cans of worms. The only way there is a problem is if you can prove that no soldier in the Roman Army ever took a bribe. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete