A challenge: debate the issue of religion with yours truly

Post Reply New Topic

The governments of the world aren't the ones doing the experimenting...they aren't the ones that have been playing with genetics since the beginning of time on this planet. But yes humanity is an experiment, will humanity bring about it's own doom or not? what happens will effect the state of the universe.

But yeah I still have more to learn about these things, so forgive me if this is vague......if it sounds insane well, it can't sound anymore insane than most theological beliefs.

I don't think a Christroast would taste very good even on a rotisserie

But wouldn't Mars be better because it would be a more glorious high tech society ?

Not if we started there

So we have 2 choices. The super humans can start as Mars and descend to Earth. Or the humans can start at Earth, become super humans and ascend to Mars.

what are you smoking today?

Since Mars is such a hostile environment it would force us to a high tech society just to live there. The climate of Earth is so mild that a chimpanzee could survive.

Yeah well it sucks there.

exactly, humans aren't so different from chimpanzees, so it was the perfect place for them.

Well, friend, I would say that the resurrection is historically probable and actually plausible. I would even venture to say that it has the status of a historical fact (I mean to say "fact" in the technical sense, that is: "something which can be proved or disproved").

Here are some points I'd like to list and expand upon while we discuss them:

1. There were two skeptics who attested to the resurrection.
2. It's medically impossible for more than one person to share in a subjective vision.
3. The theological nature of the claim, was unprecedented, and not something we should expect from someone who lived in 1st century Judea as a Hebrew, because the prevailing Jewish belief was in a different type of resurrection. Resurrection was an eschatological (end time) belief of the Jews, that in the end times Yahweh would resurrect His faithful. An individual resurrection was unheard of.
4. There is multiple, independent attestation of the resurrection.
5. The claim of an empty tomb stood unchallenged until the composition of the Toledoth Jesu, centuries later. If the tomb wasn't empty, the religious elite could have had Jesus' body exhumed, ridiculing the early Christians. Au contrare, though, Christianity as a movement started in Jerusalem and was based out of Jerusalem until the fall of the temple, AD 70.

There are many more points to be made, but these should do for now.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 13 Apr 2012, 1:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The most universal definition of God, is that there is an intelligent Creator.

While these questions are interesting, Christians haven't much substance to describe the afterlife, and whatever the afterlife is like has little to do with proof for theism and Christianity.

There are some questions there that I can answer from the perspective of orthodox/typical Christian theology. We will have bodies not dissimilar to our own, but ones that are perfect and immortal. As evidenced by Jesus' teaching that people are neither divorced nor married in heaven, it seems that we won't have the same sexual urges that we have on Earth. You won't have an age when you get there. What I mean by that is that, like God, you will be running on a line parallel to time. God's name in the OT, Yahweh (I AM), called the Tetragrammaton, means that He simply is. Time is irrelevant to Him, as it will be to us.

Their are a lot of issues that have to deal with religion like how it plays a role in politics which I dislike.

1. Nothing makes me all that special, but I do happen to be an expert in biblical scholarship and apologetics (making a rational case for Christian faith). I don't mean to boast.

2. I don't think that not having my faith changed constitutes having won a debate. When I have presented better arguments than my interlocutor, and only then, will I have won a debate.

3. Evidence that I deserve to be taken seriously? Well, I can list a few things that might peak your interest:

I have a working knowledge of the classical languages, being able to read and explain texts written in Koine Greek, biblical Hebrew, biblical Aramaic, classical Latin, and Arabic. I regularly read doctoral dissertations on the subject of history. I am up to date on philosophy, including natural philosophy (better known as science), all the way from the earliest Greek philosophers up to today, from Aristotle's Posterior Analytics to Arvin, Guth, and Borde's recent physics paper on inflationary models of the universe. I am capable of, and would enjoy, presenting arguments in the form of propositional equations. I have been classically trained in all other academic respects.

But those claims are empty until I demonstrate my knowledge, aren't they?

I'll take a black and tan, a port, or just a good stout, thank you. I'm definitely a Guinness type of man.

I am a Guinness type of man to.