Easter vs Common Sense

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
27,327
5,651
113
64
Florida
#41
.


yada, yada, yada, yada.

That's all from the Bible; which to the objective mind is just another religious
story book no different than Sanskrit, the Book of Mormon, and/or the
Koran. It would probably be accepted in Sunday school, but no doubt be
laughed out of court as inadmissible "proof" that a Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life in real life.


The Bible can't be used to prove that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life in real life; the Bible can only be used to claim the
event took place in real life.


John 20:29 . . Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you
have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


The Greek word for "blessed" in that passage means, among other things;
fortunate. Yes, people should consider themselves fortunate to believe just
from the Bible alone that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to
life because its claims are the sum total of proof they're likely to ever see for
themselves before they pass on.
_
Jesus loves me this I know 'cause the bible told me so.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
13,445
1,416
113
#44
.
Many of the Christians that I encounter online and offline are cowards. They
simply cannot allow themselves to accept that they believe in supernatural
things and events that cannot be proven true.


I have no issue agreeing there are things that I explain,but
there are plenty of things science can't explain. Perhaps certain
things cannot be proven true but they can't be proven untrue
either. No matter how you slice it, both points of view take faith
to believe them.



They strive to appear intelligent, wise, and informed; while living in fear of being
found out that in reality they're just as superstitious as a Hindu, a Muslim, and/or a Buddhist.


This doesn't describe any Christian I know. Personally I find apologetics interesting
and have read books and listened to videos that give answers to many of the things
atheists/unbelievers may throw out there. I'm on various forums and liberal pages often
giving answers for what I believe, and often leaving them stumped as to how to answer.
I'm certainly not cowering in a corner that someone may question my faith. What I believe
has nothing to do with superstition and is no where close to what a Muslim or Hindu believes.


Easter is not a time to argue, it's a time to turn the other cheek. So instead
of fighting with their critics, Christians should try to sympathize with them
instead because to the honest, non biased, non prejudiced, non passionate,
open mind; the Bible is merely another religious story book whose credibility
is just as questionable as Sanskrit, the Book of Mormon, and/or the Koran:


No, Easter is a time to share the life and death of a man named Jesus.
Our job isn't to prove the Bible true, our job is to share the Gospel

message and let the Holy Spirit do the work. The Bible isn't just
merely another religious story. Share the truth of the Gospel and
lives will be changed.





thus useless as legitimate evidence that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life in real life. The Bible can only be used to claim the event
took place in real life; and leave to every individual's own conscience as to
whether it actually did.


Years ago did a concert in a place known for satan worship. We were
warned that someone may jump up and try to stop the concert.
Nothing happened and we took a break. A couple young people
approached us and introduced themselves as brother and sister.
He said "our father is the head of the local church of satan, he's
a warlock". Then he said "we worship the Sun" The words that came
next were not my own. I said " we also worship the Son"... and my sister
and I witnessed to them both there in the VFW hall. That night, she gave
her heart to the Lord. We checked back almost a year later and she was
still in church. The Word of God is powerful, we don't need to prove it
right,we just need to share it and let the seed take hold.





John 20:29 . . Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you
have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


The Greek word for "blessed" in that passage means, among other things;
fortunate. Yes, people should consider themselves fortunate to believe just
from the Bible alone that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored
to life in real life because its claims are the sum total of evidence that
they're likely to ever see for themselves before they pass on.



Well that's the most lackluster Easter sermon I've ever heard.


_
 

GHClarkII

Active member
Mar 20, 2019
147
31
28
#45
Heaps of Steaming Nonsense:



Historical Evidences:

Christ's resurrection is generally proven in debate through historical evidences - the same criteria we use for other historical events.
To place a different burden of proof upon this event than we require of other historical events is simply to verify your own bias and presupposition... which is in no way indicative of either good history or good science.

There is more than enough compelling historical evidence for the resurrection to hold up quite well, even in rigorous academic debate with professional historians and philosophers.


Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Extraordinary Claims
The proposition that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a clever sounding bit of rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with sound logic. It is NOT a logical argument. It is an emotional plea. In purely logical terms, an "extraordinary claim" requires only SOUND EVIDENCE, the same as any other claim. And since the term "extraordinary claim" has no specific definition, we aren't even in a position to call ANYTHING an extraordinary claim in the first place, at least not with any certainty.

Extraordinary Evidence
To reiterate, we are not dealing with a logical argument here, but an emotional plea. It is nothing more than an emotional plea, a purely rhetorical means to raise the burden of proof to an unattainable level. We can even prove it's merely an attempt to raise the burden of proof to an unattainable level, as "extraordinary evidence" has no actual definition. The atheist intentionally chooses a measuring bar which has no actual, specific height, and no actual, specific definition, and thus it can simply be moved at will. Because the bar of "extraordinary evidence" can be moved at will, the goal of reaching it can never be attained. It is a con. It is a meaningless jumble of words meaning nothing at all. However, it probably does introduce us to the pinnacle of atheist debate - a nonsensical expression with fluctuating and impossible demands, demands which can never be met by anyone, not even the atheist. The atheist never places such high demands upon his own arguments, even when he makes "extraordinary claims" based on little more than presupposition.

The atheist takes two nonsensical, arbitrary, and fluctuating phrases, hammers them together into a Frankenstein of idiocy, and then holds them up as the very epitome of truth.

It is pure nonsense.

Pure nonsense from all angles.


..

..
Staggeringly beautiful response. I returned to put a death nail in this shenanigans to see someone did it better than I ever could. God bless you, and thank you for a clear and concise response.
 

GHClarkII

Active member
Mar 20, 2019
147
31
28
#46
.
Many of the Christians that I encounter online and offline are cowards. They
simply cannot allow themselves to accept that they believe in supernatural
things and events that cannot be proven true. They strive to appear
intelligent, wise, and informed; while living in fear of being found out that in
reality they're just as superstitious as a Hindu, a Muslim, and/or a Buddhist.


Easter is not a time to argue, it's a time to turn the other cheek. So instead
of fighting with their critics, Christians should try to sympathize with them
instead because to the honest, non biased, non prejudiced, non passionate,
open mind; the Bible is merely another religious story book whose credibility
is just as questionable as Sanskrit, the Book of Mormon, and/or the Koran:
thus useless as legitimate evidence that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life in real life. The Bible can only be used to claim the event
took place in real life; and leave to every individual's own conscience as to
whether it actually did.


John 20:29 . . Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you
have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


The Greek word for "blessed" in that passage means, among other things;
fortunate. Yes, people should consider themselves fortunate to believe just
from the Bible alone that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored
to life in real life because its claims are the sum total of evidence that
they're likely to ever see for themselves before they pass on.
_
You have a fundamentally flawed view if ancient literature. Honestly is is quite staggering for one claiming knowledge in this area.

All historical works ought to be considered in their context. Honestly all writing shouls. To compare the Bible to pride and prejudice is to completely misunderstand genre. P&P never claims any authority as a historical or religious text. I cannot believe you would make such an obvious blunder.

Also, no attempt has been made to answer any of our critiques if your position. I would consider interacting meaningfully with these responses before continuing to rant about illogical nonsense. You have yet to make even one valid point in your posts. Just unrealistic standards, gross mischaracterizations, logical fallacies, and rhetoric. If you don't have anything meaningful to say in the subject then why post it to begin with??
 

GHClarkII

Active member
Mar 20, 2019
147
31
28
#47
.



Quoting one of the Bible's claims to validate other of its claims is
sometimes called circular reasoning. It's akin to acquitting an accused man
on the basis of him claiming he didn't do it.
_
Again you show tremendous ignorance in the study of literature, and of logic in general.
The Bible is completely different from any of the other works you listed. It is a compendium if books, not a single work. Saying that using scripture to validate scripture is fallacious because it shows you know nothing of the work you critique, or even if the science of linguistic study and history itself. Your bias and ignorance is clear.

These are eye witness documents (speaking specifically to the new testament here). Saying they themselves are not evidence would mean that you don't accept eye witness testimony. You sir would be the one laughed out of court. We have 4 eye witness testimonies that corroborate each other, along with the historical testimony of the early chrisitans. You have no reason at all to invalidate that testimony. Again, it isn't one book, it is a group of books.

Also, to say we need physical evidence to prove any historic claim would invalidate every historic claim. Most events that take place in history leave little trace, and almost none of it lasts 2000 years. Your standard would make every single historical claim impossible to validate. That my friend is just bad science.

Yes we believe in the supernatural. You clearly do not. Don't accuse us with bias when yours is written all over you face. We have given our evidence, you have not answered. We have completely demolished your arguments, you have not responded. This would be clear cut in any formal debate. The chat is welcome to let you down easy, but I will not. You came here to start trouble with illogical arguments, no facts, and a clear bias. That is really bad taste sir. You should be ashamed that you put this out into the public forum. We are waiting your response, but I'm certainly underwhelmed so far.
 

Webers.Home

Active member
May 28, 2018
700
123
43
Oregon
#48
.
no attempt has been made to answer any of our critiques if your position.

The passage below is my No.1 rule of engagement when coping with difficult
folk.

2Tim 2:23-26 . . Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid
arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant
must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not
resentful.

. . .Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will
grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that
they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the Devil, who
has taken them captive to do his will.
_
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
9,275
4,096
113
#49
The passage below is my No.1 rule of engagement when coping with difficult
folk.


2Tim 2:23-26 . . Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid
arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
So why do you start them?
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
1,401
786
113
#50
.



The passage below is my No.1 rule of engagement when coping with difficult
folk.


2Tim 2:23-26 . . Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid
arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant
must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not
resentful.


. . .Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will
grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that
they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the Devil, who
has taken them captive to do his will.
_
Are you suggesting that we should all just ignore you then? We do still love you and you have prompted me to study the definition of science more carefully. I can thank you for that much. You have also have prompted me to pray for your poor, vexed soul.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
13,445
1,416
113
#51
.



The passage below is my No.1 rule of engagement when coping with difficult
folk.


2Tim 2:23-26 . . Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid
arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant
must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not
resentful.


. . .Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will
grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that
they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the Devil, who
has taken them captive to do his will.
_

No one is being difficult, they are asking questions based on your OP. Be kind enough to answer. For myself, I think you're so far out in left field it isn't funny and I hope you don't try to witness to people. You'll leave them more confused than you found them.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
2,634
441
83
#53
.



The credibility of the Bible as written evidence is just as questionable as
Sanskrit, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. To objective minds, the Bible's
witnesses are merely characters in a religious story book and it makes about
as much sense to take their word for anything as listening to Mr. Collins in
Jane Austin's novel: Pride And Prejudice.
_
Now let me take just one: compare the Bible as written evidence versus the Quran?

Both are documents written by men at a specific time in history. Both are documents that can be examined by critics. And they should be examined by critics.

The Quran reveals Muhammed as a certain type of leader. The Bible reveals Jesus as a very different type of leader. Both documents are valid written evidence.

So, yes, I agree - that the Bible should be questioned just like any other document: go ahead and question it and examine it! It will stand the test!
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
1,401
786
113
#54
2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain [was] full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

What do you think might be prerequisite for young men like Gehazi to having their eyes opened?
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
1,401
786
113
#57
We consider both the Bible and science (in that order) to be God's gifts to us. We use science to build upon things clearly revealed to us by and through God's Holy Word.

Others use science-so-called in an effort to try and build without God, and even try to use it in an effort to deny the validity of His Holy Word.

Psalm 127
127:1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

Matthew 7
7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
 

GHClarkII

Active member
Mar 20, 2019
147
31
28
#58
.



The passage below is my No.1 rule of engagement when coping with difficult
folk.


2Tim 2:23-26 . . Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid
arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant
must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not
resentful.


. . .Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will
grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that
they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the Devil, who
has taken them captive to do his will.
_
This is a complete non answer. I and several others have answered you points, provided our own, and waited for a response. Amazingly I predicted that you would avoid the questions and provide no more answers. I am sad to have been right but not at all surprised. You are not a hero by dropping all sorts of illogical nonsense in the forum, getting creamed, and calling everyone else difficult. What you have done is blasphemed Jesus Christ, denied His scripture,band denied the faith. Paul tells us if Jesus is not risen, our faith is in vain. The count still has you sitting at zero, and the rest of us are waiting for an answer. My assumption again is we will continue to wait. Repent, friend. Lay down your weapons of rebellion against the All Sovereign and trust in Christ alone for salvation.
 

tumeric

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2015
36
4
8
#59
.
A portion of the scripture below is deliberately revised. Watch for it.

John 20:29 . . Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have
believed; blessed are the gullible who have not seen and yet have believed."


The Bible, as a document, cannot be accepted into evidence to prove that
Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life. No, that would be like
handing over the deed to the Trump Tower to a strange man merely on the
basis of himself saying he bought it.


Carl Sagan once remarked "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." In other words, the scientific mind accepts neither hearsay, nor
sophistry, nor circular reasoning; rather, insists upon empirical evidence.


The Bible claims, in so many words, that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life. Okay; but unless we're shown something solid to
corroborate the Bible's claim; then reason, logic, and common sense
demands that the Bible's claim be thrown out of court as spurious nonsense;
viz: a myth.


Faith is believin' what you know ain't so.
(Mark Twain)

NOTE: It's ironic that Jehovah's Witnesses and normal Christians bicker over
the physical aspects of Jesus Christ's resurrection when neither can produce
sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
_
 

tumeric

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2015
36
4
8
#60
some religions center on the resurrection of JESUS THE CHRIST but because all of the prophecies are NOT noted as attained by HIS life and death unbelievers relish in the fact that CHRISTIANS use one truth that is difficult to stand alone for convincing the non-believer that JESUS is the SON OF G-D