If Christ did not literally rise from the dead, then none of his history or teachings have any credence....
Yes. That's why believers are so desperate to cling onto this fantasy.
While on this topic, where was the sacrifice? Sounds like it worked out for Jesus in the end. Sacrifices usually mean there was a loss to compensate for the gain. Jesus should be burning in hell for the sacrifice story to make any sense.
Why do you pick just a portion of my discussion....here is the full context of the post.....
--God The Bible... If Christ did not literally rise from the dead, then none of his history or teachings have any credence....those who witnessed the resurrection of Christ were all consistent in their testimony of what they claimed to have seen. One of the most basic investigation techniques a criminal detective has, is to ask a witness or suspect the same question over and over. If their testimony is untrue, their inconsistency obviously indicates their attempted deception. But if they are consistent in their testimony – and consistent with hundreds of others who claimed the same events to be true, then their truthfulness becomes obvious.
Location? The location where Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of the world is called Golgotha in Scripture. The book of Luke refers to this place as Calvary in the King James Bible translation (Luke 23:33). In some religious traditions, this reference refers to the location of the skull of Adam. Jesus not only knew beforehand he was to be crucified, he also informed his disciples of this fact (Matthew 26:2).
"Jesus should be burning in hell for the sacrifice story to make any sense." ....The soul of Christ was made an offering for sin (Isa. 53:10) – This does not lead credence that He suffered in hell. He was made to be sin and suffering for us on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21).
I pick on bits because it is flawed from the start. Building a detailed narrative upon a fallacy is a waste of time. It doesn't make it true just because you wrote a lot of it. It's all flawed.
A pellet of rabbit poop is for all intent the same as a shower of hippo explosive diarrhea - it's still just crap.
Preaching seems to use this technique without exception.
All of this boils down to having faith in God the Bible or not...no matter how much evidence I present, you always tear it down. That is why I always preface my response with "No it is not Mauser Proof", just evidence that may lead one to the truth". Christians do have faith and Atheist do not...it is as simple as that.
"A pellet of rabbit poop is for all intent the same as a shower of hippo explosive diarrhea - it's still just crap." Mauser that statement is what pisses people off...
I'll give you the last word and leave you with this...
Before I could be an atheist, I would have to be able to prove that: 1. Life can come from non-life; 2. Something can come out of nothing; 3. Order can come out of disorder—cosmos can come out of chaos; 4. Chance can produce arrangement; 5. There can be a design without a designer; 6. Like does not produce like; 7. There can be an effect without a cause; 8. Mind can be produced by matter; 9. There is no real purpose in life; 10. There is no hereafter; 11. The Bible is not the word of God; 12. There is no God!
C'mon man. You personally need proof to be an atheist but none to believe in your god? I think the fumes from the ink in your bible is getting to you. You got some crazy-ass thinking going on there.
Faith gives you special concession to depart from any burden of proof that you apply routinely to the rest of reality.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
