Should Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?

Beta84

They're out to get us
I believe the point SEVERAL people have been trying to make that you don't seem able to wrap your head around is that there is as much proof that Jesus was the son of god as there is that the witches and wizards in Harry Potter are real, or that the vampires in the Twilight series are real. You really can't state that his status as the son of god is non-fictional because the only "proof" you have is a book written hundreds of years after his death, during a time when it was neither uncommon, nor unlawful to be on several different types of mind-altering drugs.

Noooo! If you ask the creators of Harry Potter and Twilight, they will tell you it's false. Didn't you get the memo?

Anyone who makes a claim must prove their claim

If I claim I believe in something, I can prove that claim (ask me, I'll tell you I believe it).

If someone makes the claim that what I believe in is fictional, they must back that claim up. They can claim they think, believe, have faith that it is fictional, but not that it actually is fictional unless they can prove that.

Ok so you're not saying Jesus is divine, you're just saying you believe he is. That's fine. But there are plenty of people on the forums that would say without a doubt Jesus is divine...and prove it by pointing to passages in the Bible :lmao:

Again, the argument isn't with your claim, it is with others.

But regarding your need for 'proof' on the claim that Jesus isn't divine...do you think Big Foot is real, or not? Would you go as far as to say that Big Foot is a legend? Do you think the Tooth Fairy is fake? Is there anything that you don't have a shred of evidence against that you'd say is absolutely, positively, not true? I'm talking dragons and fairies and unicorns and the like. Do you believe in the possibility that they weren't actually created by someone's imagination long ago, but were actually real creatures? Or would you go as far as saying those things are fake, even though you have no evidence?

For something to be proven real, proof is needed. Physical evidence. Bob can simply say that Jesus wasn't divine because there is no physical evidence showing otherwise. Where's the proof to the contrary?
 
I

Irish_Eyes

Guest
So, it could actually be explained as true. Huh, imagine that :high5:

:eyebrow: Are you... serious? I typed all that out and it seems you STILL managed to miss the point.

It does have as much basis in fact as any other taught theory. It's equally testable and provable.

Except... that every time we've tested it, we've proven it WRONG. What part of all of that did you fail to see?
 
I

Irish_Eyes

Guest
And, the fact that we can't reproduce the pyramids, or Stonehenge, or the Easter Island statues with our understanding of the tools available at the time proves those things don't exist, and never could have? Or, since they exist, does that prove the existence of God?

When has anyone said that we do not have the capabilities or did not have the capabilities to do any of these things? The only thing that's been said is that it was done, but chances are it was damn difficult and probably took a LONG TIME and lots of slave labor to do such things. We could, in fact, create such things now, but we don't... Instead we create sky scrapers that would have baffled the people who made the pyramids just based on sheer height alone.

Noooo! If you ask the creators of Harry Potter and Twilight, they will tell you it's false. Didn't you get the memo?

What?! So that means I can't swish and flick and make my room clean itself?! NOOOOOOO! :cds:
 

Zguy28

New Member
the burden of proof lies with those that claim something to be true, not those that claim it to be false, just like with virtually everything else in this world.
Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."


It doesn't matter whether the charge is a positive or negative claim. :howdy:
 

Beta84

They're out to get us
Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It doesn't matter whether the charge is a positive or negative claim. :howdy:
And the burden of proof would be on Christianity, which says Jesus is divine.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim

Otherwise you'd be saying that because you can't prove Jesus is divine that he must, in fact, be divine. Umm...ok.
 

Beta84

They're out to get us
No, I got the point. I just disagree with it.

I know of no talking rocks except as I learned today, in this thread, about some LDS concept. I haven't researched the truth behind that claim, as it is not my belief. My guess is the rocks were more like some Rosetta Stone kind of thing than actual "talking" rocks, but I don't know - that's just a guess.When did we test it, again? How was it "proven" wrong?

it wasn't a talking rock (to my knowledge) but if you want to look into it, it's the story of Moses, toward the end when he's leading the Israelites through the desert, where he tries to get water from a rock. In his anger he smacks the rock and demands water instead of tapping it and asking nicely, so he was barred from ever entering Canaan.

that may not be accurate but that's the general idea from what I can remember.
 
I

Irish_Eyes

Guest
No, I got the point. I just disagree with it.

I know of no talking rocks except as I learned today, in this thread, about some LDS concept. I haven't researched the truth behind that claim, as it is not my belief. My guess is the rocks were more like some Rosetta Stone kind of thing than actual "talking" rocks, but I don't know - that's just a guess.When did we test it, again? How was it "proven" wrong?

So wait... by saying that it might not be an actual rock, you're saying that other things in the bible could be metaphorical too, right? Meaning that the whole Jesus is the son of God thing could simply be a metaphor for a man who lived so purely and so devoutly that he was as close to God as a human could come???
 

Zguy28

New Member
And the burden of proof would be on Christianity, which says Jesus is divine.



Otherwise you'd be saying that because you can't prove Jesus is divine that he must, in fact, be divine. Umm...ok.
Jesus cannot be proven to be the God based on the scientific method which is the context in which most people think of "proof". Neither can God be proven to exist with the scientific method.

However, there is a good case to be made which proves Jesus lived, claimed He was God, was crucified, and rose from the dead based on historical methods used by contemporary historians. In simple terms, when you lay all of the evidence out that is out there, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus was resurrected as the Bible says.
 

Zguy28

New Member
What evidence would that be?

Here is a short video that gets into what I'm talking about.

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)

Here is some additional light reading if you really are interested:

Amazon.com: The Son Rises (9781579104641): William Lane Craig: Books


Amazon.com: Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (9780830815692): William Lane Craig, Ronald Tacelli, Paul Copan, Gerd Ludemann: Books


EDIT: if you want, you can also send me a PM with your address and I can mail you a copy of The Case for Christ free of charge.
 
Last edited:

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Here is a short video that gets into what I'm talking about.

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)

Here is some additional light reading if you really are interested:

Amazon.com: The Son Rises (9781579104641): William Lane Craig: Books


Amazon.com: Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (9780830815692): William Lane Craig, Ronald Tacelli, Paul Copan, Gerd Ludemann: Books


EDIT: if you want, you can also send me a PM with your address and I can mail you a copy of The Case for Christ free of charge.


Unfortunately, I'm not getting sound from the first link, and a link to books on amazon isn't very useful. Maybe you could just tell me what you believe to be "evidence".
 

Zguy28

New Member
Unfortunately, I'm not getting sound from the first link, and a link to books on amazon isn't very useful. Maybe you could just tell me what you believe to be "evidence".
Here is the same video on youtube.

 
Last edited:

Beta84

They're out to get us
Jesus cannot be proven to be the God based on the scientific method which is the context in which most people think of "proof". Neither can God be proven to exist with the scientific method.

However, there is a good case to be made which proves Jesus lived, claimed He was God, was crucified, and rose from the dead based on historical methods used by contemporary historians. In simple terms, when you lay all of the evidence out that is out there, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus was resurrected as the Bible says.
uhhh...except not.

Here is the same video on youtube.


learn how to post youtube links!! fixed it for you
 

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
Remember the part where I said "I bought into it"? I wanted to believe there was someone who could make it all better. It makes more sense to want some deity in your life and make it all better, than not.
I've always thought that there is something incredibly wrong with a group of people who claim to be so righteous, yet are the biggest group of unrighteous hypocrite's I've ever encountered, then claim human imperfection for their behavior, and that they are forgiven because they are christian and prayed for forgiveness. This logic doesn't work for me.
So, I kept reading until I found what I had been looking for all along. The truth. See, in my eyes I haven't fallen away from anything. In my eyes, I have found the truth. I'm the only one responsible for my life, and my actions.
While your "truth" is true, there's more needed. As far as "making it all better", you needed to allow God to do things His way and in His time. Most people don't want to wait on Him. (I'll be the first to admit that he works on a much slower time frame than I'd like). I don't know what you asked for or how long you waited for it but sometimes God keeps people where they DON'T want to be for His own reasons. Not always fun, I'll admit.
And while I agree with the unrighteous hypocrate line, you can't broadbrush all of us Christians unless you've experienced it from us all. Thanks for your answers mAlice.
I'm a non-believer and I have a wonderful Dad and had a wonderful childhood. :smile:
:dork: I didn't say it was true for ALL people! :howdy:
Using their logic, Joseph Smith existed, therefore the Book of Mormon MUST be true!
Please show me where any of the cities, the coins mentioned or other artifacts spoken of in the book of Mormon have ever been found...That's proof enough w/o the Bible. For a man who thinks he's soo smart, you surely missed the correct source of evidence.
Then you have some of the zealots like Italian Stallion or whatever that say it is absolute truth and that there is "proof" it's true, just as there is "proof" that the book of Mormon is false. It's those people who I think are full of crap.
As far as the years and dates and all of that stuff, I think it's all out of whack. We know the earth is older than what has been said. Even if you argue that mankind was only around for the 6000 years of the bible, you'd still be wrong. The ages presented from the old testament are inaccurate, just as the days of creation are inaccurately timed too. I think years were calculated differently, the days were just standing for periods of time and not actual days, and time wasn't an accurate factor for large portions of those books.
Thanks for the nice compliments! I love how you (and others) come in here and speak against what God says the truth is. YOU of all people, since we almost believe in the same God.
How do "WE KNOW that "the earth is older than what has been said"? Any proof? Were you there from the beginning? "I think" doesn't make it according to mAlice, Bob, Irish Eyes, etc., they need scientific proof...you know, MAN'S word over God's words. (btw, the Christmas thread has died so being :offtopic: shouldn't matter).
And believing or not believing in those other beings that you mentioned (Santa, tooth fairy, etc) will not make a hill of beans difference in anyone's eternal life. The only one that we need to believe in, that is of any importance and can save us from an eternity of sadness, is the One that most here argue against. The Bible said it would happen at the end; Imagine that, Bob...
You're arguing backwards. YOU made a claim that Jesus, as Son of God, is fictional. To prove it, you rely on your belief that He is not, and your questions about the validity of other portions of the Bible, as your "facts", your "proof".
I am not claiming there is proof of any of the things you stated. YOU made the claim that Jesus's role as Savior is fictional. You make the claim, you must back it up with proof.
When you have none, it reverts to "faith". You have faith the He is not, I have faith that He is. Neither of us can prove it. One person saying they can't prove the bacteria on the hand is no better than the other using it as proof - it's not proof of God's existence nor proof of lack of existence. It's a meaningless argument.
YOU made the claim that Jesus, as Son of God, as Savior, is fictional. All I'm trying to get you to admit to is that your opinion is just that, opinion. You BELIEVE He is fictional in that role, it's not actually fiction.
Bob knows more than God, didn't you know that?
:eyebrow: Are you... serious? I typed all that out and it seems you STILL managed to miss the point.
You're in a very dangerous position putting science before the One who created it. Science & God can co-exist nicely at times but there are times when science will be and is wrong. You depend on science for the burning bush analogy and those others but, when you lock God out (as you did), you can't always have a correct conclusion. It LOOKS correct from a human viewpoint but to discount it as impossible, is wrong. The same with Jesus being 3 days dead analogy. But hey, you are entitled to your own beliefs so rock on...
Bob's a generally good person, from what I've read on here. But, like most anti-religious people, he can be a bit, well, dishonest about the argument. He makes claims that he can't back up, he puts words in the mouth of the religious so he can then argue against the words he wants to argue against (instead of the argument being made), etc.
It's not so much "dishonesty" as it is his claim of knowledge of something that he has little to no knowledge of...
All things are possible with God but to say that God can't make a bush burn for hours without consumption or a stone talk or raise dead people back to life is blasphemy. But hey, he's completely within his rights to believe what he wants. He'll be a long time wishing he hadn't.
God confounds the wisdom of the wise. He makes the intelligent look foolish for the very reason that He knew they would think they were smarter than He and be led astray. Many try too hard to disprove God or even understand His ways. I've learned more by just reading and cross referencing verses, than I do when I go deep into the Hebrew & Greek. Child like faith is all it takes (without blind foolish faith). Yes, some of the things mentioned in the Bible SEEM far fetched but..."holy Mormon underwear"???? Just sayin...
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Bob's a generally good person, from what I've read on here. But, like most anti-religious people, he can be a bit, well, dishonest about the argument. He makes claims that he can't back up, he puts words in the mouth of the religious so he can then argue against the words he wants to argue against (instead of the argument being made), etc.

Wow. Sounds just like you!
 
Top