Why does an atheist moderator find it hard to follow

[OpenYourEyes]

The forum rules clearly mentions that the Bible can be used as evidence for people, places, and events. Historians use other ancient works in the same way. You want to accept that Plato exists but yet with the same level or even better evidence for Jesus you deny the existence of Jesus. Hmmm.

Are moderators allowed to restrict people to rules that CONFLICT with the pre-established forum rules?

If not, why do we have one moderator speaking as if the Bible does not count as evidence when in fact, the forum rules clearly state that it does?

[OpenYourEyes]

Do you REALLY think that Joshua's long day constitutes and should commonly be considered factual history? Open any history text. You're not going to find the story of Noah's ark included as an established fact of history. Muslim's believe, and claim, that Muhammad once split the moon in two, and then returned it to it's natural condition. You wouldn't really expect to find that in a history text presented as valid history either, would you? That's because religious claims are religious in nature, and NOT valid history. That Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a historical fact. That Jesus was ACTUALLY resurrected from the dead IS NOT a historical fact. It is a religious belief.

The Bible is used by one or two religions and it makes some theological claims but it is not entirely a religious book. It also contains information that is historical in nature, like information about people, places, and events. Julius Caesar was also called a god, and his son was referred as a son of god. This does not mean that we can't separate history from legend or other forms of non-history.

The resurrection, although a supernatural event, has some historical connections which are what Christians pick up on in arguing for it. First, it is connected to an empty tomb, to various witnesses, documented by multiple sources, and leads to the start of a religion. Secondly, when all of the potentially plausible naturalistic explanations can be shown to be implausible, then that leaves room for supernatural explanations.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Do you REALLY think that Joshua's long day constitutes and should commonly be considered factual history? Open any history text. You're not going to find the story of Noah's ark included as an established fact of history. Muslim's believe, and claim, that Muhammad once split the moon in two, and then returned it to it's natural condition. You wouldn't really expect to find that in a history text presented as valid history either, would you? That's because religious claims are religious in nature, and NOT valid history. That Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a historical fact. That Jesus was ACTUALLY resurrected from the dead IS NOT a historical fact. It is a religious belief.

The Bible is used by one or two religions and it makes some theological claims but it is not entirely a religious book. It also contains information that is historical in nature, like information about people, places, and events. Julius Caesar was also called a god, and his son was referred as a son of god. This does not mean that we can't separate history from legend or other forms of non-history.

The resurrection, although a supernatural event, has some historical connections which are what Christians pick up on in arguing for it. First, it is connected to an empty tomb, to various witnesses, documented by multiple sources, and leads to the start of a religion. Secondly, when all of the potentially plausible naturalistic explanations can be shown to be implausible, then that leaves room for supernatural explanations.

The "various witnesses" were all disciples of Jesus, and the mysterious empty tomb is easily explainable by simply taking a good hard look at the story at hand, such as it it. That Christians came to believe that the resurrection occurred is a historical fact. You believe it today. That it actually occurred is a religious belief with no actual supporting evidence. Since the claim violates all reason, common experience and common sense it is not the subject of valid history. If you wish to debate this we can create a topic on the Christianity and Apologetics sub forum.

[OpenYourEyes]

Do you REALLY think that Joshua's long day constitutes and should commonly be considered factual history? Open any history text. You're not going to find the story of Noah's ark included as an established fact of history. Muslim's believe, and claim, that Muhammad once split the moon in two, and then returned it to it's natural condition. You wouldn't really expect to find that in a history text presented as valid history either, would you? That's because religious claims are religious in nature, and NOT valid history. That Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a historical fact. That Jesus was ACTUALLY resurrected from the dead IS NOT a historical fact. It is a religious belief.

The Bible is used by one or two religions and it makes some theological claims but it is not entirely a religious book. It also contains information that is historical in nature, like information about people, places, and events. Julius Caesar was also called a god, and his son was referred as a son of god. This does not mean that we can't separate history from legend or other forms of non-history.

The resurrection, although a supernatural event, has some historical connections which are what Christians pick up on in arguing for it. First, it is connected to an empty tomb, to various witnesses, documented by multiple sources, and leads to the start of a religion. Secondly, when all of the potentially plausible naturalistic explanations can be shown to be implausible, then that leaves room for supernatural explanations.

The "various witnesses" were all disciples of Jesus, and the mysterious empty tomb is easily explainable by simply taking a good hard look at the story at hand, such as it it. That Christians came to believe that the resurrection occurred is a historical fact. You believe it today. That it actually occurred is a religious belief with no actual supporting evidence. Since the claim violates all reason, common experience and common sense it is not the subject of valid history. If you wish to debate this we can create a topic on the Christianity and Apologetics sub forum.

Much of what you're saying is debatable and I usually steer away from debates with atheists on that level. I've been there, and done that, and came to realize a more fundamental problem, which is that many atheists are lacking in doing any serious research into the intellectual aspects of Christianity. I'm not saying that to demean anyone, but it's just my observation which I feel that I'm very good at observing.

While you may find quoting from the Bible problematic when it comes to the areas about Jesus's resurrection, but in principle per the forum rules, the details of the Bible can still be offered as evidence in support of PEOPLE, PLACEs, and EVENTs, PERIOD! You can debate a specific piece of evidence (like Jesus's resurrection) just as you would debate a specific piece of scientific evidence. Notice I said DEBATE the biblical detail, and not waive it off a priori, as if the Bible never counted as evidence to begin with.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Do you REALLY think that Joshua's long day constitutes and should commonly be considered factual history? Open any history text. You're not going to find the story of Noah's ark included as an established fact of history. Muslim's believe, and claim, that Muhammad once split the moon in two, and then returned it to it's natural condition. You wouldn't really expect to find that in a history text presented as valid history either, would you? That's because religious claims are religious in nature, and NOT valid history. That Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a historical fact. That Jesus was ACTUALLY resurrected from the dead IS NOT a historical fact. It is a religious belief.

The Bible is used by one or two religions and it makes some theological claims but it is not entirely a religious book. It also contains information that is historical in nature, like information about people, places, and events. Julius Caesar was also called a god, and his son was referred as a son of god. This does not mean that we can't separate history from legend or other forms of non-history.

The resurrection, although a supernatural event, has some historical connections which are what Christians pick up on in arguing for it. First, it is connected to an empty tomb, to various witnesses, documented by multiple sources, and leads to the start of a religion. Secondly, when all of the potentially plausible naturalistic explanations can be shown to be implausible, then that leaves room for supernatural explanations.

The "various witnesses" were all disciples of Jesus, and the mysterious empty tomb is easily explainable by simply taking a good hard look at the story at hand, such as it it. That Christians came to believe that the resurrection occurred is a historical fact. You believe it today. That it actually occurred is a religious belief with no actual supporting evidence. Since the claim violates all reason, common experience and common sense it is not the subject of valid history. If you wish to debate this we can create a topic on the Christianity and Apologetics sub forum.

Much of what you're saying is debatable and I usually steer away from debates with atheists on that level. I've been there, and done that, and came to realize a more fundamental problem, which is that many atheists are lacking in doing any serious research into the intellectual aspects of Christianity. I'm not saying that to demean anyone, but it's just my observation which I feel that I'm very good at observing.

While you may find quoting from the Bible problematic when it comes to the areas about Jesus's resurrection, but in principle per the forum rules, the details of the Bible can still be offered as evidence in support of PEOPLE, PLACEs, and EVENTs, PERIOD! You can debate a specific piece of evidence (like Jesus's resurrection) just as you would debate a specific piece of scientific evidence. Notice I said DEBATE the biblical detail, and not waive it off a priori, as if the Bible never counted as evidence to begin with.

If you would like to discuss the Bible having to do with the story of the empty tomb and the resurrection based on information taken directly from the Bible, please create a topic on the Christianity and Apologetics subforum and I will join you there.