Son of a God

[StuartJ]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

[PinSeeker]

God can't and never has done anything at all.

Well there ya go. LOL! That's all you got. When all else fails, that's the great fall back, isn't it? "God cain't do nuthin, may-unn!!" LOL!

Sorry, but it is true.

Well, in your opinion. Sure. But no need to apologize.

There is a bunch of paper with all the authority of a Spider-man comic...

Sure, that's all you got, and nothing else. Yeah, I mean, belief versus non-belief. Faith (God-given proof) versus lack thereof. 'Twas always thus, and thus shall always be (in this world, anyway). That's what's true.

...but you don't have anything else.

Oh, I wouldn't say that at all. Quite the contrary. But just nothing that you are able to accept.

I think everyone is due for a good snicker.

Right, one way or the other. Sure. <snicker>

[bjs]

[Replying to post 21 by PinSeeker]


Moderator Comment

PinSeeker, please drop the "LOL" from your vocabulary on this site. This is a site dedicated to the civil debate of ideas, and laughing at others is by nature uncivil.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 21 by PinSeeker]

You have tried to shift the burden of proof to me, with your comments, but you can't show God did anything.
You can't show any better authority than Stan Lee or Jack Kirby.

You also did not seem to address the likelihood of magical boinking, vs a naughty tryst.
Which one is more believable?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 8 by rikuoamero]

Unfortunately, Paul himself does not tell us how or what happened with regards to his conversion.

If you see blinding lights and fall to the ground it is more likely that you are having a stroke than a religious experience.

[PinSeeker]

You have tried to shift the burden of proof to me, with your comments, but you can't show God did anything.

Excuse me, did you ask me to show you that God did something? I didn't know you actually asked anything; all I saw was another one of your attacks. So, I didn't shift anything, Willum.

You're right, I can't show you anything God did. But that's because it's impossible to show the blind anything. Only God can. Because with Him, all things are possible.

You also did not seem to address the likelihood of magical boinking, vs a naughty tryst.

What's the sense in addressing crude senselessness, Willum? As a general rule, I ignore that kind of thing.

[PinSeeker]

If you see blinding lights and fall to the ground it is more likely that you are having a stroke than a religious experience.

What about if everybody you are with sees and hears and experiences the same thing? Did they all have the same stroke at the exact same time, and it affected their incredibly complex neurological systems the exact same way? Hm.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by PinSeeker]

What's the sense in addressing crude senselessness, Willum? As a general rule, I ignore that kind of thing.

So you believe a God impregnating a girl is a reasonable hypothesis, but a girl messing around with a soldier is unlikely?

As contrasted by people who were there telling the story of a naughty tryst, and people 30 years later saying, "divine insemination."

I really think you should answer the question.

[PinSeeker]

I really think you should answer the question.

I'm sure you do.

If God said it (and He did), I believe Him. Foolish speculation is for... fools.

[marco]

If you see blinding lights and fall to the ground it is more likely that you are having a stroke than a religious experience.

What about if everybody you are with sees and hears and experiences the same thing? Did they all have the same stroke at the exact same time, and it affected their incredibly complex neurological systems the exact same way? Hm.

If is an odd word to introduce into an argument about fact. The fact is that Paul does not describe for us one of the most amazing adventures in human history. Was he being uncharacteristically modest? Did he feel that a physical encounter with God was not worth describing in detail? Or is it simply the case that he was confused about what happened and his conversion was more mental than physical? The accounts we have, where a noise is heard but a light not seen or a light seen and no noise heard or whatever - may be the stuff of rumour. We have no clear idea of who authored them or how they were got. So being definitive about the actual reactions of Paul's companions is perhaps inspired guesswork. It is a sensible deduction to suppose Paul's experience was confined to the man's head.

[PinSeeker]

If is an odd word to introduce into an argument about fact.

May be, but I wasn't responding to Riko's statement that only Luke told us (in detail) about Paul's experience. I was only responding to Brunumb's statement that "(i)f you see blinding lights and fall to the ground it is more likely that you are having a stroke than a religious experience." Therefore, my query about thinking something could happen against such incredibly ~ stupendously ~ long odds.

The fact is that Paul does not describe for us one of the most amazing adventures in human history. Was he being uncharacteristically modest? Did he feel that a physical encounter with God was not worth describing in detail? Or is it simply the case that he was confused about what happened and his conversion was more mental than physical?

Well, as you well know, he did in fact acknowledge that it happened. But I would actually offer that it is more believable that someone else described it, because if he were to describe his own incredible experience, it would be much more dismissable. And the fact that it was Luke who described it ~ someone who's extremely credible as a doctor and a historian (I'm sure you will argue against that, but no matter, you have nothing but hot air to stand on) ~ and who relates corroberating accounts from those who were with Paul and saw, experienced, and heard the same things Paul did -- makes it far more credible than if Paul were to do it on his own.

The accounts we have, where a noise is heard but a light not seen or a light seen and no noise heard or whatever - may be the stuff of rumour.

The men with Paul experienced exactly what he did. The fact that Luke corroberated Paul's story with them makes it extremely unlikely (impossible, really) that it was a "rumor." No use arguing, though; certainly, you are welcome to believe what you want to believe.

We have no clear idea of who authored them or how they were got.

Yes, we do; Luke did. Not sure what you mean by "they" here. Luke wrote Acts 9. Plus he did so by inspiration ~ God breathed His word into Luke, as He did all the other writers of the Bible ~ so it's unassailable, but for maybe one's own mind.

So being definitive about the actual reactions of Paul's companions is perhaps inspired guesswork.

Nobody's doing that. God says it, through Luke.

It is a sensible deduction to suppose Paul's experience was confined to the man's head.

Well, on it's face, it may seem so, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Kind of funny how we all keep treading the same ground, over and over again, isn't it?