Christians are delusional!

[eriador]

Okay, before you whip out the flamethrower, hear me through:

A tenet of Christianity is that the son of God, Jesus Christ, died, and subsequently came back to life. I think that all reasonable people would say that a person can not die and then be brought back to life. It's just not possible. And it's well known that the church has always said that Jesus was completely human, so don't argue the "he was DIVINE" line.

What all this means is that a true, believing Christian would believe in an impossibilty, namely that the "son of God" came back from the dead. It's just crazy. Pure delusion.

[Eaquae Legit]

Fully human and fully divine. You're missing half the equation.

Besides. If it wasn't "impossible," it wouldn't be a miracle.

[Eaquae Legit]

EL with mod hat says:

I personally think this is close to the line if not over, but I'm willing to watch it and see where it goes.

[lyons24000]

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus came back as a spirit.

"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit."-1 Peter 1:23

and

"Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory."-1 Timothy 3:16

and

"It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit."-1 Corinthians 15:45

Some have used certain Scriptures to refute this belief so I present a counter-argument.

"It is true that Jesus appeared in physical form to his disciples after his resurrection. But on certain occasions, why did they not at first recognize him? (Luke 24:15-32; John 20:14-16) On one occasion, for the benefit of Thomas, Jesus appeared with the physical evidence of nail prints in his hands and a spear wound in his side. But how was it possible on that occasion for him suddenly to appear in their midst even though the doors were locked? (John 20:26, 27) Jesus evidently materialized bodies on these occasions, as angels had done in the past when appearing to humans."-from the book, Reasoning on the Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses (yes, Nick, it's from the Watchtower Society )

Plus, if Christ gave his perfect body and blood for all of us and then took it back at his resurrection, he took back the payment for our sins and therefore our sins were not forgiven. When you give someone the payment for a certain debt, if you take it back then the debt is not paid.

[mr_thebrain]

EL. why do you think it's close if not over the line? sounds like honest discussion of religious beliefs to me

[eriador]

I did use loaded "attacking" language, but that was more to make sure that I got a bunch of interest than to be rude. I think that's what EL means.

EL, "Fully human and fully divine" is only further proof of my point. Sure, you can whip out the "miracle" card, but that in itself is irrational and therefore, at least slightly "delusional". I just don't see why God wouldn't let his actions be at least slightly rational.

Lyons, I didn't know that. Funky. But the thing with scripture is that you can find evidence to support anything. But that's beside the point. I'm talking about what most people believe. My perception is that most Christians DO believe in a corporal resurrection, but I may be wrong (hence the poll).

[Eaquae Legit]

Brain, calling an entire religious group "delusional" goes against the terms of this forum. I'm hoping some sort of productive discussion can come from it, so I am leaving it be for now.

***

Eriador, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I'm trying to figure out how to respond, but you're not making sense.

"Miracles" are, by definition, things that cannot happen by the rules of our physical universe. Saying "You're delusional because you believe God can act outside of material constraints" is... a nothing statement. It's like me claiming I'm a tomato. It makes no sense.

The definition of God, as almost everyone agrees, involves the power to act outside of the physical laws he himself created. If God is constrained by the laws of physics, then by definition, he's not God. You're saying God can't exist because God has to be... not God? Do you see what I am saying here? You're using a false definition to prove the non-existence of something.

Why should miracles be irrational? If you can accept the concept of God including the power to work outside of physical rules (whether or not you believe it), then it becomes entirely rational to have him act so. For one thing, how else would he communicate his presence and existence to people? If God acted only according to the rules he created, he'd be imperceptible. And that would kind of defeat the purpose of having creature who could choose him.

"Fully human and fully divine" is a paradox. The gnostics of the first few centuries thought as you seem to here - Jesus was only a man and so could not be resurrected. The Council of Nicea made it clear that Jesus is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from True God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father." The Bible itself is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Now, you can believe the Bible is simply a book. Whatever. You can say God doesn't exist for X reason. Whatever. "I define God contrary to any definition any Christian, Muslim, or Jew has, and so you're all delusional" is just... a nothing. It's not an argument. It's a meaningless string of words. Because you start from false premises.

[eriador]

"Miracles" are, by definition, things that cannot happen by the rules of our physical universe.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the impossible is actually possible. You believe that miracles occur, and at the same time you say that they "cannot happen." I'd say that that is delusional, in that it's completely self-contradictory. I think that most rational thinkers would agreee with me that believing that something that is literally not possible actually happened is, in fact, delusional.
The "point" I referred to was the idea that christians are delusional, and the belief in miracle is yet another example.

The Bible itself is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Huh? Talk to Lyons about that one. As I said, it seems very much up in the air with regard to what the texts say. I'm assuming that you subscribe to the school of thought that says that Jesus did the impossible and was corporally resurected: the semi-delusional one.

P.S. I know that using the term "delusional" to describe Christianity is rude / somewhat not in keeping with the rules of the forum, but it stands in for a bunch of P.C. circumlocution that wouldn't be as likely to offend. So please bear with me. I'm using the term more as shorthand than anything else, but I think that it's rather easy to see what I mean to say with it if you read my posts without going off the deep end about my terminology. [/preemptive attempt to avoid warning]

[Rei]

The God-element of Jesus aside, Lazareth was fully human and soley human. And yet he, too, was resurected. And four days in a tomb is enough to kill anyone. So it doesn't matter whether Jesus was God or human when it comes to the resurrection itself. So long as one includes God in the equation, it is entirely possible.

As I said, it seems very much up in the air with regard to what the texts say.

Humour me, as I seem to have missed what you base that in.

[Eaquae Legit]

Lyons, I'm supposing the Jehovah's Witnesses don't recite the Apostles' Creed, then, do they?

It's too bad, really. I've long withheld any personal opinion on whether the Jehovah's Witnesses "are Christians." (I hate those hysterical tracts you see around a la Jack Chick.) But the more I learn, the more skeptical I become. You've managed to assure me that the denomination rejects several Christian beliefs which are... foundational. (As dear Sister Claire tells me, "if you can't say yes to this Credo, we've got problems.") Not to mention giving me a first-rate example of out-and-out deliberate translational manipulation of the Bible.

Academically, I'll still accept Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, because the criteria there are different. Personally, though, I'm not as sure anymore. And that really kind of makes me sad.

/aside

[Eaquae Legit]

"Miracles" are, by definition, things that cannot happen by the rules of our physical universe.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the impossible is actually possible. You believe that miracles occur, and at the same time you say that they "cannot happen." I'd say that that is delusional, in that it's completely self-contradictory. I think that most rational thinkers would agreee with me that believing that something that is literally not possible actually happened is, in fact, delusional.
The "point" I referred to was the idea that christians are delusional, and the belief in miracle is yet another example.

Miracles cannot happen, and follow me closely here, by the rules of our physical universe. God is not bound by these rules. He is outside of them. He can do whatever the heck he wants. There are a lot of things that are impossible for me, and for you, and for anything else created. Because, you know, none of us are God. Nothing is impossible for God, though, necessarily.

The Bible itself is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Huh? Talk to Lyons about that one. As I said, it seems very much up in the air with regard to what the texts say. I'm assuming that you subscribe to the school of thought that says that Jesus did the impossible and was corporally resurected: the semi-delusional one.

I was unaware there were any Christian denominations that denied the physical resurrection. As I understood it, that belief had died out a long time ago. I disagree wholeheartedly with his interpretation of those verses.

P.S. I know that using the term "delusional" to describe Christianity is rude / somewhat not in keeping with the rules of the forum, but it stands in for a bunch of P.C. circumlocution that wouldn't be as likely to offend. So please bear with me. I'm using the term more as shorthand than anything else, but I think that it's rather easy to see what I mean to say with it if you read my posts without going off the deep end about my terminology. [/preemptive attempt to avoid warning]

This is the mod voice again. The rules of this forum are that you use respectful language. It might be "P.C. circumlocution," but dem's de rules. Abide by them. Next time, you need to find a way to express yourself without words you know are going to offend, or I will give you a warning.

[eriador]

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus came back as a spirit.

"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit."-1 Peter 1:23

and

"Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory."-1 Timothy 3:16

and

"It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit."

The Bible itself is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.

As you can see, two people who both know scripture better than I do saying directly opposed things. I'm sure that EL would humor us with some more proof if we asked nicely. Shame she didn't do that in the first place though.

[Eaquae Legit]

If this thread lasts past tomorrow, I will. For now, I'm going to stop procrastinating and finish my papers.

Right. Apparently I can't let things lie. After this, I really am going to go do work. Really.

According to the WTS, "The man Jesus is dead, forever dead . . . " (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 5, 454). "We deny that he was raised in the flesh, and challenge any statement to that effect as being unscriptural" (Studies, Vol. 7, 57). Jesus’ fleshly body "was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constitutive elements or atoms" (The Watchtower, 9-1-1953, 518). "In order to convince Thomas of who he was, he used a body with wound holes" (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 145). He was raised as an invisible spirit creature, with no physical body (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 214-215).

This seems to be roughly what lyons is arguing.

However, according to Scripture, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17). Jesus makes clear, even before death, that it is his body that will be raised up. He promises to raise up the temple once it is destroyed. "He was speaking about the temple of his body" (John 2:21). After he had risen, he gives the same testimony, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have. . . . Do you have something there to eat?" (Luke 24:39, 41). Jesus insists that Thomas place his finger into his wounded side, so as to prove that he had indeed risen from the dead (John 20:27).

Now, back to work.

[Rei]

Allow me to post the NASB translation of the two verses that were cited (the NASB and the NRSV are considered to be the two most accurate translations of the Bible):

"Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

23for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." -- 1 Peter 1:22-23 (Although, lyons, I'm suspecting maybe you accidently wrote the wrong reference.)

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory." -- 1 Timothy 3:16

You will notice that the 1 Peter passage is translated very differently in the NASB than in the version lyons used.

As for the passage from 1 Timothy, neither translation says that only Jesus' spirit was raised while His body did not. Rather that particular line is stating that Jesus is blameless before God, justified, righteous.

[eriador]

Finish papers?


Oh s***! I need to do that too!

[VelvetElvis]

lyons:

"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit."-1 Peter 1:23

If this were talking about Jesus, I'm fairly sure the IT would say He and not he.

"Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory."-1 Timothy 3:16

Being declared righteous in spirit has nothing to do with being a spirit

"It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit."

Where is this from?


Fetus:

I just don't see why God wouldn't let his actions be at least slightly rational.

Fortunately, God doesn't have to clear His actions through you.

[jotabe]

Luke 24 said:
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

John 21 said:
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
[...]
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I had always thought that Witnesses believed that soul was mortal as well as body, and that there wasn't a strict division between soul and body (a belief i share too), following the Aristotelian phylosophy (against the Platonic idea of the immortal soul that was majoritary in the early Church).
The belief that Christ's death was actually the release of His soul from His mortal flesh "prision", i had thought it was exclusively Gnostic.

[lyons24000]

However, according to Scripture, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17).

Christ was raised from the Dead, you're exactly right.

Jesus makes clear, even before death, that it is his body that will be raised up. He promises to raise up the temple once it is destroyed. "He was speaking about the temple of his body" (John 2:21).

Mark 14:58-"We heard him say, ‘I will throw down this temple that was made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’"

If Christ was going to build another body then it could not have been his previous physical body because it says, "I will build another" signifying something different from his first body.

After he had risen, he gives the same testimony, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have. . . . Do you have something there to eat?" (Luke 24:39, 41). Jesus insists that Thomas place his finger into his wounded side, so as to prove that he had indeed risen from the dead (John 20:27).

Jesus was raised a spirit but, of course, he could take on physical bodies. We all know that angels are spirits but, guess what? They took on physical bodies as well.

Do you remember when the angels dragged Lot and his daughters out of Sodom? (Genesis 19:1-17) Remember when Jacob fought with the angel? (Genesis 32:22-31) If you don't believe it was an angel read this:

"Jacob struggled with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and sought His favor. He found him at Bethel, and there He spoke with him."-Hosea 12:4

Now, those are just two examples of angels taking on physical bodies. It is evident that Christ could do that, too. How do we know? Well, if Christ had a physical body the entire time then at any time he would have been recognized. Was he always recognized? Let the Scriptures answer.

"Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, though she did not know it was Jesus. 'Woman,' Jesus said to her, 'why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?'

Supposing He was the gardener, she replied, 'Sir, if you've removed Him, tell me where you've put Him, and I will take Him away.'"-John 20:14

"When daybreak came, Jesus stood on the shore. However, the disciples did not know it was Jesus."-John 21:4

Now think about it. If Christ had his physical body, wouldn't the men and women who had traveled with him for 3+ years have recognized him? And what about this miraculous display?

"In the evening of that first day of the week, the disciples were gathered together with the doors locked because of their fear of the Jews. Then Jesus came, stood among them, and said to them, 'Peace to you!'...After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, 'Peace to you!'"-John 20:14-19

Could someone with a physical body actually walk through a locked door or was Jesus skilled at picking locks?

[lyons24000]

The belief that Christ's death was actually the release of His soul from His mortal flesh "prision", i had thought it was exclusively Gnostic.

Now don't go and put what I said in this light, please. I never said that his physical body was prison for his spiritual body. He just died in a physical body but was raised in a spiritual body. Nothing about fleshly prison in there.

[VelvetElvis]

"Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, though she did not know it was Jesus. 'Woman,' Jesus said to her, 'why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?'

Supposing He was the gardener, she replied, 'Sir, if you've removed Him, tell me where you've put Him, and I will take Him away.'"-John 20:14

"When daybreak came, Jesus stood on the shore. However, the disciples did not know it was Jesus."-John 21:4

Now think about it. If Christ had his physical body, wouldn't the men and women who had traveled with him for 3+ years have recognized him? And what about this miraculous display?

"In the evening of that first day of the week, the disciples were gathered together with the doors locked because of their fear of the Jews. Then Jesus came, stood among them, and said to them, 'Peace to you!'...After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, 'Peace to you!'"-John 20:14-19

Could someone with a physical body actually walk through a locked door or was Jesus skilled at picking locks?

About Him not being recognized... I seriously doubt that they were looking for a man they considered dead.

About walking through doors... We've already established that He is, after all, GOD and can walk through as many doors as He pleases.

[jotabe]

Still, Jesus showed his wounds to his Apostles, and Thomas stuck his fingers into the nail holes and the spear wound. Unless he rebuilt his body to have the same wounds he died with, a new body shouldn't have those.

About the Emaus disciples not recognising him, in Luke:

15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him.

30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

What i take from this is that Jesus wanted them to recognise him for his works, not for his appearance. And he made them unable to recognise him.

[eriador]

Fetus:

I just don't see why God wouldn't let his actions be at least slightly rational.

Fortunately, God doesn't have to clear His actions through you.

Well, everything I've heard from people who are religious is that God wants people to believe in him and follow him. It seems to me that being mysterious and counter-intuitive is the best way to drive people away from him. If God's goal is to make people believe in him, then one might think he would do his best to make sure it happens.


Whatever. I'm not going to convince you, because you can claim that "God is mysterious" yada yada yada. I must admit, it's a great debating tool, because it essentially says "I don't have to be logical, so you can't argue against me." So if you're going to say that, please don't bother to respond, because I prefer logic to unfalsifiable dogma.

[mr_thebrain]

religious folk are usually quick to point out things that explain their belief. whether it's truly right they don't care, as long as it justifies what they think or feel. in this case eri, expect to hear all about how belief and knowing are two different things. and how god wants people to believe. and how in order to believe, you can't know for sure.

i always find religious discussion fairly annoying because people always talk about what god wants, and what god thinks and feels and what is meant by this and that... i just think it's very presumtuous to assume to know what god is thinking feeling or meaning.

i too think that god would accomplish more if he proved himself to be real in more than a "well, we exist, don't we? that's proof enough for me!" sort of way. like appearing to everyone all at once and saying "this is how it is, if you don't like it, too bad" undeniable proof. that way all the believers can go "ha told you so" and get on with it. and then all the crap that gets carried out in his name and all the presumtion can stop.

why do humans feel this need to believe? the need to explain everything. and for those things that we can't explain, we have to say "well god made that happen" or what have you. why can't we just accept the things that science teaches us, and for the things that are left unexplained be happy with "good enough" or keep trying to find the true explanation thought science?

sometimes i think that the world would be a much better place if humans accepted that there is no god. whether there is one or not. i could care less. i'm not going to take the word of the bible as anything more than a moral story. it's been tampered with too much, and written and rewritten too many times for me to take it literally anyway. you wanna know why there's some weird crap believed? it isn't because all christians are delusional... though some truly are. it's because the book in which they base their beliefs has so many issues, and was written by too many people to hold true.

in all honesty, i was raised catholic. when i was a teen i felt like i was being brainwashed into the faith, so i stopped going to church. i spent time trying to figure out what i believed. the truth is that i don't believe in much of what the bible says. i'm too much of a skeptic. i'm much happier believing that god dislikes me, and i dislike god. but i believe in him. we're just at odds. so my prayers are usually like this: God... you son of a bitch, why must you do this crap to me? cut it out already. when i die, and i meet you, i'm going to kick your butt."

it makes me happy.

christ was a good guy. kind of dumb... he knew judas betrayed him and still allowed himself to be captured and killed. perhaps he was the delusional one, thinkin' he was the son of god and that he would be reborn and that all his suffering was to absolve everyone else of their sins... except that carl guy... he hated that putz! j/k naw, i don't think he was ressurected, that's just silly. he died and stayed dead. then as time passed, his story grew, just like a tall tale.

[Rei]

Whatever. I'm not going to convince you, because you can claim that "God is mysterious" yada yada yada. I must admit, it's a great debating tool, because it essentially says "I don't have to be logical, so you can't argue against me." So if you're going to say that, please don't bother to respond, because I prefer logic to unfalsifiable dogma.

The thing you have to realise is that there are certain aspects of God that you CANNOT seperate from Him and still maintain that it is the Christian God we are speaking about. Some of these are that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. You can not remove His ability to perform miracles and still demand that we explain how He does some things. Instead of arguing over what God does and how it is impossible and we're cheating by pulling the miracle card, perhaps start looking at questions further up the chain and do so with an open mind so that you can see why we might believe as we do.

[Dr. Mobius]

Right, I haven't read most of this past where Ali's modhammer almost saw some action. The title just annoys me. A religion can't be delusional. It should either read "Christianity is a delusion!" or "Christians are delusional!" If you're going to be offensive, at least try to be grammatically correct, otherwise you'll just make yourself sound like a dumbass.

[eriador]

Whatever. I'm not going to convince you, because you can claim that "God is mysterious" yada yada yada. I must admit, it's a great debating tool, because it essentially says "I don't have to be logical, so you can't argue against me." So if you're going to say that, please don't bother to respond, because I prefer logic to unfalsifiable dogma.

The thing you have to realise is that there are certain aspects of God that you CANNOT seperate from Him and still maintain that it is the Christian God we are speaking about. Some of these are that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. You can not remove His ability to perform miracles and still demand that we explain how He does some things. Instead of arguing over what God does and how it is impossible and we're cheating by pulling the miracle card, perhaps start looking at questions further up the chain and do so with an open mind so that you can see why we might believe as we do.

Whoa! That sounds EXACTLY like you're saying "God is mysterious". Did you read what I said?

Anyway, ask some "questions further up the line" and I'll consider them. Most likely I already have (with an open mind), it's what I like to do when I can't sleep, but I'll hear you through.

[Rei]

I don't need to ask the questions, you do. Questions like "Why do the Christians insist upon God's ability to perform miracles?", "How is God capable of such things?", "Why do people believe in higher beings anyway?". Such questions will get you a lot further than complaining that Christians like to play the "God is mysterious"/miracles card and then assuming that they are delusional for doing so. We work in a different framework and you need to accept this fact, and if you wish to understand why we work in this framework, you need to stop assuming that we can not have a valid point.

[Young Val]

Fetus, can i just ask you what your intent is?

i'll be the first one to state that i don't practice any religion at the moment. i was raised catholic. i studied and considered converting to some other religions, but did not. and at this point in my life i've decided that the correct thing for me to do, spiritually, at this moment is simply to be a good person in all the ways that i can.

so understand that i'm saying this from an (at least) agnostic point of view, if not perhaps an atheistic one.

but what is your point? are you trying to "convert" christians? are you trying to "prove" them wrong? are you yourself seeking to be converted? do you wish to keep with your current set of beliefs, but to better understand what christians believe?

why christians? they are not the only people who believe in god. are mulims, wiccas, jews, ect also "delusional"?

but mostly, Fetus, what is your childhood trauma? is there a POINT to your post? and if so, could you illuminate it?

we've had plenty of non-christian members make posts about their beliefs, but all have had what seems, to me, to be a clear intent. usually, to explain what they do believe and why.



not to mention this statement

I think that all reasonable people would say that a person can not die and then be brought back to life. It's just not possible.

is TOTALLY wrong.

people are clinically dead and revived all the time.



i've got no problem with rousing theological debates, but, do you have any motivation at all other than to be juvenile?



<3

[mr_thebrain]

this is the place to discuss all things religion is it not? granted you're not supposed to make fun of anyone. but i think of the title and whatnot as more of a shocker title to reel people into the conversation within the thread.

usually when people say things like "christians are delusional" or what have you, it gets people angry. and when people get angry, they talk. i actually think that was his intent.

or am i wrong — this is a place where only zealots can discuss how they worship god.

[eriador]

not to mention this statement

I think that all reasonable people would say that a person can not die and then be brought back to life. It's just not possible.

is TOTALLY wrong.

people are clinically dead and revived all the time.

Val - first, read brain's comment. I think I already said that somewhere, but yeah, I agree with him on what I'm doing.

And in Jesus' case, he had been lying in a cave for days. To revive people, it has to be done within 4 minutes of the heart stopping. Even within that 4 minute time-period, only about 1 percent (or so I've heard). Jesus, having had several days of death would be a waste of revial attempts due to the lack of oxygen going to organs. It's just not possible.

Rei - in response to your questions, I want to share a little mantra of mine:

People are stupid.

Having thought long and hard about those questions, I am more convinced of the truth of that mantra. However, I am not completely close-minded. I often am struck, often at odd times with these questions and find myself considering them again, but I stand by my mantra. People are stupid.

[Rei]

You're right, people can be stupid. Some will even repeatedly and blatantly violate rules and label an entire religious group as delusional and stupid, despite being advised against it.

[Eaquae Legit]

"Why do the Christians insist upon God's ability to perform miracles?", "How is God capable of such things?", "Why do people believe in higher beings anyway?"

Rei - in response to your questions, I want to share a little mantra of mine:

People are stupid.

Having thought long and hard about those questions, I am more convinced of the truth of that mantra. However, I am not completely close-minded. I often am struck, often at odd times with these questions and find myself considering them again, but I stand by my mantra. People are stupid.

Eriador, this is your official Warning. In case there's any confusion, this is EL-the-Mod speaking. You have been repeatedly reminded about the rules of this forum. You either do not understand them, or you chose to ignore them. Regardless, your conduct and your words are unacceptable.

I have let your thinly-veiled attacks slide, and I even let the blatant "delusional" insult. Despite my warning in this very thread, you continue to insult an entire faith group outright.

This Warning will be in effect for one month, barring further incident. If you need to be reminded again about the rules of this forum, the month will start again from Day 1. If this still does not make you rethink your language and approach to discussions here, the Mods will consider banning you (the duration of the ban will be determined then).

This is official. If anyone wishes to whine, they're free to do so, as always. I am leaving this thread open because there is still profitable discussion happening. Should it deteriorate, it will be locked.

[Young Val]

no, point taken. and i did sort of get that the deliberately inflammatory remark was mainly just to get people talking.

but i'm still curious as to what your intent is. again, are you trying to change people's minds? are you trying to learn more about the beliefs of others? or are you just looking to argue? (don't misunderstand me. if you're just lookin' to argue, go for it. i'm not judging your motives, i'm just trying to figure out what they are).

[eriador]

I wanted to talk about it Val. That's all.

[Dr. Mobius]

"A person (singular) may be smart, but people (plural) are stupid."

I forget where I heard that. I think it was in MIB, but they most likely got it from somewhere else.

In any case, it's the sheep mentality. If you fire a gun into the air in a large crowd, it could be a rocket scientist convention, it doesn't matter. They are going to stampede and trample each other while they fight to get to safety.

What's my point? I'm not entirely sure myself. I gave up on trying to make points a long time ago.

Another fun phrase that seems relevant:

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron."