YouTube Argument About Jesus Christ

Debate Room
1

YouTube link.

The argument on his side.

" M MAC 12 hours ago

@The Man With The Honest Answers I’d really love to get that link for you - the molecular biologist’s research. I’ll ask my friend for it. Meanwhile, if you do not trust the Word of God and discount it as “just another religion” - even though there IS evidence of the resurrection, then again, that’s your choice. I just wanted to let you know what an incredible thing it is to be saved by nothing more than the grace of God. That’s really it - just the simple truth of the gospel. It’s yours for the taking - or not. Will definitely send that link once I get the info. Best…"

My reply.

" The Man With The Honest Answers 1 hour ago (edited)

@M MAC Don’t know your point, there’s many very smart Christians who keep clinging to the Christian bible. The Christian bible was written by humans at a time we did not understand the world was not flat. At a time which the holy lands were thought to be the whole world. At a time we thought we were the center of the universe. There’s a such thing as the bible getting many things wrong, including the Tower Of Babel. Different regions of earth developed different languages of the human race evolved. It is the closest scientific explanation we have as no other explanation works. Science has found no good evidence to support any god(s) existence. Pointing to a book written by humans isn’t proof. So you want to be the one who tells the people of 3199 other religions that yours is the right one and that they are wrong? Good luck with that."

Did I do okay, or is there areas I could improve on?

1 Like
2

Of course it’s your choice, that’s just a sneaky little ad hominem. He’s implying there’s something wrong with you if you don’t accept the evidence he claims to have. (where is it?)

Mate you need prove exactly nothing, he’s the one making the claim.

Actually there’s no credible evidence of the resurrection. As an atheist, I’m unable to accept anything written in the bible as proof of anything . IE I’m unable to accept a claim of divinely revealed information of any kind.

I’ve never seen any credible evidence of Jesus returning from the dead. There are four conflicting accounts in the Gospels, which I simply dismiss .

There are myths of the dying and resurrecting god in many cultures. Perhaps the most common is the most ancient; fertility religions which feature the death of the god (winter) and his rebirth (spring)

Carl Sagan wrote; “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

The many books of the christian bible were arbitrarily chosen as THE canon in the Fourth Century at the first Nicene council. Together they form the mythology of christianity. The council was mainly about power consolidation, which involved identifying and murdering heretics.

Once again around the mulberry bush; the bible IS MADE UP. NONE of it has been shown to be true or even probably true/ likely to be true. Christians have never been able to provide credible evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

The bloke giving the lecture is a presuppositional apologist . IE he ASSUMES the existence of god as a given, which it is not. Before providing his proofs for the resurrection he needs first provide credible evidence for the existence of god.

1 Like
3

I hope that guy doesn’t cause a problem as I invited him here to chat with us atheists. Did it to be nice, maybe he’ll learn something. Did it to be nice so if he causes problems that’s my bad.

and to reply to you.

in a simple word right, I am what is that word? Am a (something) atheist. Just can not remember the word. Open minded as open minded as I can get. And finishing writing this high.

4

I might take it a step further . . . Biblical literalism kills people.

As an example, Benjamin Franklin discovered that natural electricity and artificial electricity are the same thing, and that natural electricity follows the same rules as artificial electricity.

This was a real problem for the church, as lightning was seen as God’s judgement, so it was sacreligious to put lightning rods on church steeples (and steeples were often the highest point in town, and bell-ringers sometimes died when lightning hit while they were ringing the bells).

Well . . . the city of Brescia in Northern Italy was populated by people whom were especially pious and God-fearing, so lightning would never hit the local church. This is why the church was considered to be the safest place to store all the gunpowder . . . approximately 100 tons of it.

If you’ve read along with me so far, then you can probably guess what happened: On August 18, 1789, the church was hit by lightning and caught fire.

The resulting explosion killed roughly 3,000 people, and leveled one sixth of the city.

As another example, Ignaz Semmelwies was denounced from the pulpit for trying to get obstetricians to wash their hands in bleach water before attending a woman in labor . . . as God decreed that women would have their pains in childbirth multiplied as punishment for convincing Adam to eat from the forbidden tree. Septicaemia of childbirth is, evidentally, God’s will . . . so a doctor washing his hands to prevent infection in his O.B. patients is morally wrong.

Now, we have creationists trying to stifle the teaching of evolution in school when humanity needs future scientists to counter existential threats like climate change, emerging diseases, and so forth.

I think it’s rather ironic that the teachings of Christ–whom was sent to save humanity–may very well contribute to our extinction.

2 Likes
5

Very well said, I agree completely.

1 Like
6

Thank you very much.

7

And how many children of Christian Science parents have needlessly died due to their parents withholding medical treatments based on their literal interpretation of the bible?

1 Like
8

When I was a gossoon, my mother had this lovely friend who gave me sweets. Lovely lady was a Christian Scientist. Lovely Lady got cancer, refused medical help and died. The End.

As White would be well aware, JW’s’ do not accept blood transfusions. The reason for this extreme position is through a tortuous interpretation of The Book Of Acts 15 19-21, 28.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The blood referred to is that of animals. This the basis of Jewish dietary law (kosher) which forbids Jews to eat the flesh of animals which have not been ritually killed and their blood drained. Nothing arcane about that as far as I can see.

Worth pointing out that this relatively small Christian sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only one which has this interpretation. I think the willful misinterpretation is up there with the catholics’ claims that the gospels bestow the power of Transubstantiation on priests and the infallibility on the Pope.
I will cite chapter and verse if challenged on these claims .No other sect apart from catholics makes either claim.

The ‘why’ of it for JW’s may be because of something common in millenarian movements: A them/us dichotomy is et up; We’re right and everyone else is in error. A feeling of ‘specialness’ is deliberately cultivated. This often done with dietary rules, differences in ritual and scriptural interpretation. EG Using Saturday as the sabbath (which is right actually, Sunday is the first day of the week) Many Adventists are strict vegetarians. JW’s refuse to accept blood transfusions for themselves and their children

I have no problem with what help JW’s choose to accept for themselves. It’s their funeral. I do have problem with them letting their children die.

In Australia, courts will sometimes override JW parents and give their children blood transfusions. The law is imprecise.

1 Like
9

In this country, the vast majority of Christian Science and JW parents who let their kids die through withholding medical treatment get off scot free or get a token slap on the wrist. U.S. courts are extremely reluctant to prosecute this barbaric crime against children.

10

I was a paramedic for many years, and I can agree that many people (including lots of children) have died from a conflict between medicine and religion.

2 Likes
11

Not long ago I read a Jewish had baby died as the result of catching a herpes infection from the Mohel. Look up the ceremony of the bris if you want the gory details.

As far as I’m aware the practice of female circumcision still takes place in civilised countries such as say the US and UK. Probably in Oz too. Aboriginal here people still practice male circumcision and subcision***

***there the penis is filleted if you will. It is opened from under the glans penis to the pubis. Not all groups practice subcision. I have no idea how many adolescent boys die a result. Can’t remember ever having read of such a thing. It seems to be less common these days. boys

1 Like
12

If not physically (in all cases), then certainly mentally, emotionally and intellectually. It’s goal is to remove the humane from the human.

2 Likes
13

Accurate summary of the basic scriptural basis for this death dealing belief.

The goal is to save your relationship with god. To obey him regardless of the physical cost as only god can bestow “everlasting life”.

Parents enact it on their children. In many ways, denial of medical treatments permeate many a sect (and currently the Covid vaccine) through belief and NOT necessarily a medical based decision for treatment (which we have a right to exercise).

Adults in love with their imaginary deity of choice have damaged children (their own and children of “others”) always with an intent for good (or a greater good).

It’s the only way to get the humane out of the human.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101994892
readers comments
Ironically, this article cannot be read on the official JW website

1 Like
14

I started to read that drivel, but the problem is that I just finished eating . . . and those articles were starting to make me gag, and made my skin crawl.

I was friends with a Jehova’s Witness named Gary.

I help train Gary into a paramedic, and he became a supervisor. He helped an enormous amount with my personnel file . . . and a very large part of why I had an important and prestgious promotion was because of him.

So, we got along well. I liked and respected him, and I do believe that he was a better friend to me than I was to him (I’m socially inept, as I am a high-functioning autistic person whom finds the intricacies of maintaing good relationships very difficult).

Well . . . we drifted apart, as friends often do when they decide to take different paths in life.

We reconnected over a decade later, and–by coincidence–we ended up meeting by coincidence when he came in for a job interview.

He died less than 48 hours later from a sudden gall bladder attack that started bleeding badly in post-op.

My point is that this guy left a family that needed him, had abandoned everyone he loves and whom loves him over some ancient, ambiguous, possibly mistranslated passage in an ancient text from the Bronze Age?

I want to see where in The Bible that we must give up common sense?

4 Likes
15

@Kevin_Levites Wow, what a sad story and a waste of a fine human being.

16

I empathise. There are more of us than most people realise. I often wonder if that’s true or just a matter of it being the disorder de jure, as was carpel tunnel syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and ADHD, to mention a few.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m perfectly fine. Not my fault if most people are dickheads. :innocent:

1 Like
17

I’m socially inept in my older age because it’s not required of me.

Mostly because I don’t like most people.

If I find you irritating :angry: the best for our “short-lived interaction” is my ignoring you.

HOWEVER, I am capable of social pleasantries and manners when confronted with having to engage.

AT one time, in my more youthful years, I was even considered likeable (by some…uh, most likely a few).

1 Like
18

I’m socially inept because I’ve always been so due at least in part to the Asperger’s.(didn’t know that until I was 65) I suspect that may be at least partly the reason for my deep misanthropy.

In my late teens and early 20’s I had a lot of acquaintances. Two real friends. Went on an awful lot of first dates. Have also managed to have three ‘serious’ relationships, where marriage was my goal. ( not counting my ex wife)

In real life, I misread people because I don’t understand most non verbal communication. This has always been so, but I was mercifully unaware.

2 Likes
19

Is there anyone who actually fits the definition of being 'socially ept"?
Judging by my experiences it would seem to be a rare thing and therefore an aberration.
I am socially inept because of my handicap. Not hearing people talk forces one to observe more often, but don’t take that as any sort of boast of being smart. I am ruefully aware of how much I don’t know.
I have misread people because I just never heard most of the verbal communication. I am certain now, though not in my brash youth, that I mosty under- and over- estimated people.
I am not sure that I am any better at assessing others now, but aging gracefully allows me the luxury of caring less for being correct about people as most engage in constant duplicitous little lies about themselves all the time anyway. Its harder to hit moving targets.

1 Like
20

Oh yes. Ran into them in the army and in business. Liked them too.

Like many things, social eptness is a matter of degree. I have virtually none, my sister has some, my brother has some, and my baby sister was arse deep in social eptness before the divorce. These days, not so much.

It’s my perception that people who regularly spend time on forums are atypical compared with the rest of the general public.

1 Like