Best way to get to know Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The bad news on prayer (if you're a believer) was reported in the NY Times as well, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 but was largely ignored after that. You can bet it would still be talked about in churches around the world if the scientific research on prayer had come out showing that it worked.

Well here we're in some agreement. I'm with you that God isn't about praying for the football team to win. And in the same vein, God may not agree that another 2 years of life is better than joining him in heaven now. We don't know God's will and our prayers may not be consistent with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

I'm curious: do you think you've converted a single person to atheism (or islam, if you're Muslim Woman) with this approach?

A major problem with your approach (besides the off-putting aggression) is that you aren't the greatest historian. So people roll their eyes and move on.

For example, there is a whole lot of evidence that there was a huge flood around the Black Sea before Christ; yet nobody actually thinks a wooden ark would have survived to the present day, or more than a few hundred years. Similarly, a piece of fabric/temple veil will not have survived 2000 years, or even 1000 years. I'm also pretty sure you're wrong on the archeological evidence for the parts of historical Judaism you've cited, but maybe someone else wants to take that on.

You've set up some straw men here ("you haven't found a 2,000-year-old piece of fabric! So your religion must be false!") that just makes most readers roll their eyes and conclude you aren't too bright.

People don't "convert" others to atheism. It's not a religion.

And I really, really, doubt that Muslims are posting here. That's paranoia.

Pointing out inconsistencies and asking questions is the name of the game on a Religion Forum. That's what this is. It doesn't mean someone's a hater, not too bright, an atheist, a Muslim, or a troll. It means they are participating in a debate. Respond or just move on to the Gardening Forum.

Oh yes indeedy, atheists proselytize with the best of them, it's like the continued existence of believers drives some of you crazy. You're only fooling yourself if you deny this. Also, how have you managed to miss self-identified "Muslim Woman" here, and her many scourges of other peoples' (non-Islamic) religions? Pointing these things out doesn't make anybody paranoid, it makes them grounded in reality.

You're ignoring the point, which is that you've set up some fairly ridiculous straw men: "prove your religion by showing me a piece of fabric that's 2,000 years old!" Instead, you try to turn into calling others paranoid, but it can't hide the basic silliness of what you were criticized for.

Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, as Bonhoffer said, "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."

nice way to get an invisible god off the hook. Yet there are believers who take comfort in thinking that there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and Jesus's return from the dead. Funny - no-one talks about the many others who supposedly came out of the grave when Jesus dies on the cross. What happened to them? did they keep walking around and go back to their old lives? You'd think there'd be some witnesses to that. Did they crawl back into their graves? Given that there were so many of them, there could be evidence of quite a few stones overturned. Nothing -- no one's even looked for it.

You think it's "letting an invisible god off the hook." I think it's precisely what ensures that we have free will. Think about the alternative. If God showed up periodically to parade her existence, or to smite people each time someone behaved badly, then there would be no role for choice and free will in our actions. We'd simply be obedient robots. I don't believe God wants obedient robots any more than we'd find that a fulfilling existence.

Free will is another way to get god off the hook -- plus God did used to show up quite a lot, in the Old testament and then again - big time- in the New Testament, with the son of God come to save us all. He also promised to return, but hasn't made it back yet. But people are waiting to see Jesus again, here on earth and in heaven. In the meantime, his earthly defenders are full of excuses for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, as Bonhoffer said, "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."

nice way to get an invisible god off the hook. Yet there are believers who take comfort in thinking that there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and Jesus's return from the dead. Funny - no-one talks about the many others who supposedly came out of the grave when Jesus dies on the cross. What happened to them? did they keep walking around and go back to their old lives? You'd think there'd be some witnesses to that. Did they crawl back into their graves? Given that there were so many of them, there could be evidence of quite a few stones overturned. Nothing -- no one's even looked for it.

You think it's "letting an invisible god off the hook." I think it's precisely what ensures that we have free will. Think about the alternative. If God showed up periodically to parade her existence, or to smite people each time someone behaved badly, then there would be no role for choice and free will in our actions. We'd simply be obedient robots. I don't believe God wants obedient robots any more than we'd find that a fulfilling existence.

Free will is another way to get god off the hook -- plus God did used to show up quite a lot, in the Old testament and then again - big time- in the New Testament, with the son of God come to save us all. He also promised to return, but hasn't made it back yet. But people are waiting to see Jesus again, here on earth and in heaven. In the meantime, his earthly defenders are full of excuses for him.

Look, we believe, and we think free will is actually better than being an obedient robot. You don't believe and you call free will "excuses." That's great, it's perfectly fine, and I don't think anybody here is bothered by your lack of belief. It's free will and a free country.

Although I'm not sure you're why here whinging about ancient veils, though. Or whinging about the fact that it's taken God, who is infinity, more than 2000 years to return. These aren't exactly stellar points you're making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

Um, so what? This is called a "false analogy," along the lines of somebody saying, "some dogs bite; therefore, all dogs bite.". Geez, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

Um, so what? This is called a "false analogy," along the lines of somebody saying, "some dogs bite; therefore, all dogs bite.". Geez, people.

any comments on the NY time links?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

Um, so what? This is called a "false analogy," along the lines of somebody saying, "some dogs bite; therefore, all dogs bite.". Geez, people.

any comments on the NY time links?

(Do you know how small and sad this sounds?)

Yes, I did comment, above. About how I agree with you--to some extent--about the people who pray for their football teams to win, or for somebody to live another two years.

[Anonymous]

^^^ how small and sad your demand for comments on the NY Times article sounds

[Anonymous]

Let me guess. You're the poster from last week with the arguments that were so silly that people just started ignoring you. And then, not realizing that you had simply bored everyone to death, you declared "victory!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

Um, so what? This is called a "false analogy," along the lines of somebody saying, "some dogs bite; therefore, all dogs bite.". Geez, people.

Actually, it's a syllogistic fallacy. Not that that 1st PP knows the difference.

[Anonymous]

ANYWAY, getting back to the original point of the post, if you "found" Jesus, how did you find him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim Woman is exactly the sort of poster, aggressive but not terribly bright, who would demand other religions produce a 2000-year-old piece of fabric.

Don't forget the shroud of turin and pieces of the true cross and James-the-brother-of-Jesus bones box -- all "found" centuries later, and all found to be fakes.

Um, so what? This is called a "false analogy," along the lines of somebody saying, "some dogs bite; therefore, all dogs bite.". Geez, people.

any comments on the NY time links?

(Do you know how small and sad this sounds?)

Yes, I did comment, above. About how I agree with you--to some extent--about the people who pray for their football teams to win, or for somebody to live another two years.

I thought my question was simple and direct. You commented on only one of the links -- the one about prayer -- and only that you "agreed with me" - though I just presented the link to a scientific study. What about the links to the findings of the Jewish archeologists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I thought my question was simple and direct. You commented on only one of the links -- the one about prayer -- and only that you "agreed with me" - though I just presented the link to a scientific study. What about the links to the findings of the Jewish archeologists?

I'm no expert on OT archeology. But I can comprehend a NY Times article, and the NY Times piece you linked to was VERY clear that these archeological debates have NOT been settled one way or the other.

They NY Times piece underscores that there are still opposing views on these archeological questions. Many reputable archeologists dispute Finkelstein's conclusions, and some of them are quoted in that same NY Times article. The NY Times also points out that archeologists used to look for confirmation of the Bible, but you can't say that about all of today's archeologists. In fact, according to the NY Times, some recent finds (e.g., a stela about King David) tend to *confirm* Biblical events.

Also, congrats on finding a NY Times article from the year 2000, but I'd be curious about what more recent research has to say on the subject.

You may like Finkelstein's arguments, and you may even own his book, which you linked to. Good for you. But your own NY Times article pointed out that many reputable archeologists dispute Finkelstein's views. So you must be going on your gut instinct (your belief! the irony!) that Finkelstein is "correct."

[Anonymous]

12:13 again with a PS. Quackery gets published every day. Did you also buy the 911 conspiracy theory books?

Finkelstein may be right on the money, or he may be looking to make a quick buck by stirring up controversy. No matter. What's relevant here is that the NY Times article you linked to points out that respected archeolgists are still in sharp disagreement. I don't think that either you or I is qualified to say who's right.