Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
582

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I love how huge this thread has become. It’s like the biggest religion thread circle jerk we’ve had in a long time, and I’d like to thank y’all for all your contributions, because reading all of this was very entertaining.

Some food for thought, or for tossing in the trash… whatever:

The fundamental basis of religion and belief in the supernatural is the human mind’s way of escaping the finality of death. I mean, without an afterlife hanging out with Isis and Osiris, or going on to some cosmic crib with a bunch of mormons or whatever, this life we’re living now just seems so pointless. Really, what’s the point of going on with this life if you’re just going to die, go to an abyss of nothingness, and nothing in your life will have ever mattered?

I say that this is a very narrow and selfish way of looking at things. I feel that it is our responsibility to leave this world a better place than we found it. This is simple animal biology and survival of the species I’m talking about here. An atheist’s life isn’t empty of faith in the way that some of you religious folks think. I place my faith in the here and now, and my hopes for a better tomorrow, and what I can do to help realize these goals.

What I don’t do with my faith is pretend. Face it guys, you are doing quite a bit of pretending here when you are taking the bible and the resurrection of Jesus as anything more than a story. Justify it however you wish, but the simple fact of the matter is that you are BY DEFINITION “pretending” when you say that there is more to this life than what we experience in this world. You have absolutely no reason to expect to have an afterlife except that you belong to an incredibly large group of people who are also afraid to die and then have nothing to show for it.

I have seen in a couple of posts in this thread where the more “religiously endowed” of us have been quite uppity in their attitude of “I’m special because I’m going to heaven, and the rest of y’all are heretics who are going to fry”, and I guess that’s to be expected when you are made to feel unreasonably special because you had some water splashed on you or whatever. So I guess I can’t blame you guys for that, but I just want to tell y’all that it’s kinda annoying to us who have smaller than average religious feelings.

So tell me guys, are you pretending or not? And if you aren’t, how the hell can you explain yourselves? You have to be.
[/quote]

Excellent points! There are two real different reasoning lines going on logically and psychologically with religion.

I think most people THINK they are starting from the premise that “there must be a God” based on whatever reasoning-some logic, some science but when you come right down to it, if you could scientificaly prove God today the world SHOULD be very different. I think it may be possible that physics-in its final stages-will end up including the existence of God in its axioms (possible that is). Now I said many people THINK they are starting from this premise. From that point, the question becomes which interpretation of God is most accurate, has the TRUTH (Which I certainly believe is Orthodox Christianity).

So we have people who start from the position that God is actually the easy choice of Occam’s razor not the hard one. They would hold that the idea of a universe coming into existence without a creator is the “positive” argument and would need to be demonstrated to be true for one to discount the simpler choice in their minds-God. (Now Occam’s razor is not an axiom about truth, but rather about the human mind so its not logically binding here-but I just want to set a scenario).

Now some people REALLY start from the position that they can’t bear to live in a world without an afterlife. Therefore they reach out of necessity the psychological conclusion that there “just has to be something else”. I don’t doubt that religion is a coping strategy in many cases. Furthermore, as a student of evolutionary biology I know that it would make sense to argue that religion/belief developed as an evolutionary adaptation. Why do we have guilt feelings? because if you feel guilty when you wrong someone, you fit into society better! Guilt feelings are a classic examle of evolutionary adaptation.

So basically these are two reasons why people come to believe in God:

  1. It’s viewed as actually being more logical than no God.
  2. It’s a psychological coping strategy

Please be clear-I am describing people who may or may not have been faithful but who at least momentarily entertained the question of whether or not God exists.

I also think there are people who feel as if they have known God as a person somewhere deep inside all of their lives.

Again, all of these can be explained by evolution.

I am not going to answer now. I grew up believing, questioned long and hard, and eventually would say that I do know God (category 3) although I haven’t always recognized that. I also tend to be of the opinion that physics makes MORE sense with the assumption of God-primarily in posited mechanisms of free will as well as aspects of quantum, chaos and relativity theory-although non of these theories can last in its present form.

To sum up so y’all can discuss:

Belief of in God by DIFFERENT people comes from 3 main sources:

1)Assumption
2)Fear/stress relief
3)Love/positive personal feelings

And of course many believe on tradition alone-I would put them actually into category #2 when they get older-they are just to scared to entertain the thought that there might not be a God.

583

Let me add Loth, that if I had never found the Orthodox Church (although that carries with it some implications) then I would possibly see myself as an athiest. I found logical absurdities in every other form of belief/denomonation whatever you want to call them. (Now I became Orthodox when I was 4, but struggled at times because I was a scientific thinker and always wanted to ask questions). Inconsistencies from the Roman’s reinventing their theology on many occasions, the Mormon’s having to “Take back” some of their “infallable doctrines” and most of the nature/pagan/eastern religions subscribing to outright inconsistencies with scientific observation.

I kept running back into the wall that was the consistency of Orthodoxy: both the internal consistency: I couldn’t come up with an important conflict within the church, as well as its amazing ability to coexist with scientific discoveries-almost as if it was designed with forethought of these new theories.

584

Fishlips et al a quote for you:

“We have seen the true light! We have received the heavenly spirit! We have found the true faith! Worshiping the undivided trinity which has saved us!”

The liturgy of Saint James the brother of the Lord in the flesh and first bishop of Jerusalem circa 50 A.D. which he claimed was delivered to him verbatum by Jesus his brother.

585

Thanks for the reply, mert. So it doesn’t seem crazy to you, or like one of the inconsistencies like you found in the other faiths, that Jesus rose from his tomb after being dead for three days? I’m sorry bro, in my book that’s a whole lot of crap to swallow in one bite. I mean, I can look past healing a couple of lepers as part of the “Tall Tale” phenomenon, and we can chalk up walking on water to somebody getting a little fast and loose with a translation or two, but rising from the dead is just nuts. I see people come back from the dead at work, but they’ve only been that way for a few minutes. Three days is a little much.

The way I see it, we have just another cult based around supposed miraculous events which are far beyond any ability for us to prove or disprove. That’s where the pretending has to come in and pick up the slack.

586

[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
extol,

This reminds me of Dave Hunt arguing that Spurgeon wasn’t a Calvinist.[/quote]

Hodge is certainly a Calvinist, but he is certainly not a Christian. For he asserts that salvation in conditioned on the sinner, rather than on the work of Christ ALONE.

[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
Once again, see sections “I” and “L” of TULIP. You are misreading/misrepresenting Hodge, if not Calvinism. However, this isn’t an argument that I’m getting into. Check out monergism.com if you’re interested.[/quote]

Hodge’s “I” and “L” is not the true Biblical “I” and “L”.

As for "misreading/misrepresenting Hodge: Prove it. Oh, but wait. You don’t wanna. Okay. But let me just say that you are guilty of what you falsely accuse me of doing. That is, you misread and misrepresent me by asserting without proof, that I have misread and misrepresented Hodge. The Hodge quotes don’t even need any comment from me. They’re clearly heretical.

587

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
The fundamental basis of religion and belief in the supernatural is the human mind’s way of escaping the finality of death.[/quote]

I love the sweeping generalization. But that aside, you assert the above like it’s absolutely true, just as dogmatically as I assert the truth of the Bible. I thought that was interesting.

The fundamental basis of Atheism and denial of the supernatural is the human mind’s way of escaping the righteous judgment of God against all who do not have a righteousness that answers the demands of His holy law and justice. Although they know God, they do not glorify Him as God. Rather, they become vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning hearts are darkened.

Professing to be wise, they become foolish and change the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man. In short, they are a god unto themselves.

Oh really? You are pretending that the God of the Bible–who saves all for whom Christ died, and damns all for whom Christ did not die–does not exist, aren’t you?

I have never said that I was unreasonably special, or made to feel unreasonably special.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God the Father was totally satisfied with the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. He was totally satisfied because Jesus Christ accomplished exactly what He set out to accomplish, which was the full salvation of everyone whom He came to save. Jesus Christ fully satisfied the demands of God’s law and justice on behalf of everyone for whom He died. Had Jesus Christ not fully accomplished salvation for everyone for whom He died, He would not have conquered death, and He would have remained in the grave. The reason Jesus Christ could not be held by death is that He had totally, absolutely defeated death in fully atoning for the sins of His people. If there is or will be even one person for whom Christ died who is suffering or will suffer the second death, then death was not defeated, and Jesus Christ was not raised as the victor over death. To truly believe and preach The Resurrection is to believe and preach the full, accomplished atonement of Jesus Christ with which God the Father was fully satisfied that was effectual to save everyone whom Christ represented. God the Father exalted Jesus Christ at His right hand as the Savior of His people who made full purification of their sins. There would have been no resurrection and no exaltation had there been even one person for whom Christ died who would end up in hell.

588

THE FACTS:

There are several highly accurate historical documents that attest to Jesus. The authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded very specific facts of the events surrounding the life of Jesus, and archaeology has verified the accuracy of the New Testament. Hundreds of facts such as the names of officials, geographical sites, financial currencies, and times of events have been confirmed. Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest geographers of the 19th century, became firmly convinced of the accuracy of the New Testament as a result of the overwhelming evidence he discovered during his research. As a result, he completely reversed his antagonism against Christianity. The textual evidence decisively shows that the Gospels were written and circulated during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events. Since there are so many specific names and places mentioned, eyewitnesses could have easily discredited the writings. The New Testament would have never survived had the facts been inaccurate.

Another document that supports the historicity of Jesus is the work of Josephus, a potentially hostile Jewish historian. He recorded Antiquities, a history of the Jews, for the Romans during the lifetime of Jesus. He wrote, “Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man.” Josephus goes on to relate other specific details about Jesus’ life and death that correspond with the New Testament. Roman historians such as Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger also refer to Jesus as a historically real individual. Pre and post-Christian communities like those of the Jews and the Muslims verify that Jesus Christ was indeed a historically real individual.

589

Three facts must be reckoned with when investigating the Resurrection:
(1)the empty tomb
(2)the transformation of the Apostles
(3)the preaching of the Resurrection originating in Jerusalem

Let us first examine the case of the empty tomb. Jesus was a well-known figure in Israel. His burial sight was known by many people. In fact Matthew records the exact location of Jesus’ tomb. He states, “And Joseph of Arimathea took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb” (Matt. 27:59). Mark asserts that Joseph was “a prominent member of the Council” (Mark 15:43).

It would have been destructive for the writers to invent a man of such prominence, name him specifically, and designate the tomb site, since eyewitnesses would have easily discredited the author’s fallacious claims.

Jewish and Roman sources both testify to an empty tomb. Matthew 28:12 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. Opponents of the Resurrection must account for this. If the tomb had not been empty, the preaching of the Apostles would not have lasted one day. All the Jewish authorities needed to do to put an end to Christianity was to produce the body of Jesus.

Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association states, “Let’s assume that the written accounts of His appearances to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? . . . The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.”

We have the changed lives of the Apostles. It is recorded in the Gospels that while Jesus was on trial, the Apostles deserted Him in fear. Yet 10 out of the 11 Apostles died as martyrs believing Christ rose from the dead. What accounts for their transformation into men willing to die for their message? It must have been a very compelling event to account for this.

The Apostles began preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. This is significant since this is the very city in which Jesus was crucified. This was the most hostile city in which to preach. Furthermore, all the evidence was there for everyone to investigate. Legends take root in foreign lands or centuries after the event. Discrediting such legends is difficult since the facts are hard to verify. However, in this case the preaching occurs in the city of the event immediately after it occurred. Every possible fact could have been investigated thoroughly.

*Anyone studying the Resurrection must somehow explain these three facts.

590

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
I love the sweeping generalization. But that aside, you assert the above like it’s absolutely true, just as dogmatically as I assert the truth of the Bible. I thought that was interesting.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply, extol. And you’re right, I have made a jump to a conclusion, I will admit. But then why else would every single religion and every single supernatural/magical/psychic medium belief system feature the idea of an afterlife?

It is obvious to me that the problem here is death. If we were all immortal, we would not feel compelled to invent something beyond that which we experience here and now. Our minds don’t want the ride to end… but it does.

BTW: My atheism has nothing to do with rejecting your God’s righteousness or whatever. I do not think that Jesus rose from the dead. He was just another dude like you and me, and when he was killed, he stayed that way. Therefore, I am not a Christian. If you think that makes me foolish, then fine. I just can’t pretend the way that you can, sorry.

591

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So it doesn’t seem crazy to you, or like one of the inconsistencies like you found in the other faiths, that Jesus rose from his tomb after being dead for three days? I’m sorry bro, in my book that’s a whole lot of crap to swallow in one bite. I mean, I can look past healing a couple of lepers as part of the “Tall Tale” phenomenon, and we can chalk up walking on water to somebody getting a little fast and loose with a translation or two, but rising from the dead is just nuts. I see people come back from the dead at work, but they’ve only been that way for a few minutes. Three days is a little much.[/quote]

b[/b] I believe in God.
b[/b] I believe that God became Incarnate in the flesh - Jesus Christ.b[/b] I believe that Jesus Christ is omnipotent. He could make Himself resurrect after 3 seconds, 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 years, 3 decades, 3 centuries, 3 millenia (and any other matter of time).

And as far as miracles are concerned, perhaps you’d like to chat with an Orthodox Christian priest at my church who’s conducted 6 exorcisms in his life. Or maybe my friend of 19 years who actually witnessed a 9-year old girl possessed by demon(s) who started snarling like a rabbid dog when blessed with the sign of the cross. The 9-year old’s gaze caught my friend’s and he refused to sustain eye contact with her. Only later did he learn that she was undergoing the ritual of exorcism after inquiring of her eerie behavior & gestures. To this day he gets chills up & down his spine just recalling the event; kinda funny how a 9-year old could do that to an ex-bouncer in his late 20’s.

If it’ll help you believe, I’ll pray that you see demons too.

592

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
“We have seen the true light! We have received the heavenly spirit! We have found the true faith! Worshiping the undivided trinity which has saved us!”[/quote]

Amen brother in the Faith!
Even a distance of ~1800 miles can not separate us because the Truth spiritually unifies indeed! May God continue to shower you with His blessings and may you continue to magnify the grace He bestows upon you. Pray for your Orthodox Christian brethren across the earth as they pray for you.

Peace be with you mertdawg!

593

stellar: Good post about the Resurrection. I see where you used a bunch of if-thens to try to give some substance to the story. I’ve got one for you:

IF Jesus rose from the dead, THEN why are the only people who saw him were his fanatical disciples?

He could have marched into Jerusalem, said “ha!” to the Jewish priests, and done whatever Messiahs do.

Instead, we have a bunch of guys who try to keep the Jesus thing alive, even after he’s dead.

594

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
If it’ll help you believe, I’ll pray that you see demons too.[/quote]

Bring it stellar. I’ll laugh. BTW, there’s no such thing as ghosts or witchcraft or possession by supernatural beings. I see crazy people literally every day. They foam at the mouth, scream incoherently, act f’d up when you interact with them.

One time a little while ago, one of our fun schizophrenic ladies had to be put in a padded quiet room because she hadn’t been taking her meds, and started to scream out “In JESUS NAME!!” over and over for twenty minutes straight. Nonstop. I shit you not.

I’ve seen the so-called “possesed”, stellar. You call them demons, I call it mental and emotional disfunction. The cool thing about demons is that they are amazingly vulnerable to anti-psychotic medicine. Funny huh? You don’t have to exorcise shit.

595

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:

If it’ll help you believe, I’ll pray that you see demons too.[/quote]

Please, oh please, send a demon prayer my way. Of course, even if I saw a demon, it wouldn’t mean Jesus was god. Just that there are demons.

596

[quote]pookie wrote:
Stellar: I have some weird kind of respect for you. While I still think you’re misguided, I have to admit that you’re really strong in your convictions. A rare thing in our world of wishy-washy faith, where a lot of people go through the motions but don’t seem to put any heart or thought into it. I think though, that your strict rigidity might put some people off. Your vast knowledge of the orthodox faith (and others) would probably be more inspiring if a little flexibility was shown, now and again.

Then again, I guess that rigidity is required to keep a faith identical for 2000 years…

I did find your description of “sin” fascinating and thought provoking. I might even re-evaluate some things that I felt where “harmless”.

I still find your fascination with weapons disturbing.

Peace by with you too, and may your kids all be atheists. ;)[/quote]

Pookie, I’ve vacillated back & forth in the past, hence my convictions were by no means sculpted overnight. Orthodox Christianity is a never ending journey into getting to know yourself by establishing a relationship with the Creator and preparing for the afterlife. It’s definitely not a one-month quest or a faint-hearted mission. This mission must “taken by violence”, ie. undertaken aggressively.

A few T-Nation fans (some who participated in this thread and others who did not) insinuated that my style was overbearing. For this I sincerely apologize. I confess I lack both the finesse and the ability to be a good orator, but nonetheless, what I’ve written here I welcome any scholar to challenge. I hope everyone shall judge what I’ve said rather than how I’ve said it. May my many years of research be of some benefit to you.

As far as the rigid nature of Orthodox Christianity is concerned, I concur with your remarks. If a faith evolves from that which Jesus Christ & the Apostles preached (with the original Faith being deemed perfect, having the edifying power to uplift man to a sanctified status and to heal man of spiritual maladies), then why make any adjustments to it? If you walk away from this thread with only two concepts, b[/b] realize that Orthodox Christianity is the original Faith of Jesus Christ & the Apostles and b[/b] whether or not you come to believe in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, beware of heretics!

If we fully trust in a physician, we hope that he’ll provide us with sound medical care. If we’re afflicted with bronchitis, the physician might prescribe a Z-pack for us after determining the severity of the diagnosis, instruct us to get plenty of rest, drink plenty of fluids, to eat well-balanced meals, and to avoid consuming toxic substances which will inhibit our immune systems. Now if that physician is reliable, we will be healed within 7-14 days. This is Orthodox Christianity.

But if we trust in a physician who fails to guide us, one who tells us we have nothing serious to worry about, one who tells us it’s ok to drink alcohol with our condition, one who doesn’t prescribe medication, one who just hands us a pamphlet, yet we get even worse over the course of the next few days or our condition does not improve, isn’t that physician unreliable? Isn’t he a quack? Isn’t he an imposter? So it is with all other religions (including heterodox Christian denominations).

Orthodox Christianity is a therapeutic Faith. The Bible is our basic reference guide which the Apostles (ie. the spiritual doctors), contributed towards for improving the spiritual welfare of mankind. The Bible is not a tell-all guide as some here claim. There are therapies which the imposters have no knowledge about, thus they do not apply it to their patients or themselves, thus they gain only marginal spiritual benefits. That’s why I again caution you to beware of heretics. They may call their God Jesus Christ, but their theological system deviates from that which the Apostles preached.
The Orthodox Christian Church has proof that She’s effective in Her practices. Review the T-Nation thread on Orthodox Christian Saints; the countless martyrs, the theologians, the miracle-makers, etc., humans who’ve overcome the virus of sin in its various forms and levels by adhering to Christ’s teachings and therapies.

As far as my children being atheists, I have none as of yet. If the Lord blesses me with any, I’ll teach them as much as I’m able to about Orthodox Christianity; ultimately their decisions must be their own though. Every parent wills the best for their child(ren). I can’t think of anything worse than raising child(ren) only to discover their final disposition is eternal damnation - I would rather have none at all if that were the case. I would damn myself for the sake of my family’s salvation, as I would for my child(ren) if I had any. You must acknowledge that this is a chance that you take, whether consciously or unconsciously. Next time you look your children in the eyes, just think for a second, “what if I’m wrong, what if my disbelief sets the precedent for their future unbelief” (which may ultimately lead to their final spiritual disposition of hellish torment).

I’ll pray for your family. Peace be with you.

597

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
stellar: Good post about the Resurrection. I see where you used a bunch of if-thens to try to give some substance to the story. I’ve got one for you:[/quote]

Don’t just tell me good post and fire back some skeptical questions. Provide your theories too. This thread is a way to express ideas. You’re supposed to defend your point of views but all you ever do is launch offensives.

[quote]
IF Jesus rose from the dead, THEN why are the only people who saw him were his fanatical disciples?[/quote]

They weren’t. From the Gospel according to the four authors, this is the total list of those who witnessed Jesus Christ after His Resurrection:
(1) the Eleven Apostles
(2) Mary Magdalene
(3) the other Mary
(4) Joanna
(5) Cleopas
(6) an unnamed follower
(7) a group of unnamed women

Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy and gave no sign to unbelievers other than that of the prophet Jonah who was devoured by the whale but escaped after three days - His Resurrection. The fact His Body was no longer in the Tomb and the Pharisees were scrambling to concoct lies as part of their scheme for damage control speaks volumes. This was the “ha!”. As far as Jesus Christ doing what Messiahs do - why don’t you tell me what Messiahs do? Jesus Christ was not the earthly Messiah that you and the Jews envisioned; He’s the spiritual Messiah who paves the path to the kingdom of heaven. His next action was to strengthen the faith of His followers and to participate in the Ascension so He could send forth the Holy Spirit to empower His Apostles. This was the next “ha!”. The miracles His Apostles performed, the spreading of the Christian Faith, the conversion of the predominant populous of Jews - this was the ultimate “ha!”.

[quote]
Instead, we have a bunch of guys who try to keep the Jesus thing alive, even after he’s dead.[/quote]

Instead we have His ten faithful Apostles being slaughtered one-by-one and the eleventh exiled to a foreign land because they testified of His Resurrection. They didn’t die simulatenously; they learned of each other’s tribulations yet endured in preaching what they witnessed despite ferocious persecution. Had they been scammers, they wouldn’t have risked their lives. Had they been suicidal maniacs, they would’ve ended their lives numerous years before suffering any horrifying torments. The bottom line is that the Apostles truly believed in what they were preaching as did the majority of the Jewish population in those days. The miracles (which you denounce) served to further enlarge and strengthen the flock of the newly converted.

598

[quote]doogie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:

If it’ll help you believe, I’ll pray that you see demons too.

Please, oh please, send a demon prayer my way. Of course, even if I saw a demon, it wouldn’t mean Jesus was god. Just that there are demons.[/quote]

There’s no particular prayer in Orthodox Christianity for accomplishing this. There’s nothing called the “demon prayer”. All I can do is pray that God’s will be done. I have no foreknowledge of how God will attempt to steer you or anyone else towards Himself. Perhaps you aren’t ready in this stage of your life. Perhaps another event in His infinite wisdom shall overpower you and bring you to your knees, or perhaps it’ll further repel you. It’s prideful to assume you can handle demonic possession or a demon manifestation.

The reason I directed my comment to lothario was because he doesn’t believe in miracles or spirits; concepts which contemporary science has yet to research. Nonetheless, continue to scoff you unbeliever. Your bravado is noteworthy.

What is concealed to some shall one day be revealed to all.

599

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
The reason I directed my comment to lothario was because he doesn’t believe in miracles or spirits; concepts which contemporary science has yet to research.[/quote]

Ummm… actually we have done quite a bit of research about mental disorders here in the modern world. And like I said, I see the “possessed” all the time. There’s nothing magical about being shizophrenic or manic. It’s a functional disorder of the brain.

As to doing credible scientific research about ghosts or miracles… well, we haven’t had any good studies about green moon cheese either. Wonder why.

600

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
IF Jesus rose from the dead, THEN why are the only people who saw him were his fanatical disciples?

They weren’t. From the Gospel according to the four authors, this is the total list of those who witnessed Jesus Christ after His Resurrection:
(1) the Eleven Apostles
(2) Mary Magdalene
(3) the other Mary
(4) Joanna
(5) Cleopas
(6) an unnamed follower
(7) a group of unnamed women[/quote]

Okay. My bad. There were a couple of more. You’re missing the point here…

[quote]He could have marched into Jerusalem, said “ha!” to the Jewish priests, and done whatever Messiahs do.

Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy and gave no sign to unbelievers other than that of the prophet Jonah who was devoured by the whale but escaped after three days - His Resurrection. The fact His Body was no longer in the Tomb and the Pharisees were scrambling to concoct lies as part of their scheme for damage control speaks volumes. This was the “ha!”. As far as Jesus Christ doing what Messiahs do - why don’t you tell me what Messiahs do? Jesus Christ was not the earthly Messiah that you and the Jews envisioned; He’s the spiritual Messiah who paves the path to the kingdom of heaven. His next action was to strengthen the faith of His followers and to participate in the Ascension so He could send forth the Holy Spirit to empower His Apostles. This was the next “ha!”. The miracles His Apostles performed, the spreading of the Christian Faith, the conversion of the predominant populous of Jews - this was the ultimate “ha!”.[/quote]

Dude… wow. Okay, did Jesus come back to the world of the living or not? You say he rose from the grave, but then he’s nowhere to be found ANYWHERE (I can use bold text too hehe). What we have here is some dead guy that had his body vanish. Maybe it magically vanished or something? That makes sense.

[quote]Instead, we have a bunch of guys who try to keep the Jesus thing alive, even after he’s dead.

Instead we have His ten faithful Apostles being slaughtered one-by-one and the eleventh exiled to a foreign land because they testified of His Resurrection. They didn’t die simulatenously; they learned of each other’s tribulations yet endured in preaching what they witnessed despite ferocious persecution. Had they been scammers, they wouldn’t have risked their lives. Had they been suicidal maniacs, they would’ve ended their lives numerous years before suffering any horrifying torments. The bottom line is that the Apostles truly believed in what they were preaching as did the majority of the Jewish population in those days. The miracles (which you denounce) served to further enlarge and strengthen the flock of the newly converted.[/quote]

I got to tell you, you are fighting pretty hard against reality here. I’m sorry that the real world is so boring, but hey… it’s what we’ve got. Just off the top of my head, I can think of several explanations for the stories about the apostles doing what they did, and they have nothing to do with magic miracle super powers and witnessing some dead guy getting up out of his three day old grave and partying.

  1. The stories aren’t true. All we would need is a breakdown in truth at some point like say when the apostles were being tortured, and still claimed to have seen what they saw and it would stop if they told the truth, but they didn’t, so hey they must have been telling the truth. What if they were tortured, denounced their claims as frauds that they were, and the cruelty of their captors continued until they perished anyway? OR… What if they didn’t even die or were tortured like the stories said? What if that part is wrong?

  2. The apostles felt guilty about causing the death of their poor misguided friend Jesus, and made a promise to one another after they stole his body and destroyed it to never reveal their secret, even under torture (or maybe they did reveal it under torture and the torturers didn’t care anyway and killed them, and the fact that the torturers came out and might have said something like “I knew those dudes were lying, they just told me so” didn’t make it into the Holy Bible for obvious reasons).

  3. Why didn’t these assholes try to keep their friend from being crucified? Because they’re f’n crazy, that’s why! Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes. They wanted to believe so bad that he was God in the flesh that they went nuts after Jesus died and made up a whole bunch of crap like “I saw him risen, and so did so and so” when perhaps they were just drunk or something. And their anger and rebellion against the Jews that killed their dear friend drove them to preach in Jerusalem, of all places, about how the Jews were wrong, and their friend was indeed the God in the flesh risen from the dead, and when tortured about it, had the fuel of their hate to resist hot iron pokers and whatnot. You just have to really hate Jews and really be fanatical, and you could go through what those apostles did.

  4. I can keep going here if you want. Each of these are quite more believable than the stuff you claim is true. Honestly buddy, like pookie I admire your resolve too, even as I shake my head in disbelief at it.

601

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Bring it stellar. I’ll laugh. BTW, there’s no such thing as ghosts or witchcraft or possession by supernatural beings. I see crazy people literally every day. They foam at the mouth, scream incoherently, act f’d up when you interact with them.

One time a little while ago, one of our fun schizophrenic ladies had to be put in a padded quiet room because she hadn’t been taking her meds, and started to scream out “In JESUS NAME!!” over and over for twenty minutes straight. Nonstop. I shit you not.

I’ve seen the so-called “possesed”, stellar. You call them demons, I call it mental and emotional disfunction. The cool thing about demons is that they are amazingly vulnerable to anti-psychotic medicine. Funny huh? You don’t have to exorcise shit.[/quote]

Ask yourself two questions:
b[/b] Were there facilities like sanitariums 2,000 years ago?
b[/b] Did they have anti-psychotics like wellbutrin, lithium, seroquil, & prozac 2,000 years ago?

Despite the limited psychiatric options, somehow/someway humans were miraculously being healed of their psychological & emotional afflictions by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Jesus Christ was involved in carpentry while His Apostles were simple fishermen, nothing even remotely related to the field of psychology or psychiatry.

As far as what you consider to be the cause of psychological and emotional dysfunctions, I highly doubt you know more than some of today’s top-notch psychiatrists who are fighting to revamp the system because of its failure to effectively service mentally-ill populations (especially the schizophrenics):

[quote]
"[i]During this same period–the 1980s and 1990s-- the status of Biological Psychiatry began to rise meteorically. Unfortunately many of the critics of Freudianism, such as Crews, have accepted credulously the propaganda of biological psychiatry–particularly its fraudulent claim that it has been “scientifically” demonstrated that most of the problems in living experienced by individuals, particularly those with “serious mental illnesses”, are caused by “brain disorders.”

Yet as Valenstein (1998) has demonstrated there is no evidence to support the claim that most unhappiness or strange behavior (e.g. “schizophrenia”) is caused by brain disorders. The brain disease or chemical imbalance theory may sound more scientific than the idea of “mental illness” but it is based ultimately on the same false premise: that something is wrong with a person who is unhappy, that something must be wrong, that happiness is more “natural” than unhappiness, that the aspiring individual who is having problems and confronting obstacles in life must be damaged in some way. Once this premise is accepted it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., it generates “facts” that seem to support it but on closer examination lend themselves to a better explanation.

Furthermore, the pharmaceutical companies are able to devote billions of dollars to marketing, which includes buying–in effect-- psychiatrists who deliberately manipulate the research data to come up with conclusions that enable the drug companies to convince the FDA that their products are safe and effective–and thus to grant FDA authorization for their products (Kirkpatrick, 2000)."

Although the propaganda of the “psycho-pharmaceutical complex” (Breggin) has been debunked by Valenstein (1998) and Breggin (1991,1997), and a few others (including journalists), their criticisms seem to have little impact on the mental health professions. Breggin has written close to a a dozen books demonstrating the brain-damaging and brain- disabling effects of “anti-psychotic medication,” and the generally iatrogenic effects of subjecting children and adolescents (who do not manifest sufficient docility) to psychiatric drugs.[/i]"[/quote]

Demons have existed long before you were ever born and long before anti-psychotics were ever even imagined. Demons have the capacity to stir up behaviors in possessed individuals as well as to bring them back to catatonic states. Your observations on the mentally-ill populations may be simple forms of trickery. If demons will manifest as angels of the light to deceive the Saints, what makes you think they wouldn’t try to deceive you or anyone else in the medical community?

That’s not to say that certain medications don’t have their place, but to solely rely on the cause and effect principle of anti-psychotics on mentally-ill populations without regard for other factors in this thread is an inadequate presumption. Who’s to say that if some of the patients you referred to above underwent the ritual of exorcism that they wouldn’t be relieved of their mental-illnesses. Just throwing a few thoughts at you to ponder…

And likewise, your bravado is noteworthy when it comes to your willfullness to experience a demonic manifestation. Sheer folly to will yourself to encounter the darkness of the unknown. Nonetheless, may God’s will be done.