Some Anti-Theist Religious Bits & Pieces: Round Fourteen: Part One

Of all of those Big Questions axial to abstract concepts that beleaguer life, the cosmos and everything, the realms of canon and religions and the attributes of deities abide to fascinate. Opinions breed in books, articles, videos, conversations in confined and pubs, and in actuality anywhere and everywhere two or added bodies are in proximity. There’s the pro side; there’s the anti-side. There aren’t too abounding fence-sitters. I’m still in the anti-camp as the afterward $.25 and pieces illustrate.

Regarding Religion

*If you are religious but if you were not indoctrinated (i.e. – brainwashed) starting as a adolescent adolescent into your accepted religious acceptance system, again acquaint me with a beeline face that you, as a complete adult, afterwards any above-mentioned religious convictions, and afterwards any alien associate pressures, went arcade for your abandoned a lot of ambrosial casting of theology, and accepting begin same, adopted it. And bold you did the above, how do you now apperceive that you best the adapted one – bold that there is in actuality a adapted one out of the hundreds of variations on monotheism abandoned on tap?

*Having in altercation with a Christian is like arena chess with a pigeon. No amount how acceptable at chess you are the pigeon will just bits over the lath and strut about like they’ve won. [I apprehend this about but exact antecedent escapes me.]

Regarding Religion vs. Science

*I’ve been abreast that “There are aswell absorbing facts [in the Bible] in agreement of absolute and authentic accuracy”. My response: Is this like the authentic accurateness in the Bible that says that bats are in actuality birds; that ache is acquired by demons and angry spirits; that snakes / donkey can talk; that there’s a accord amid hair breadth and concrete strength; that abracadabra is authentic (water into wine); that there was a all-around flood – not; that you can actualize a woman from a macho rib; that the sun can angle still in the sky; that the Earth was created afore the Sun; that bodies can reside to be over 900 years old; that you can get abundant at 90; that there was an absolute abstinent birth; and of advance a Biblical favourite, Jonah and the ‘whale’ account – and that’s just abrading the apparent of authentic ‘accuracy’ in the Bible. And of advance the Bible is historically accurate, afterwards all it does acknowledgment Jericho and Egypt and Jerusalem, so acutely if these places are absolute actuality again aggregate in the Bible is historically accurate, at atomic according to Christian logic.

*I’ve been brought to assignment about the Biblical amount of Pi getting in fact 3.0. I’m told that “[T]he Bible never already speaks of pi.” This is true, but the abstracts by which you could account Pi could accept been a lot bigger had God, that airy abracadabra man in the sky agitated to adapt His own angelic book. In any event, if anyone can acquisition area to catechism one affair in any angelic book, including the Bible, and by god there are bags of ambiguous things therein, again Accurate Believers accept to be accessible absent abundant to catechism aggregate in their angelic book.

*Better to accept questions you can’t acknowledgment than answers you can’t question!

Regarding Acceptance & Belief

*I accept acceptance in those things I accept acceptance in.

*Faith is by analogue unprovable.

*True Believers may affirmation to accept absolute ‘knowledge’ that God exists as adjoin to just a amount of claimed acceptance or acceptance that God exists, but behindhand of the appellation used, Accurate Believers cannot back that ‘knowledge’ to me in such a way or anatomy that I can apart verify that ‘knowledge’ for myself. Therefore, their ‘knowledge’ is abandoned to me until such time as they can do just that. This inability; their abridgement to accord me ‘knowledge’ that I can apart verify, speaks volumes.

*Speaking of ‘knowledge’, I’ll accord Accurate Believers a believable acumen why they accept they accept ‘knowledge’ of God’s existence, the (near) accuracy of the Bible and in the absoluteness of a abnormal Jesus. It’s all because that was the canon that was accomplished in the ability / association / association / ancestors they were built-in and aloft into, although indoctrinated / brainwashed ability be added to the point and a added adapted term(s). Now Accurate Believers know, and I know, that had they been built-in and aloft in accession time and in accession abode their apostolic conduct would accept been acutely different. They’d bet the ancestors acreage on Ra, The Book of the Dead and on Horus. They’d accept acceptance in their ‘knowledge’ of the canon allotment and bindle of age-old Egypt and you readers apperceive this to be true.

*Just because Accurate Believers affirmation to accept some ‘knowledge’ of something (i.e. – God & Jesus) does not in and of itself; of necessity, accomplish that declared ‘knowledge’ correct. Abounding a getting has had ability that afterwards accepted wrong.

*You accept in God (or some added deity) and accept acceptance in God’s (or added deity’s) absolute existence. Alas, history is blowzy with at the time analytic (though I’m not assertive the God Hypothesis is a analytic one), but ultimately still apocryphal behavior and faiths. The accessible ones cover the Sun traveling about the Earth; the collapsed Earth; actuality be dragons, and should the Earth be a sphere, again acutely bodies will abatement off if they aberrate too far off from the vertical. But in addition, we had the ‘plum pudding’ archetypal of the atom (which morphed into the ‘solar system’ archetypal we apperceive today), we had the bogus canals on Mars; rockets than couldn’t plan in the exhaustion of space; the ‘fact’ that the beastly physique couldn’t bear velocities greater than 20 afar per hour; that the wireless (radio) had no applied use; at the a lot of the apple alone bare 2 or 3 computers; that amplitude flight was absolute bilge; bodies would never airing on the Moon; and the a-bomb wouldn’t work. Add to that assorted accepted beliefs, although not in fact disproved, are just not taken seriously, like Atlantis; astrometry and acceptable luck charms. To that I’d add God (or any added deity).

*It consistently seemed amoral to me that anyone could be denied conservancy not because of a moral failing, but because they artlessly disagreed about the affirmation for God. (via Michael Collett)

Regarding the End Times

*”The Bible is abounding of accomplished prophecy”, or so I’ve been told. I admiration if they beggarly something like the Second Coming that’s many, abounding centuries overdue.

Regarding Heaven & Hell

*Plate tectonics, sea-floor spreading, continental drift, alarm it what you will, all that geological action would appealing abundant abort the abstraction of an underground Hell. A absolute underground Hell would be appealing abundant ashamed out of absolute actuality in a adequately abbreviate aeon of time – geologically speaking. One acceptable convulsion or agitable access and it’s adieu Hell.

Regarding the Bible

*You can’t use what’s accounting in a book (like the Bible) to prove the accuracy of that book (like the Bible). You charge something that is alfresco of that book – absolute evidence.

*”[T]he Bible is something rather special” according to Accurate Christian Believers. But if you’re traveling to wax agreeable about your angelic book you’d bigger aboriginal appearance that all added angelic books are false. This Accurate Christian Believers accept not done. So, in case they weren’t already acquainted of the fact, their angelic book has lots of competition.

*Many say that “[T]he Bible contains no contradictions”. Angelic smoke, if you anticipate that again you just threw out the window whatever believability you had. There are absolute websites that account all of the Biblical contradictions (just do a Google search), of which from anamnesis there are over 600 of them (contradictions that is). For a abrupt overview…

- Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. Was it animals created afore man (Genesis 1: 24-25) or was it man created afore the animals (Genesis 2: 7 – man; Genesis 2: 19 – animals)?

- In Noah’s Ark, was it 2 brace of every affectionate of beastly (Genesis 6: 19-20; Genesis 7: 9; and Genesis 7: 15) aboard, or was it 7 pairs (as accompanying in Genesis 7: 2-3)?

- Is the beastly lifespan to be almost 120 years (Genesis 6: 3) or is it to be ‘three account years and ten’ (Psalm 90: 10)?

- Compare and adverse the description of the Ark of the Covenant as accustomed in Exodus 25: 10-22 which was allegedly complete by Bezaleel (Exodus 37: 1 and Exodus 38: 22) with the description accustomed in Deuteronomy 10: 3 which allegedly Moses made! Then, alive to the New Testament you accept a multi-lingual description of the inscription of what Jesus was accustomed aloft his cross. According to John 19: 19-20 the acclimation was Hebrew, Greek again Latin. But according to Luke 23: 38 the acclimation was Greek, Latin again Hebrew. Truly I say unto you that acutely the Biblical larboard duke does not apperceive what the Biblical adapted duke is on about!

- 1 Kings 5: 16 vs. 2 Chronicles 2: 2: How abounding bodies did Solomon apply to baby-sit his workers? Was it 3,600 or was it 3,300?

- 2 Chronicles 9: 25 vs. 1 Kings 4: 26: How abounding stalls did Solomon accept for his horses and chariots? Was it 40,000 or was it 4,000?

- Acts 1: 18 vs. Matthew 27: 6-7: It’s not bright who purchased a field. Was it “this man” or was it the “chief priests”?

- Now here’s a bucking if anytime there was one. According to 1 Corinthians 7: 1, “It is acceptable for a man not to blow a woman” (i.e. – no sex)! A man can accept a wife and a woman can accept a husband, but no touching! That getting the case, how do you “be abounding and multiply” (Genesis 1: 28; Genesis 9: 1)?

- Here’s accession Biblical bucking for you. Who begat Joseph, bedmate of Mary? If you apprehend Matthew 1: 16, it was Jacob. In John 4: 5 it was Jacob. But Luke 3: 23 says it was Heli who fathered Joseph. Who knows? Who absolutely cares?

*The Bible is just an album of appealing abundant different mythologies. Accurate Believers absolutely aren’t demography actively or in fact I achievement a talking snake; Jonah’s ‘whale’ of a tale; Noah’s Ark; agent amid demons and disease; or the accord amid hair breadth and concrete backbone – or are they?

*Anyone can address words in a book. Just because I apprehend a book in breakthrough physics doesn’t accomplish breakthrough physics true, about abundant I ability accept the author. But I can go out and do the abstracts / observations (or watch the abstracts getting done) and argue myself that breakthrough physics is absolutely accurate as the book and antecedent stated. That’s absolute verification. To date, no one has done that with the Bible.

*Here’s a Biblical analogy: I actual afresh watched the 15 adventure TV miniseries on DVD “North & South” – before, during and afterwards the American Civil War. Now about all of the locations area the belief yield abode in actuality exist. Abounding of the contest (i.e. – Civil War battles; Lincoln’s assassination, Harper’s Ferry, etc.) in actuality happened. Some of the acknowledging casting played absolutely absolute absolute characters like General Lee and General Grant and President Lincoln, etc. However, a few of the places, abounding of the events, and all of the above characters were absolutely fabricated up. Thus, “North & South” is a plan of absolute fiction so just because one abode / accident / appearance was absolute doesn’t construe into the absolute miniseries getting something a top academy apprentice could watch in alertness for an American history exam.

*I’ve been told that “[T]he Bible all credibility at a axial affair all throughout.” Yes it does. The axial affair consists of Godly crimes adjoin humanity.

Some Anti-Theist Religious Bits & Pieces: Round Fourteen: Part Two

Of all of those Big Questions axial to abstract concepts that beleaguer life, the creation and everything, the realms of canon and religions and the attributes of deities abide to fascinate. Opinions breed in books, articles, videos, conversations in confined and pubs, and in actuality anywhere and everywhere two or added bodies are in proximity. There’s the pro side; there’s the anti-side. There aren’t too abounding fence-sitters. I’m still in the anti-camp as the afterward $.25 and pieces illustrate.

Regarding God

*All of those ancestry commonly associated with God – omniscient; omnipotent; omni-benevolent; omni-temporal; all-knowing – aren’t in actuality listed or accustomed in the Bible. It’s all just authentic speculation.

*Now I don’t abandoned accord a rat’s abaft about what Accurate Believers accept and accurately the specific cast of celestial Christians subscribe to – what they anxiety God and what I anxiety the airy abracadabra man in the sky – a abracadabra man who Christians in actuality believes exists. What they accept is their business. But if they ambition to argue me about God’s reality, afresh they accept to accommodate complete affirmation that I can verify all by myself. Added to the point, they accept to arise up with something that constitutes affirmation that their God, and abandoned their God, and not some added cast of god(s), could or did do. That I’d advance is ‘Mission: Impossible’ aback they’ve yet to accumulation and hardcore affirmation for any deity, far beneath their own deity.

*God (or any added deity) needs to be accurate and not just asserted.

*Even proving the complete actuality of a abnormal Jesus doesn’t in and of itself prove the Christian God exists or existed. Finding the grave-sites and tombstones of Adam and Eve doesn’t prove God either, and so on Biblically speaking. The Bible is not affirmation for God. Your claimed airy experience(s) -if any – are not of any amount in proving to me that your God exists. Just apperception something is so – like God – doesn’t accomplish it so. Theological arguments (i.e. – angels and pinheads) are just that – arguments. So I allure readers to get aback to me if they can in actuality accommodate complete affirmation for their ‘True’ Beliefs, the array of affirmation that would be able in a attorneys balloon or in a arise accurate paper.

*No one has anytime accustomed me acceptable affirmation to accept the position that God or any added celestial in actuality exists. If they ambition to accept that God exists – fine. They say that there are acceptable rational $.25 and pieces that accreditation that acceptance – fine. They say that gives them complete ability of God’s actuality – fine. Now can they acquaint me what the affirmation is that they accept and which I can afar verify that convinces any of them that God exists and accordingly should argue me that their ‘True’ Behavior are in actuality true?

*I ability draw the absorption of Accurate Believers to the TV appearance “MythBusters”. There are in actuality hundreds and hundreds of behavior captivated by the abundant army – avant-garde day myths. You’ll agenda about in this affairs how all of these beliefs, all of these myths, are put to complete beginning tests in adjustment to accommodate complete affirmation which will affirm these belief as complete or plausible, or affirm that these belief are not accessible and not plausible. Experiment and evidence; something you cannot in actuality accommodate if it comes to the God myth. So God charcoal in beginning limbo-land. Of advance if God in actuality exists He could complete that quick-smart by accouterment His own affirmation and proving His own existence. The actuality that He doesn’t speaks volumes about the absoluteness of His complete existence.

*If anyone should anytime prove that God (of the Bible) in actuality exists, afresh He should be anon arrested, put on trial, appropriately appropriately bedevilled of accepting committed abundant crimes adjoin humanity, and executed.

*Now I realise that the apple is a complete alarming place, accordingly you feel complete afraid and abandoned and baby aural this sea of altruism that’s absolutely algid and aloof and blah about you. So, it’s no admiration that you accept to reside as abundant as accessible in a befuddlement wonderland inhabited by an airy abracadabra man in the sky, a Big Brother amount who will attending afterwards you.

*I adduce that God is in actuality a bewitched aerial blush albatross how farted the Creation into existence. Justification? We apperceive that farting exists, even in the beastly commonwealth (my bodies canyon wind for example); we apperceive that aerial exists, from insects to pterosaurs to birds to bats to airplanes; we apperceive that blush exists (quite afar from the entertainer); we apperceive that elephants abide too. So a aerial blush albatross that farted the Creation into actuality is way added rational that presupposing any airy abracadabra man in the sky did the accomplishment aback we accept no complete ability that such a architect celestial in actuality even exists.

*Some Godly Oops:

- God is hidden from our sight. Why? God doesn’t in actuality exist, IMHO.

- God abandoned appeared in one tiny bounded arena of the Earth. Why? The bodies who invented God in their own angel weren’t acquainted of any added geographies.

- God allows angry to happen. Why? This isn’t absolutely the botheration it is arise to be aback God is Himself a absolutely angry being, with added than able affidavit accustomed in the Old Testament.

- God isn’t an all-loving, omni-benevolent, all-just and all-merciful deity. Why? See the affair with angry anon above.

- God isn’t all-knowing. Why? God asks questions in the Bible (i.e. – of Adam & Eve for starters). In any event, if you’re an all-knowing getting afresh that abandoned robs you of your chargeless will.

- God isn’t all able aback it took Him an complete six ‘days’ to actualize life, the Creation and aggregate if He could accept done the aforementioned in just six nanoseconds. Further, that poor drained out and annoyed old physique had to blow on the seventh ‘day’.

Regarding God’s Conception & The Aboriginal Cause Argument

*God’s Declared Conception of the World: There is no accurate abstruseness about how the Earth came to be formed into existence, nor how the Sun and the blow of the solar arrangement arose. Akin for the accumulation and change of the Milky Way Galaxy and galaxies in general. The agent of our Creation happened aural the added catholic context, so in added words there was a afore the Big Bang. What the exact affairs were we don’t (yet) know, but the acknowledgment is “we don’t know”, not “God done it”. God is not the absence position anytime you arise above a accurate unknown. The abstraction of the ‘God of the gaps’ has been so debunked that no one absolutely takes that altercation actively anymore.

And again, and for the acutely millionth time I’ve declared this, from nothing, annihilation comes; abandoned from something does something come. You can’t create, not even in theory, something from nothing. Accordingly something has consistently existed and accordingly there is no charge for a creator. Even if there was a architect there’s no affirmation that it has to be the Christian God. Perhaps it was some added god(s) who is top dog in some added religious theology. No one has anytime explained why is has to be the Christian adaptation of a deity.

*I’m told that “[S]howing the analytic impossibility of an complete past, does NOT crave that I define the moment if it all began. As continued as I can appearance that it had to all activate at some point, my altercation for a Aboriginal Cause stands.” My acknowledgment is, if you ambition to in actuality prove the Aboriginal Cause altercation afresh in actuality actualize something from nothing. That’s complete science. Theoretical abstract arguments aren’t annual a brazier of discharge as complete affidavit of anything.

*But I’m told that conception can be pinpointed in time. “In any case, every atom of affirmation we accept indicates that the Creation began to abide 13.7 billion years ago, and we accept not a individual atom of affirmation that annihilation concrete existed above-mentioned to that.” My acknowledgment is, if you accept a stick of blast and you ablaze the agglutinate and it goes boom, there acutely was a before-the-boom. If you accept a Big Blast that kick-started off our Universe, there acutely had to accept been a before-the-bang. Something has to abide aboriginal that can go blast afore it in actuality goes bang. This is what is accepted in the barter as logic.

*Regarding the declared Aboriginal Cause, that is the conception of something from nothing, you might, as others have, be tempted to adduce physicist / cosmologist Lawrence Krauss’s book “A Creation from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing”. Firstly, it’s in actuality the explanation that is his capital theme, and secondly, there are lots of definitions of “nothing” and Krauss’s analogue doesn’t fit the Aboriginal Cause premise. By the by, Krauss is a accepted agnostic and a rather articulate one at that. Anyway, Krauss’s analogue of annihilation – and his book appellation was added acceptable as not called by the publishers, not the columnist – would be forth the afterward lines.

Go out center into amplitude amid the Earth and the Moon. Select some accidental cubic accent of that space. Now accomplish the afterward Thought Experiment” and abolish all particles (i.e. – electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc., including all aphotic amount – whatever that in actuality is if it absolutely is and is annihilation of actuality with structure) from your called cubic metre. Afresh akin that by removing all associated radiation (i.e. – photons) and fields (like alluring fields) and even the force complete therein (i.e. – gravitons). What’s larboard is nothing, but not an complete nothing, rather a accurate nothing. There is still a something larboard abaft – the Cosmological Constant, Quintessence, Aphotic Energy, the Vacuum Energy, the Quantum Jitters, or Quantum Fluctuations – anxiety it what you will, but the key chat is “energy”. Out of this energy, ‘virtual’ particles, a brace of amount – antimatter particles, can pop into and out of existence. So, something from nothing, yes? No. These ‘virtual’ particles are abandoned ‘virtual’ because they abide so complete briefly aback they anon abate aback into energy, aback into the complete activity they arose from in the aboriginal place. This is just an archetype of the activity that can aftermath amount constant with Einstein’s acclaimed blueprint apropos accumulation and energy. Energy, by whatever name you accept to anxiety it, is not annihilation in the accurate sense. So that’s Krauss’s adaptation of ‘nothing’. About the ‘nothingness’ of the amplitude complete therein the Vacuum Activity or Quantum Fluctuations can circling out of ascendancy and actualize out of that activity a Creation from acutely ‘nothing’.

Not even Krauss explains area the Vacuum Activity (or accompanying synonyms) comes from added than it would arise as if this activity were an built-in and not disposable allotment or acreage of amplitude itself. So to accomplish a accompaniment of complete pettiness you’d charge to abolish the ‘nothingness’ of amplitude itself from our cubic accent of pettiness space.

My use of the chat “nothing” eliminates even this activity from our cubic accent of space. Why there is no complete way of accomplishing this, any added than you can abolish force or allure from aural that cubic metre, if there was a Aboriginal Cause afresh there could not accept existed at all aural that cubic accent aback there wasn’t any cubic beat for annihilation to accept resided in above-mentioned to a Aboriginal Cause. So Krauss is of no advice in accouterment you with a Aboriginal Cause scenario.

The abandoned botheration with this book is that the abstinent amount of the Vacuum Activity (or accompanying synonyms) is 120 orders of consequence beneath than that which is affected theoretically. That is the affliction alterity amid ascertainment and approach anytime recorded in the complete history of physics so something is aberrant somewhere! Until this alterity is resolved, I’ll just assets judgement on Krauss’s (and others) Creation from ‘nothing’ (which is still something).

Regarding God’s Intelligent Design

*God’s Declared Intelligent Architecture and Fine-Tuning for Life: Firstly, 99.99999% of the Creation is not advised or fine-tuned for activity (as we apperceive it). Accidental adventitious ability acquaint annual for why just a tiny, tiny, tiny abridged of the Creation is bio-friendly. Post abiogenesis, Darwinian / biological evolution, accustomed alternative and that old adage ‘survival of the fittest’ added than abundantly explains biological design. As for animal analysis or anatomy, if God advised the animal physique afresh He messed it up Big Time. God acutely bootless Bio-engineering 101.

In any event, aback the added creation has consistently existed, accordingly the laws, attempt and relationships allotment and bindle of the concrete sciences and that creation has consistently existed and they just are what they are aback afterwards all they accept to accept some amount or configuration. The duke you get dealt from a accouter of able-bodied confused cards isn’t fine-tuned or designed. It just is what it is. Now whether or not the laws, attempt and relationships allotment and bindle of the concrete sciences could accept been added than what they are, we don’t know. But the acknowledgment is, yet again, “we don’t know”, not “God advised and fine-tuned aggregate so that things angry out the way they did”.

Regarding Jesus

*According to some “[T]here is able affirmation for the actuality of Jesus; NOT just in the Bible, as you claimed. Abounding non-Biblical sources from complete abreast his time accurately acknowledgment him and his followers.” That’s of advance a nice accepted across-the-board annual afterwards in actuality accouterment any specifics that I could afar verify. By the way, “very abreast his time” is not the aforementioned as ‘his time’ and advertence his followers is not complete affirmation of him any added than advertence Lois Lane is affirmation for Superman.

*”But Jesus is annihilation like Superman (for which there is, obviously, aught evidence)” is the accessible counter. But neither is there any affirmation for a abnormal Jesus. The Bible is just a book and anyone can address words in a book about whatever they like.

*Further, some say that “[T]here is affirmation that the Gospel writers were aeon both chronologically and geographically to the contest they wrote about.” Alas, a lot of Biblical advisers would not accede with you at atomic about the time frame. The gospels were accounting abounding decades afterwards the fact. Just do a Google search. I’ve already accepted this on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Further, boilerplate in the gospels will you acquisition any anecdotal that the authors of the gospels anytime met or talked to Jesus.

*Can Accurate Christian believers adduce for me at atomic one inscription or certificate – NOT the Bible – that has been anachronous and accurate to the era amid 1 AD and say 50 AD, an inscription or certificate that mentions Jesus, abnormally a abnormal Jesus, one who performed miracles and who was adored from the dead? Can they do that? If not afresh they should just accumulate quiet about the actuality of abreast affirmation for the complete actuality of Jesus.

Because here’s the point. Did any of the declared (500 or so) assemblage (1 Corinthians 15: 6) to the adored Jesus, or any of the women or any of the aggregation who saw an activated adaptation of him post-crucifixion anytime pen their own aboriginal getting annual of this miracle? The acknowledgment is an complete “no”.

*What about Josephus? Josephus wasn’t built-in until after-the-fact (37 AD – 100 AD). He makes no acknowledgment of Jesus until about 93-94 AD in his “Antiquities of the Jews”, declining to acknowledgment Jesus in beforehand works, and afresh gives abandoned two abrupt mentions which accept becoming abundant bookish agitation (i.e. – not anybody is assertive of the actuality of what Josephus allegedly wrote. Further, there are no originals – of course. The ancient copies date to the 11th Century, so we’re ambidextrous with copies of copies of copies; translations of translations of translations. Who can absolutely say what alterations were or ability accept been fabricated by those Christian monks into whose affliction was placed the accordant Josephus manuscript?

Even if admitting all of the copies and all of the translations and all of the opportunities for those with vested interests to add and/or decrease from what Josephus wrote, what Josephus wrote abandoned gives complete believability to Jesus the bitter person, not Jesus the abnormal being.

So Christians can bluster and babble all they ambition but to date no one has anytime accurate that Jesus anytime existed via a abreast with – but not in – any complete Biblical source.

*Despite the above, some affirmation that ‘[T]here is able complete affirmation for Jesus’ awakening from the dead.” Afresh we accept a across-the-board annual afterwards specifics. Even if that’s the case, I’d anticipate that the affirmation was in the anatomy of science fantasy or complete fiction. You belittle the ability of the animal acuteness and of our charge for storytelling. How you can analyze actuality from fiction in any accounting annual from 2000 years ago that relates abnormal contest is above me. You can’t go aback and catechism the witnesses, and cameras and band recorders and added accurate chart didn’t abide aback then. It’s all rather capricious beholder affidavit which no best can be put on balloon for cross-examination. And I appropriately agenda that Hercules was aswell resurrected, but I don’t see you announcement that resurrection. Picking and allotment are we? Sorry, there’s the aforementioned abridgement of reliable affirmation for Jesus as there is for Hercules.

*More About the Declared Awakening of Jesus: I don’t apperceive how abounding times I accept to point this out but there is no added complete source(s) of any affectionate that dates aback to if Jesus allegedly existed and was arrogant his being that in actuality mentions him. The Bible and abandoned the Bible mentions him and gives him ‘reality’ and even Biblical texts weren’t abreast with the complete time of Jesus. And if Jesus existed just because the Bible says so, afresh by affinity Big Brother accept to abide (or accept existed) just because George Orwell’s “1984″ says he did. It is accordingly reasonable to be sceptical about the complete actuality of Jesus. Further, all of those “Jesus said” quotes are artificial unless Christians can name the scribes who wrote down his words, sermons and conversations.

*The declared awakening of Jesus is a accurate impossibility – already you’re dead, you’re asleep – unless you’re a science fiction or fantasy or abhorrence biographer / author. Oh, by the way, are all those zombies still walking about Jerusalem as accompanying in the New Testament? Of advance we’d all apperceive all about the absoluteness of Jesus if abandoned he’d acknowledgment – as promised – what Christians anxiety the Second Coming. Alas, it appears he accept to accept abandoned to set his anxiety alarm for he’s now many, abounding centuries backward for his encore.

*A complete Jesus, even a complete adored Jesus still says annihilation about the absoluteness of God’s existence. God’s actuality and the actuality of Jesus are two abstracted and afar capacity and the absoluteness of one has no causal address on the absoluteness of the other. In conclusion, Jesus is not anyone who is afar complete and appropriately Jesus is not affirmation for anything.

*Christian theists do go on, and on, and on, and on, and on about all of this affirmation for the actuality of a abnormal Jesus and a adored Jesus. Yet two of the three above monotheistic religions accord the abstraction of a abnormal / adored Jesus the complete thumbs down. So why doesn’t the Christian theist’s declared affirmation for Jesus cut any ice with the Accurate Believers allotment and bindle of these two added above faiths? Methinks something is absolute aberrant with declared affirmation as accustomed by Christian theists – like it doesn’t in actuality even exist.