Why did the earth go dark after Jesus the Christ was crucified?
2789847
2012/05/21 04:06:44
|
|
|||||
|
193 votes
|
|
61% | |||
|
121 votes
|
|
39% | |||
Top Opinion
-
idk, maybe Coincidence
+15NOT a coincidence, there was an earthquake also, the Temple's big curtain split in two, and graves opened, what do you expect, the son of God died!!! I think it was a natural reaction of a Father watching his Son die...
There is no coinciedence with God
I am using a pillow where you are using a sledge hammer.
I am not condemning either your stance or your delivery. I completely understand where you are coming from. It is simply not the place where I am coming from.
And, yes, I am confrontational. I am strongly opposed to the poison of Christianity in the government of the US. I don't really care what they believe. They can worship the lint in their navels, for all of me. But, I want them out of my government. I want their fairy tale off of my money. I want their Houses of Fantasy and the sellers of smoke to have to pay taxes, just as the rest of us have to do. I want judges and politicians to start being elected because they know what they are doing and not because they pimp to the lemmings.
And, if stirring things up a bit helps, at all, I'll continue to do it. Christianity has had too many millennia of "Ooh" and "Aah" and needs to realize that you don't get respect because you have an invisible friend. You get psychotropic medications.
Besides...it's fun to poke them.
(Thanks for explaining your side. It's probably better to have more honeybees than wasps.)
Faith isn't a mystery. The "necessity" of faith is an invention of religious leaders to keep the punters coming in.
The love is definitely NOT unconditional. The ideology is "Believe or burn."
Goodwill, Medicaid, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, etc... all work on the same "ideology" you have passive-agressively crticized. They all have one thing in common, their aid/help/love is unconditional, but to receive it's benefits you must enter their doors.
For those that think Christianity requires some rule or regulation added to your life, think again. That concept is wrong for three reasons:
1.) Hebrews Chapter 10 and John Chapter 5 explain the covenant, by example, in which all things are allowed. Rules made by men are nonsensical and bear no weight on your relationship with God.
2.) There is only one "condition" that must be met, and that is simply to accept(John 3:16). Anything else should be regarded as a means to "take your spiritual temperature" and applies only to you. This is also amplified by the passage in Matthew Chapter 7 which warns us not to "Judge" others, for God alone has the authority to judge, and will apply to you what you have decided is your "right" to apply to others.
3.)...
Goodwill, Medicaid, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, etc... all work on the same "ideology" you have passive-agressively crticized. They all have one thing in common, their aid/help/love is unconditional, but to receive it's benefits you must enter their doors.
For those that think Christianity requires some rule or regulation added to your life, think again. That concept is wrong for three reasons:
1.) Hebrews Chapter 10 and John Chapter 5 explain the covenant, by example, in which all things are allowed. Rules made by men are nonsensical and bear no weight on your relationship with God.
2.) There is only one "condition" that must be met, and that is simply to accept(John 3:16). Anything else should be regarded as a means to "take your spiritual temperature" and applies only to you. This is also amplified by the passage in Matthew Chapter 7 which warns us not to "Judge" others, for God alone has the authority to judge, and will apply to you what you have decided is your "right" to apply to others.
3.) With Christianity being one of the most widespread religions in the world, every Christian should take head of what Matthew 7:13 says "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
Before you can use the Bible as an authority for anything you must (in this order):
1. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that any god exists in reality.
2. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible exists.
3. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible wanted to communicate with his/her/its followers.
4. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible influenced humans to be the mediums of that communication.
5. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the humans who actually wrote the Bible were the same humans the god chose as mediums of communication.
6. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the Bible is the book that resulted from those chosen humans.
7. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the words they wrote were at divine behest by showing each and every word as absolutely correct. (Unless you want to stipulate that a god would deliberately choose to allow falsehood to be communicated in his/her/its name.)
It's only when you can do ALL of ...
Before you can use the Bible as an authority for anything you must (in this order):
1. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that any god exists in reality.
2. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible exists.
3. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible wanted to communicate with his/her/its followers.
4. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the god of the Bible influenced humans to be the mediums of that communication.
5. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the humans who actually wrote the Bible were the same humans the god chose as mediums of communication.
6. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the Bible is the book that resulted from those chosen humans.
7. Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the words they wrote were at divine behest by showing each and every word as absolutely correct. (Unless you want to stipulate that a god would deliberately choose to allow falsehood to be communicated in his/her/its name.)
It's only when you can do ALL of the above that you can use the Bible as an authority. Otherwise, it's just a book.
I could use Clement Moore's poem as "proof" that Santa Claus exists. The poem describes Santa's looks in great detail. (His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry! His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow and the beard on his chin was as white as the snow...
He had a broad face and a little round belly, That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly. He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf...)
*Nothing similar exists for Jesus.
It describes his magical behavior. It describes the magical transportation he uses. We have the names of his 8 flying reindeer. It even shows what kind of magical person he is, personally. (A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.) *How different from the Bible god.
And, this poem is not anonymous...as are the books of the Bible. We have the name of the author. We have the author claiming to have been an eye-witness.
Why should we not accept Santa Claus as real?
The questions I ask people who do not believe are:
1.) Why is it such a bad thing that someone believes in God?
2.) How does it impact you, if someone believes in a higher power and you don't, especially when they are not thrusting their opinion on you?
3.) Why it is so important for a non-believer to interject their arrogance against believers when the non-believer wasn't invited into the conversation.
In the same manner as you request, (and to paraphrase with your words)
a:) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God DOES NOT exist.
b.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible DOES NOT exist
c.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible wanted to communicate with his/her/its followers DID NOT HAPPEN
d.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible DID NOT influence humans to be the mediums of that communication.
e.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the humans who actually wrote the Bible ...
The questions I ask people who do not believe are:
1.) Why is it such a bad thing that someone believes in God?
2.) How does it impact you, if someone believes in a higher power and you don't, especially when they are not thrusting their opinion on you?
3.) Why it is so important for a non-believer to interject their arrogance against believers when the non-believer wasn't invited into the conversation.
In the same manner as you request, (and to paraphrase with your words)
a:) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God DOES NOT exist.
b.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible DOES NOT exist
c.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible wanted to communicate with his/her/its followers DID NOT HAPPEN
d.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that God in the Bible DID NOT influence humans to be the mediums of that communication.
e.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the humans who actually wrote the Bible were the same humans God chose as mediums of communication, DID NOT HAPPEN.
f.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the Bible is NOT the book that resulted from those chosen humans.
g.) Demonstrate, with neutral, scholarly evidence, that the words they wrote were NOT at divine behest by showing each and every word as absolutely INcorrect. (Unless you want to stipulate that God would NOT deliberately choose to allow falsehood to be communicated in HIS name.) When you do this, you will have your answers to the contrary.
In my opinion, If I had to sum this up. Jesus was tested in his life much more in his life than anyone has ever experienced in the modern world, as were the 12 Apostles, Joseph, Job, Mary, et al.
The small minds of people who wish to thrust their Atheism on others is small test in comparison to what Jesus had to contend with. After all he died for our sins.
As for a belief in Santa Claus, you may want to look at your history books. Santa Claus did exist as St. Nicholas of Myra, otherwise known as Sinterklaas, who donated gifts to impoverished families and supplied dowries to poor families so that the daughters did not become prostitutes. He was very religious from an early age and he was a Bishop that had a long white beard. So if you are looking for proof of Santa Claus, there it is. (and I have always found the comparison of Santa Claus to God a ridiculous comparison, as it shows how immature the discussion has become, since St. Nicholas was a man of God, a believer.)
Also, if you are an Atheist, a rejection of God, your very premise is to disprove that of which you don't believe in. That lends itself to the belief that you would have to believe in the existence of something to prove that it is false.
In the first place, you cannot demonstrate a universal negative. According to your way of thinking, you MUST believe that I have an invisible, miniature pink unicorn in my pocket simply because you cannot demonstrate that it isn't there. You MUST believe in all the gods and goddesses of antiquity because you cannot demonstrate that they are not reality. You MUST believe in Santa Claus simply because you cannot demonstrate that he doesn't exist. You MUST believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny because of the criteria YOU set...all by yourself.
In the second place, the person making the claims is the person who must demonstrate those claims to be reality. I can claim to have supernatural powers but anyone who believes me, without evidence, is unable to think.
You make a claim that a god exists, that it is male, that it is the god described in the Bible, that it sired a half-divine son on a girl too young to safely carry a child and that it interests itself in human behavior. So...it is YOUR job to show these claims to be reality or else to stand, naked and ashamed, branded as a liar.
I make NO clai...
In the first place, you cannot demonstrate a universal negative. According to your way of thinking, you MUST believe that I have an invisible, miniature pink unicorn in my pocket simply because you cannot demonstrate that it isn't there. You MUST believe in all the gods and goddesses of antiquity because you cannot demonstrate that they are not reality. You MUST believe in Santa Claus simply because you cannot demonstrate that he doesn't exist. You MUST believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny because of the criteria YOU set...all by yourself.
In the second place, the person making the claims is the person who must demonstrate those claims to be reality. I can claim to have supernatural powers but anyone who believes me, without evidence, is unable to think.
You make a claim that a god exists, that it is male, that it is the god described in the Bible, that it sired a half-divine son on a girl too young to safely carry a child and that it interests itself in human behavior. So...it is YOUR job to show these claims to be reality or else to stand, naked and ashamed, branded as a liar.
I make NO claims. None. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada. I'm perfectly happy to accept the reality of any god as soon as I'm given neutral, scholarly and definitive evidence of such. In the meantime, I just sit here, munching my potato chips, sipping my water, saying...
Show me.
I won't argue the existence of God with you, but I will argue that the beliefs contained in the Bible (true or not) support themselves.
Three talking points that may help you in gaining ground against a Christian are listed below so that you are not at a disadvantage when arguing scripture.
1: The books of the Bible are not Anonymous. Stating that already puts you at a disadvantage by forcing an irrelevant point into the arguement
2: The books themselves and the surrounding historical evidence have proven the existence of the man, Jesus, far better than, any historical evidence has proven, the basis behind the Odessy characters, many scholars accept as factual persons set to a mythical story. Is he the son of a God? That's obviously debatable.
3: The Bible is an authority on the beliefs held by Christians, whether you accept that or not, and should be used to argue for or against it. Without it, there is no sounding board for debate.
*****You were trying to prove that my claims were false. I demonstrated the flaws in your thinking. And, the love you say is unconditional is, most definitely, not. The motto of the god of Christianity could be, "Believe or burn." If you have to do something...anything...to win love then that love is not unconditional. It especially heinous because no one can force themselves to believe anything.
"I won't argue the existence of God with you,"
*****Because you can't.
"but I will argue that the beliefs contained in the Bible (true or not) support themselves."
*****No. They don't. What Christians call the "Old Testament" is a late-written, later-compiled mixture of bad science, mediocre poetry, inaccurate history and soft-core porn. They have internal contradictions almost beyond number. The "New Testament" exists only to sell Jesus as a god. It has this agenda and no other. The Synoptic gospels are copies of each other and of a version now lost. Even with...
*****You were trying to prove that my claims were false. I demonstrated the flaws in your thinking. And, the love you say is unconditional is, most definitely, not. The motto of the god of Christianity could be, "Believe or burn." If you have to do something...anything...to win love then that love is not unconditional. It especially heinous because no one can force themselves to believe anything.
"I won't argue the existence of God with you,"
*****Because you can't.
"but I will argue that the beliefs contained in the Bible (true or not) support themselves."
*****No. They don't. What Christians call the "Old Testament" is a late-written, later-compiled mixture of bad science, mediocre poetry, inaccurate history and soft-core porn. They have internal contradictions almost beyond number. The "New Testament" exists only to sell Jesus as a god. It has this agenda and no other. The Synoptic gospels are copies of each other and of a version now lost. Even with copying, they contradict each other in basic, substantive ways.
"Three talking points that may help you in gaining ground against a Christian are listed below so that you are not at a disadvantage when arguing scripture.
1: The books of the Bible are not Anonymous. Stating that already puts you at a disadvantage by forcing an irrelevant point into the arguement"
*****No. It doesn't. ALL the books of the Bible are anonymous. There is no way to tell who actually wrote them. The Council of Nicea decided which of the gospels were "inspired" by polling the members and seeing which ones were told as church stories on Sundays. Out of over 100, they chose the 4 most popular. They, arbitrarily assigned an author to these works. Anonymity and inspiration-by-committee-vote is what produced the New Testament. Your knowledge of the Bible needs some work.
"2: The books themselves and the surrounding historical evidence have proven the existence of the man, Jesus, far better than, any historical evidence has proven, the basis behind the Odessy characters, many scholars accept as factual persons set to a mythical story. Is he the son of a God? That's obviously debatable."
*****No. They aren't. There isn't one, single, solitary piece of evidence that the man whose name is now transliterated as "Jesus" ever put a sandalled foot on Planet Earth. He is never mentioned outside of the Bible. NONE of the miracles claimed for him were mentioned outside of the Bible. NONE of the astronomical happenings attributed to his presence on earth were mentioned outside of the Bible. This, in spite of the fact that several cults who made a religion of astronomy existed around and among the Israelites. The supposed historical facts were ignored by the several historians in the area at the time. There is nothing. Nothing at all.
"3: The Bible is an authority on the beliefs held by Christians, whether you accept that or not, and should be used to argue for or against it. Without it, there is no sounding board for debate."
Which beliefs and which Christians? There are thousands of Christian sects, all believing that the Bible says things that support them and proves the others wrong. Unless you, or anyone else, can verify that the Bible has any connection to a god, you cannot argue that it is proof of the existence of a god. The sounding board is riddled with termites.
I can write a book telling that the invisible, miniature pink unicorn that lives in my pocket says that the world will never end and that, in 2032 1/2 (on June 15th at noon) the world will suddenly blossom into a paradise with food for everyone, streets of platinum, houses of never-dying cedarwood and we will all live happily ever after. Given the Inet, I might even get some people to believe me. Will you? After all, you have the exact same amount of evidence for the claims in my book as you have for the Bible.
Minus the child rape and soft-core porn, of course. My unicorn isn't into that stuff.
Two: Again, I am not debating the existence of God. Why do you riddle your dissertation with repeated claims that he dosen't exist? That's not the point here, nor am I arguing it.
Three: The process by which you break down the logic of the existence of the Bible and Jesus is also the same process by which we have asserted our claims about other things in history. Those astrology faith persons you keep babbling about? They are evidenced by the same methods: Late written texts that account for the history of a people, with supposed authors. For the Record, when a person identified once as the leader of a group, via his letters, is again identified to have a corresponding name in other texts as being the leader during a certain time period, that makes the link!
EX: "Here we have a letter written by the Praetor of Rome, announcing a conspiracy against himself by an aedilus" (we truly have little of this letter left to go by)
"And over here we have a record of Praetors stating that Cicero was elected in 63 BC"
"And here we have a Roman Consul, 100 years later, discussing the threat of overthrowing the government as was nearly accomplished in 64BC, harkening Catiline of Old"
AND THAT'S HOW WE KNOW THAT CICERO BLAMED CATALINE FOR A CONSP...
Two: Again, I am not debating the existence of God. Why do you riddle your dissertation with repeated claims that he dosen't exist? That's not the point here, nor am I arguing it.
Three: The process by which you break down the logic of the existence of the Bible and Jesus is also the same process by which we have asserted our claims about other things in history. Those astrology faith persons you keep babbling about? They are evidenced by the same methods: Late written texts that account for the history of a people, with supposed authors. For the Record, when a person identified once as the leader of a group, via his letters, is again identified to have a corresponding name in other texts as being the leader during a certain time period, that makes the link!
EX: "Here we have a letter written by the Praetor of Rome, announcing a conspiracy against himself by an aedilus" (we truly have little of this letter left to go by)
"And over here we have a record of Praetors stating that Cicero was elected in 63 BC"
"And here we have a Roman Consul, 100 years later, discussing the threat of overthrowing the government as was nearly accomplished in 64BC, harkening Catiline of Old"
AND THAT'S HOW WE KNOW THAT CICERO BLAMED CATALINE FOR A CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT!! According to you, each of those that was anonymous/author unknown, can't be linked to supporting documents! It must all be false because the link is over 100 years later!
Four: The bible is not the only place that Jesus is mentioned, also John the Baptist , Saul who has an employment record, Barrabas whose name can't be confirmed, but his criminal record and subsequent release in favor of the radical leader of "a new sect of Jews" to be crucified, is on record in old Roman files belonging to Pilat.
I'm probably wasting my time here, as you seem to have the corner on all things true. According to you, none of the Bible holds truth in regards to the history of a people. It is all made up. If that's how you FEEL, then I can't get you to objectify a discussion. Logic is lost on you.....
B. It's ASTRONOMY...not Astrology. Astrology is bat guano. The cuneiform tablets from cults (like the cult of Marduk) aren't trying to prove that Marduk exists. They already believed that.
They simply note astronomical happenings which they then interpret as "omens". We can discount the "omens" but there is no reason to discount a bald statement that the "morning star (we call it the planet Venus) rose three degrees west of its usual place in the heavens". That was something they actually SAW. What they did with that fact, afterward, doesn't change the reality of the sighting.
C. There is nothing, not a single thing, about Jesus outside of the Bible. Not a mention. Not a whisper. Nothing. Until I see some neutral, scholarly, contemporaneous evidence, I have no reason to believe that the man whose name is transliterated as "Jesus" ever existed.
I just sit here and say, "Show me."
What "people" are you referring to? (just asking)
And for the record...
- Astrology:
Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Not to be confused with Astronomy.
There was a people called "Egypt", at the same time. Unlike the Israelites, who didn't get around to writing their scriptures for a thousand years, the Egyptians wrote down, in exquisite detail, the name, number, character and characteristics of their gods. Are you saying that, because the Egyptians existed, their gods were real?
That does seem to be the burden of your argument,
Nor am I saying that the Hebrew God was real.
What's your problem???
My question about people was in reference to you saying "You people amuse me"
Why do you insult me with the following if you are not angry?:
- I only pat little children on the head.
-Minus the child rape and soft-core porn, of course. My unicorn isn't into that stuff.
-The Bible is just an infomercial to sell a god and its claims are as valid as the claims for Ginsu knives.
Forthwith, I will assume that your response will be about me being too sensitive and you not wanting to degrade yourself by responding.
Will I be wrong or right or neither?
There is child-rape and porn in the Bible and I'll be absolutely delighted to provide the references, if you are interested. My invisible, miniature pink unicorn doesn't order children passed out like Fritos.
That's the purpose of the Bible. The OT does more in that it also exists to provide Jews with ethnic cohesion but the New Testament exists only to sell Jesus. It has no other purpose.
1 Corinthians 9:20 - "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law...". The constant reiteration (and copying) of the gospels, particularly the Synoptic gospels, demonstrates that there is no other purpose except to present "Jesus" as a god.
They're selling him.
I would like the references to Child rape and porn in the Bible though, for I fear that you have also misrepresented those to others just as you have misrepresented the passage from Corinthians. (or I misunderstand you?)
Do you realize that Corinthians is the Letter from Paul to the Church in Corinth? It is not some quotation of Jesus, it is Paul telling the church there that in order to find common ground and mutual respect, he had to follow the customs of the people he lived amongst. That was how he was able to preach. Rather than nitpicking the differences in custom, he adopted them. Also, he lays out some good advice for living in peace, as that is the overtone of the whole letter anyway.
Unconditional love is affection without any limitations. Just as a parent to child.
Prayer has no power in reality. It is like the blankie of a toddler...useful to make a baby feel safe but of no real protection. Under scientific conditions, prayer was demonstrated to have results no greater than chance.
Parents often don't love their children. Parents too often beat, starve, humiliate and kill their children. Some of them claim to be following the Bible when they do this and, lo and behold, they are right! Whooda guessed? A love that REQUIRES faith with the punishment of eternal torture if you don't believe is not love. And, it is most definitely NOT unconditional.
Especially as faith is not something you can force. No one can MAKE themselves believe in something. Can you convert to Islam...just because a Muslim said you'd die eternally if you don't? Think about that. Can you MAKE yourself become a Muslim? Can you make yourself believe in the reality of invisible, miniature pink unicorns? How about the reality of Santa Claus? If you don't believe in him, you won't g...
Prayer has no power in reality. It is like the blankie of a toddler...useful to make a baby feel safe but of no real protection. Under scientific conditions, prayer was demonstrated to have results no greater than chance.
Parents often don't love their children. Parents too often beat, starve, humiliate and kill their children. Some of them claim to be following the Bible when they do this and, lo and behold, they are right! Whooda guessed? A love that REQUIRES faith with the punishment of eternal torture if you don't believe is not love. And, it is most definitely NOT unconditional.
Especially as faith is not something you can force. No one can MAKE themselves believe in something. Can you convert to Islam...just because a Muslim said you'd die eternally if you don't? Think about that. Can you MAKE yourself become a Muslim? Can you make yourself believe in the reality of invisible, miniature pink unicorns? How about the reality of Santa Claus? If you don't believe in him, you won't get presents under your tree. So...you need to force yourself to believe in jolly ol' St. Nick.
I've read and studied the Bible way more than most of the Christians who debate me. For bibliolaters, they have a disturbing lack of knowledge of what they worship. I didn't cherry-pick the touchy-feely verses that made me feel good about myself. I read it. Cover to cover. Four times. The last time I took notes.
Reading the Bible is what made me an atheist.
In fact, an adult who claims the need for an overseeing deity is admitting to never having matured, mentally and psychologically. Piaget demonstrated that only children under 6 or 7 *require* the oversight of an adult. After that, they internalize their society's mores and start exercising self-direction. Those who can't behave without a fear of damnation are simply pre-schoolers in adult bodies.
I consider teaching children any religion as child abuse and I consider it worse than child porn. A victim of sexual abuse can be shown that they are a victim and helped to overcome it. A victim of religious abuse finds society in league with his abusers.
I expected nothing better.