Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Dubious]

Consider your situation carefully. It matters very little what you think of me. It matters absolutely what you think of Him.

It matters not in the least what we think of Him since his sermons were meant for Jews ONLY, not for any exterior personnel. Jesus was just as tribalistic as the prophets of the OT... written by Jews for Jews and no one else. Jesus, this 'Son of God' had no respect for Gentiles. Also, it would be a miracle if the Romans in Judea wouldn't have noticed Him wandering around after the crucifixion. Had that happened the consequent disbelief especially by the Romans would have been recorded especially by someone like Josephus.

Again, if it weren't for Paul, your 'Son of God' would have been a historical non-entity. To have made a 'God' out of such an insignificant and minute affair is a perfect example, a virtual index of how intensely irrational the human brain can get.

No amount of logic however brilliant can morph a human into a God ... except for entertainment purposes.

[Obvious Leo]

It is quite impossible that Christ himself ever claimed to be the son of god. This was obviously an after-market embellishment because if this were the case he would have been tried in a Jewish court instead of a Roman one. The Romans were scrupulous about never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. In a Jewish court he would have been guilty of blasphemy, for which he would have been stoned to death by Jews and not by Romans. Crucifixion was a punishment which the Romans reserved for political crimes which were not committed by Romans and was intended to remind the locals of who was boss. Christ was a very pious Jew and he was crucified for fomenting insurrection by chucking the money-lenders out of god's temple. The last thing the Romans needed was a popular and charismatic figure stirring up trouble in such an insignificant backwater of the empire so to them the execution of Christ was a routine administrative matter of only minor importance. Saul of Tarsus was the bloke who saw it as an opportunity to corrupt the simple message which Christ was attempting to convey to his people. All he ever wanted was for them to be better Jews.

[Immanuel Can]

It matters not in the least what we think of Him ...

Well, we'll see, won't we...

Or rather, if you're right you'll never see, since you'll just be forever committed to the black, null pit of Materialist extinction: so you're unlikely to have the pleasure of saying, "I told you so." And I wouldn't be around to hear it, would I?

But what if I'm right? How does your future work out for you then?

Now, just how much are you willing to wager on this confidence of yours, that you can insult the Resurrected One with impunity, and it will never come back to bite you? Would you wager everything?

Because that is precisely what you're doing at the moment.

It's a reality you can deny; it's not one you can escape.

Or as the Word of God puts it, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

You're supposed to learn something from that. God help you if you don't.

[Immanuel Can]

Ahhh. Wholesomeness.

You like music, do you? Well, I know yours very well. I've heard it many times.

Have you got what it takes to listen to mine?

I'll let The Man In Black say it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

[Dubious]

...if you're right you'll never see, since you'll just be forever committed to the black, null pit of Materialist extinction

This reeks too much of a medieval hell ridden sentiment. We will merely be returning to that timeless state from whence we came. I don't recall having come from some black, null pit of Materialist extinction. Neither can you or anyone else.

Now, just how much are you willing to wager on this confidence of yours, that you can insult the Resurrected One with impunity, and it will never come back to bite you? Would you wager everything?

I haven't insulted anyone. I merely affirmed that he was human and when he died he also returned to the source like every life that ever existed. The 'insult' is not toward the Resurrected One but to intelligence itself in assuming such a thing by negating all of Nature, history and reason in order to justify it.

Or as the Word of God puts it, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

We are indeed doomed to repent which has nothing to do with God as much as our actions and behavior on this planet. There may come a time when being dead is a better alternative.

[Immanuel Can]

This reeks too much of a medieval hell ridden sentiment. We will merely be returning to that timeless state from whence we came. I don't recall having come from some black, null pit of Materialist extinction. Neither can you or anyone else.

Actually, this is pure Atheist Materialism, without a hint of Medievalism in it. If you're right, you are headed to death and extinction, and the universe is headed to inevitable heat death. All that you are now will soon be extinguished into a cold blackness that will never, never end.

You believe that -- at least, if you're a rationally-consistent Atheist you do -- I don't.

And if you smell Hell in all that, it's one of Atheism's own making.

I haven't insulted anyone. I merely affirmed that he was human and when he died he also returned to the source like every life that ever existed. The 'insult' is not toward the Resurrected One but to intelligence itself in assuming such a thing by negating all of Nature, history and reason in order to justify it.

I'm just saying we're all responsible for what we know, and also for what we could have known but refused to know. And I'm pointing out to you that in dismissing the Resurrected One, you would be wagering your soul on it. Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician, said precisely the same thing, so it's not even an original observation. It's just the truth.

We are indeed doomed to repent which has nothing to do with God as much as our actions and behavior on this planet. There may come a time when being dead is a better alternative.

You've forgotten Who owns the planet. You've also forgotten Who rightfully owns you.

I know you will also remember this conversation. Or if you forget it, you'll be reminded of it again one day, when we all give our account to God. Then, you will not be saying, "No one ever told me."

I did. Just now.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is quite impossible that Christ himself ever claimed to be the son of god. This was obviously an after-market embellishment because if this were the case he would have been tried in a Jewish court instead of a Roman one. The Romans were scrupulous about never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. In a Jewish court he would have been guilty of blasphemy, for which he would have been stoned to death by Jews and not by Romans. Crucifixion was a punishment which the Romans reserved for political crimes which were not committed by Romans and was intended to remind the locals of who was boss. Christ was a very pious Jew and he was crucified for fomenting insurrection by chucking the money-lenders out of god's temple. The last thing the Romans needed was a popular and charismatic figure stirring up trouble in such an insignificant backwater of the empire so to them the execution of Christ was a routine administrative matter of only minor importance. Saul of Tarsus was the bloke who saw it as an opportunity to corrupt the simple message which Christ was attempting to convey to his people. All he ever wanted was for them to be better Jews.

According to a Rabbi of my acquaintance the phrase "Son of God/man" was a phrase in common usage in ALL rabbis at the time of Jesus. It was not a special claim about divinity, but when the Greeks wrote it down Sons of god were ten a penny, as many of their heroes and deities were the sons of Zeus, the phrase had blown out of proportion

Further to consider. Sons of God were as common as Kings and Queens of Rock and Roll, are in the USA.
Augustus, Gaius and Claudius, Emperors of Rome contemporary with Jesus were ALL literally sons of God, or god in their own right; being deified during their lives, or after it depending on where you lived in the Empire. And, of course, Alexander took that phrase as his own, and it was commonly believed that he was the literal son of Zeus.

[Immanuel Can]

It is quite impossible that Christ himself ever claimed to be the son of god....

While it is quite true to say that there have been many people throughout history, both prior to and after Christ, who used the expression "son of God" of themselves, the above statement isn't possible, actually. It's very clear from a number of things that that is exactly what He claimed. The Pharisees understood His claim perfectly clearly, for example, and picked up rocks to kill him for blasphemy. His followers understood too: they worshipped Him as God, and He not only accepted their assessment but agreed with it. Moreover, His followers continued to affirm it, and many chose to die rather than to step back from affirming it.

But so much has been written in rebuttal to your claim that there is no need for me to recycle it here. Google will instantly expose the terms of debate to you, if you read websites from both sides. And I think if you do, you'll satisfy yourself on the question entirely.

On the other hand, if you read only the detractors, or only the supporters, you'll have but one side of the equation, and will tend to think there is nothing to be said on the other side. You'll know as much about it as you wish to know, or limit yourself by choosing not to know.

But that's common sense, I think.

[Obvious Leo]

It is quite impossible that Christ himself ever claimed to be the son of god. This was obviously an after-market embellishment because if this were the case he would have been tried in a Jewish court instead of a Roman one. The Romans were scrupulous about never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. In a Jewish court he would have been guilty of blasphemy, for which he would have been stoned to death by Jews and not by Romans. Crucifixion was a punishment which the Romans reserved for political crimes which were not committed by Romans and was intended to remind the locals of who was boss. Christ was a very pious Jew and he was crucified for fomenting insurrection by chucking the money-lenders out of god's temple. The last thing the Romans needed was a popular and charismatic figure stirring up trouble in such an insignificant backwater of the empire so to them the execution of Christ was a routine administrative matter of only minor importance. Saul of Tarsus was the bloke who saw it as an opportunity to corrupt the simple message which Christ was attempting to convey to his people. All he ever wanted was for them to be better Jews.

According to a Rabbi of my acquaintance the phrase "Son of God/man" was a phrase in common usage in ALL rabbis at the time of Jesus. It was not a special claim about divinity, but when the Greeks wrote it down Sons of god were ten a penny, as many of their heroes and deities were the sons of Zeus, the phrase had blown out of proportion

Further to consider. Sons of God were as common as Kings and Queens of Rock and Roll, are in the USA.
Augustus, Gaius and Claudius, Emperors of Rome contemporary with Jesus were ALL literally sons of God, or god in their own right; being deified during their lives, or after it depending on where you lived in the Empire. And, of course, Alexander took that phrase as his own, and it was commonly believed that he was the literal son of Zeus.

This accords quite well with my knowledge of the history of the era, although I concede that my knowledge is more of Roman history rather than the history of Asia Minor, which was distinctly more "Asiatic" than "European" in its cultural focus. Virgin births, for instance, were also ten a penny at the time in this region whereas other cultures generally had more prosaic explanations for inconvenient teenage pregnancies.

Until the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion under Constantine and the later emperors the Romans were the epitome of religious tolerance who didn't give a shit what people chose to believe as long as they kept the peace and paid their taxes. They were the supreme masters of secular government who knew bloody well that church and state must never be combined. In fact when these institutions eventually were combined it was essentially the end of the Roman Empire because the Roman church stole the Roman state from under the very noses of the Roman people. This basically set the pattern for the next millennium of European history while in the eastern Roman empire history took a remarkably different course with much the same result. Monotheism was a powerful tool of oppression and tyrants of every stripe quickly learned how to use it.

Although some of the early emperors were deified it's important not to confuse Roman and Greek gods with the monogod of Akhenaten which found its way into Judean culture via Moses and Joshua. Such a god had never before been invented by any human culture anywhere and no analogous construct has ever found its way into human culture since. Monotheism represents the beatification of ignorance and how a species could allow itself to be enslaved in this way will keep the snouts of countless academics securely in the public trough for centuries to come.

[Obvious Leo]

the universe is headed to inevitable heat death.

You're making a big enough fool of yourself in your own playpen so perhaps you should stay away from topics beyond your expertise. The universe is not headed for a heat death at all but in fact is heading the other way, a fact known to Natural Philosophy for millennia.

In Australia we would call accepting Pascal's wager as having a bob each way. Are you now seriously suggesting that people should believe in god just in case? How can somebody simply decide to believe something on the basis of such ludicrous reasoning?

[Immanuel Can]

The universe is not headed for a heat death at all but in fact is heading the other way, a fact known to Natural Philosophy for millennia.

Perhaps a Materialist Atheist will have the courage to enlighten you as to the basic laws of entropy, but I realize you won't hear the truth from me, so I'll leave it to them. If they care for you to know the truth, they'll explain it to you.

In Australia we would call accepting Pascal's wager as having a bob each way. ?

Then you haven't understood Pascal either. Pascal says you have a "bob" only one way. The other way, you've got infinite loss.

But it's your funeral.

"It is appointed to men once to die, and after this comes Judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

[Dubious]

This reeks too much of a medieval hell ridden sentiment. We will merely be returning to that timeless state from whence we came. I don't recall having come from some black, null pit of Materialist extinction. Neither can you or anyone else.

Actually, this is pure Atheist Materialism, without a hint of Medievalism in it. If you're right, you are headed to death and extinction, and the universe is headed to inevitable heat death. All that you are now will soon be extinguished into a cold blackness that will never, never end.

Upon death you'll never know you even existed. One's strange little hiatus upon this planet will be completely squeezed into Nothing by the Before and After bookends of your existence. The time dimensions of a forever palpitating Universe – if that be its destiny - is of zero duration upon that which ceased to exist or never existed to begin with. A pico second would amount to an eternity when referencing death to having lived or ever having been a part of the continuum at all.

So what's the big deal when death makes one immune to time instead of more often having to revisit the prospect as one gets older because your cells are dying? During life, death is a slow motion process fated to become absolute. The feeling of surrender becomes palpable as you age which, in the one and final coup de grâce, defaults to the unconditional defeating time in all of its manifestations.

Why should some Jewish Messiah who's already chosen his people serve as an intermediary in all this? Are we really all that important to some god who supposedly made the Universe. To me, there is a lingering odor of perverseness and obscenity in that sentiment.

I haven't insulted anyone. I merely affirmed that he was human and when he died he also returned to the source like every life that ever existed. The 'insult' is not toward the Resurrected One but to intelligence itself in assuming such a thing by negating all of Nature, history and reason in order to justify it.

I'm just saying we're all responsible for what we know, and also for what we could have known but refused to know. And I'm pointing out to you that in dismissing the Resurrected One, you would be wagering your soul on it. Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician, said precisely the same thing, so it's not even an original observation. It's just the truth.

It's just the truth! Not very philosophical. Let's rephrase this truth in a nutshell, which causes belief to make it true:
Credo quia absurdum

We are indeed doomed to repent which has nothing to do with God as much as our actions and behavior on this planet. There may come a time when being dead is a better alternative.

You've forgotten Who owns the planet. You've also forgotten Who rightfully owns you.

I know you will also remember this conversation. Or if you forget it, you'll be reminded of it again one day, when we all give our account to God. Then, you will not be saying, "No one ever told me."

I did. Just now.

If Father & Son Inc. own the planet then these Irish rovers or landowners have long become absentee landlords since we low-life tenants are making a real mess of their property. But by extension, if they own the planet then I suspect they own the solar system, the galaxy, the UNIVERSE! Clearly the Rothschilds don't even amount to paupers compared to This OT/NT pair!

[Obvious Leo]

Perhaps a Materialist Atheist will have the courage to enlighten you as to the basic laws of entropy, but I realize you won't hear the truth from me, so I'll leave it to them. If they care for you to know the truth, they'll explain it to you.

I don't even know what the fuck a materialist atheist is but I doubt if such a one could teach me much about entropy since I've studied physics for most of my life, as well as all the other sciences. I certainly need no instruction from the likes of you in the subject.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't even know what the fuck a materialist atheist is

A Materialist Atheist denies the existence of entities that are not physical or material. He assumes there are no such things as metaphysical entities of any kind, just phenomena produced by mechanical, chemical or other kinds of physical interaction.

but I doubt if such a one could teach me much about entropy since I've studied physics for most of my life, as well as all the other sciences. I certainly need no instruction from the likes of you in the subject.

Then it's odd you've never heard of "heat death. Here's a quotation from a comprehensive educational physics website:

"The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind...."

[Obvious Leo]

A Materialist Atheist denies the existence of entities that are not physical or material. He assumes there are no such things as metaphysical entities of any kind, just phenomena produced by mechanical, chemical or other kinds of physical interaction.

I was already fairly certain that you didn't know what metaphysical means and now you've confirmed my suspicion. Metaphysical does NOT mean supernatural. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of being which means that ALL of physical reality is metaphysical by definition because that which is not in a state of being does not exist.

Then it's odd you've never heard of "heat death.

I didn't say I'd never heard of it. I said that the evidence contradicts it. The big bang was HOT. Exactly how hot it was is impossible to determine but a safe guess would suggest that in the first instants of the universe its temperature would have been trillions of trillions of degrees C. The average temperature of the universe now is less than 3 degrees C above absolute zero. Entropy is a metric for the state of informational disorder in a physical system and in statistical thermodynamics it is equated to heat. When a system tends from hot to cold it means the entropy of the system is DECREASING. The so-called "heat death" scenario which is (occasionally) discussed in physics is an extrapolation from a subsystem of the universe to the universe as a whole and all the evidence shows that such an extrapolation is unwarranted by the data. I know of very few physicists who would disagree with this and if you can name one please do so. I'll send him an email without delay.