panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday: The Forbidden Easter Ad

| 49 Comments

What is it about the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes non-Christians tremble in fear, distrust and continued disbelief? Why is this fact so controversial even though it was an actual historical event verified by a multitude of witnesses?

Edwards Cinema, a California theater chain, thought Compass Bible Church’s ad promoting a local Easter service was too hot to handle—and pulled the plug—even though there was a signed contract and thousands of dollars paid to run the commercial in it’s theaters. Here’s the reason why, according to Senior Pastor Mike Fabarez: “[They said] it uses the name of Jesus and so we’re not going to accept that ad.”

Pastor Fabarez offers further explanation.

“You can show movies and contract with movie companies and producers and show all kinds of things that use the name of Jesus in all kinds of pejorative ways and as expletives and everything else.

You can enter into contracts about all kinds of controversial topics on the big screen—but when it comes to an ad that just asks the question, ‘Did Jesus rise from the dead? Come to our church and check it out,’ they said no.”

NCM Media Networks, which handles pre-show advertising for many theaters in Orange County, says it gave Fabarez content guidelines, which prohibit nudity, drug use, and promotion of religious figures. The pastor acknowledges having received those guidelines, but says the written contract included no prohibition of religious figures. He feels the decision is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Further conversations were to no avail, says Pastor Fabarez, who adds that the decision violates free speech rights.*

It’s amazing how people continue to shrug off and deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, even to the point of censoring this great message! If He is not risen, then our future is no better than the atheist’s. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink
for tomorrow we die.”

It’s not like there aren’t any witnesses…. Thankfully, Scripture gives us a list of all who saw Jesus after He died for our sins, was buried and was raised on the third day.

FROM THE WRITINGS OF PAUL (From 1 Corinthians 15:5-8):

  • He appeared to Cephas (Peter)
  • He appeared to the Twelve
  • He appeared to more than 500 brothers at the same time
  • He appeared to James
  • He appeared to all the apostles
  • He appeared to Paul

FOUND IN THE GOSPELS:

  • He appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20 (10-18)
  • He appeared to other women (Matthew 28: 8-10)
  • He appeared to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24: 13-32)
  • He appeared to eleven disciples and others (Luke 24:33-49)
  • He appeared to ten apostles and others, with Thomas absent (John 20:19-23)
  • He appeared to Thomas and other apostles (John 20:26-30)
  • He appeared to seven apostles (John 21:1-14)
  • He appeared to the disciples (Matthew 28: 16-20)
  • And he was with the apostles at the Mount of Olives before his ascension (Acts 1:4-9)

British Theologian Michael Green concluded: The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity…. There can be no rational doubt that they occurred.”**

What will you do with the fact of the Resurrection, my non-born again friend?

I suspect I already know.

Citations:
*According to a report from OneNewsNow
**Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 97, cited in Ankerherg and Weldon, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection, 22

49 Comments

  1. thanks for posting Steve!

  2. “What will you do with the fact of the Resurrection, my non-born again friend?”

    Laugh about the fact that you consider it a “fact” !

    No matter what historians say, no matter what was written in any books, I will never, ever, accept an outragous claim like a resurection based on textual evidence and eye witness accounts.

    Why? Because I would never accept that kind of evidence for ANY claim that defy our current understanding of the real world.

    I don’t make exceptions! Too bad ‘born again’ friends do!

  3. Help me understand this. Fabarez says that even though the content guidelines he received stipulated no promotion of religious figures, he thinks that didn’t really mean ‘no promotion of religious figures’?

    “Pastor Fabarez … the decision violates free speech rights.”

    I’m not sure if advertising is considered protected speech.

    • Hugo,

      Then eat and drink, my friend!

      perdita,

      “The pastor acknowledges having received those guidelines, but says the written contract included no prohibition of religious figures.”

      I agree that it’s probably not a free speech thing.

  4. Steve said:
    “Then eat and drink, my friend!”

    Nah, that’s what YOU would do if “the dead are not raised”. My life does not boil down to that…

  5. Advertising is protected speech. Protected from the government.

    Companies wuss out of controversial content all the time. It’s not a lost liberty.

    Not only is there no evidence for the ressurection of Jesus, but there’s little evidence of Jesus existing at all! More on this when I have a computer to post from.

  6. I read that, Steve. And unless he got the guidelines after signing the contract, he’s being silly.

    Oh, and what Hugo said. I don’t accept these claims for a resurrected Jesus any more than I accept claims of alien abductions.

  7. In Lee Strobels’ book, “The Case for Christ,” the author moderated a debate between William Lane Craig and a national American Atheist, Inc. spokesman, Frank Zindler.

    He wrote,

    “I marveled as Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism. From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered – many for the first time – that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny.

    “In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians – Craig’s arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist.

    For your convenience, here’s the link of the debate so you can decide on your own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hOza8GTqk

  8. @Steve

    Thanks for that link; I like to watch that kind of debate. I hope it’s in good quality as I cannot verify right now.

    However, I did watch a debate between Craig and Richard Carrier before, and what was obvious is that Craig can win arguments only because of his use of rhetorical points. He’s good at using humour and making people feel good about certain ideas.

    Carrier, on the other hand, was not as good of a speaker, but so much more convincing in terms of arguments and refutation of Craig’s. If it were on paper, shown line by line, arguments side by side, he would have been a definite winner.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to Jesus, because the vast majority of people were raised learning that he existed and was who he said he was, the emotional response will be strong and people will be convinced by Craig’s rhetoric.

    You are no exception Steve; because you have faith, you feel good when thinking about Jesus, you cannot see an alternative as even possible, and you will always find Craig’s arguments better. Even when faced with a complete deconstruction of his arguments, you would still believe him, as he is on “your” side. It’s comforting for sure… but not true!

    Once again… ignorance is bliss 🙂

  9. @perdita

    Good comparison!

    We have people alive, right now, that can pass a lie detector test, saying that they were abducted by aliens. Yet, this is not convincing for Steve, while eye witness accounts related two thousand years ago, by people who already believed in magic and God, CAN be trusted.

    It defies common sense!

  10. Hugo, I hope your blissful ignorance ends before it’s too late. May God open your eyes and bring you to your knees with the weight of your own sin.

  11. Remember Steve, William Lane Craig isn’t a True Christian, in fact he probably wouldn’t be allowed admission into the Ambassador Academy.

    And 1 person saying that there were 500 witnesses is not he equivalent of 500 witnesses.

    Many Christ related events should have had a lot more witnesses but apparently only one person thought the zombie invasion was worth writing about.

  12. Steve wrote:

    What is it about the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes non-Christians tremble in fear

    What? Just who trembles in fear? Is this just made-up hyperbole?

    distrust

    Because it does not match reality.

    and continued disbelief?

    Because the “evidence” for it is of a type that if it was a claim for anything else besides your religion, you wouldn’t believe it either.

    As I’ve asked before, do you believe that Muhammed split the moon? The Quran says that there were witnesses of that.

    Yet, you don’t believe that happened.

    Why is this fact so controversial even though it was an actual historical event verified by a multitude of witnesses?

    I’d ask you the same about Muhammed splitting the moon.

    Steve, last Friday I defeated a 10-story acid-breathing dragon on the top of a live volcano, and I slew the dragon with my vorpal blade of doom. Over 5,000 people watched me do this. I’ll even give you some of their names:

    Bob Smith
    Jane Jones
    Rick Simpson
    John Nelson
    Brock Jensen
    Gilbert Stein
    Paul Archer
    David L. Ruth

    And I can name many, many more.

    This was an actual historical events, experienced by an even larger number of witnesses than Jesus’ resurrection!

    Now, the first question is: do you believe this factual historical account of my battle with the dragon?

    And the second question is: why, or why not?

  13. Steve wrote:

    In Lee Strobels’ book, “The Case for Christ,”

    Ugh. I am not the intended demographic for that book; you are, Steve.

    the author moderated a debate between William Lane Craig and a national American Atheist, Inc. spokesman, Frank Zindler.

    Yup, I remember this one. I’ve watched a lot of WLC debates.

    “[Lee Strobel] wrote,

    “I marveled as Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism.

    And, amazingly enough, Muslims marvel as Dr. Zakir Naik powerfully builds the case for Islam while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism.

    In other words… are we supposed to be surprised that Lee Strobel, who was a Christian during the time of this debate, was supportive of WLC?

    And why would I care what Lee Strobel thinks of the debate? My reaction to WLC’s arguments are a completely different thing.

    From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered – many for the first time

    Wait wait wait… how does Lee know that? How could he possibly know that “many” of these people were discovering this “for the first time”?

    He doesn’t know that. This just tells a better narrative, and it’s the one he wants his demographic (i.e., you, Steve) to buy into.

    that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny.

    Depends on your definition of “stand up”, but again… we’re going on a very biased point of view here. My review of the debate would be something different altogether.

    In the end it was no contest.

    I completely agree with Lee, just not on the person who “won”. (Although no one actually “wins” a debate.)

    Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics,

    For the record, I don’t know of any atheist, agnostic, or skeptic who would call themselves “avowed”; that’s a theist thing put on us.

    It doesn’t make sense.

    an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling.

    How does he know this? Was there actually a form that said “Are you an avowed atheist, agnostic, or skeptic?” And if you check “yes” then you also have to answer “was the case for Christianity the most compelling?”…

    And he’s saying that 82% of them said yes? I’m not buying it.

    Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians

    Again, not buying this. I’ve been to plenty of debates, even a couple of WLC debates, both as a believer and a non-believer… and I’ve never seen anything like that.

    In fact, when I was a believer, those debates usually had a negative effect on my faith because — while I could tell that the theist used better rhetoric — I couldn’t help to notice that the non-believer’s logic was far more sound.

    Craig’s arguments for the faith were that persuasive,

    Ugh. Not to me. WLC just uses retreads.

    Again, I’m not buying Lee’s telling of the story.

    especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism.

    So he, Lee Strobel of all people, says. Color me unconvinced and unimpressed.

    Incidentally, nobody became an atheist.

    Again, how could he possibly know this? Did he mind-read every single person in the crowd?

    What is up with people talking about how other people think??

    I don’t believe Lee’s story, and I don’t think anyone else should.

  14. Forgot to mention this in my post above:

    Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians

    Much like Lee’s other claims about the audience, how does he know this? How does Lee know that 47 people, who entered as non-believers, exited as Christians?

  15. For the record, if an atheist wrote a similar review, I would question him/her in the exact same way as I question Lee Strobel here.

  16. @Glenn

    Yes Glenn, I know you are afraid of Hell. No need to project that fear to others.

  17. No problems with the commercial. It’s hardly controversial, just uses poor reasoning.

    The issue here isn’t what the witnesses saw, but rather if there witnesses in the first place. Despite a man coming back from the dead, none of the supposed witnesses left behind any first-hand accounts of the resurrection. Instead there’s just the writings of a person who was not personally involved.

    One could argue that it’s not uncommon for minority religions to face heavy censorship from the government, but this would have been one of the most successful attempts at historic revision ever. Especially when one considers the time period.

    It just doesn’t look good when, out of hundreds of people, NOT ONE PERSON WROTE A WORD ABOUT IT.

  18. I’d have to double check but I don’t think Lee Strobel would qualify as a Ray Comfort certified True Christian either.

  19. Hi Steve,

    One more thing: why should I accept unsupported claims from “British Theologian Michael Green”?

    Do you accept unsupported claims from “British Biologist Richard Dawkins”?

    Nope, I don’t either.

  20. “Freedom of choice” is not the reason why I don’t accept unsupported claims from Michael Green or Lee Strobel.

    I don’t accept them because they are unsupported. That’s an important difference.

    Why do you think I post these things?

    Honestly, I don’t fully know. I would guess it’s to persuade us, or to convince us, but that’s not the way to go about doing that.

    Even if it’s just “sowing a seed”, that’s not the best way to go about doing it.

    Also, I’ll ask again:

    Now, the first question is: do you believe this factual historical account of my battle with the dragon?

    And the second question is: why, or why not?

    (That second question is the important one.)

  21. Also, I agree with Garrett when he wrote:

    No problems with the commercial. It’s hardly controversial, just uses poor reasoning.

    I would be interested to hear the theater’s point of view.

  22. What is it about the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes non-Christians tremble in… continued disbelief?

    Redundant [ri-duhn-duhnt]
    –adjective

    1. characterized by… unnecessary repetition (Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011)

    Although I’m a little confused about the “trembling” bit. Are we all cold?

    However, although it may annoy Pastor Fabarez (and you know, if you go far enough back, I’m willing to bet he’s distantly related to actress Shelley Fabares), but the content guidelines act as an adjunct to the contract. From a legal standpoint, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

    On the other hand, from a moral standpoint… nope, still nothing.

    You really can’t fault the movie chain for being more inclusive than you, Steve.

    And, you know, those “eyewitness accounts” of the Resurrection deviate in a number of key areas. I’m pretty sure they aren’t all that reliable.

  23. But it’s the inconsistencies that makes them reliable! Duh!

  24. Steve asks:

    What is it about the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes non-Christians tremble in fear, distrust and continued disbelief?

    Personally I don’t fear the supernatural because it doesnt exist. I think it odd you ask the question, do you fear Thor’s hammer? Furthermore I don’t fear Jesus as a particular religious leader because historiography for his existence even as just a man is poor.

    Steve I have a question for you:

    Why is there no mention of the miracles of Jesus (not just the resurection, but any of them) by any of his contemporaries?

    Garrett said:
    “One could argue that it’s not uncommon for minority religions to face heavy censorship from the government, but this would have been one of the most successful attempts at historic revision ever. Especially when one considers the time period.”

    Actually that would be uncommon. Minority religions, inncluding Jewish mythological spin-offs were extremely common in those days. The Romans did not care about the Jesus myth because they lived in a time when there were many, many similar myths.

  25. Vagon said “Actually that would be uncommon. Minority religions, inncluding Jewish mythological spin-offs were extremely common in those days. The Romans did not care about the Jesus myth because they lived in a time when there were many, many similar myths.”

    Right. And where are those today? Have you ever considered that Jesus was a simple carpenter’s son, lived in a no-name part of the world, did nothing to incite revolutions or hostile take-overs (unlike Mohammed), and yet he changed the future of billions of people? Think about it. Why do we still know about him? He never had much of a following, either. Even His own brothers didn’t believe in Him. Have you ever really thought about these things, Vagon?

    There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for you. A hundred years from now, will anyone be able to prove that you existed? How about 2,000 years from now?

  26. Good point, Vagon. That era was something of a Renaissance (so to speak) for the Mystery Cult. The deserts were practically littered with “prophets” promoting their personal flavor of God or gods.

    (Excuse me while I throw on my Pontificating Hat.)

    Marcus Terentius Varro divided religion up into three general fields: political theology (the state religion and its stabilizing effect on society), natural theology (speculation about the natural and supernatural worlds) and mythic theology (myth and ritual).

    Public partipation in the civil religion was expected from every citizen; they also tended to belong to one or several mystery cults (although it wasn’t required), and often a school of philosophy.

    And this affected the early persecution of Christians: the Romans didn’t object to them because of their beliefs, but because Christianity didn’t allow participation in the civic religion, which was considered vital to a stable society.

    The Mystery cults also tended to share a number of similarities with Christianity: the death and resurrection of the god in question (often including the 3-day requirement), and many of the same rituals that survive in Christianity: the Eleusinian Mystery Cult had an annual procession similar to the old Easter Parade, followed by a daylong fast. The Mithraic Mysteries (the Romans were great about adapting other people’s gods – they got Mithra from Persia) had the festival of natalis Invicti on 25 December.

    The cult of Cybele (taken from the Phryigians by way of the Greeks) had a cute one called a taurobolium, where a candidate would be in a pit under a wooden floor. They’d sacrifice a bull on the floor over the pit, and the blood would run through the slats and rain down on the initiate. This baptism was supposed to cleanse him of sin. By being bathed in the blood.

    (The cheaper version, a criobolium used a ram instead of a bull – you know, an older version of the Lamb of God – or goddess, in this case.)

    See? History can be fun to study.

  27. Glenn, the possibility that Jesus existed is not far-fetched. The myths surrounding Jesus had to come from somewhere. The same goes for Mohammed, Thor, Gaia and so on. Jesus might have been on person, or he’s the amalgamation of several popular philosophers/preachers at the time.

    Your other comment is an appeal to popularity. A billion people believe that Mohammed was a prophet of Allah. Why do we still know about him? He too, changed the future of billions.

    There is more evidence for Vagon than Jesus. This is not some snub at Jesus, but the advantage a living person has over that’s been dead for thousands of years. Vagon can produce documents from his government confirming his personhood. You can interview live people who have witnessed his existence. Will this evidence stand the test of time? Perhaps, as we live in an age where it’s far easier to keep hold on data. But that depends on what happens in the future. If there isn’t, so what? Vagon will be too dead to care.

    I question the line of reasoning you are taking. Do you think asserting that the existence of modern-day people is hard to prove makes a long-dead person easier to show existing? You are basically arguing our position, so which side are you on?

  28. Garrett,

    Mohammed was well-known by the people who were conquered by his invading hordes and murdered by his many beheadings. Genghis Khan is remembered in much the same way.

    Billions of people will testify to the life-changing encounter they’ve had with the living Jesus. How many do you suppose have personal experience with Vagon? Further, do you really think that papers with signatures from governments are proof of anything? How about book-length accounts of personal eye witnesses of Jesus’ life? Better than any government document, any day.

  29. That was a really good advertisement! Very powerful, I believe that is a big reason it was banned because many would have showed up at the church to find out the truth of the resurrection!

    God did win, God is winning and God has already won, satan and his children have no chance!

    Praise God!!!

  30. Look at you backpedal, Glenn. Plenty of people knew Mohammed, and by your metric, that means he’s real and very much a prophet. In fact, he’s realer than Jesus since we have wars to document his existence.

    Sure Glenn, but it’s not an encounter you can show me. If we really want to meet Vagon, we can arrange a meeting. Can you arrange with me to meet Jesus? I’d love to meet him and have a chat. But chances are you’re going to make a personal experience that requires one to be a believer to begin with. It’s circular logic, and that’s not good enough.

    And no, government documents alone aren’t enough! Evidence requires numbers, which I why I mention living witnesses, works by Vagon and mentions in third-party documents. It adds up to the very reasonable conclusion that Vagon did exist.

    Jesus does not have personal accounts of eyewitnesses. He has what Mark & co. CLAIM eye witnesses said. Think of Nohm’s dragon. He claims that 5,000 people saw it, and can probably give you detailed accounts of each witness’s experience with the dragon. That’s the same deal as Jesus: we’re getting our “eyewitness accounts” from a third-party. There’s no first-hand documentation of Jesus dying and/or coming back to life.

  31. It’s nice that you still lurk the site, Steve. Perhaps you should post sometime. I mean, we made a thread just for you, and our mods are very accommodating.

    Now here comes the hard part where you tell me why I’m being silly without making yourself look silly as well.

    You look very silly when you go on about how it’s hard to show that a living person exists while simultaneously believing a long-dead person actually came back from the dead. You cannot be selectively skeptical if you want to be taken seriously.

  32. Steve:
    Just because Garrett expresses himself in a silly manner doesn’t make what he says less true. (I should know – it’s the philosophy I live by.)

    Thomas:
    God did win, God is winning and God has already won

    God is Charlie Sheen?

  33. Steve, how so? Going down Garrett’s road, where does he turn onto the silly fork?

  34. Ah – lurker humor.

  35. Garrett, what’s most clear is that you don’t believe Scripture. Here’s something for you to chew on: Muslims will tell you they deserve heaven because of their good works. In fact, just the other day I had a Muslim tell me “I have radically changed my life to live by the Koran. You mean to tell me that God won’t reward me for that?”

    Now contrast that with a Christian: “I am a wicked sinner saved by the Grace of God. Jesus Christ has changed my heart, and only through His atoning sacrifice do I have any hope of Heaven.”

    That’s the message of Easter, and that’s the message that will either damn a soul or save a soul. Earnestness and sincere belief in another way is as worthless as pocket lint in a blast furnace.

  36. Whoa, Glenn you caught me. There’s no fooling you, I don’t believe in scripture as being accurate. You sneaky git.

    Glenn, the rest of your post doesn’t address my previous posts at all. Go back, read my post, and respond to it. You just posted meaningless drivel comparing the beliefs of Muslims and Christians. I’m talking about historical evidence for these religions and their important persons.

  37. Glenn can you please explain why Non-works are better than works? How is being proactive about something inferior to just saying yeah I believe, okay I don’t have to do anything else?

  38. Garrett,

    You completely ignored some obvious points in my previous post. You have evidence for the existence of Vagon because you can go meet him. What about after he’s dead? What about the stuff he did last week? If you weren’t there, you can’t prove he did it, can you? You’ll just have to accept someone’s verbal, written, or recorded account. Any of these can be fabricated. The fact is, you rely on these things for everything else that you do in life, yet when it comes to Jesus, it’s not good enough for you.

    Open your eyes to the condition of your own soul. You need a savior, and there’s one available. However, He won’t meet you under your own conditions. Seek Him before it’s too late.

  39. Vintago2k,

    The difference is easy to see: all our righteous acts are like filthy rags before a Holy God. What do you suppose is the scale? How much do I need to give to charity to overcome a single lie? How about lust? How many good deeds does it take to overcome my own evil heart? Don’t waste your time trying to figure it out. There is no scale; even in the works-righteous religions, no one can answer these questions.

    We are going to be judged in righteousness. You have no righteousness, so WHAT are you going to do? Are you going to bribe God with your good deeds?

    When a Muslim says “I have changed my life to follow the Koran”, you have just witnessed self-righteousness. They think they deserve Heaven because of what they’ve done. Unfortunately, we aren’t going to be judged in self-righteousness. If we were, you atheists would be on easy street.

  40. Because, Glenn, there are MANY documents from witnesses and Vagon himself. Just like one set of fingerprints are not sufficient to make a person guilty of a crime, one claim of witnesses is not enough to conclude that Jesus was a real person.

    Vagon’s witnesses may have photos, writings and other evidence. It’s BULK of evidence, Glenn, that allows us to reasonable conclude that Vagon existed. Jesus does not have this evidence. Yes, they can be fabricated, but the bulk of evidence would have to mean that we have a vast conspiracy showing us that Vagon lived. What point is there?

    Jesus has one piece of evidence. It can easily be fabricated. But why make up Jesus? Well, in this case, to claim he is divine and influence culture for various purposes.

    I hope you understand the difference in volume here.

  41. @Glenn

    Not the DIFFERENCE Glenn, why is one better than the other. Why is suspension of rational thought and belief without any acts to benefit your fellow man BETTER than someone who acts selfless and helps their family, community, or their fellow man in general. Take for instance the late Normal Borlaug, who’s nobel prize winning research into genetically engineered crops have saved literally millions of people’s lives who would have otherwise died of starvation. Do you think God knows the hearts of people who are proactively trying to make this world a better place or benefit the lives and health of people, and sees that they are good or at least trying their best. I sincerely doubt that anyone who is a part of a ‘works righteous’ religion believes there is a certain ‘quota’ they have to hit in order to earn salvation through their actions. No they simply try their best and trust that whatever God they believe in will reward them, they’re obviously already BELIEVING in that God and accepting the gift as you put it, so comparing the two, would you rather see a religious person doing SOMETHING proactive to help out their fellow man, or see them not doing anything because they already know their saved, no works necessary.

    Also, you seem pretty confident that none of these ‘works righteous’ religions can give you an answer on how many good deeds you need to do to receive salvation, while this is probably true, how do you know for a fact that followers of the Koran… won’t be judged by the standard of the Koran? Or worse yet… that you won’t be judged by that standard either. Doesn’t it concern you at all that there is more evidence for the existence of the Prophet Mohammed than their is for Jesus?

  42. @Glenn

    You said:”…f you weren’t there, you can’t prove he did it, can you? You’ll just have to accept someone’s verbal, written, or recorded account. Any of these can be fabricated. The fact is, you rely on these things for everything else that you do in life, yet when it comes to Jesus, it’s not good enough for you.”

    I find this reply very ironic, since I posted already, here on this thread, that YOU make exceptions by believing certain things only based on scripture, while denying other things that are also only based on scripture.

    That is, from what I understand, the point Garrett was making by comparing Christian Scripture and Muslim Scripture.

    In other words, you are BOTH right and wrong Glenn:

    – You are right, I (and we all) rely on “verbal, written, or recorded account” sometimes.

    but you are also very very wrong…

    – You are wrong because I will never, ever, accept any claims regarding magic super powers of any kind, based on a book. NO virgin birth, no resurrection, no flying on a white horse to heaven, no snakes with 7 heads biting the Earth, nothing, none of that.

    I am consistent, and others atheists here appear to be.
    You Glenn, (and you Steve, hi!) are not, for sure.

    Got it?

  43. Glenn has left the building.

  44. Apologies for not answering sooner, I’ve been enjoying the holidays.

    “Right. And where are those today? Have you ever considered that Jesus was a simple carpenter’s son, lived in a no-name part of the world, did nothing to incite revolutions or hostile take-overs (unlike Mohammed), and yet he changed the future of billions of people? Think about it. Why do we still know about him? He never had much of a following, either. Even His own brothers didn’t believe in Him.”

    Survivorship bias. I bet you have a few managed funds under your belt too Glenn.

    “Have you ever really thought about these things, Vagon?”

    Apparently more than you.

    “There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for you. A hundred years from now, will anyone be able to prove that you existed? How about 2,000 years from now?”

    Historiography is about the quality of evidence to match the claims of the past. Jesus may have existed as an insignificant man, but the evidence for miracles is completely lacking. As others pointed out 100 years or 2000 years from now I’d say it will be very likely to prove I existed. I’m assuming that school, home ownership, web archives, employment histories, photos etc will be kept though. And I have not done anything particularly noteworthy.

    A good practice for you would be studying Leon Trotsky. Do you think he existed as a great military leader? Why or why not? Now apply that to Jesus. I wont hold my breath.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.