Am I a fence sitter for being Agnostic?

[Himster]

Dead are all the gods. Now we desire the superman to live. - Nietzsche

I find the transparently metaphor based concepts in comic book heroes are more appealing, relevant and practical rather than obfuscated faith based concepts in Jesus/Allah/Vishnu etc. Religions typically prefer to encourage a hatred for this life, or at least a deep seated resentment for life, with all of the attention being drawn to some perfect other world. This world can only pale in comparison. The obvious result of this can be seen in the ascetic and misanthropic impulse in all mainstream religions. The irony being that the resolution to demonize life and the world and to see this world as ugly, dark, petty, unworthy etc. is precisely what has made the world ugly, dark, petty and less than what it could be. It's a self fulfilling prophecy rather than an honest description of reality. Now that the contrary impulse has taken over we see poverty all over the world reducing at an unprecedented rate, human rights spreading like wild-fire, life expectancy and life quality rising everywhere.

However what is troubling is actually the unpopularity of superheroes. Superman isn't as popular as Kim Kardashian and other scum like her: that is horrifying.

[Cope]

I find the transparently metaphor based concepts in comic book heroes are more appealing, relevant and practical rather than obfuscated faith based concepts in Jesus/Allah/Vishnu etc. Religions typically prefer to encourage a hatred for this life, or at least a deep seated resentment for life, with all of the attention being drawn to some perfect other world. This world can only pale in comparison. The obvious result of this can be seen in the ascetic and misanthropic impulse in all mainstream religions. The irony being that the resolution to demonize life and the world and to see this world as ugly, dark, petty, unworthy etc. is precisely what has made the world ugly, dark, petty and less than what it could be. It's a self fulfilling prophecy rather than an honest description of reality. Now that the contrary impulse has taken over we see poverty all over the world reducing at an unprecedented rate, human rights spreading like wild-fire, life expectancy and life quality rising everywhere.

A peoples who dedicate their lives to everlasting life cannot hold a "deep seated resentment for life". Even the claim that they hold a hatred for "this life", that is, their mortal lives, cannot be true if one recognises that they view mortality as the pathway to immortality. What you refer to as the Christian "demonization of life", is, in reality, an opposition to sin and suffering.

The suggestion that faith itself is responsible for the cruelties and injustices of the temporal world is extraordinarily bizarre. The notion that neither existed prior to the development of human eschatology is plainly disproved by the very natural history which is often deployed by atheists as a rationale for rejecting theistic positions. Since I suspect that you already knew this, it is only possible for me to conclude that you have over-played your anti-theistic hand.

[Himster]

A peoples who dedicate their lives to everlasting life cannot hold a "deep seated resentment for life".

Contempt for sin is a core principle of most theistic worldviews. The righteous path is narrow and only the few can walk it. The deep seated resentment for life comes when the idea of a fallen world is introduced or the doctrine of ascetism is a requirement. An existence in which one rejects/hates pleasures and passions isn't really a life, it's a form of stasis that has more in common with death than life.
Christ's teachings on ascetism is more than enough to confirm this proposition. It is even more pronounced in Buddhism (of course they crave oblivion over all else, so....that's hardly surprising). Zoroastrianism too, to a lesser extent. Manicheanism is another one.

Even the claim that they hold a hatred for "

this

life", that is, their mortal lives, cannot be true if one recognises that they view mortality as the pathway to immortality. What you refer to as the Christian "demonization of life", is, in reality, an opposition to sin and suffering.

The pathway to immortality, to another world which is infinitely better, away from this mere "fallen" world. You think nothing in that detracts from this life, this world?

In Christianity for example, this world is not just riddled with "sin", it's more imbedded than that: humans, dogs, mountains, grains of sand... all come short of God's perfect design because of the fall, the eating of the forbidden fruit. It's quite difficult to imagine someone conceiving of a way to demote this world and this life further than that. In this life, we're born with original sin. Innately, by our nature, all of humanity warrants hell. To be born is a sin. So before we even get to live and do things we are already terrible and despicable. And then actually living: to follow our natures, to fornicate, to merely desire, to have mere pride, etc. all are sins, each one warranting infinite torment.

Or in Zoroastrianism this life/world is nothing more than a battlefield. In Buddhism this life is a testing ground made of suffering and the best (most preferable) future one can aspire to is oblivion. Manicheanism is worst of all. To sin is to be born, to live is to sin, to covet (or have any feelings for) your neighbours wife/stuff is to sin, to follow one's embodied nature and make sweet love and party and enjoy life is to sin, to make money is to sin ("for it is easier for a camel..."). To oppose arbitrary "sin" is to demonize this one life we get to live. To unapologetically embrace this one life fully, with all of its potential for passions, pleasures and suffering is to sin.

The way of heaven is to live a lifeless life in order to continue that lifeless life forever. There are few fates worse than death, but that's one of them for sure.

The suggestion that faith itself is responsible for the cruelties and injustices of the temporal world is extraordinarily bizarre. The notion that neither existed prior to the development of human eschatology is plainly disproved by the very natural history which is often deployed by atheists as a rationale for rejecting theistic positions. Since I suspect that you already knew this, it is only possible for me to conclude that you have over-played your anti-theistic hand.

That's an interesting misinterpretation of what I wrote. It's a well known Nietzschean line.
It concerns the excessive obsession with another world which necessarily detracts from the appropriate value that ought to be placed on this world. How could it be otherwise?
I think it follows that when one is convinced that something ought to be considered ugly, one will view it as ugly, regardless of its actual aesthetic qualities. Then that object will be treated as though it were ugly.
I never claimed that the inventions of eschatology and cruelty coincided, that'd be absurd. I'm also not saying that all religious people reject life, not all religious people live like monks/nuns. In fact some atheists live like monks. I think it would be erroneous to make it solely an atheist vs theist things (even though I incidentally framed it that way). Nietzsche framed it as a slave morality vs master morality issue with the solution being a synthesis between the two, while believing that his contemporaneous society had been excessively drawn towards slave morality. I think his conclusion was accurate and even a prognostication of our current society as the SJW trend we see today exhibits all of the worst aspects of slave morality. We still haven't found the balance. The excessive obsession with an impossible utopian future world at the expense of this life/world is just as bad as being excessively obsessed with a metaphysical world.

[AqD]

Isn't it funny how we can enjoy the supernatural when reading or watching heroes like Superman, Spiderman etc, yet a true Hero like Jesus Christ has long been abandoned to weekends or religious holidays with perhaps the only longrunning event where He is brought up being funerals which have no special days? That's mainstream life nowadays.

It's funny you see him as a hero. He was nailed to a cross hopelessly, his followers were hiding and crying and they continued to do so for several hundreds of years. A man like Muhammad or Khalid ibn al-Walid would be much better suited for such a role.

Why should he be brought up in funerals? Why do you want special days?

[Prodromos]

I dunno about you, but in my view, self-sacrifice seems infinitely more courageous and heroic than raping and murdering random people.

Matthew 26:50 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

John 10:7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

1 Corinthians 1:26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

The early Christians, acting in obedience to Christ, began to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. So alien were their charitable acts and self-sacrificial lives that the Romans referred to them as "the third race." In the centuries to follow, even though Christians were still a demographic minority, their care of the poor and sick, would serve as the first steps in achieving cultural authority. By being seen as those who reached out to and cared for the weak and suffering, the early church would establish its "right to stand for the community as a whole" (John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public [Eugene, OR: Wifp and Stock, 1997] p. 8). Sociologist James Davidson Hunter points out, "because Christian charity was beneficial to all, including pagans, imperial authority [political authority] would be weakened" (To Change the World, 2009, p. 55).

Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome, clearly understood the power of these Christians when he wrote the following:

These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods (Epistle to Pagan High Priests).

Emperor Julian clearly saw the writing on the wall. The Roman Empire would not succumb to political upheaval or force but to love, the love of Christ. Julian's dying words in AD 363 were "vicisti Galilaee" (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).

Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, Western civilization would become the most successful civilization in history.

“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.” —H.G. Wells

This map isn't entirely accurate, but it makes the point well enough.

[Cope]

Contempt for sin is a core principle of most theistic worldviews. The righteous path is narrow and only the few can walk it. The deep seated resentment for life comes when the idea of a fallen world is introduced or the doctrine of ascetism is a requirement. An existence in which one rejects/hates pleasures and passions isn't really a life, it's a form of stasis that has more in common with death than life.
Christ's teachings on ascetism is more than enough to confirm this proposition. It is even more pronounced in Buddhism (of course they crave oblivion over all else, so....that's hardly surprising). Zoroastrianism too, to a lesser extent. Manicheanism is another one.

The pathway to immortality, to another world which is infinitely better, away from this mere "fallen" world. You think nothing in that detracts from this life, this world?

In Christianity for example, this world is not just riddled with "sin", it's more imbedded than that: humans, dogs, mountains, grains of sand... all come short of God's perfect design because of the fall, the eating of the forbidden fruit. It's quite difficult to imagine someone conceiving of a way to demote this world and this life further than that. In this life, we're born with original sin. Innately, by our nature, all of humanity warrants hell. To be born is a sin. So before we even get to live and do things we are already terrible and despicable. And then actually living: to follow our natures, to fornicate, to merely desire, to have mere pride, etc. all are sins, each one warranting infinite torment.

Or in Zoroastrianism this life/world is nothing more than a battlefield. In Buddhism this life is a testing ground made of suffering and the best (most preferable) future one can aspire to is oblivion. Manicheanism is worst of all. To sin is to be born, to live is to sin, to covet (or have any feelings for) your neighbours wife/stuff is to sin, to follow one's embodied nature and make sweet love and party and enjoy life is to sin, to make money is to sin ("for it is easier for a camel..."). To oppose arbitrary "sin" is to demonize this one life we get to live. To unapologetically embrace this one life fully, with all of its potential for passions, pleasures and suffering is to sin.

The way of heaven is to live a lifeless life in order to continue that lifeless life forever. There are few fates worse than death, but that's one of them for sure.

The fundamental flaw of your argument is the assumption that theism (by which I mean Christianity) necessarily treats pleasures as sinful or that sins are necessarily pleasurable.

The most obvious refutation of such a position is evident from the contents of the Decalogue - namely that murder, covetousness, theft and dishonesty are not, to the healthy mind, pleasurable activities. It may be possible for you to maintain that those who commit such acts are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure(s), but to make such an argument would be to condemn yourself as a hypocrite (if you do in fact find yourself in moral opposition to murder, theft and dishonesty).

The less obvious refutation operates on the basis that what you are presuming to be pleasures are not in fact pleasures. Rather, they arepleasures taken to damaging extremes. Gluttony, avarice and slothfulness, for instance, are states of affliction typically derived from overindulging in activities which are not otherwise condemned by scripture. Contrary to your understanding of our Creed, Christ will not condemn a man for enjoying some wine, a hearty meal, or taking enjoyment in a vacation. What is being opposed is not the pleasure itself, it is the inevitable consequences of hedonistic behaviours - alcoholism, obesity or substance dependency being but a few. To this degree, what we call sin, is often merely what your doctor would refer to as an unhealthy behaviour or lifestyle choice, only with an emphasis on spiritual rather than physiological well-being. And in the same way we do not hold a person gripped by an unhealthy behaviour with contempt, but with compassion.

This leaves us with your only understandable complaint - that of sinfulness as it relates to sexual hedonism. In the first instance, I refer to this complaint as understandable, because the nature of its sinfulness tends to be more obscure to the modern observer. Secondly, I must insist that, irrespective of said obscurity, the Christian view of sin cannot be reduced to its views on sexual immorality alone - meaning that even were I to accept your criticisms here, it would hardly constitute a broad condemnation of the nature of sin as a whole. Finally, I can still take the position that it isn't the immediate pleasure of the act(s) which is considered sinful - a fact which further renders your contention that sin is tantamount to a moral rejection of pleasure as fallacious. Indeed, were it true that the pleasure of intimacy were sinful, one would have sequentially to conclude that conjugal eros as also sinful when plainly, it is not.

So when you claim that the Christian life is "lifeless", I cannot help but think you are viewing Christianity, as did both Hitchens and Nietzsche, through the narrow lens of puritanical Victorianism. But the practices and codes of a 2000 year old faith can no more be understood through the prudish mores of the 19th century than can the Emancipation Proclamation can be understood through the lens of the 21st century social justice movement. The most important point, however, is that the avoidance of sin can be better understood as a dedication to self-sacrifice, and a dedication to self-sacrifice is the key to unlocking the highest of all human experiences.

I think it follows that when one is convinced that something ought to be considered ugly, one will view it as ugly, regardless of its actual aesthetic qualities. Then that object will be treated as though it were ugly.

Sin is not a matter of fashion: we do not claim sinfulness to be "ugly" as though it offended our taste or sensibilities. Our opposition to sin is an opposition to a substantive cause of suffering both in this world and in the next, not, as you seem to suggest, the result of arbitrarily selected aesthetic choices.

Nietzsche framed it as a slave morality vs master morality issue with the solution being a synthesis between the two, while believing that his contemporaneous society had been excessively drawn towards slave morality. I think his conclusion was accurate and even a prognostication of our current society as the SJW trend we see today exhibits all of the worst aspects of slave morality. We still haven't found the balance. The excessive obsession with an impossible utopian future world at the expense of this life/world is just as bad as being excessively obsessed with a metaphysical world.

Christ is liberty, not slavery. He is always a choice and never an obligation. Whilst I accept that there have been many Christians, both contemporary and historical, who have been guilty of dictatorial self-righteousness, this, it seems to me, is a curse of humanity rather than of theism. Certainly it is not, to my mind, justified by scripture. For this reason, the comparison to authoritarian elements of the social justice movement is a poor reflection of the faith. The contention that self-control and a dedication toward goodness and spiritual health is tantamount to bondage, cannot be, and therefore is not, true. On the contrary, a life lived purely for pleasure, absent boundaries, discipline or guidance is at much greater peril.

[basics]

It's funny you see him as a hero. He was nailed to a cross hopelessly, his followers were hiding and crying and they continued to do so for several hundreds of years. A man like Muhammad or Khalid ibn al-Walid would be much better suited for such a role.

Why should he be brought up in funerals? Why do you want special days?

Aqd,

The reason He is my hero is because as God He became a man destined to give the Law what it demanded of me, Him taking my place to fulfill that. Even before the Genesis story He was ordained to be my substitute on that cross and He came and did that not just for me but for all else that believe it. Every book of the Bible points to Him and His sacrifice but not only that it points to that better place in which we will live with Him. The two men you quote couldn't begin to lace His shoes because they never laid their lives down for anyone plus their promises to their followers was and still is weak because it all depends on God perhaps having mercy when they die and not the surety that Jesus Christ gives.

You ask why He should be brought up at funerals and the answer to that as far as non Muslims are concerned is because nonbelievers fear death and its consequences. The Muslim believes that the same Jesus is coming back to judge the whole world, not anyone else and so as only God can judge anything it follows that Jesus Christ must be God. So, the special days I mentioned are the Christian Holidays when even unbelievers feel good about themselves but death as I said has no special days, striking at any time and any moment.

Yes, His followers did run and hide because then they didn't know nor understand what was about to happen and when it did they still couldn't grasp why. But, when Pentecost came all was revealed to them and at that point those hundred and more in that room were born again of the Spirit of God shown by their power among the peoples visiting Jerusalem when some three thousand souls were added to their numbers who in turn took the Gospel back into their own lands creating new churches, it did what God had promised would happen. There's no doubt that some did have to hide and cry because almost immediately the Jewish leadership sent out squads to eliminate as many as possible to secure its own position among Jews. Little did they know or comprehend how quickly the Gospel would spread amongst the Gentile populations adding to their Jewish brethren.

[Sogdog]

Basics: "You ask why He should be brought up at funerals and the answer to that as far as non Muslims are concerned is because nonbelievers fear death and its consequences. "
No we don't.

"So, the special days I mentioned are the Christian Holidays"
Would these be the pagan festivals that christianity plagiarised?

"when even unbelievers feel good about themselves"
I feel great about myself every single day!

basics, you have a very basic and limited grasp of your own religion please stop thinking you know what us non-believers feel. You have no idea and it stinks of arrogance.
As far as heros giving up their lives I saw that Spiderman gave up his life for us.

[AqD]

I dunno about you, but in my view, self-sacrifice seems infinitely more courageous and heroic than raping and murdering random people.

sure, except he didn't mean to sacrifice himself. He was hiding and then he was captured, he had no choice. Did he wish to be captured? Did any of his followers risk their lives for him, or anyone at all? Where was the courage or the sacrifice, except in empty words and their imagination? And why would good and blessed persons as they were have to hide in the first place? joining god in heaven is nothing to be afraid of.

The only heroic events I know come from the Crusaders, who are probably rapists and murderers by modern standard.

[AqD]

nonbelievers fear death and its consequences.

It's known dogs would risk lives to save their human friends without hesitation. Do you think they're afraid of death? Do they believe in God? Would they enter heaven or meet God in dog form? There is no dog religion as far as we can tell.

[Cope]

sure, except he didn't mean to sacrifice himself. He was hiding and then he was captured, he had no choice. Did he wish to be captured? Did any of his followers risk their lives for him, or anyone at all? Where was the courage or the sacrifice, except in empty words and their imagination? And why would good and blessed persons as they were have to hide in the first place? joining god in heaven is nothing to be afraid of.

Christ understood the necessity and inevitability of his own sacrifice for an eternity prior to his mortal crucifixion. When the time was appropriate, he accepted it willingly. The Gospel accounts of Christ's life, arrest, execution and resurrection are explicit on this point. The following excerpts come from Matthew 26, though Mark, Luke and John provide similar evidence.

Christ is aware of Judas' betrayal in advance. He knowingly allows the betrayal to occur:

"[21] And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say into you, that one of you shall betray me. [22] And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord is it I? [23] And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. [24] The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. [25] Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said."

At the final supper, Christ uses the symbolism of bread and wine to represent the sacrifice he knows he must make. He goes on to explicitly predict his own death:

[26] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. [27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [29] But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom.

Christ acknowledges his own resurrection, prior to its occurrence:

"[32] But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee."

Christ demonstrates a prior knowledge of the suffering he will endure at the hands of the Romans during his prayers at Gethsemane.

[38] Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. [39] And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. [40] And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? [41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. [42] He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."

Christ is willing to be taken by his enemies despite a) the power of God to protect him and b) an attempt by one of his followers (presumably Simon Peter) to defend him with the sword.

'[47] And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. [48] Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. [49] And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail master; and kissed him. [50] And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. [51] And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. [52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. [53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?'

[fkizz]

However what is troubling is actually the unpopularity of superheroes. Superman isn't as popular as Kim Kardashian and other scum like her: that is horrifying.

Because, Empirically making a small correction to Nietzsche's line, "Dead are all gods. Now we desire the Celeb Gossip to live." is comically closer to the Truth of our condition as a species.

[Sogdog]

Jesus "dying" on the cross was no big feat for a deity.
1) He knew it was going to happen.
2) He knew he would rise again.

So in effect he didn't really die, he was inconvenienced for a weekend. Big wow.
Sounds like rubbish to me. I am going to follow Avengers instead, thanks.

[Cope]

Jesus "dying" on the cross was no big feat for a deity.

1) He knew it was going to happen.
2) He knew he would rise again.

So in effect he didn't really die, he was inconvenienced for a weekend. Big wow.
Sounds like rubbish to me. I am going to follow Avengers instead, thanks.

If we assume literary extravagance to be a sign of fabrication then its absence from the Gospels acts as evidence of their authenticity. Had the authors of the New Testament intended to construct a myth to rest atop the Jewish faith, one suspects that it would have been a) more superficially striking and b) less aggravating to the local customs and authorities. The treatment of the Incarnation as unimpressive by non-believers therefore pays testament to the reliability of the Gospel writings. They are not the exorbitant fictions of myths or comic books, but truthful accounts of God's coming to humanity.

[Sogdog]

ep1c_fail:"If we assume literary extravagance to be a sign of fabrication then its absence from the Gospels acts as evidence of their authenticity."
You said it : "assume". This does not make it fact one bit. It is an assumption, nothing more. And thus can be ignored.

"The treatment of the Incarnation as unimpressive by non-believers therefore pays testament to the reliability of the Gospel writings."
Massive assumption without a shred of evidence. So........no!

"They are not the exorbitant fictions of myths or comic books, but truthful accounts of God's coming to humanity."
Another massive assumption without a shred of evidence. So....no!

[Cope]

You said it : "assume". This does not make it fact one bit. It is an assumption, nothing more. And thus can be ignored.

I didn't claim the absence of superficial literary extravagance as irrefutable proof of the authenticity of the Gospels: I claimed it as evidence.

Massive assumption without a shred of evidence. So........no!

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that fictional works are more extravagant than non-fictional works, just as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the authors of the Gospels were reporting on the life and works of Christ rather than constructing a fantasy.

[Sar1n]

I'm sorry, but you really sound like this:



In any case...I've read plenty of fiction without any literary extravagance. It is not evidence of anything but a literary style.

[Cope]

In the first case, I did not claim that literary extravagance was unique to fiction, only that it is, for self-evident reasons more common within that genre than it is within non-fiction works. My purpose for making this claim was to highlight that the Gospels are not written in the style of a pagan myth or superhero comic because they are an account of the life of a real man.

[basics]

Sogdog,

So, whose we? That they are Christian Holydays and have been for a long time is more than well recognised. Have you always felt like that or are you just kidding us all?

AqD,

Oh but He did purposely come into the world to sacrifice Himself. The events of Him being taken were exactly as had been planned. And yes, one of His followers weilded his sword to inflict damage to the ear of one of His captors but Jesus told him to put it away as His time had come. His disciples didn't know nor understand what was about to happen so they did what was natural and ran. Their strength only came about at Pentecost whilst He took everything that man could inflict on Him in the coming hours and said next to nothing during it. That He endured that for me makes Him my hero.

[basics]

Sogdog,

So, whose we? That they are Christian Holydays and have been for a long time is more than well recognised. Have you always felt like that or are you just kidding us all?

AqD,

Oh but He did purposely come into the world to sacrifice Himself. The events of Him being taken were exactly as had been planned. And yes, one of His followers weilded his sword to inflict damage to the ear of one of His captors but Jesus told him to put it away as His time had come. His disciples didn't know nor understand what was about to happen so they did what was natural and ran. Their strength only came about at Pentecost whilst He took everything that man could inflict on Him in the coming hours and said next to nothing during it. That He endured that for me makes Him my hero.