A familiar, and very old, observation.

[rug]

1 Corinthians 15

17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.
19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

[Cartoonist]

1. Jesus died for your sins, not mine.

P.Smith #unknown.

[rug]

2. That is either an idiosyncratic thought or you have none.

[Cartoonist]

3. Hi, pot

So your quoting the Bible instead of saying something of your own is not idiosyncratic?

[rug]

4. No, that is mainstream Christian theology.

Not 21st century "original" criticism and mockery.

[Cartoonist]

7. So quoting a centuries old book

is mainstream, but quoting a contemporary artist is idiosyncratic?

[rug]

10. No. The idiosyncracy was the reslt of your misunderstanding of the subject.

Quoting "P.Smith #unknown" did not salvage it.

[Cartoonist]

19. you are still in your sins.

Me and P.Smith are OK with that.

[rug]

20. And you are . . . . ?

[bvf]

5. In contrast,

the sentiment of the OP is truly deep and not at all complete nonsense.

[rug]

6. Glad you agree.

Admittedly, Paul barely can hold his own with P.Smith #unknown.

[Cartoonist]

8. Paul was a bigot.

Case closed.

[rug]

11. Name-calling and labeling closes a bigot's mind the fastest.

[Cartoonist]

18. Know ye, Paul was a bigot.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

[rug]

21. I don't think you know what bigotry is.

If you use that term, as you understand it, to a first century Jewish convert, who also had the privilege of Roman citizenship, you cannot escape viewing all of human history, save the last century or two, as the result of bigotry, as you understand it. And that is ignorance.

So, who in the first century CE would you consider not to be a bigot?

[Cartoonist]

22. Jesus

If he existed. Didn't he say, "above all else, love one another."? Too bad Paul didn't pick up on the message.

[rug]

29. Yes he did speak to that effect. But that particular phrase is attributed to Peter.

1 Peter 4

8 Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.
9 Be hospitable to one another without complaining.

So, if all humans then, save Jesus of Nazareth, were bigots, it rather renders the word useless in this context.

[Cartoonist]

32. Has humanity changed that much?

I suspect that there were always good people and bad. You sure have a low opinion of the human race to say everyone was a bigot back then.

[rug]

35. I don't think so.

As to bigotry, I was simply applying your definition which you interjected. Those opinions you quoted were the norm then. So, I'll ask you again: what contemporary of Paul, save Jesus, would you NOT consider a bigot?

[Cartoonist]

38. The downtrodden

The slaves, the poor, the lepers, etc.

The usual demographics.

[rug]

39. Well, I don't think you'll find that the oppressed are free of bigotry becase they're oppressed.

Marx is a better guide here. There are plenty of bigotries to peddle to keep the oppressed divided, even in their oppression.

[okasha]

45. White Southern sharecroppers?

[Cartoonist]

53. Wrong century nt

[rug]

54. Women and gay people were subjected to discrimination, even by the poor, in the first centry CE.

I won't even get into Samaritans.

[okasha]

60. How are the more recent downtrodden and oppressed

different in kind from 1st. Century downtrodden and oppressed?

[Cartoonist]

69. Like I said earlier

There are good people and bad people. I wasn't there, but I'm sure there were good people back in the first century. That was what rug asked. I named a few that might have been good people back then.

[okasha]

73. You're right, but that doesn't respond to the question.

[Cartoonist]

81. Your question?

That was from out in right field, and totally irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.

[okasha]

85. "Right field?"

Whoever told you you were subtle is an idiot.

You brought up the poor and oppressed. I still want to know how you differentiate the poor and oppressed on chronological grounds. You haven't been responsive.

[hrmjustin]

86. .

[bvf]

9. Well,

the argument between the two seems to center on zombies, so I'd call it a draw.

[rug]

12. You can call it what you like but I'd have my observation skills calibrated first.

[bvf]

13. That is either an idiosyncratic thought or you have none.

[rug]

14. No, it's dismay at your equating it to zombies and expecting credence.

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[phil89]

15. If you believe

someone died for something you did, and you're happy about it...that is immoral.

[rug]

23. Sorry, your judgment of morality doesn't hold much water.

Particularly since you can't make a moral pronouncement without dishonesily claiming someone is happy about a crucifixion.

[bvf]

17. A zombie is a corpse revived by a supernatural power.

Seems reasonable to me. You should probably borrow a dictionary from a friend, if possible.

[rug]

25. You know as little about zombies as you do theology.

The Walking Dead must be all about supernatural powers.

George Romero must be a secret Cardinal.

[bvf]

33. Still haven't found a dictionary, I see.

Seems to me you could have put the time you spent building that ridiculous straw man of yours to much better use.

[rug]

34. Ah, ad hominems! I acept your surrender.

You don't need a dictionary to tell the difference between science fiction and "supernatural powers".

[bvf]

41. Your complete disinterest

in the English language is duly noted, as is your unwillingness to accept the very existence of beliefs of cultures other than your own.

[rug]

42. Lol! Kudos on two blunders in one sentence.

[hrmjustin]

43. I missed you.

[rug]

44. Same here friend.

[hrmjustin]

46. You are so much better at arguing then I am.

[okasha]

47. I did, too.

I tried to fill in for you, in a very small way.

[rug]

49. I'm scanning some of the old threads.

I admire your patience and deftness.

[hrmjustin]

50. You did a great job.

[okasha]

70. Thanks to you both, but it was in a small way.

I do believe I comforted one poster though. I f only three or four people outside of your insulated little clique will respond to you, losing one for forty days could be devastating.

[hrmjustin]

72. some of our friends in here either have me on ignore or have chosen not to respond to me anymore.

lol I will live.

[okasha]

75. There are a couple who get pretty quiet

with their 4th. hide in 90 days.

[hrmjustin]

77. Yes that is true.

But i always advise people who have several hides to put those on ignore who cause them issues.

[bvf]

51. Do you only read comic books?

Because that's the impression I get.

Try to do a modicum of research on other religions, and crack a god-damned reference book or two, for crying out loud.

[rug]

52. As soon as you learn the difference between a zombie, an avatar, a unicorn and a Messiah.

Other than that, you may be confusing me with one of two posters.

[bvf]

55. Educate me on the difference, then.

Pay particular attention to the difference between a zombie and a corpse revived through supernatural intervention.

The unicorn in my basement died on Friday, btw. Still dead, which reminds me I have to call the city's Animal Control Department first thing in the morning.

[rug]

58. "crack a god-damned reference book or two, for crying out loud."

I don't think you can afford my rates.

[bvf]

62. So in other words,

you don't have a clue, fucking or otherwise.

Thanks for the elucidation.

Again I ask: Why is a dead guy brought back to life through supernatural intervention not a zombie?

That's where you came in with your cavalier dismissal of others' religious beliefs.

[hrmjustin]

63. We don't as Christians call him a Zombie and find it offensive to call him such.

[bvf]

67. You find other religions offensive?

[hrmjustin]

68. No but calling Jesus a Zombie is offensive.

If others incorporate zombie in their faith that does not offend me.

[bvf]

83. Look up the word "zombie" and explain to me

why it doesn't apply to a dead guy whose corpse is revived through supernatural means, simply because he's your guy.

[hrmjustin]

84. I know what the definition is and I can tell you the modern walking dead definition comes to mind.

Can you comprehend why we might take offense to it?

[bvf]

87. I think you're making the same mistake

that rug did in setting up his silly straw man, although I don't think that's your intent here.

I'm simply saying that the standard English definition of the word precisely applies in this case.

I'm not talking about half-decomposed, brain-craving (guessing here) characters from a TV show I've never watched. I'm only talking about what the word really means.

ETA:

Do you comprehend why saying "Jesus died for your sins" would be just as offensive to an atheist?

[hrmjustin]

88. That maybe true about the definition but it is still offensive.

[rug]

71. Save yourself the trouble. Vodou won't rescue your from your flailing.

http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Voodoo_zombie

To the extent zombies, technically nzambi, reflects a belief system, you're mixing and conflating two distinct belief systems.

In the meantime, the article explains why, if there are any documented cases of zombies at all, there is a scientific, not religious, explanation at the base.

[bvf]

82. Excuse me?

Congratulations on your amazing Google skills. I'm speaking plain English here. You seem to be confused by that.

[rug]

66. No, let's stick to my actual words. Try again.

[bvf]

74. "A zombie is a corpse revived by a supernatural power."

Those were my actual words. So far, you've yet to explain why the definition is inapplicable in the case of what's-his-name.

[rug]

76. Simple. You haven't demonstrated the accuracy of your definition.

Now prove it.

[bvf]

79. You're the one who said you didn't need a dictionary.

Crimony. GMAFB!

[hrmjustin]

16. But indeed the tomb is empty!

He is risen!

[rug]

26. I like what precedes and follows that passage.

[hrmjustin]

28. On the ressurection?

[rug]

30. Yes. And on faith in the Resurrection.

[hrmjustin]

31. Just read it and yes it is.

I believe in a literal resurrection that saves all humanity.

I believe in the extreme mercy of God.

[pinto]

24. Yes, it is. Faith can be very real and also futile. Sound and fury as the writer said.

I find it fascinating, fwiw.

Good to see you rug!

[rug]

27. He lays out the heart of it right there.

Hope you're well, pinto.

[Htom Sirveaux]

36. I find it suggestive that Paul was in an argument over whether the dead are raised,

and never mentioned the empty tomb. Modern apologists use the empty tomb that way all the time, but it didn't occur to Paul to do so? I think it's more likely to be a tradition that was formulated between the writings of Paul and the creation of the Gospel of Mark.

[rug]

37. I'm not following you. If he was resurrected the tombe would be empty, mention or no.

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. But according to the gospels, the tomb was an identifiable place.

But if Jesus was, for example, tossed into a mass grave, then it's quite possible that the apostles did not actually know for sure whether Jesus's body had been raised. They could have assumed it, or claimed it for theological reasons (to make a point about the goodness of physical creation in response to greeks who devalued the physical world).

The point is that Paul could have used the empty tomb as evidence. The gospels certainly make it an important part of the story. But Paul didn't, and I think it's because he didn't know about, because it was a later invention.

[rug]

48. That's an interesting point.

But I think his message in this Epistle was the boldness of the claim. His emphasis was on the many said to have seen the resurrected Jesus rather than the empty cave itself. Then, impelled, he goes on to the astonishing conclusions and meaning of it.

[okasha]

56. Thing is, we don't know what Paul knew.

His relations with the mother church in Jerusalem seem to have fluctuated between coolly polite and bitterly hostile. We have no way of knowing what got lost in that wrangle, possibly including the location of Jesus' tomb.

I know Crossan advances the interpretation that Jesus was, if buried at all, tossed into a common grave with the other victims who died the same day. Many scholars, however, believe that there is an eyewitness account incorporated into the final chapters of John. Following this, and if Tabor is correct that Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, the last four verses of Chapter 19 fall neatly into place. There were burials on Olivet at this time, including one intriguing Simon bar Jonah and more than one Mary and Martha. If these were in fact among Jesus' first followers, it would be natural for them to want to be buried as close to his own tomb as possible.

[longship]

64. In fact Paul did not seem to know much about Jesus' life at all.

The gospels and Paul are quite divergent on many issues. It certainly seems that the Christianity of Paul was different than that of the gospels. You know, the old acts versus beliefs argument.

Then there's the synoptic problem within the gospels themselves. Markan Priority versus the "standard" sequence. And John stands alone. Of course, all four names were added after the fact, some say much later. There does not appear to be any definitive provenance for the most important literature in Christianity. Funny that some claim inerrancy.

[edhopper]

57. he didn't

So I guess you do.
Now that, that is answered....

[rug]

59. I don't do haiku.

[edhopper]

61. your OP was a series of questions

I answered.
He didn't rise, the rest follows.

[rug]

65. You should have kept reading the passage.

He did and it tells you why.

Against that, we'll have your fourteenth thousand iteration of the phrase "there is no (physical) evidence".

That is, when you're not claiming he never lived, let alone died or resurrected. Therein lies your problem. There is zero data from that phenomenon, which by every measure is physically impossible and, if it happened at all, must necessarily be supernatural.

So, what you're saying in essence is that it cannot happen because it violates every known natural law. To which, "no shit, Sherlock" is an apt response. Hence the boldness of the claim.

You don't know it did not happen. You are simply saying it can't happen and therefore it didn't happen.

If it did not happen, it is all nonsense. If it did happen . . . .

[edhopper]

78. thank you for taken care of all that

So I don't have to.

Though I am not a mythicist.

[rug]

80. Your last sentence reminds me of a joke.

I was giving my young son a wash when all of a sudden he shat in the tub.

"Bath turd!" I yelled as he sat there giggling.

The little fucker won't be laughing when I get rid of my lisp.

[edhopper]

89. that's juth thilly.