Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did Jesus have epilepsy?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
Did Jesus have epilepsy?

Although I am Atheist, I believe that Jesus existed. Only he wasn't the man the bible made him out to be. He had brain damage.

Last night on the ABC I saw a program which linked religious belief with the frontal lobe in the brain. It suggested (and gave plenty of evidence to back it up) that a knock to the head, and subsequent damage to the frontal lobe, was what started the whole seventh day adventist movement.

Now, as we know, it was started by a woman who recieved hundreds of visions, which she believed were from the christian god. These visions started eight years after she was hit in the head by a rock. during those eight years years, and starting directly after she was hit, her personality completely changed. She became moralistic and highly religous, finally culminating in the visions. the length of time between being hit by the rock and the visions starting is consistent with one who has frontal lobe epilepsy.

But back to our man, the Big J. Is it possible that he recieved a knock to the noggin when he was young, only to recieve visions that he was Gods son, and in fact, God? This, too, is consistent with frontal lobe epilepsy. So is thinking that your mother was impregnated by a higher power.

It's not that hard to find disenfranchised people, and start up a cult. it's not hard to have them cling to your every word, and have them believe that you ARE god. it happens all the time. Is there really any difference between the UFO cults of today, and christianity? Yes. One. Christianity has been around longer. thats it. thanks to social conditioning, the idea that a superhuman being (who came from nowhere) created us to manage the earth and who wrote a book riddled with mistakes, inconsistencies, untruths and flagrant scienetific ignorance (doesn't god understand how the world works?) is accepted, while the idea that we were created by aliens is impossible for christians to comprehend.

This epilepsy idea could be the basis for everything you believe in. everything you know could exist simply because some palestinian bully threw a rock at a young man names jesus.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:46 pm
Posts: 554
Location: In a cold, stone castle, dieing of ennui
you could be right. It all makes sense. His apostles,when they wrote the bible, could have found no evidence of doing any miracles, and all agreed to put the same ones in there.
[size=7]i still uphold al of my religeous belifs[/size

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What a load of horse poop
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:22 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
I will readily admit that many of the arguments put forward by atheists have merit, but this one has got to be the biggest load of bullcrap I've seen in my entire life. I read this last night, and I honestly had to stand up because I couldn't laugh hard enough sitting down. They put this crap on TV? And people actually buy into it?

If you would devote only a few minutes of your time to a serious study about the Bible, you would see that existing manuscript and archeological evidence gives it a high degree of credibility. On the basis of that credibility, a careful reading of the Bible will show that Jesus' life fulfilled thousands of Old Testament prophecies, in ways that Jesus (or any of his contemporaries) could not have rigged.

If the whole thing was simply a case of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, how could Jesus raise the dead, heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and make the lame walk? How did he turn water to wine? How did he walk on water and calm storms? If later writers were simply lying about these things, why were they not exposed as frauds and their writings not burned as heretical?

Another thing you're overlooking is the fact that Jesus wasn't the only one who had visions. If you're going to make the preposterous claim than Jesus had TLE, will you go so far as to claim that Mary [Lk. 1:26-38, Lk. 24:4-10], Joseph [Matt. 1:19-21, Matt. 2:12-14, Matt. 2:18-20], Zacharias [Lk. 1:11-19], Elizabeth [Lk. 1:39-42], the shepherds [Lk. 2:8-15], Simeon [Lk. 2:25-35], Anna [Lk. 2:36-38], John the Baptist (and all others who witnessed Jesus' baptism) [Lk. 3:21-23], Peter [Matt. 14:22-31, Matt. 17:1-5, Acts 10:9-23], James [Matt. 17:1-5], John [Matt. 17:1-5, Revelation 1-21], Stephen [Acts 7:54-60], Paul [Acts 9:1-9], Ananias [Acts 9:10-19], Cornelius [Acts 10:1-8], Mary Magdalene [Lk. 24:4-10], Joanna [Lk. 24:4-10], the twelve disciples [Matt. 14:22-27, Lk. 24:13-53] and 500 other people [1 Cor. 15:1-8] had TLE too?

Criminy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 3:23 am
Posts: 2562
Location: I seem to have...pooped......in my pants...
Sadly, when it comes to Jesus, people who aren't believers are way more inclined to hold a theory that they heard in passing as absolute truth, rather than do the work and study the Bible and risk *gasp* conversion.

Thanks, Joey, for putting scripture behind all that.

I've also noticed that when people "search" for a religion or belief, they always look at everything BUT Christianity. Why is that?

I don't wanna make generalizations here, that's just what I've observed.

Any thoughts, anyone? Joey? Didymus? Jones?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 6:05 am
Posts: 5636
Location: swirlee.org for great justice
AgentSeethroo wrote:
I've also noticed that when people "search" for a religion or belief, they always look at everything BUT Christianity. Why is that?


Many of them, I would guess, have already tried it and found it unsatisfying. Sure, it changed your life and made you a better person and you can't imaging living your life any other way, but it doesn't work that way for everybody. If I didn't suspect I'd get crucified (sorry, not the best word, but convenient) for saying it, I might go out on a limb and say that it can't work that way for everybody.

Many others, I would guess, are very turned off by Christians. Not all Christians, of course, just particular ones, I'm sure you know the sort. The Christians you hear about in the news or meet in airports or street corners are never* the good sort. They're always* the ones who have some sort of fierce hatred for some particular group of people they want you to share or the ones who want to make you feel guilty for not being a Christian or the ones who want to make prayer or segregation or Creation instruction mandatory in your kids' schools or the ones who want to limit you or your friends' civil liberties or the ones who want to tell you what you can't do in the privacy of your own home with your consensual partner, heterosexual or otherwise, or the ones who want the preferences of their congregation written into law so that everybody has to live by them. It's very easy to assume that those Christians (I'm tempted to say '"Christians"') are the majority. And some days, though I'm lucky to know more than my share of wonderfully informed, insightful, open-minded, respectful Christians, I'm not sure that they aren't.

*you know what I mean and not to take it literally

_________________
StrongCanada wrote:
Jordan, you are THE SUCK at kissing! YAY! Just thought you should know! Rainbows! Sunshine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 3:23 am
Posts: 2562
Location: I seem to have...pooped......in my pants...
I think the reason for many of these "Christians" sticking out so badly is that they have sort of an overbearing, proud spirit.

Christ called us to be humble, and that means just living, and when the time presents itself, to teach/explain/whatever.

I think it's completely horrible that so many "Christians" are hateful toward homosexuals. I'll tell you in an instant that I don't agree with that lifestyle, but I'm not gonna say "I hate you" for how you live.

As for people who think Creationism should be taught in schools, I think it's the parents responsibility to give their children a firm foundation on their beliefs. I think people could definitely use that as a sort of cop-out to actually teaching their own children. If you've taught your children the way you know that God created you to do, you shouldn't have to worry about theories they hear in school.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: On that note...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:47 pm
Posts: 6
Location: MD
I'd just like to say, though my stance on Jesus himself is irrelevent to my contribution in this case, that I agree; the post that began this thread is ridiculous to the extreme. What your post basically said was that if you were hit on the head with a rock you might begin having visions. So what? There are many other potential reasons for visions, even if you don't believe that they are divinely inspired, and frankly it would be difficult for all of the various followers of Jesus, and his followers who wrote the New Testament, to all have been hit over the head with rocks. Oh, and all religious people who feel that they have experienced any form of God, too, as you seem to be implying.

I'm sorry, but the stance you're taking is not particularly logical or persuasive, and treading on somewhat thin ice.

As for Agent Seethroo's statement that people don't tend to turn to Christianity, if that were the case Christianity wouldn't be the most-followed religion in the world today, now would it? It's simply that once disillusioned with one religion, many don't feel comfortable accepting any other one.

And with that, I bid you all adieu. Sorry for the post, in which I suspect I reitrated points others had made. If this is the case, I apologize profusely.

P.S. Okay, I lied, the post isn't entirely over. What makes you think that Christianity was the first religion to emphasize one God, fossilise_apostle? If you do a little research, you'll find that A) Jesus was a Jew, and already believed in one God [knowing this might help with arguments about Jesus], and B) scientific research suggests, if you happen to believe in Neanderthal Man, which your post implies that you do, religion's been with us for hundreds of thousands of years.

Please think a little more before you post. Thank you.

_________________
<joeyday> So it's you, Jesters, Firebird, and Agent9.
<joeyday> Five is...
<joeyday> pcp08128402pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net
<Tom39> Jweb.
<Jweb_Guru> I feel strangely honored.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On that note...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 3:23 am
Posts: 2562
Location: I seem to have...pooped......in my pants...
jweb_guru wrote:
Oh, and all religious people who feel that they have experienced any form of God, too, as you seem to be implying.


HOLY CRAP! I'm EPILEPTIC??!!??!!

Good point, Guru.

Thanks for being the "Devil's Advocate". Or would it be...the..."Christian's Advocate"??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have epilepsy?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Last night on the ABC I saw a program which linked religious belief with the frontal lobe in the brain. ... starting directly after she was hit, her personality completely changed. She became moralistic and highly religous

This may actually be an important consideration. If what we call "reasoning" is really just the impact of causal psychology, then everything everyone knows must be called into question! C.S. Lewis discusses this in the essay Miracles, and the conclusion is one that's hard to argue with a priori.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
It's not that hard to find disenfranchised people, and start up a cult. it's not hard to have them cling to your every word, and have them believe that you ARE god.

I don't know, I've actually found it rather difficult.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
who wrote a book riddled with mistakes, inconsistencies, untruths and flagrant scienetific ignorance (doesn't god understand how the world works?) is accepted,

Adressing these kinds of questions is done in another thread: Can (a Christian) God Be?

fossilise_apostle wrote:
This epilepsy idea could be the basis for everything you believe in. everything you know could exist simply because some palestinian bully threw a rock at a young man names jesus.

And any one of us could be a brain in a jar, the world we know simply electrical impulses (a la The Matrix, though the ontological thought experement is actually much older). If one is to know anything, one has to first know something. The above Lewis tome begins with only one assumption: that logic is valid. An entire worldview built on that premise is then derived from that premise and its inevitable consequences.

At any rate, though the initial post was inflammatory in nature, the question is not entirely invalid. The possibility that Jesus was a lunatic is entertained in (D'oh! Another Lewis book! I promise, I do read other stuff too!) Mere Christianity.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
yes, thin ice is where i tread.

so, JoeyDay. All those people having visions must mean it's true!

You only have to look towards modern cults to start seeing similarites towards christianity.

Quote:
If the whole thing was simply a case of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, how could Jesus raise the dead, heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and make the lame walk? How did he turn water to wine? How did he walk on water and calm storms?


He didn't.

The great book of the Bible is the great Gospel of Thomas, dated to 50 AD. But it unfortuntely leaves all the good bits out. Wheres the bit where Jesus gets resurected? where are the miracles? it is this gospel that i believe tells the true story about jesus, before later authors added bits in for a bit of a yarn.

Quote:
Another thing you're overlooking is the fact that Jesus wasn't the only one who had visions. If you're going to make the preposterous claim than Jesus had TLE, will you go so far as to claim that Mary [Lk. 1:26-38, Lk. 24:4-10], Joseph [Matt. 1:19-21, Matt. 2:12-14, Matt. 2:18-20], Zacharias [Lk. 1:11-19], Elizabeth [Lk. 1:39-42], the shepherds [Lk. 2:8-15], Simeon [Lk. 2:25-35], Anna [Lk. 2:36-38], John the Baptist (and all others who witnessed Jesus' baptism) [Lk. 3:21-23], Peter [Matt. 14:22-31, Matt. 17:1-5, Acts 10:9-23], James [Matt. 17:1-5], John [Matt. 17:1-5, Revelation 1-21], Stephen [Acts 7:54-60], Paul [Acts 9:1-9], Ananias [Acts 9:10-19], Cornelius [Acts 10:1-8], Mary Magdalene [Lk. 24:4-10], Joanna [Lk. 24:4-10], the twelve disciples [Matt. 14:22-27, Lk. 24:13-53] and 500 other people [1 Cor. 15:1-8] had TLE too?


it's not that hard to rewrite things, or indeed, make them up.

Quote:
P.S. Okay, I lied, the post isn't entirely over. What makes you think that Christianity was the first religion to emphasize one God, fossilise_apostle? If you do a little research, you'll find that A) Jesus was a Jew, and already believed in one God [knowing this might help with arguments about Jesus], and B) scientific research suggests, if you happen to believe in Neanderthal Man, which your post implies that you do, religion's been with us for hundreds of thousands of years.


yes, i'm well aware of all these arguments. yes, i do 'happen' to believe in the Neanderthal Man. did God come down and talk to them? how did they understand him?

which brings me to my next point...

The same program went on to suggest that religion was developed as a survival mechanism. people with religious beliefs live longer. could it be that special parts of the brain evolved to help man survive?

yes, entirely possible.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 2:05 am
Posts: 72
Location: Burlington, OH
fossilise_apostle wrote:
The great book of the Bible is the great Gospel of Thomas, dated to 50 AD. But it unfortuntely leaves all the good bits out. Wheres the bit where Jesus gets resurected? where are the miracles? it is this gospel that i believe tells the true story about jesus, before later authors added bits in for a bit of a yarn.


There's a difference between studying doctrinal history and watching "Stigmata" on Cinemax last night.

_________________
"Hey Dudes, thanks for rescuing me. Let's go for a burger... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 6:05 am
Posts: 5636
Location: swirlee.org for great justice
DeadGuyPerez wrote:
There's a difference between studying doctrinal history and watching "Stigmata" on Cinemax last night.


There's a difference between refuting an argument and just making a snarky comment that goes over everybody's head.

_________________
StrongCanada wrote:
Jordan, you are THE SUCK at kissing! YAY! Just thought you should know! Rainbows! Sunshine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Gospel of Thomas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
fossilise_apostle wrote:
You only have to look towards modern cults to start seeing similarites towards christianity.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a cult; a rip-off of Christianity. Similarities are inevitible. The most effective lies seem to be ones with a shred of truth!

fossilise_apostle wrote:
The great book of the Bible is the great Gospel of Thomas, dated to 50 AD.

You've been talking to your Imam. The Gospel of Thomas is, in most research, a couple hundred years younger. While people find tenuous literary evidence to older orgins, no manuscripts as old as you propose exist.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
But it unfortuntely leaves all the good bits out. Wheres the bit where Jesus gets resurected? where are the miracles? it is this gospel that i believe tells the true story about jesus, before later authors added bits in for a bit of a yarn.

We (I say "we," meaning humanity... and in particular, museums) have fragments for all but 2 of the canonized verses of the NT from before A.D. 100. This means that when they were written, eyewitnesses were still alive. And these eyewitnesses were more than the authors, they were also adherents and yes, enemies. Had the facts not been as they were recorded, it would have been really easy for enemies to disprove the texts, and really hard for adherents to swallow the texts. Historical records (outside the Biblical texts themselves) confirm the public reaction and AFAIK it logically agrees with the recordings in the letters we assembled into the NT.

In fact, as far as what historians consider to be "historical evidence," I'm told there's more for the record of Jesus' life as we Christians understand it than there is for the existence of Abraham Lincoln.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
it's not that hard to rewrite things, or indeed, make them up.

No, what's hard (as I think I've mentioned in another thread) is to fool people into believing what someone's made up. While the masses can be fooled, it generally takes a propaganda machine with the power of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, which has only half-convinced the population of that great nation that Americans caused the Tiananmen Square massacre. I doubt a couple of insane fishermen two millenia ago versus thousands of eyewitnesses could have outdone the juggernaut of totalitarian government with complete media control and only maybe a dozen surviving witnesses.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
The same program went on to suggest that religion was developed as a survival mechanism. people with religious beliefs live longer. could it be that special parts of the brain evolved to help man survive?

It sure is possible, and I repeat; if you believe religion not for logical reasons but for psychological reasons, then the first half of the C.S. Lewis book Miracles is your next reading assignment. The best I could do would be to plagiarize him here, so I won't waste your patience in an already longish post.

You're also right in that: if evolution is true, then there is a survival benefit to monotheism. So if you want to be "selected for" and not "selected against" in the progression of evolution, Christianity is a means to that end. But I digress; I have never advocated Christianity as a means to an earthly end (it has been used as such by evil dictators at times like the medieval Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, I won't make that mistake!), and I will not do so now.

Fossilised Apostle, if you believe the so-called Gospel of Thomas and its Gnostisism, you do so in defiance of good reseach and reliable evidence. You therefore do it in blind faith. If you merely use it as a tool permitting you to dismiss the synoptic gospels, then you're believing something because it suits your feelings rather than because it's true. Nothing personal, I am simply trying to diagnose your heterodox opinions. Though, to be fair, you didn't say these were you're beliefs... you cited an ABC special as the source. I got two words for people who believe ABC specials: HELD BACK. REPEATING THE THIRD GRADE. LOW STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES.

But this has been a fun question nonetheless.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:08 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
fossilise_apostle wrote:
it's not that hard to rewrite things, or indeed, make them up.


Look, Mr. Scienetist, I know I'm never going to convince you that Jesus was God in the flesh. That's not my point in arguing this. My point is to show you how asinine it is to postulate that Jesus was real, but had temporal lobe epilepsy.

Allow me to apply a rule you should be quite familiar with: Occam's Razor. The rule states, "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Okay, there are two possibilities here (if you assume that Jesus was a fraud):

1. Jesus was a real person. He had temporal lobe epilepsy and convinced hundreds of people that he was God. After he died, a bunch of guys got together and made up a bunch of lies about him.

2. A bunch of guys got together and made up a bunch of lies.

Okay, smart stuff, which one's simpler? If you're already convinced that the gospel writers lied, why hold to the idea that Jesus was a real person?


Last edited by JoeyDay on Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 6:05 am
Posts: 5636
Location: swirlee.org for great justice
Great posts, guys. I hope my last post didn't lead anybody to believe I was agreeing with Mr. ABC Special, I just thought that Perez's reply was snarky and lame. Glad you guys can fill in where he couldn't.

_________________
StrongCanada wrote:
Jordan, you are THE SUCK at kissing! YAY! Just thought you should know! Rainbows! Sunshine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:34 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
Here's a more important question for you:

If the gospel writers did make all this up, what was their motive? None of them got rich from this scheme, none of them gained any fame while they were alive (other than the few followers they did manage to keep), and most -- if not all -- of them lost their lives because of their testimonies.

If you can put forward one good motive, I'll eat my hat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mmmmmm!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
JoeyDay wrote:
If you can put forward one good motive, I'll eat my hat.

Mmmmmm! Hat! What kind?

I had no idea so many people cared... in the time it took me to eat my lunch there were several posts!

It makes me question what my motives for posting are. I think I know what they are, actually. But unless the evidence convinces me, unless there is truth behind my beliefs, I am not to be so much refuted as pitied.

And I think that reference, and its context from verses 14-19, refutes any possible earthly motives apostles may have had. No hat meal for you, Joey Day.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 612
Location: Uck
JoeyDay wrote:
Okay, smart stuff, which one's simpler? If you're already convinced that the gospel writers lied, why hold to the idea that Jesus was a real person?


Because of the evidence that he was, perhaps? I'm not sure about Buz's "Abe Lincoln" example, but I'm pretty sure there's more evidence for Jesus' existence than for Julius Caesar's. However (correct me if I'm wrong), the only contemporary source of the Bible's version of the life of Jesus is the Bible itself.

Quote:
If the gospel writers did make all this up, what was their motive? None of them got rich from this scheme, none of them gained any fame while they were alive (other than the few followers they did manage to keep), and most -- if not all -- of them lost their lives because of their testimonies.


I've always theorised that the gospel writers, after Jesus' death, decided that they still wanted to spread his teachings, because (as do most people) they reckoned he had the right idea, whether or not he was the Son of God. So they put all his teachings in a book and threw a few miracles and a resurrection into the mix as well.

Knowing that even if they did lose their lives they would spend eternity with God in heaven sounds like justification to me.

I hope you like the taste of headgear...

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:03 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
Upsilon wrote:
I've always theorised that the gospel writers, after Jesus' death, decided that they still wanted to spread his teachings, because (as do most people) they reckoned he had the right idea, whether or not he was the Son of God. So they put all his teachings in a book and threw a few miracles and a resurrection into the mix as well.

Knowing that even if they did lose their lives they would spend eternity with God in heaven sounds like justification to me.

I hope you like the taste of headgear...


Holy moly! How could they possibly hope to spend eternity in heaven if they LIED about all this stuff?!? I'm about ready to give up on this thread, as NOBODY is making any SENSE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 612
Location: Uck
It's entirely possible that they believed that Jesus was a messenger sent from God and what he was preaching was the truth. They just thought that the story would be more attractive if Jesus demonstrated his powers by rising from the dead.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Deaf ears
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Upsilon wrote:
It's entirely possible that they believed that Jesus was a messenger sent from God and what he was preaching was the truth. They just thought that the story would be more attractive if Jesus demonstrated his powers by rising from the dead.


You obviously missed reading the reference I made above. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then we all (the apostles included) are to be pitied above all men, because we throw our lives away in the hope that we can be like Jesus in his death, and therefore like him in his resurrection. If he didn't rise, then us Christians are doomed. And the apostles knew that.

The resurrection isn't frosting to make morality broccoli look appealing. The resurrection is the core doctrine of Christianity, sine quo non. Jesus teachings were peripheral (frostings, even!); his sacrifice and subsequent ressurection is the meat.

Without the resurrection, the apostles were so scared that one even fled naked. With the resurrection, they were willing to be martyred. The philosophy that "the disciples made it look good" is Andrew Lloyd Webber, not history.

Hat remains in escrow.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:22 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
If they believed that Jesus was sent from God, why would they embellish the story? Jesus taught that lying was a sin. Why would they lie about something this important?

Ellen G. White was supposedly a prophet of God. To my knowledge, her followers haven't rewritten her history claiming that she raised from the dead, but there are still many people who follow her teachings.

Ever heard of William Branham? He was mildly popular throughout the south and the midwest in the 30's through the 60's. He was a supposed prophet, but he died in 1965. From what I understand, many of his followers expect him to be resurrected. They're still waiting, and none of them have been wiling to lie about it or embellish the truth.

If Jesus' message was enough to convince the gospel writers, why wouldn't they have let it speak for itself? Why would they feel obligated or motivated to blow the truth out of proportion? Ellen G. White and William Branham both have plenty of followers without the need to rewrite their histories.

Bottom line, the gospel writers were either good men willing to die for their testimonies about Jesus, or they were wicked/stupid men who were unwilling to confess that they were lying before being tortured to death. I don't think you can really defend a middle-ground position. They could not have been good men willing to die for their lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Fossilise_apostle:

You'd be very hard pressed to find any historical medical data on Jesus. Heck, you can't even find where the man's body is buried. If you ever do, let me know so I can start looking for a new job.

It seems to me that certain "scholars" love coming up with all these theories. Never mind that they have no documented facts or records to support their claims. Such poor scholarship on their part always fails to impress me.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
JoeyDay wrote:
If they believed that Jesus was sent from God, why would they embellish the story? Jesus taught that lying was a sin. Why would they lie about something this important?


because they knew they were lying. they thought they'd get themselves some power...and it worked. i shed a tear for poor gallileo.

and everybody, i am talking about the Australian ABC. not the american one. the australian is credible.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
JoeyDay wrote:
fossilise_apostle wrote:
it's not that hard to rewrite things, or indeed, make them up.


Look, Mr. Scienetist, I know I'm never going to convince you that Jesus was God in the flesh. That's not my point in arguing this. My point is to show you how asinine it is to postulate that Jesus was real, but had temporal lobe epilepsy.

Allow me to apply a rule you should be quite familiar with: Occam's Razor. The rule states, "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Okay, there are two possibilities here (if you assume that Jesus was a fraud):

1. Jesus was a real person. He had temporal lobe epilepsy and convinced hundreds of people that he was God. After he died, a bunch of guys got together and made up a bunch of lies about him.

2. A bunch of guys got together and made up a bunch of lies.

Okay, smart stuff, which one's simpler? If you're already convinced that the gospel writers lied, why hold to the idea that Jesus was a real person?


i've been arguing point 1 there. like i keep saying, just look to modern cults for similarity. cults were around before christianity.

now, mr. religion, lets look at it from this point of view.

either

1. some supernatural being created the universe, paying special attention to a tiny rock floating around in space where he created life.

or

2. life evolved because a certain rock happened to be at a particular distance from the sun.

hmmmm. surely these bones they have been dating back millions of years are fake? yes, they are! of course! they are only 6,000 years old!

get a grip.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:52 pm
Posts: 1057
Location: Ever changing...
fossilise_apostle wrote:
get a grip.


Whoa dude, that's pretty rude...JoeyDay OWNS this forum, and I don't blame him for defending his beliefs.

I will not speak for him, but I will defend his ideas and say that I'm glad there are people like him who, no matter which side of the discussion they are on, can put forth a sound argument without personal attacks.

That being said, did you ever ask Joey if he believes in Creationism to the fullest Biblical extent. Let's explore two options that Christians might use to defend Creationism:

1. If you (rhetorical you) believe that Creation happened in six days and it was laid out exactly as is stated in the Bible, you probably also believe that God is an all powerful being....don't you think He could create really old looking bones? And consider this - nobody was actually around to say, "Yep, I was there - I KNOW those bones are 1 million years old!" Don't you think that our testing could possibly faulty? After all, it wasn't that long ago that many people believed the world was flat! Remember Chemistry class in high school? Remember how many models of the atom people came up with before they actually figured out the right one? SCIENTISTS DO CHANGE THEIR MINDS!

2. Let's say you do believe in evolution WITH GOD AT THE CONTROLS (this is my personal belief, however, I think the first option I presented is definitely plausible). Well...do I really need to explain myself further? Ok - God's concept of time is completely different to ours - help me with my scripture here, everyone - 1000 years is a blink of an eye to Him. Isn't it possible that to us, creation actually happened over millions of years, but to God, it only took 6 days?

Ok - like Joey said, I know we're not going to convince you, but I think you should consider just how ludicrous what you're saying is - you think Jesus had epilepsy because you saw a TV show? I got news for you brother, you can't believe everything on TV!

All right - just in case this needs to be said, I commend you for defending your point of view; you have a right to it, but let's all try to be friends, ok?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
fossilise_apostle:

Of your two options, that first one looks pretty good to me. That statement you made about fossils, though:

(1) there's already a thread about evolution/creation. You started this thread about epilepsy.

(2) if you had bothered to read any of that thread, you'd know that fossils don't in any way disprove the existence of God, at least not for intelligent people who consider all the facts.

As far as the similarities between cults and Christ's followers: they are counterfeits, whereas Christ and his followers were the originals. Counterfeits are always similar to originals, but that doesn't in any way disprove the validity of the originals.

You have no historical documentation or evidence to support your wild accusations, and neither does that ABC program you are basing them on.

The simple fact is that everything we know about Jesus AT ALL is that which is recorded in the Gospels; there are no other historical records from that period that even mention him (except for a passing reference in Josephus, but that reference only acknowledges that there was a person by that name). And there is nothing described in the Gospels that could be explained by epilepsy, and even if there were, then your whole argument that the Gospels are fabricated would undermine the claim. Therefore, the claim that Jesus was epileptic is completely unfounded.

Here is something else to think about. Back in his day, if a person ever witnessed something like an epileptic seisure, they most certainly would have thought it was demon possession. An epileptic would not have had disciples. Who wants to follow a demoniac?

Finally, about your claim that the apostles made it all up. If you made up a scam like that, would you be willing to endure torture and death for it? All but one of the apostles were tortured and killed for their faith (St. John died of old age). I find it hard to believe that they would have been willing to suffer and die for such a scam. Their willingness to endure such torments without recanting seems to indicate that they believed what they proclaimed. Why concoct such a scam when the only payoff is torture and death? Again, your claims are concocted theories without any supporting evidence.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Back to the epilepsy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Since we were supposed to be talking about epilepsy,

Didymus wrote:
Here is something else to think about. Back in his day, if a person ever witnessed something like an epileptic seisure, they most certainly would have thought it was demon possession.

Jesus was accused of being possessed by a demon at one instance. His answer was so brilliant, it was quoted by Abraham Lincoln in what has been his greatest hour.

Jesus, as a matter of record, healed demoniacs and epileptics. Paul, one of Jesus' followers, cleansed a girl who had visions. If they were following an epileptic or demoniac visionary, it would be reasonable that they'd want more of them, not less.

I'd like to know the stats on schizophrenics who don't respond to drug treatment and do respond to exorcism. As with the leaning of the A'BC (I'll have to take your word for it's credibility), that same prejudice against the miraculous and toward somatic explanations keeps some modern demoniacs from getting the treatment they need. But I don't know how many. I pity the demon-tormented man who's given drugs instead of real help. But as long as you're (rhetorical "you") convinced by your faith in medicine that his problem is insanity, you're going to continue the same treatment.

P.S. I hadn't realized where fossil-apostle was posting from, so I had assumed ABC was ABC. I'll use A'BC (pronounced ayh-prime-bee-see) to denote the Australian Broadcasting Company in future posts.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Yes, Jesus was accused of being demon-possessed, but not because of anything like a seisure, but because he disregarded their rules, usually by healing people. It wasn't because they witnessed anything like him going through seisures himself.

Whoever that was on TV was just blowing smoke (so much for being "credible"). Jesus is a controversial subject, so if you want to make a million dollars, just publish another book about Jesus, especially one making all sorts of wild accusations about his character or competancy. To that scholar, I say, "Show me some historical records--or better still, show me the results of an autopsy on Jesus' body--to support your claim, then I might be inclined to consider it."

As for FA's claim that the disciples made it all up, I submit their martyrdoms as evidence of their honesty--only an idiot would endure torture and death for something he did not believe in.

_________________
ImageImage


Last edited by Didymus on Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 612
Location: Uck
JoeyDay wrote:
If they believed that Jesus was sent from God, why would they embellish the story? Jesus taught that lying was a sin. Why would they lie about something this important?

Ellen G. White was supposedly a prophet of God. To my knowledge, her followers haven't rewritten her history claiming that she raised from the dead, but there are still many people who follow her teachings.

Ever heard of William Branham? He was mildly popular throughout the south and the midwest in the 30's through the 60's. He was a supposed prophet, but he died in 1965. From what I understand, many of his followers expect him to be resurrected. They're still waiting, and none of them have been wiling to lie about it or embellish the truth.

If Jesus' message was enough to convince the gospel writers, why wouldn't they have let it speak for itself? Why would they feel obligated or motivated to blow the truth out of proportion? Ellen G. White and William Branham both have plenty of followers without the need to rewrite their histories.

Bottom line, the gospel writers were either good men willing to die for their testimonies about Jesus, or they were wicked/stupid men who were unwilling to confess that they were lying before being tortured to death. I don't think you can really defend a middle-ground position. They could not have been good men willing to die for their lies.


Yeah, I have to admit: you've got me there. Well played. ;)

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group