The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #342]

Whoever makes the positive claim has the burden. I was under the impression that POI (and then yourself) was positively arguing that the Christian claim of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus has been proven impossible. The inductive evidence offered and alluded to does not accomplish that. And, therefore, a supernatural resurrection is still logically possible. You are still perfectly rational (at the moment at least) to disbelieve that Jesus actually supernaturally rose from the dead. If we can come to an understanding here, then we can move forward to where I would be making the positive claim and have the burden to bear concerning Jesus having historically, supernaturally rose from the dead.

^^^ The Tanager,

Your brutal serial killer Jesus as God of innocent infants, and babies (1 Samuel 15:2-3), that you are continuing to hide from for obvious reasons, where Jesus' alleged resurrection was no big deal because those other gods that are listed below, they were resurrected as well ..... LOL!


RESURRECTED GOD'S IN HISTORY EQUAL TO JESUS:

Osiris (Egyptian): Killed by his brother Set, Osiris was resurrected by his wife Isis and became the ruler of the underworld.
Tammuz (Sumerian/Babylonian):

Tammuz (Sumerian/Babylonian):
A fertility god who dies annually and is brought back to life by the goddess Inanna.
Adonis (Phoenician/Greek):

Adonis (Phoenician/Greek): Killed by a boar, he is brought back to life by Aphrodite and Persephone, often associated with the cycle of the seasons.
Attis (Phrygian):

Attis (Phrygian): Similar to Adonis, Attis is associated with the cycle of death and rebirth and is often linked to the changing seasons.
Dionysus (Greek):

Dionysus (Greek): Torn apart by the Titans, he is resurrected by Zeus, often associated with wine, revelry, and ecstatic religious experiences.
Heracles (Greek):

Heracles (Greek): While not traditionally depicted as being resurrected, Heracles does die and ascend to heaven to become a god, often seen as a form of immortality.

Inanna (Sumerian): She descends into the underworld, dies, and is resurrected.
Baal (Canaanite):

Baal (Canaanite): Slain by Mot, he is restored to life by the goddess Anat.
Mithras (Persian/Roman):

Mithras (Persian/Roman): While not a direct resurrection, Mithras is associated with themes of rebirth and new life, particularly within the mystery cults that bore his name.



QUESTION: Why didn't you choose "Mithra or Zeus" as your God since they were basically in the same time period as your Jesus as God, where Jesus is explicitly and embarrassingly shown to be an equivalent to said Gods listed above in his resurrection, where he was just a "Copy-Cat" god to the other Gods in said list!

BEGIN:


The membership is waiting with bated breath for your answer!

Thanking you in advance.




.

.

[The Tanager]

First thing, can you tell the membership in what Satanic Pseudo-Christian Apologetic books you are using to try and defend the indefensible Jewish Bible topics in question in your runaway post number 341? ..... Thanking you in advance again.

Im not exactly sure what you are asking here. You made claims about two verses that I asked you to support beyond your previous post where you just stated your interpretation was correct. You have the burden of proof in defending your claim.

Secondly, and in chronological order before I continue with your grasping for straws modus operandi, you FAILED to address the following in my post number 339 as shown herewith:

1. Barring the revealing Leviticus 20;13, and AGAIN for the 2nd time; how do you feel in the 21st Century about your Jewish God Jesus in saying that homosexuals are to be put to death in Romans 1:32, whereas, in addition, is your Jesus as God still ever loving (Romans 5:8) and forgiving (1 John 1:9) in this respect?

I dont agree that Romans 1:32 says Christians should put homosexuals to death; it is your burden to prove that and you are only stating it. If you think youve done that, then we can move on because I didnt see any actual support and, therefore, whether I am wrong or not, I know of nothing to respond to. If you want to point it out in a different way, that might be helpful.

2. Regarding that pseudo-christians like YOU in the name of your God can BEAT YOUR CHILDREN WITH A ROD (Proverbs 23:13-14) you misquoted me saying; "that beating with a rod will always leave more than a bruise needs to be supported" is totally incorrect! Where I said "because when a "ROD" is used in said BEATINGS, it will more so than not leave a BRUISE!" GET IT?

I am hopefully thinking that when you misquoted me as shown, that it wasn't for YOU to try and gain a higher position in said proposition! Tsk, tsk, tsk .....

Therefore in addition, how do you feel in the 21st Century in your Jewish God Jesus saying it is correct for you to BEAT YOUR CHILDREN WITH A ROD?!

The Tanager, in turn using your MO of supporting said propositions, then you are to support that when an offspring is BEATEN WITH A ROD, that no bruise will be shown upon said person.

I am sorry for misunderstanding you as saying it would always leave a bruise when I read that line the first time. It doesnt change my point, however. You still have the burden of showing that just because the passage has the term rod in it that the word for beat must mean a harsher level, when this word doesnt always have that meaning.

3. You once again conveniently forgot to address the following in my post number 339 where you admitted that you were a pseudo-christian, and the ramifications thereof, where you are headed to the sulfur lakes of HELL as I had "biblically" shown you!..... tsk, tsk, tsk:

The Tanager, you said that you thank me for my thoughts upon the topic at hand, BUT, you didn't mention that I have easily shown you to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of HELL upon your demise as you admitted that you are a pseudo-christian that does't follow your Gods true words, especially when God tells you this: Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

Therefore in turn, support that you are not going to HELL in being a pseudo-christian that does not follow your God's words per Luke 6:46!

I did address this. I said that I dont think you have supported your interpretation for the first bit, so the second bit doesnt need to be answered yet. If your first bit isnt rational, the second bit is irrelevant. Its like you are asking me when I stopped beating my wife; you are assuming something I dont agree to.

QUESTION: Why didn't you choose "Mithra or Zeus" as your God since they were basically in the same time period as your Jesus as God, where Jesus is explicitly and embarrassingly shown to be an equivalent to said Gods listed above in his resurrection, where he was just a "Copy-Cat" god to the other Gods in said list!

Youve got a lot of work to do to rationally support this copy-cat claim. Please give the details and sources and make the logical connections and Ill analyze it.

Have a wonderful day, 1DoubtingThomas.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #347]

As I've been saying, Logical possibility has nothing to do with what has actually happened in reality. Here is a proof that a physical resurrection is logically possible.

P1. If something is logically impossible, then there must exist a logical contradiction in the concepts involved.
P2. There is no logical contradiction in the concept of a body coming back to life.
P3. Therefore, the concept of a body coming back to life is not logically impossible (M.T.)

1) The logical contradiction to the notion resurrections are possible is that there is no evidence or reason to suspect that fantasy comes true or that decomposed flesh reverses and reanimates.
2) See point 1.
3) It is merely a leap of faith to think people come back from the dead. Rationally plus actually there has been no official documented case of it ever happening or that gives cause to think it could.

As to the data, first is the fact that Jesus was buried in a tomb. I'm also assuming (as was already talked about earlier in this thread) that we aren't having a ridiculous standard of 100% certainty and that we are using standard historical methods for analysis. So, we have:

Sorry, but you don't get any leeway for such an extraordinary claim. 100% certainly is a must unless you're willing to admit you're NOT 100% certain it is logical to think people rise from the dead or that it's possible.

1) early attestation in Paul as 1 Cor 15:3-5 preserves a non-Pauline formula showing he got it from followers before him

2) early attestation in the pre-Markan passion story since the Gospel accounts don't diverge until after the burial, thus making the burial part of the passion story. That it doesn't mention Caiaphas as the high priest means this dates prior to 37 AD

3) The mention of Joseph of Arimathea in all 4 Gospel accounts, as this would unlikely be a Christian invention due to the Christian resentment against Jewish leadership

4) There is no historical trace of any competing burial story

5) I've already given all the reasons and evidence in this thread against Jesus dying by some other method or of being left on the cross

Thus, the most reasonable position to hold is that Jesus was, in fact, buried in a tomb.

Pontificating on your thoughts of what the bible says isn't evidence. The bible isn't proof of anything anymore than Hansel and Gretel are proof of witches.

Are there competing stories of Horus?

Your past arguments are irrelevant as people still disagree so you haven't been convincing of your blind faith assertion that it's somehow logical to assume resurrections have and can happen, and will again happen. There is simply no rational reason to believe in such nonsense.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #353]

1) The logical contradiction to the notion resurrections are possible is that there is no evidence or reason to suspect that fantasy comes true or that decomposed flesh reverses and reanimates.

That is not a logical contradiction. Having no evidence for a resurrection actually happening would be a reason for something that is logically possible to not be actual, not for that something being logically impossible.

Sorry, but you don't get any leeway for such an extraordinary claim. 100% certainly is a must unless you're willing to admit you're NOT 100% certain it is logical to think people rise from the dead or that it's possible.

Why is 100% certainty the standard? None of your beliefs, outside of things like pure mathematics and definitions are 100% certain. No scientific claim, no historical claim, no philosophical claim is 100% certain.

1) early attestation in Paul as 1 Cor 15:3-5 preserves a non-Pauline formula showing he got it from followers before him

2) early attestation in the pre-Markan passion story since the Gospel accounts don't diverge until after the burial, thus making the burial part of the passion story. That it doesn't mention Caiaphas as the high priest means this dates prior to 37 AD

3) The mention of Joseph of Arimathea in all 4 Gospel accounts, as this would unlikely be a Christian invention due to the Christian resentment against Jewish leadership

4) There is no historical trace of any competing burial story

5) I've already given all the reasons and evidence in this thread against Jesus dying by some other method or of being left on the cross

Thus, the most reasonable position to hold is that Jesus was, in fact, buried in a tomb.

Pontificating on your thoughts of what the bible says isn't evidence. The bible isn't proof of anything anymore than Hansel and Gretel are proof of witches.[/quote]

I'm using regular, sound criteria that the professional historians have come up with: early attestation, multiple attestation, criterion of embarassment, all pertinent sources including non-Christian sources concerning Roman practice, etc. Why are those bad criteria to use?

Are there competing stories of Horus?

I'm not sure of your point here; could you rephrase it?

Your past arguments are irrelevant as people still disagree so you haven't been convincing of your blind faith assertion that it's somehow logical to assume resurrections have and can happen, and will again happen. There is simply no rational reason to believe in such nonsense.

People disagree about all sorts of things, so what? Truth isn't decided by a vote. Deal with the actual reasoning and evidences.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #353]

1) The logical contradiction to the notion resurrections are possible is that there is no evidence or reason to suspect that fantasy comes true or that decomposed flesh reverses and reanimates.

That is not a logical contradiction. Having no evidence for a resurrection actually happening would be a reason for something that is logically possible to not be actual, not for that something being logically impossible.

Sorry, but you don't get any leeway for such an extraordinary claim. 100% certainly is a must unless you're willing to admit you're NOT 100% certain it is logical to think people rise from the dead or that it's possible.

Why is 100% certainty the standard? None of your beliefs, outside of things like pure mathematics and definitions are 100% certain. No scientific claim, no historical claim, no philosophical claim is 100% certain.

1) early attestation in Paul as 1 Cor 15:3-5 preserves a non-Pauline formula showing he got it from followers before him

2) early attestation in the pre-Markan passion story since the Gospel accounts don't diverge until after the burial, thus making the burial part of the passion story. That it doesn't mention Caiaphas as the high priest means this dates prior to 37 AD

3) The mention of Joseph of Arimathea in all 4 Gospel accounts, as this would unlikely be a Christian invention due to the Christian resentment against Jewish leadership

4) There is no historical trace of any competing burial story

5) I've already given all the reasons and evidence in this thread against Jesus dying by some other method or of being left on the cross

Thus, the most reasonable position to hold is that Jesus was, in fact, buried in a tomb.

Pontificating on your thoughts of what the bible says isn't evidence. The bible isn't proof of anything anymore than Hansel and Gretel are proof of witches.

I'm using regular, sound criteria that the professional historians have come up with: early attestation, multiple attestation, criterion of embarassment, all pertinent sources including non-Christian sources concerning Roman practice, etc. Why are those bad criteria to use?

Are there competing stories of Horus?

I'm not sure of your point here; could you rephrase it?

Your past arguments are irrelevant as people still disagree so you haven't been convincing of your blind faith assertion that it's somehow logical to assume resurrections have and can happen, and will again happen. There is simply no rational reason to believe in such nonsense.

People disagree about all sorts of things, so what? Truth isn't decided by a vote. Deal with the actual reasoning and evidences.
[/quote]


What you claim as logical, that the dead rise is not only possible, but has happened and will again, needs support that is tangible, not merely possible to exist in philosophical hypothesizes of which you define.

You're complaining about the 100% standard, that you shouldn't have to meet that for your extraordinary claim and when asked outright are you 100% sure it is logical to assume decomposition of corpses reverses and people rise from the dead;(?) You didn't answer the question, Why not? You know it's pertinent. If you are then it's your standard you are having problems meeting. If you're not 100% certain then why should anyone trust you've assumed all the presumed facts are in order and sequence, or facts at all? On such a bold claim as to think it is logical to assume decomposition reverses and people can rise from their graves you need to be 100% sure of the details, the biology, the physics. On how such a thing can be "logically possible"? Something historicity or philosophizing about can't answer.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #352]




The Tanager, addressing once again your deflection post number 352.


1. YOUR DEFLECTED QUOTE TO MY QUESTION THAT YOUR GOD SAID HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD DESERVE TO DIE: I dont agree that Romans 1:32 says Christians should put homosexuals to death; it is your burden to prove that and you are only stating it."

YOUR JESUS AS GOD SAID: "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

Since your Jesus god said that homosexuals "deserve to die," and YOU don't agree that Christians should put homosexuals to death, then who is left to follow through with your God's words in Romans 1:32?!

EXPLAIN:

Therefore, when YOU disagree that Christians are to not murder homosexuals in Romans 1:32, then are you calling your Jesus God a LIER when he explicitly said relative to this verse: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46.)

EXPLAIN:

EMBARRASSINGLY, FOR THE "THIRD TIME" I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE RAN AWAY FROM!:

Again, in the 21st Century, how do you logically rationalize your God stating with specificity that Homosexuals deserve to DIE?!

EXPLAIN:

I have proven my burden relative to said passage! Now, it is up to you to support your claim that pseudo-christians like YOU don't have to follow through with your God's statement in Romans 1:32 to murder homosexuals!

EXPLAIN:





2. YOUR MISGUIDED QUOTE AGAIN!: "I am sorry for misunderstanding you as saying it would always leave a bruise when I read that line the first time. It doesnt change my point, however. You still have the burden of showing that just because the passage has the term rod in it that the word for beat must mean a harsher level, when this word doesnt always have that meaning."

In the bold type in your response above, you have insidiously turned the harshness level around, whereas in using a "ROD" when BEATING a child is more harsh, GET IT?


QUESTION: In the 21st Century, how do you feel when your God in Proverbs 23:13-14 INSTRUCTS PSEUDO-CHRSITIANS to BEAT their offspring with a ROD and shalt deliver his soul from hell! Do you agree with Jesus as God on this command, even though it shows Jesus is not very loving and forgiving as He is described within the scriptures, which is another blatant biblical contradiction!

EXPLAIN:





3. YOUR QUOTE RELATIVE TO YOU GOING TO HELL UPON YOUR EARTHLY DEMISE: "I did address this. I said that I dont think you have supported your interpretation for the first bit, so the second bit doesnt need to be answered yet. If your first bit isnt rational, the second bit is irrelevant. Its like you are asking me when I stopped beating my wife; you are assuming something I dont agree to."

WRONG, you DO NOT have the option to not agree as the narrative so states!!!

What don't you comprehend in my direct statement to you below from my post number 399, where I interpreted said LITERAL passages correctly then and now within this post?!

The Tanager, you said that you thank me for my thoughts upon the topic at hand, BUT, you didn't mention that I have easily shown you to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of HELL upon your demise as you admitted that you are a pseudo-christian that doesn't follow your Gods true words, especially when God tells you this: Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)[/b]

Remember, your Jesus as god didn't create HELL and not plan on using it, especially in your ungodly behalf as shown above!

God said: "But as for the cowardly, the FAITHLESS, the DESTABLE, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

Simple deduction; when you don't follow your God's words that is the definition of a pseudo-christian, and that you admit too in your post number 322, and the ramifications thereof as shown above in said verse, that you are "FAITHLESS AND DETESTABLE" as the Revelation verse above so states, therefore your God says you are destined to HELL, understood?

Therefore, in return, support the reasoning and burden in why are your NOT going to hell!

EXPLAIN:





4. YOU ONCE AGAIN DID NOT ADDRESS MY QUESTION TO YOU FROM MY POST NUMBER 350!: "The Tanager, in turn using your MO of supporting said propositions, then when I said that beating a child with a rod would leave a bruise, you said that I have to support that notion, which is logically sound to begin with as AI supports: Yes, beating a child with a rod would likely leave bruises.

Therefore, in turn, YOU are to support that when an offspring is beaten with a rod, that no bruise will be shown upon said person as you alluded too!"

EXPLAIN:




5. YOU CONVENIANTLY BYPASSED MY QUESTION IN MY POST NUMBER 351 TO YOU AS ONCE AGAIN SHOWN BELOW!!!:

Why didn't you choose "Mithra or Zeus" as your God since they were basically in the same time period as your Jesus as God?

ZEUS existed in approximately the 13th Century BC, to the time of Jesus, and more so than not, knew of Jesus.

MITHRA existed from the 2nd Century BC to your Jesus' era.

JESUS, that brutally murdered innocent infants and babies (1 Samuel 15:2-3) existed in 2 BC!

Barring the deplorable "Camel Jockey" Allah God, tell the membership in why you picked Jesus over the other two Gods that existed within your Jesus' time period:

EXPLAIN:




6. YOUR QUOTE THAT I HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT JESUS WAS A "COPY-CAT" OF OTHER GODS WITH HIS RESURRECTION AS SHOWN IN MY POST NUMBER 351: "Youve got a lot of work to do to rationally support this copy-cat claim. Please give the details and sources and make the logical connections and Ill analyze it."

Not really, simply because Jesus was the LAST, I repeat, THE LAST God that existed with a resurrection in written history, where what preceded Jesus' comical and alleged resurrection as a "stinking rotting walking Zombie", other Gods had their resurrections before his! Besides, pseudo-christians like YOU have yet to answer the claim rationally that the concept of a resurrection in the Bible was copied from older resurrection accounts like I have shown in my post number 351. Whereas, since they pre-date any mention of a resurrection in Biblical texts, then can you spell "C-O-P-Y-C-A-T?

The Tanager, do you deny that Jesus was resurrected like the other Gods I've mentioned in my post number 351, where said Gods and their resurrection events were assumed to be MYTHS! Therefore, tell us why Jesus in his time period of his resurrection event, is not a MYTH?

EXPLAIN:




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Tanager, I would appreciate it if you didn't always try to ungodly rewrite my refutations to you, and that you address ALL of my statements to you as well, like I have respectfully done for your statements, instead of YOU sheepishly bypassing mine. This deceiving act of yours alludes to the fact that you logically can't refute my said statements to you in the first place, because they are to disturbing and embarrassing towards your primitive and barbaric Bronze and Iron Age Christianity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #355]

What you claim as logical, that the dead rise is not only possible, but has happened and will again, needs support that is tangible, not merely possible to exist in philosophical hypothesizes of which you define.

Which I started to do, regarding the historicity of Jesus being crucified and buried in a tomb. One question you have for my defense concerns the standard of certainty

You're complaining about the 100% standard, that you shouldn't have to meet that for your extraordinary claim and when asked outright are you 100% sure it is logical to assume decomposition of corpses reverses and people rise from the dead;(?) You didn't answer the question, Why not? You know it's pertinent. If you are then it's your standard you are having problems meeting. If you're not 100% certain then why should anyone trust you've assumed all the presumed facts are in order and sequence, or facts at all? On such a bold claim as to think it is logical to assume decomposition reverses and people can rise from their graves you need to be 100% sure of the details, the biology, the physics. On how such a thing can be "logically possible"? Something historicity or philosophizing about can't answer.

Ive already argued that it is logically possible. In response to that, you said there was a logical contradiction, but then the reason you gave, if true, wasnt about logical contradiction; it was about a logically possible thing not being an actual reality.

Now on the standard being 100%, no belief outside pure math and definitions (and maybe something else of that same type) is 100% certain, so why should it be here? If that was your standard, you wouldnt have any beliefs about anything (outside math and definitions).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #356]

Ill respond to content I think is pertinent, so that won't include the rhetorical games:

1. Why does saying those who practice such things are worthy of death equal you are to kill them? Paul later says that everyone has sinned (3:23) and that any sin deserves death (6:23), but its another step to then say therefore, go and kill everyone, including yourself.

2/4. The only actual support for your proverbs interpretation Ive seen is that AI agrees with you. Why is an argument from authority rational support? And, if it is, why is AI an actual authority?

3. I did not admit I am a pseudo-Christian; I said if your interpretations are true, then Im a pseudo-Christian.

5. What does being in a certain time period have to do with choosing a worldview? And why is why I am a Christian relevant to whether your interpretations of certain passages are accurate?

6. You have not made an actual case for the copy-cat theory, so Ive nothing to respond to. Its not my job to disprove your positive claim; its your job to support it. In it you need to answer questions like: Why is Osiris a resurrection (coming back to the land of the living) when he is a ruler of the underworld (i.e., the land of the dead)? What about the other supposed resurrections that aren't actually resurrections (like Attis being turned into a tree)? Why are annual crop cycles a parallel and source for a once and done Jesus resurrection? What are the dates of the sources we have for the mystery religions? Why couldnt rebirth be something that comes up independently in different cultures? What do you say against the scholarly view of the Jewishness of Jesus? Like I said, youve got so much work to do and you arent even beginning to try.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #355]

What you claim as logical, that the dead rise is not only possible, but has happened and will again, needs support that is tangible, not merely possible to exist in philosophical hypothesizes of which you define.

Which I started to do, regarding the historicity of Jesus being crucified and buried in a tomb. One question you have for my defense concerns the standard of certainty

You are either certain of your beliefs or you're not. I must confess, I'm certain I've demonstrated how nonlogical it is to think resurrections happen.

You're complaining about the 100% standard, that you shouldn't have to meet that for your extraordinary claim and when asked outright are you 100% sure it is logical to assume decomposition of corpses reverses and people rise from the dead;(?) You didn't answer the question, Why not? You know it's pertinent. If you are then it's your standard you are having problems meeting. If you're not 100% certain then why should anyone trust you've assumed all the presumed facts are in order and sequence, or facts at all? On such a bold claim as to think it is logical to assume decomposition reverses and people can rise from their graves you need to be 100% sure of the details, the biology, the physics. On how such a thing can be "logically possible"? Something historicity or philosophizing about can't answer.

Ive already argued that it is logically possible. In response to that, you said there was a logical contradiction, but then the reason you gave, if true, wasnt about logical contradiction; it was about a logically possible thing not being an actual reality.

You've argued unsuccessfully. Which there was and is a logical reason for rejecting nonsense. How can resurrection be considered logically possible when it's never happened and no one can provide a pathway in which it would be possible? You certainly haven't.

Now on the standard being 100%, no belief outside pure math and definitions (and maybe something else of that same type) is 100% certain, so why should it be here? If that was your standard, you wouldnt have any beliefs about anything (outside math and definitions).

I'm 100% certain the dead don't rise. I don't see the issue you have with that 100% standard where the claim is so extraordinary???...Oh ye of little faith! If a thing is logical for it to be then you must provide the mechanics including the biology behind the logic. You haven't.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #358]


.
The Tanager, who is well seasoned in running away from Atheist propositions!

I am so sorry that you have to use another "pseudo-christian runaway from disturbing godly propositions ruse" to obviously save you from further embarrassment, and to your primitive and barbaric Bronze and Iron Age Christianity.

Your comical EXCUSES to run away from my godly propositions now include your biased comical notion that they need to be "PERTINENT" to you before you address them! Whereas, to you, the "NON-PERTINENT" propositions of mine in my revealing post number 356 that you didn't answer, but to only run away from them AGAIN, are the biblical axioms that blatantly show you to be guilty of ..... how convenient! .... LOL!


What is PERTINENT to me, is the fact that you have been sheepishly and silently running away from my following simple godly question to you, where this is your embarrassing "FORTH TIME" that you have evaded this question below:

The Tanager; again, and again, and again, and again, in the 21st Century, how do you logically rationalize your God stating with specificity, that Homosexuals deserve to DIE, and anyone that accepts their ungodly lifestyle, are to be murdered as well?! (Romans 1:32)

YOUR ANSWER IS:


RELATIVE TO ROMANS 1:32: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)

^^^ The words as taught, is that your GOD says that homosexuals deserve to DIE in Romans 1:32!![/b]! The Tanaker, do you want to dig your hole deeper and say that the words of Titus above are wrong which is blaspheme? Yes?



THE TANAGER, YOU HAVE A LOT OF HOMEWORK THAT WILL BE FORTHCOMING, TO "TRY" AND SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT IN THIS PRESTIGIOUS RELIGION FORUM, WHERE YOU SHOW YOUR INSIPID SATANIC PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN RUNAWAY TACTICS!


.