This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by T. stillson

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by T. stillson

One last question... How did life begin???

Wed, 23 May 2012 17:50:06 UTC | #943145

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by T. stillson

          [Comment 39](/articles/645968-the-moral-necessity-of-a-godless-existence/comments?page=2#comment_943123) by  [susanlatimer](/profiles/101553)          :


                 Comment 35 by T. Stillson> Who would have had ANY desire to record the specifics of Jesus' life but the people who BELIEVED that he is the Son of God ? So the unblievers of that time wouldn't have cared about this guy.> I don't know T.  Don't you think an event like this would have made it into the records, somehow?> 

It did make it into the records, THE BIBLE, but if you choose to throw it out, then you're left right where you want to be.....with nothing. If, a king for example, wanted to discredit a former king then he would simply destroy any documentation referencing him. That's a fact. look it up if you like. I would suggest that anyone really interested do some research about what was going on then. If you consider the persecution of the Christians and that were scattered and hiding underground basically. And when you take into consideration the belief of the Romans that the Christians wanted to rule and take over the kingdom, don't you think that possibly they would destroy any document that they came across that might help further the Christian cause, at least based on the Roman's understanding of what it was ?? People have been trying to utterly and completely destroy the bible forever, believing that if they get rid of it they can get rid of all that it stands for too. The same type of thing was happening back then as well.

Wed, 23 May 2012 17:16:09 UTC | #943136

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by T. stillson

          [Comment 40](/articles/645968-the-moral-necessity-of-a-godless-existence/comments?page=2#comment_943125) by  [Quine](/profiles/3137)          :


                 > Please keep in mind that I DO NOT care to debate or argue.> Then you are out of options because preaching is against the terms of service, here.
Answering legitimate questions is neither debate or arguing. Just information put out there for someone else to do with as they please.  If no one has a "legitimate" or "sincere" question, I'll be happy to move on down the road. If that's what you all would like just say the word.  :)

Wed, 23 May 2012 16:50:55 UTC | #943128

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by T. stillson

@rrh1306

The answer would be, that I DO NOT know as a result of having been there to witness it. The empty tomb is only a possible indicator you see. If there were bones in that grave site, then we would have to deal with that, but there are no bones in either of the two possible locations. And wouldn't you agree with me that all the things you're assuming could have happened is no more, solid, undeniable proof that it actually happened that way, than what I'm assuming happened is, solid, undeniable proof that it happened the way I choose to believe?? Thank you!!!

Wed, 23 May 2012 16:44:40 UTC | #943126

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by T. stillson

@JHJEFFERY

Well, I'm glad to know that you ask sincere questions. If you only wanted to "trap" me, and you already knew what the "correct" answer is then why did you ask ??

Wed, 23 May 2012 16:25:01 UTC | #943121

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by T. stillson

@achromat666

Contrary to what you may believe, I personally do not have the "burden of proof",  just like you, yourself don't have the "burden of proof."  Proof is like beauty you might say, it's in the eye of the beholder. Proof is found IN the evidence. You won't find proof outside of evidence. I was on a jury for a trial that lasted 3 weeks, I have some idea about evidence, burden of proof, etc. After hearing all the "evidence", we went to deliberate and there was one person that didn't agree with the rest of us on ANYTHING. My point , regarding so called proof, is that you take the evidence that's provided and decide for yourself IF it contains the proof YOU would have to have to be convinced.  Maybe you don't really understand what evidence is. Evidence is still evidence whether or not it could convince someone or a certain group of people. I present what I believe is good evidence, if you reject it as non-evidence just because it doesn't convince you, then there's not anything I can do about that.    

I personally believe that there is ample evidence for the proof of, at least, the existence of Jesus. The people who lived with him, talked to him, worked along side him, etc. The thing is that MANY of those records ended up as parts of the bible which you reject as being circular. Who would have had ANY desire to record the specifics of Jesus' life but the people who BELIEVED that he is the Son of God ? So the unblievers of that time wouldn't have cared about this guy. At best they would've thought he's just some odd guy that can do tricks. Much like yourself, if you don't believe you're not going to even pay attention to him, much less take time to write about what he's doing. You would just write him off as a lunatic and go on. The Bible is definitely evidence for Jesus. If you choose to reject it for any reason that's 100% your perogative. As far as archaeology goes, if there are no bones, which there wouldn't be if Jesus did rise from the dead; what are you going to test ? Rock solid material "proof" would only be available if there were physical remains that could be tested. But if there were physical remains then it would be obvious that Jesus was not God in the flesh, he was just a common person. I could ask you to PROVE that he DIDN'T rise from the dead, or PROVE that he didn't even exist, but I won't because it would be unreasonable. But if you believe you can prove it, fire away, I would like to see your evidence.

@Tyler Durden

@JHJEFFERY <Please, now, answer the question in my post #13. Thanks.>

I appologize, I didn't catch it before. I've gone back and read this passage and I can't say that I have a really solid answer about this , to be honest. But I will do my best to bring some things together here. It's essential for us to understand what God did through the cross and how, because of it, He deals differently with us today than He did with people in Old Testament times.

It's important to understand that God is serious about keeping His word to us, and He expects us to do the same with him and with others. The wrath of God the we see in the old testament, that people object to, is precisely what was applied to Jesus via the beatings before He was even nailed to the cross. Because God is just, He must deal with lawbreakers just like any just judge today. If a judge lets a murderer go free; where's the justice ? Because lawbreakers must be dealt with somehow, God created Jesus to be the ONE that took the punishment for everyone elses lawlessness so that He, that's God, wouldn't have to deal with his people, any longer, like we see in the old testament. So, since this passage is from the old testament, we should look at what law(s) were in place. (these would've been laws that every Israelite would've been aware of, not something God snuck in). Deuteronomy 23 says...

Deu 23:21 "When you make a vow to the LORD your God, be prompt in fulfilling whatever you promised Him. For the LORD your God demands that you promptly fulfill all your vows, or you will be guilty of sin. Deu 23:22 However, it is not a sin to refrain from making a vow. Deu 23:23 But once you have voluntarily made a vow, be careful to fulfill your promise to the LORD your God.

    So we see that God is serious about us keeping our word and that we should be carefull what we vow. God isn't like us in that we make a promise today and break it tomorrow if it's not convenient for us to keep it. If we aren't sure then we shouldn't make a vow at all. Further, I personally would look to the book of 2 corinthians ch. 5 that says;

2Co 5:6 So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord. 2Co 5:7 For we live by believing and not by seeing. 2Co 5:8 Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.

 It would be my interpretation that as a result of Jephtha keeping his vow to "GIVE TO THE LORD whatever came out of his house to meet him", that Jephtha's daughter is in fact with the Lord in heaven. Meaning, her spirit/soul is there, and that part will never die and when Jesus returns she will get a new body that will be immortal. Now I do understand that for a materialist, that will be literally impossible to believe. And, even for myself, I can't say for sure why this was allowed to happen this way since God also said in the seventh commandment, Exo 20:13  "You must not murder. And...in Leviticus.....Lev 20:1  The LORD said to Moses, 

Lev 20:2 "Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel. "If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death. Lev 20:3 I Myself will turn against them and cut them off from the community, because they have defiled My sanctuary and brought shame on My holy name by offering their children to Molech.

That's the best I can do to explain that at this time. Please keep in mind that I DO NOT care to debate or argue. I will present the best information I can give for the question/statement that's asked, and whether or not it convinces anyone to change their mind is TOTALLY up to that person.   Thank you very much for the opportunity !!  I learn a lot from your questions and comments :)   Have a Great Day !!!

Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:34 UTC | #943119

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by T. stillson

I would like to bring something to everyones attention. Proof is what is in question here, and demanding proof based on any given person's criteria of what constitutes absolute proof is, no doubt,only going to take us in circles and waste time. I'm here to answer sincere questions to the best of my ability, all the while, understanding fully that what might be sufficient evidence to convince me of something might not be enough to convince the next guy, and vice versa.

If anyone is looking for absolute, no doubt about it whatsoever, proof then I would have to ask;  just how do you imagine that proof would be provided ?   It seems that the requirements being placed for proof are requirements that, I suspect, you guys either know or suspect, have not survived from the time in question until now, at least in written form.  

What needs to be understood, again, is the atmosphere or setting of Jesus' time. Judea was ruled by the Roman's, and the Roman's were concerned about power, and they always had bigger issues than what Jesus was teaching or doing. So the writers of that time, who were not followers of Jesus, would not have had any interest or concern in recording what He was doing or saying. Just as people today who aren't believers won't care what the Bible says or if they do care, it's only to attempt to discredit it. If someone says "show me proof," but then proceeds to tear down whatever evidence is given because it doesn't fit their criteria for proof, then it would seem that that person doesn't really care about the answer that's given or that they should ask themselves; is what I'm aking for even reasonable?? I've given examples of secular writers that at least reference Jesus, pointing to his existence, and their genuineness is called into question, I've quoted scripture, which I'm not surprised was rejected as circular.  

  I know enough about evolution to know that if I ask for proof by saying, "if a lizard becomes a bird within 3 generations I'll believe it", that's very unreasonable on my part. I've actually studied evolution quite a lot for someone who doesn't follow that belief. But I've studied it so as to understand the claims and positions of those who do. And I know that I could require "proof" that, I know, in no way evolution could provide and then say; "well, you can't prove so it's not true."  That's unreasonable and only devisive. I'm more than happy, and enjoy,  answering ANY sincere questions to the best of my ability, understanding that it's not my responsibilty to convince anyone of what I believe. But I would like to participate in some discussions here because I believe that I can offer some clarification on some typical misunderstandings of "Christianity."  Whether or not anyone believes or agrees with it is totally up to that person.   Thank you!!!!  Have a Great Day!!!

Tue, 22 May 2012 16:12:59 UTC | #942856

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by T. stillson

Comment 18 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 17 by T. stillson Jesus also rose from the dead after three days.

No, he didn't - and you have no evidence to show that he did.And just for the record, it wasn't "after three days", it was a day and a half tops. He was allegedly crucified on Friday afternoon, allegedly rose again early on Sunday. That's clearly not "after three days", it's maybe 36 hours - I've had naps last longer.You're confusing "after three days" with the Nicene Creed which states: "and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures".A circular argument, if ever there was one.

Mr. Durden, what kind of "evidence" would you like to see or hear. Since you say "No he didn't", then I believe that you bear a certain burden of proof for that statement as well as I do for mine. What's your evidence that He didn't rise from the dead ? Like I stated before, no one alive today was alive then to be an eye witness to anyof that part of history. If historical documents can't be used or believed then there's an aweful lot of history that needs to be disbelieved as well. As for the 3 days, your correct about "on the third day." I'm glad you pointed that out, because as a believer that talks primarily with other believers, they would've known what was meant, but technically you're correct, it was ON the third day.

Understanding what marked the days in that culture is important also. In Jewish culture, a day begins at sundown or when 3 particular stars are visible, and ends at sundown the next day. Anything that might have happened before sundown on any given day, that day is counted. So, we have Friday, Jesus was crucified on Friday around noon, then there was Saturday, and then Sunday morning was the third day. We have to study and try to understand culture. Jesus' resurrection on the third day was not based on using the modern western worlds way of measuring it, but on Jewish methods alone. I also struggled for a while to understand that, but when I looked at their culture and saw that they measured a "day" differently it made more scence.

Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 17 by T. stillson> For example, I never saw Napolean or Alexander the Great, and what they did or didn't do, with my own eyes, and neither did anyone that's alive today. But I choose to believe, or reject, for myself what history tells us about them.

These sort of comparisons are just ridiculous. You can't seriously compare the historical veracity of some obscure 1st century carpenter who barely gets a mention outside of tracts from half a dozen or so fanatical followers........with men who by their very definition impacted a good deal of the known world in their own lifetimes and who are massively recorded as such.I mean....for example......how the blazes do you think Alexandria got it's name ? Is there a contemporary 'Jesusville' from Christ's time ?

Hi Schrodinger's Cat,

I guess I would have to ask if the number of times that someone "gets a mention" has any bearing at all on who or what they actually are ?? I used non-biblical references, from first century people who would've been much like yourself in their way of believing, just to show some evidence of an historical Jesus. If you have a writer that's something like a Richard Dawkins of their day,in their way of believing for example, that records that there was at least a man named Jesus that claimed to be someone special, then I would say that the existence of Jesus is sure. It's just up for debate as to whether or not he actually was who he said. People back then hated Jesus just as much as people today who want to believe he never even existed, but they didn't have the luxury of choosing whether or not to believe in his existence, they saw him in the flesh, they knew he was real and they wanted to get rid of him just as much then, as people want to get rid of everything He still stands for today. Also, comparing what Jesus did (a carpenter) to Alexander the Great is precisely what threw people for a loop in Jesus' day. I assuming that people will look at what Alexander did and what Jesus did and say that Alexander did greater things. Everything Alexander did was materialistic in nature. Conquering cities and such. Everything Jesus came to do was spiritual in nature. The physical things of this world will pass away (cease to exist as we know it), but the spiritual things will never pass away. But I guess none of us will truly know, from first hand knowledge that is, until after we draw our last breath will we?? There can only be ONE real truth about anything, people will believe what they CHOOSE to believe based on how we interpret the evidence. Thank you !! Have a Great Day !!!

[Formatting fixed by moderator.

NB. To show one level of indentation - i.e. a quote of someone else's comment - put a > at the beginning of the quote, and press Enter a couple of times at the end. Putting >> at the start of a line is a double indent - for if you're quoting someone else quoting something else, as above. Again, press Enter a couple of times at the end of the quoted section to clear it at the end. You can see how your comment will look by checking the Preview panel before posting your comment; and you have about 5 mins to edit it afterwards if it's not what you were expecting (click on the yellow pencil icon to edit)]

Tue, 22 May 2012 12:38:22 UTC | #942811

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by T. stillson

Comment 11 by rrh1306

Hi T.stillson

Proof that Jesus was a deity or the son of a deity would be a good start.

OK, well I would probably start with the fact that we do live some 2000 years removed from the time that Jesus was on the earth. The reason I say that is because any part of history, that we haven't actually seen with our own 2 eyes, must be taken by faith in the writings of those who did witness the event(s). For example, I never saw Napolean or Alexander the Great, and what they did or didn't do, with my own eyes, and neither did anyone that's alive today. But I choose to believe, or reject, for myself what history tells us about them.

  I have actually spent quite a lot of time researching what secular writers, from the first century, had to say about Jesus. You'll find that Flavious Josephus (who was a Pharisee)mentions Jesus in the Anitquities of the jews, and that Jesus did wonderful works. I am aware of the people who say that those writings have been altered so I went elswhere too.  Tacitus referred to "Christus" (Christ) in Tacitus: Annals Book 15 [44]. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm....Also,Pliny the Younger comments on the "Christians" who's name came from Christ.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm#text5

 So, if we believe what even secular writers, people who, in their day were VERY much like the Richard Dawkins' of today, have to say regarding the existence of Jesus, then we can agree that He, at least, was a real person that lived. From there we can look at what is said about Jesus and the TRUE first century followers of Jesus. (notice the links above)....And what Jesus said about himself. I know, I know, you're saying, but what difference does it make if he says it about himself. The primary difference lies in what Jesus claimed about himself as compared to ANY other spiritual leader of all time. No one claimed to be the Son of God, no one healed people that were born blind, and no one ever healed anyone that had been crippled for 40 years. Jesus said.."John 14:11  Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen Me do."  And.."John 15:24  "If I hadn't done such miraculous signs among them that no one else could do, they would not be guilty. But as it is, they have seen everything I did, yet they still hate Me and My Father".  Either someone else could do what Jesus did , or they couldn't.  What other spiritual leader has done, or even claimed to do, what He did ? I personally know of none. 

  Jesus also rose from the dead after three days. I understand that that's a difficult thing for one to believe, but either He did or He didn't. We know where the bones of Muhammad are, where the ashes of Buddha are, where the bones of Confucious are and so, but the grave of Jesus is empty. Last but not least , is the question of who would willingly die for something they KNEW was a lie. I'm talking about the first century followers and the Apostles that knew Jesus personally and witnessed the miracles that God performed through Him and were killed by people who opposed them. It helps to understand the political atmosphere of the time. If Jesus isn't who He claimed to be, then we are still dead in our sins and have not been reconciled to God by his blood. Well, this is pretty long already and there's a lot more that could be said, so I'll leave it there for now. But feel free to ask anything you like. Thank you!!

Tue, 22 May 2012 03:27:56 UTC | #942746

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by T. stillson

Comment 7 by Roedy

When I challenge a Christian’s bizarre assertions, he almost never offers evidence or an argument to support them. Instead he argues that it is a good thing that people believe this assertion or that terrible things would happen if they did not.

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. What kind of evidence are you looking for. I'm NOT here to argue AT ALL, but if I can shed some light on anything for anyone, I'm more than happy to try.  

                                                                    Thank you!!!

Mon, 21 May 2012 18:17:06 UTC | #942632

Go to: So what's the goal with theism?

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by T. stillson

sorry for the double post...

Mon, 21 May 2012 16:37:24 UTC | #942622