Questions for Jesus-Freak

Blutarsky said:
Really? Have you seen what happens to a human body if left to hang like a piece of meat? Simply look on the side of the road to what happens to animals who die and bloat...

Could you point me to some medical literature that says this isn't possible?
Click to expand...

All the road kill I have seen, bloats, but the internals don't come out unless it is through a wound.

I think we had to ask a medical doctor to get a consice answer, otherwise we are all just guessing
 
simon dalton said:
All the road kill I have seen, bloats, but the internals don't come out unless it is through a wound.

I think we had to ask a medical doctor to get a consice answer, otherwise we are all just guessing
Click to expand...
Agreed. Remeber though you also have the added forces created by the person being hanged, if bloated, it would make sense that the the abdominal area would distend. Also, the discussion from Acts stating that he fell headlong, which apparently had some affect on the gutting.
 
Ossai said:
Blutarsky
Could you get over the strawman , and actually focus on the actual question?

I take it by your continued inability to answer the question, that I and probably some other posters are on ignore, or you realize that you can’t logically answer the question so you continue ignoring it. Either way, the contradictions remain unanswered and your credibility continues to plummet.

Ossai
Click to expand...
Ossai. Get over yourself. I have answered the question. Take the next hour and reeducate yourself as to what a strawman is. Whether you agree with my answer is of no importance, but stop pretending that I have answered the question.


What part of my answer are you not comprehending? Others don't seem to be having the same problems you are.
 
Last edited:
Blutarsky said:
Let translate using my Bulls**t to English dictionary:

I simply can't respond with anything substantive so I'll mask my failure with a personal attack.

Any other childish remarks or do you have something of substance to add to the conversation? You people wonder why no one wants to engage in debate around here...
Click to expand...
Respond to what exactly? You're just spitting on my computer screen when you type that kind of nonsense. You have a brain, that's obvious. But when you disconnect it while typing things on the internet, the resulting noise is rather rude. That's the sound of an incredible and useful tool being used to smack in nails.
Please use your brain properly when making arguments. Otherwise it's like watching monkeys working power equipment.
 
Blutarsky
You are simply reading too much into the text in Acts. Acts does NOT specify the modus of death. It does NOT say he was disembowled by anything, or that the disembowlment was the cause of death...
Click to expand...
Let’s look at it again.

Acts 1:18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Seems rather clear, Judas fell headlong. His body burst open. He died.

Could you please explain how falling headlong causes one's intestines to fall out in the absence of other aggrivating circumstances?
Click to expand...
Want the typical Christian answer? God did it. Why should this purported occurrence have a natural explanation when so much of the bible does not?

Or, he fell headlong from a great height (anything over 40 foot usually, although the angle of the body on impact would have a large influence on the ‘burst open’ bit).

Ossai
 
bignickel said:
Respond to what exactly? You're just spitting on my computer screen when you type that kind of nonsense. You have a brain, that's obvious. But when you disconnect it while typing things on the internet, the resulting noise is rather rude. That's the sound of an incredible and useful tool being used to smack in nails.
Please use your brain properly when making arguments. Otherwise it's like watching monkeys working power equipment.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You obviously have nothing to add other than insults. Good day.
 
Ossai said:
Blutarsky

Let’s look at it again.

Acts 1:18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Seems rather clear, Judas fell headlong. His body burst open. He died.
Click to expand...
Right. I've fallen headlong while playing football, even once from a tree that I was climbing when I was 10. I still have my intestines...

Want the typical Christian answer? God did it. Why should this purported occurrence have a natural explanation when so much of the bible does not?

Or, he fell headlong from a great height (anything over 40 foot usually, although the angle of the body on impact would have a large influence on the ‘burst open’ bit).

Ossai
Click to expand...
The "typical" response...I can assure you that the majority of the scholarship on the issue supports my claims. I don't care what John Q. Biblethumper thinks. Please spare us any trite quips about christian scholarship, they've all been heard here before.

Let me get this right. I made a claim that was extra-textual and it was a strawman. Nowhere in the Bible does it say he jumped from a cliff, that's an extra-textual argument you have offered.

When I made the claim that I did, you said I was using a strawman because I offered a non-textual explaination, but when you do it's not a strawman? Please explain the difference, or maybe I'm not following you.
 
Last edited:
OK, I think I can construct a narrative that reconciles the two accounts.

Judas felt guilty about betraying Jesus, and so he took the 30 pieces of silver to the temple. They wouldn't take it, so he threw it into the temple. The priests said, "what shall we do with this money? It wouldn't be right to put it in the treasury." So they bought a plot of land with the intention of turning it into a cemetery for foreigners.

Soon after, Judas was walking down the street, feeling suicidal, and he saw that the temple had just bought the potter's field. He said to himself, "hey, they probably used that 30 pieces of silver to buy that field, so in an indirect way, I bought that field! Wouldn't it be ironic if I killed myself in the field bought with the money given to me to betray Jesus?" So, he got a rope and climbed up into the highest tree in the field, tied one end to a branch and the other end around his neck, and then he jumped. The rope caught him and he hung for a while, but with all his struggling, the branch broke, and he fell headlong a great height (say 10-15 meters). Maybe he also hit a sharp rock at just the right angle, causing disembowelment. Proximal cause of death was actually blunt trauma to the head. He left a big mess, and so the field was thereafter known as "Field of Blood."

There we go-- one more problem with reading the Bible as the literal truth solved. Only 999 more to go (roughly)!
 
mfaison said:
OK, I think I can construct a narrative that reconciles the two accounts.

Judas felt guilty about betraying Jesus, and so he took the 30 pieces of silver to the temple. They wouldn't take it, so he threw it into the temple. The priests said, "what shall we do with this money? It wouldn't be right to put it in the treasury." So they bought a plot of land with the intention of turning it into a cemetery for foreigners.

Soon after, Judas was walking down the street, feeling suicidal, and he saw that the temple had just bought the potter's field. He said to himself, "hey, they probably used that 30 pieces of silver to buy that field, so in an indirect way, I bought that field! Wouldn't it be ironic if I killed myself in the field bought with the money given to me to betray Jesus?" So, he got a rope and climbed up into the highest tree in the field, tied one end to a branch and the other end around his neck, and then he jumped. The rope caught him and he hung for a while, but with all his struggling, the branch broke, and he fell headlong a great height (say 10-15 meters). Maybe he also hit a sharp rock at just the right angle, causing disembowelment. Proximal cause of death was actually blunt trauma to the head. He left a big mess, and so the field was thereafter known as "Field of Blood."

There we go-- one more problem with reading the Bible as the literal truth solved. Only 999 more to go (roughly)!
Click to expand...
This isn't a question of literal interpretation...nor is it an issue of contradiction. There simply isn't enough text from Acts to assume it's a contradiction.
 
To recap:

I am required to believe in a god who:

Creates humans who are capable of sinning and then eternally punishes them for sinning.

Prefers a rapist/murderer who believes in him/her over a victimized child who does not.

Lays traps such as bible contradictions and fossils to trick humans.

Who punishes/rewards on the basis of thought and belief rather than deeds and accomplishments.

******

I've always counted myself as an agnostic on the basis that we cannot know. Given this information, I think I'm going to have to go atheist.
 
Jesus_freak, if you're still following this thread, here's a question.

Most creationists say they're okay with 'microevolution', but they reject 'macroevolution'. FRom your posts I got the idea that you feel the same way - is that correct?
Here's the question (and it's sort of related to my previous questions). Suppose someone took an example of what you would call macroevolution, and gave you a clear description of why science accepts this as a reasonable process.
Here's a possible response you could make. You could say that in your view it contradicted Genesis, so therefore it could not have happened that way. But you could also say that it was a logical reasonable argument, that you personally didn't see a problem with the reasoning, and you could see why scientists thought it was a convincing argument.

Is this a possible response? Or would you feel you could not agree even a little bit with any scientific explanation of 'macroevolution'?
 
Jesus_freak, if you're still following this thread, here's a question.

Most creationists say they're okay with 'microevolution', but they reject 'macroevolution'. FRom your posts I got the idea that you feel the same way - is that correct?
Here's the question (and it's sort of related to my previous questions). Suppose someone took an example of what you would call macroevolution, and gave you a clear description of why science accepts this as a reasonable process.
Here's a possible response you could make. You could say that in your view it contradicted Genesis, so therefore it could not have happened that way. But you could also say that it was a logical reasonable argument, that you personally didn't see a problem with the reasoning, and you could see why scientists thought it was a convincing argument.

Is this a possible response? Or would you feel you could not agree even a little bit with any scientific explanation of 'macroevolution'?
Click to expand...
If you can show me any evidence of "macroevolution" that would be a starting point...up till now no one has.
 
Where were we when he created the foundations of the Earth?
I think he created many creatures before man for his own reasons and then before man there were several extinctions. Rising of a continent would do it, when he created the first land according to genesis.
Whether they evolved or not is irrelevant.
They are extinct.
Now you have these bones of super apes and you want to say that man fell up not down.
What’s the point we are all going somewhere.
Now where would that be?
We are all going to find out.
The problem here is that an atheist says we are going nowhere, and a believer says we will meet god.
If the atheist is right it won’t matter, if a believer is right the atheist will know also, won’t he?
Proof is in the form of prophecy the word of God.
Or is it in bones, death?
Kind of ironic.
I think that prophecy is being fulfilled; the news is posted right on this forum.
Soon we will have our own bones to think about.
Some chimp in the future will be looking at them and asking bongo next to him why did we un-evolve to our present state?
Bongo says, they were stupid.
 
Okay, Edge, Pascal's Wager has been discussed before, and you aren't adding anything to it.
Ladewig, I stand by my challenge (and I suspect you agree). Those who oppose what they term "macroevoloution" do so by defining macroevoloution as the evoloution which hasn't been proven so definitively that they can still pretend it might not exist. Other than species, there is no defensible real definition of the taxa except our (human scientists) need to define them. The argument from "kind" can be easily refuted by pointing out that our higher taxa are simply abstractions invented by us, so why did god convieniently arrange his "kinds" to agree with the godless evoloutionist's?
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
If you can show me any evidence of "macroevolution" that would be a starting point...up till now no one has.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you would mean by evidence. I am talking about not just physical evidence but also a description of a logical chain of events. I think there were a couple of posts where people talked about that; I'd have to go back and find them.

I don't know if you mean that
*no one gave you any evidence at all, or that
*no one gave you evidence that was convincing to you, or that
*no one gave you evidence that met your particular idea of what evidence of macroevolution might be, or if
*no one gave you evidence that would prove that God couldn't have done it by supernatural creation.

I don't think it's likely that anyone on this forum could give you a description of evolution at the family level and above that would convince you that evolution occurred because I think your mind is made up. The best I can expect is that you could be convinced that the explanation for evolution is based on information that makes some sense, rather than scientists being deluded idiots, which is the way that some creationsits seem to portray their ideas.

I also don't think it is possible to describe a sequence of events and convince anyone that God couldn't have done it. Of course God, being omnipotent, could by definition have created any creature with the exact characteristics that the creature would have had as a result of evolution.

There ARE certain results of evolution (as science sees it) which seem contrary to a perfect creation by an all-knowing creator though. So we could point those out, and ask why God created certain things in such a clumsy kind of way - why not make them perfect. I don't expect this would be convincing either - you could either argue that we don't know why God would have made them that way - maybe there was a good reason that we are not wise enough to see. (Or you maybe would say that it was a result of Adam's fall and sin coming into the world.) But suppose we gave examples of this kind of thing. You might not be convinced by it, but maybe you could see how science sees them.

JF, you posted something about a dog giving birth to a mouse. But that isn't the way that evolution works. It makes no sense to insist on a certain kind of evdience for evolution which is contradictory to what evolution predicts. So if you say that information must fit into a specific narrow predefined range for you to call it evidence, and you have chosen a range of happenings that is contradictory to what evolutionary theory predicts, then of course there will never be that kind of evidence.

But imaybe you just meant it in the simplest sense, that no one has written out for you a clear description of how animals in different families are thought to have evolved form common ancestors.

I just want to check - do you agree that evolution can occur within 'kinds'? A wolf and a coyote and jackals are similar and I think they might be considered to be the same 'kind' - would you consider evolution from a common canid ancestor to the coyote and wolf and jackals to be reasonable?

(Maybe it sounds as if I have some descriptive plan in mind but I don't at this point.)
 
Last edited:
Jesusfreak, I am always interested to hear Creationists' take on this:

The other members of the homo genus (Neanderthals, homo habilis, homo ergaster, etc.) have been well-established and well-researched. Do you agree that these species are distant relatives of ours, or do you think they are totally unrelated to us?
 
jesus_freak said:
If you can show me any evidence of "macroevolution" that would be a starting point...up till now no one has.
Click to expand...

JF, this is simply not true. There was serveral posts showing you how macroevolution worked. There is a diffence between refusing to accept, or not understanding the evidence and not been given the evidence.

If you want people to take you seriously, you need to speak the truth.
 
just want to check - do you agree that evolution can occur within 'kinds'? A wolf and a coyote and jackals are similar and I think they might be considered to be the same 'kind' - would you consider evolution from a common canid ancestor to the coyote and wolf and jackals to be reasonable?
Click to expand...
yes
Jesusfreak, I am always interested to hear Creationists' take on this:

The other members of the homo genus (Neanderthals, homo habilis, homo ergaster, etc.) have been well-established and well-researched. Do you agree that these species are distant relatives of ours, or do you think they are totally unrelated to us?
Click to expand...
Well I beleive in a young eath...that it is around 10,000 years old, as far as I know all those other "humans" supposedly became extinct roughly 30,000 years ago...So I guess to answer your question I do not think they are related to us no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom