Zone1 Can you find the Flaw in Atheist Speaker Christopher Hitchens' Logic Here.

[alang1216]

It doesn't matter if they believed they lived in the end of times. All that matters is were they good witnesses. I believe the evidence shows they were.

It matters if you want to understand them in their historical context.

 

[ding]

I believe he died, the other stuff I believe got added on later by his followers.

So Jesus was being put to death. The apostles were hiding in fear. Then the apostles come out of hiding and started boldly preaching Jesus is Lord risking persecution, imprisonment and death, why?

Why didn’t the Church follow the patterns of other groups whose leaders had been persecuted? Why did it (uniquely) consider Jesus as its continued leader? Why did it consider Jesus (after the crucifixion) to be the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny? Why did it organize itself so uniquely? Why did it worship Jesus as the Lord and endure persecution for that worship? How did it become one of the most inspired and dynamically expansive missionary organizations in the history of religions with a publicly humiliated and executed “Messiah” as its sole leader?

The answers to these questions requires a cause capable of explaining why Christianity does not follow the pattern of other religions or messianic movements. Why does Christianity pick up momentum from a crucified leader when other messianic movements at the time quickly faded away? Why didn’t Christianity pick out another leader in the face of its leader’s crucifixion, like other messianic movements whose leaders were executed? Above all, why did it become such a powerful Messianic movement capable of threatening the Roman Empire within a few generations after that same empire executed its Messiah?

What kind of cause could explain so many unique phenomena? A powerful one – one capable of overcoming the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of communicating both imminent and transcendent hope (amidst the death of its presumed messiah); one capable of revealing that God’s kingdom had arrived in the world, and capable of providing sufficient momentum to turn a little Jewish sub-cult into an empire-wide – indeed, worldwide religion within a few generations. This powerful cause would seem to be the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in combination with Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit which enabled the apostles’ (along with other missionaries) to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. John P. Meier summarizes this unique historical phenomenon as follows:

…[T]here was a notable difference between the long-term impact of the Baptist and that of Jesus. After the Baptist’s death, his followers did not continue to grow into a religious movement that in due time swept the Greco-Roman world. Followers remained, revering the Baptist’s memory and practices. But by the early 2nd century A.D. any cohesive group that could have claimed an organic connection with the historical Baptist seems to have passed from the scene. In contrast, the movement that had begun to sprout up around the historical Jesus continued to grow – amid many sea changes – throughout the 1st century and beyond. Not entirely by coincidence, the post-Easter “Jesus movement” claimed the same sort of ability to work miracles that Jesus had claimed for himself during his lifetime. This continued claim to work miracles may help to explain the continued growth, instead of a tapering off, of the group that emerged from Jesus’ ministry.

If the resurrection appearances and the apostles’ ability to work miracles are not the cause of this uniquely powerful messianic movement (after the humiliation, persecution, and execution of its Messiah), then what other cause would have the same explanatory power? History has left us with a void of realistic alternatives, suggesting that the Christian claim to have seen the risen Jesus is true, and that the early community’s power to perform miracles in Jesus’ name was derived from the risen Jesus Himself.

 

[ding]

I believe that is what John believed.

That doesn't tell me anything.

Your interpretations are as valid as those of anyone else.

Thanks, but I'm trying to understand what you believe it means.

A God.

What action is required from us? What is it we must do and why?

 

[ding]

It matters if you want to understand them in their historical context.

That's exactly what I have done... here.

This is the historical context of Jesus being worshipped as God.

 

[alang1216]

So Jesus was being put to death. The apostles were hiding in fear. Then the apostles come out of hiding and started boldly preaching Jesus is Lord risking persecution, imprisonment and death, why?

Why didn’t the Church follow the patterns of other groups whose leaders had been persecuted? Why did it (uniquely) consider Jesus as its continued leader? Why did it consider Jesus (after the crucifixion) to be the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny? Why did it organize itself so uniquely? Why did it worship Jesus as the Lord and endure persecution for that worship? How did it become one of the most inspired and dynamically expansive missionary organizations in the history of religions with a publicly humiliated and executed “Messiah” as its sole leader?

The answers to these questions requires a cause capable of explaining why Christianity does not follow the pattern of other religions or messianic movements. Why does Christianity pick up momentum from a crucified leader when other messianic movements at the time quickly faded away? Why didn’t Christianity pick out another leader in the face of its leader’s crucifixion, like other messianic movements whose leaders were executed? Above all, why did it become such a powerful Messianic movement capable of threatening the Roman Empire within a few generations after that same empire executed its Messiah?

What kind of cause could explain so many unique phenomena? A powerful one – one capable of overcoming the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of communicating both imminent and transcendent hope (amidst the death of its presumed messiah); one capable of revealing that God’s kingdom had arrived in the world, and capable of providing sufficient momentum to turn a little Jewish sub-cult into an empire-wide – indeed, worldwide religion within a few generations. This powerful cause would seem to be the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in combination with Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit which enabled the apostles’ (along with other missionaries) to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. John P. Meier summarizes this unique historical phenomenon as follows:

…[T]here was a notable difference between the long-term impact of the Baptist and that of Jesus. After the Baptist’s death, his followers did not continue to grow into a religious movement that in due time swept the Greco-Roman world. Followers remained, revering the Baptist’s memory and practices. But by the early 2nd century A.D. any cohesive group that could have claimed an organic connection with the historical Baptist seems to have passed from the scene. In contrast, the movement that had begun to sprout up around the historical Jesus continued to grow – amid many sea changes – throughout the 1st century and beyond. Not entirely by coincidence, the post-Easter “Jesus movement” claimed the same sort of ability to work miracles that Jesus had claimed for himself during his lifetime. This continued claim to work miracles may help to explain the continued growth, instead of a tapering off, of the group that emerged from Jesus’ ministry.

If the resurrection appearances and the apostles’ ability to work miracles are not the cause of this uniquely powerful messianic movement (after the humiliation, persecution, and execution of its Messiah), then what other cause would have the same explanatory power? History has left us with a void of realistic alternatives, suggesting that the Christian claim to have seen the risen Jesus is true, and that the early community’s power to perform miracles in Jesus’ name was derived from the risen Jesus Himself.

Early Christianity grew slowly but exponentially at the same rate as the Mormon Church is growing today. If you believe Jesus was a Messiah but Smith was not you'll have to explain why both were successful. Could it be Paul and Brigham Young.

 

[alang1216]

That doesn't tell me anything.

Except the truth.

Thanks, but I'm trying to understand what you believe it means.

What action is required from us? What is it we must do and why?

You're asking an atheist for theological guidance? I suggest you look elsewhere, I can only tell you what it says and, maybe, where it came from.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly what I have done... here.

This is the historical context of Jesus being worshipped as God.

I think you need to work on your skepticism.

 

[ding]

Early Christianity grew slowly but exponentially at the same rate as the Mormon Church is growing today. If you believe Jesus was a Messiah but Smith was not you'll have to explain why both were successful. Could it be Paul and Brigham Young.

Why did it grow at all with a disgraced leader?

 

[ding]

Except the truth.

Now you are lying. Shame on you.

 

[ding]

You're asking an atheist for theological guidance? I suggest you look elsewhere, I can only tell you what it says and, maybe, where it came from.

No. I'm asking an atheist that has been arguing like he knows what it means. Because otherwise, you wouldn't have said, you doubted other Christians would agree with me in post #48 without knowing what it should have been.

 

[ding]

I think you need to work on your skepticism.

I think you need to work on your honesty. You have no answers to those questions and yet you still believe in a conspiracy of some sort.

 

[ding]

I think you need to work on your skepticism.

I would if you could make a credible argument for why a disgraced religious leader was worshipped as God immediately after he was put to death with his followers risking persecution, imprisonment and death.

 

[ding]

Except the truth.

The truth would be that you believe Christians believe that unless one believes Jesus is the Son or God or Jesus is God or Jesus died for our sins or whatever it is they have interpreted that passage to mean, they are going to suffer eternal damnation in a lake of fire.

I was trying to get you to say that so I could show you how dumb that belief is. It's not scripture that is wrong, it's the interpretations of scripture that are wrong. But you aren't interested in that because you don't want scripture to make sense. It would ruin all of your fun.

 

[DennisPTate]

I say "the flaw," but no doubt there are more than one flaw to be found. Not a slam on him, but any talk about a controversial topic is bound to be full of flaws from the point of view of folks on the other side of the opinion given (or implied in this case).

I've heard the name Christopher Hitchens, but I'm much more familiar with the name Richard Dawkins, whose work I have debunked many times. Anyway, Hitchens claims to be both British and American, which is ironic considering he no doubt finds aburd the idea that Jesus was both man and God.



For those of you who don't like to watch videos of atheists smugly pontificating, I'll give you the briefest of versions: How likely is it, asks Hitchens, that obscure and illiterate people in the middle east suddenly were provided through devine intervention, the one true religion?

I assume he means the Jews, and later, the Christians. These type folks never have a negative word to say about Islam or Muslims.

I am going to reply to this topic without even reading the full opening post, just yet, but after I come home from work I will get into this deeper. I joined an online Richard Dawkins Ph. D. support forum several years ago. I introduced the idea of a Being of Light [or Energy from Quantum Vacuum], in a sense evolving or learning over infinite time in the past?

One of the Moderators there told me that this is a basic idea that is being discussed by Atheists and is a legitimate branch of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" in general. A different Moderator found my idea annoying and banned me from the group but I had learned that this idea does have potential to shift the Religion of Atheism, worldwide.

Considering how many people have been murdered by Atheists over this past century in Russia, China, and in all Communist nations, we can see that "Atheism" has been turned into something of The Official State Religion in all Communist Nations.


I believe that dogmatic Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot intellectually by not being more open about what may well be evidence that all of us live within the context of Applied Multiverse Theory.

Former Atheist Mellen Thomas Benedict was shown that the universe is vastly older than merely fourteen or so billion years and that the Cyclic Model of the Universe is true, [much as Stephen Hawking Ph. D. postulated and explained in chapter thirteen of his book, "Stephen Hawking's Universe."

Do a search for "Mellen Benedict" at www.near-death.com and you will find this explained in part six of his NDE account.

 

[Hafar1014]

That is the argument of atheists for sure. Let me flip that around. You were made to worship something. The only choice in the matter is what you choose to worship. Some worship fame, fortune, power, pleasure, themselves, etc., but none of those will satisfy because we were made for more. So you can either worship the created or you can worship the creator. It's your choice. But God is not a belief. God is the source of all existence.

Atheism is also a belief. Im not an atheist. I make my own choices. God is belief by definition because you cant prove it

 

[Hafar1014]

Existence has always existed. Existence cannot come from non-existence. God is existence. God is reality. We exist in the mind of God.

Who created god.

So at some point in the remote past, nothing existed?

Where did it all come from, then?

We dont know and we cant know so we create beliefs

 

[sealybobo]

The Jews were barbaric, backward, and illiterate, Hitchens said, while in China, people could read, think, and do science. That's quite biased. The Judeans managed to get built one of the most impressive and lavish temples of their time, and many of them were quite literate and educated.

Sure, their laws were draconian, and, by today's standards, immoral. So were China's laws, which were immoral even in recent history.

So, why no messiah in China or anywhere else? Because no messiah was expected anywhere else. Plain and simple. A messiah figure fits the Hebrew narrative. Jesus wasn't exactly what the Jews expected, but his appearance was the climax and denouement of their story.

And, as it turned out, his appearance literally was able to change the religious and cultural landscape of the entire world.

Dude, it's just a story. His appearance? We only see pictures. It's like George Washington. I wonder what he looked like with his wig off.

Also consider this. You say "many of them were literate" but the truth is, very few of us know jack shit. Do you know how to make medicines? Make electricity? Find and make steal into buildings? They could have been literate but thought the world was flat. Or they could have believed in the Greek gods before they were told the Jesus one. And then enough of them joined. Till eventually some king saw it was taking over and adopted it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We dont know and we cant know so we create beliefs

Correct, and not being able to answer every question about the unknowable, does not render beliefs invalid, be it belief in God or Belief in the Big Bang.

 

[alang1216]

Why did it grow at all with a disgraced leader?

Both leaders were disgraced so it was not a unique event.

Now you are lying. Shame on you.

Are you saying John didn't believe what he wrote?

No. I'm asking an atheist that has been arguing like he knows what it means. Because otherwise, you wouldn't have said, you doubted other Christians would agree with me in post #48 without knowing what it should have been.

I can only read the words as written. If they require interpretation, I leave that to others. I think it is generally safe to say that other Christians will disagree with you regardless of what you say when you interpret.

I think you need to work on your honesty. You have no answers to those questions and yet you still believe in a conspiracy of some sort.

On the subject of honesty, you keep claiming I believe in a conspiracy of some sort, I don't and I've repeatedly told you that. If you don't want to accept my answers, that is on you.

I would if you could make a credible argument for why a disgraced religious leader was worshipped as God immediately after he was put to death with his followers risking persecution, imprisonment and death.

Make a case for why both Jesus and Smith were considered a prophet by their followers and you'll have your answer.

The truth would be that you believe Christians believe that unless one believes Jesus is the Son or God or Jesus is God or Jesus died for our sins or whatever it is they have interpreted that passage to mean, they are going to suffer eternal damnation in a lake of fire.

So what percent of Christians DO believe that without belief in Jesus they are going to suffer eternal damnation?

I was trying to get you to say that so I could show you how dumb that belief is. It's not scripture that is wrong, it's the interpretations of scripture that are wrong. But you aren't interested in that because you don't want scripture to make sense. It would ruin all of your fun.

A "dumb" belief shared by many Christians? Again, I leave theological interpretations to you, I read the words as written.

 

[Meriweather]

I believe he died, the other stuff I believe got added on later by his followers.

Then you make up your own story to suit yourself, which means we are not discussing the same topic.

True, and they were all wrong since we're still waiting.

Perhaps it's the perspective. My perspective is that of a circle, difficult to tell the beginning and the end. People speak of the ignorance of our ancestors, but it comparison it is we who lack the intelligence--or perhaps knowledge--they attempted to pass down. For example, times are tough, and then there comes a great, prosperous ruler. Then comes weak rulers and hard times. People begin looking for another great ruler so that times will improve. Biblical writers noted that there will be another great ruler bringing prosperity. People will rejoice in this time...but it will not last, governors being as they are. People will continue to suffer through bad leaders and hard times--times that will be so bad that it will take God, Himself, to establish His rule on earth. End times are God's rule--and that happens to each individual, when?

Which direction are the people (lemmings) running? I must know so I can be there first, for I am their leader.