Jesus is alive! Happy Easter

BunnyKillBot · 24 Apr 2011 at 14:58

Angilion said:
There's a problem with that - the names of the days of the week are religious. Admittedly, it's not as unequivocal with Sun's Day and Moon's Day as it is with the others, but both were of great religious importance in the past.

Sun
Moon
Tiw
Woden
Thor
Frig
Saturn

And what about those names for the calendar months? Damn romans and their self importance. Still, if i was given the opportunity to name a month after myself would i do it? Of course i would

steve-h · 24 Apr 2011 at 14:59

bhavv said:
Well this one time I spent a whole summer working at the oxfam shop for nothing.

Would it not have been better to get a paying job and donate all your earnings?

I'm sure you could have generated FAR more money this way.

bhavv · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:00

RDM said:
No it wasn't. Dead Friday, resurrected Sunday. Two days in a cold dark tomb is not going to lead to significant decomposition. As I said, showing your ignorance.

Two days lying dead in a tomb would surely at the least reduce the brain to a permanent vegetative state, should that person be able to be somehow resurrected after death.

Jesus would not have had any humanity left in him, he would literally have been a walking, breathing zombie corpse, at least mentally if not physically if he had genuinely been lying dead for two whole days in a tomb and then somehow resurrected.

steve-h said:
Would it not have been better to get a paying job and donate all your earnings?

I'm sure you could have generated FAR more money this way.

Well no because it was my first job and nowhere else would take me on for a paid job without experience, so thats why I did it so I could get a reference and improve my chances of employability.

Angilion · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:07

RDM said:
No it wasn't. Dead Friday, resurrected Sunday. Two days in a cold dark tomb is not going to lead to significant decomposition. As I said, showing your ignorance.

In addition to that, it would still have been a silly question even if it was two millenia in the open above ground in a jungle. When talking about resurrection by divine intervention by an omnipotent god, the state of the body is obviously irrelevant. Any decomposition would just be negated by the same will that caused the resurrection, even if it was a case of "eaten by scavengers and the scattered bones rotted down to some faint marks on the ground".

If you believe in the resurrection thing, the state of the body is irrelevant because you believe that your god could undo it all anyway.

If you don't believe in the resurrection thing, the state of the body is irrelevant because you don't believe the resurrection happened at all.

Either way, the state of the body must be irrelevant.

Angilion · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:08

bhavv said:
Wow, so Christianity is also a race now?

Only in the UK I suppose, where the law is based on the opinions of people with special needs.

It's possible, since race is a fictional concept. It has no real basis in fact, so people can make it up to mean anything, however false and ridiculous.

bhavv · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:11

Angilion said:
Either way, the state of the body must be irrelevant.

Zombie Jesus is a perfectly legit theory about Jesus's resurrection as it is no more correct or incorrect than the possibility of the biblical resurrection.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zombie_Jesus

And so is Zombie Jesus Day:

http://www.zombiejesusday.org/About.aspx

Angilion · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:18

BunnyKillBot said:
I used to be of the view that the disparity between Christianity and the iconography of a particular holiday season was evidence of Christianity 'usurping' pre-existing religious holidays to 'fit in'.

However, the simple truth is that way of thinking is not at all in line with what actually happens in churches up and down the country, at all. In reality, most churches actively downplay what they view as the commercialised aspects of a particular holiday to focus on the issue at hand. To the christian, christmas is about bubay jeebus, easter is about resurrection jesus and the promise of eternal life. It is each to their own how much you focus on the bunnies and chocolate, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religiousity.

So if its not the Christians talking up bunny rabbits, fluffy chicks and decedent chocolates, who is?

You're thinking about the present, i.e. after Christianity has already succeeded in usurping and destroying the religions it targetted.

I was referring to the past, when Christianity was in the process of doing so.

1) Use existing religions as a means of obtaining power, which includes taking their symbols and holy days as your own (and demonising their gods if that will help you).

2) After success in (1), play down those symbols.

Vonhelmet · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:24

bhavv said:
Two days lying dead in a tomb would surely at the least reduce the brain to a permanent vegetative state, should that person be able to be somehow resurrected after death.

Jesus would not have had any humanity left in him, he would literally have been a walking, breathing zombie corpse, at least mentally if not physically if he had genuinely been lying dead for two whole days in a tomb and then somehow resurrected.

Of course, if god exists, then it's trivial for him to resurrect someone perfectly intact after two days.

I'm baffled by the mind that would think "I'd believe in God if he weren't so damn supernatural".

prUnE · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:27

'The Lord has risen indeed'

Happy Easter all!

Angilion · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:29

BunnyKillBot said:
And what about those names for the calendar months? Damn romans and their self importance. Still, if i was given the opportunity to name a month after myself would i do it? Of course i would

Some of the months are just numbered - September, October, November and December are the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months. Well, they were the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months when they were named. Others were Roman religious names. Others were renamed after a person by a different person (July, August). They're not really about self-importance.

If you want nomenclature as a sign of self-importance, check out the emperor Commodus. He went a little further than you jokingly would in the "name it after me!" thing - he renamed every month of the year after himself, then he renamed Rome after himself. Seriously, he really did that. Nothing funny about him, though. He was a top rank dangerous nutjob even by the standards set by the worst Roman emperors.

Von Smallhausen · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:33

Folks, have a day off from religious slating and trolling.

If people want to enjoy religion and take faith from it then crack on. By all means share your greetings and best wishes but let's not turn this into a religious slate rest.

You know where SC is if you want religious debate.

Fuzz · 24 Apr 2011 at 15:59

If there is a God our best road to that indescribable THING, PERSON or FORCE is through our daily non-rational experience of life, not through our ideas about that life.

The actual experience of love and beauty, longing for meaning and empathy can't be described or pinned down. These are non-rational, but not unreal, feelings.

Brain chemistry can name the chemicals that give us those feelings but that doesn't mean we understand why we have any feelings at all and don't merely exist in ignorant mute contentment and free from memory, greif and poignant nostalgia.

Conclusion

The whole "debate" between faith and reason misses the point because it is really a debate between the track record of what religious believers have done in the name of stupid religions (i.e., slavery) and what science has done in the name of stupid certainties (i.e., eugenics).

This argument is an irrational debate driven by our psychological need for certainties that can't ever be attained. It is a debate about human behavior (and books written by humans), but not about God.

Whatever is outside our cosmos is outside our understanding and doing fine -- or not -- with or without us.
Happy few days off work, whatever the reason.

Westyfield2 · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:04

Got to love all the religious bashing and bhavv trying to go all science!

One key point: Jesus Christ was the son of God. If he wants to break the rules of science (walk on water, come back from the dead, etc.) he will.

Derek W · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:20

Westyfield2 said:
Got to love all the religious bashing and bhavv trying to go all science!

One key point: Jesus Christ was the son of God. If he wants to break the rules of science (walk on water, come back from the dead, etc.) he will.

but since he didn't exist he cant

wannabedamned · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:33

Derek W said:
but since he didn't exist he cant

He did exist....

Derek W · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:33

wannabedamned said:
He did exist....

Dokinator · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:45

Happy Easter

DAnDan · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:49

wannabedamned said:
He did exist....

Not as the son of god, if at all.

wannabedamned · 24 Apr 2011 at 16:56

Jesus, Born in Galileo, Jesus of Nazareth. Existed. Jesus wasnt his actual name, its a translation of Yehosua, or Joshua.

Whether he was the son of God, well thats for an individual to decide, I personally dont believe he was. But I dont feel the need to 'LOLS YOU BELIEVE HE WAS GODS SON', everytime someone shows they have faith.

Hatter The Mad · 24 Apr 2011 at 17:01

wannabedamned said:
But I dont feel the need to 'LOLS YOU BELIEVE HE WAS GODS SON', everytime someone shows they have faith.

I agree. Absolutely equally and on the same level I don't want people to tell me 'LOLS YOU BELIEVE IN THE EASTER BUNNY'.