Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Thursday, July 1, 2010

“He Pretended To Be Dead”

I recently saw a clip from Chris Hitchens. I’ve referred to it several times over the last week because there was so much in it that shows that a commitment to naturalism leads to thinking that is:
convoluted,
absurd,
illogical and
incoherent.

In fact a commitment to atheism leads to thinking that is NO LESS absurd than that which is found in those who deny the Holocaust. Here's yet another example.

Chris says that the reason the tomb that Jesus was buried in was empty on the Sunday morning in question was because Jesus had just “pretended to be dead.”

Hitchens was not joking.

. He acknowledged the historical Jesus.
. He admitted His crucifixion.
. He admitted to Jesus’ burial in a tomb and
. He even admitted that the tomb was empty come Sunday morning.

What Christopher Hitchens expects us to believe is that after undergoing a Roman scourging (that itself brought about death in many cases), and after a Roman crucifixion (which was meant to cause death), Jesus lay in an ice cold cave for 40 odd hours and then, and THEN, by Himself:
. Extricated Himself from a hundred metres of burial wrapping that was cemented together with 35kgs of embalming spices
. Moved a two tonne stone
. Overcame a Roman guard and
. Escaped from the tomb.
. He then appeared to His followers as someone who had emerged victorious over death in a ‘resurrection body.”

And all this because while on the cross, Jesus had just pretended to be dead.

That’s what atheists are like. It’s how they think. Atheists pride themselves in not believing "improbable events" but discount those events by suggesting something with an even greater improbability!

There’s more.

Before all this, before the resurrection, before the burial, a Roman soldier, a professional killer whose job for the day was making sure that Jesus was dead, ran a spear into Jesus’ chest cavity and out poured, “water and blood.”

Water and blood?

Because this is a "bronze age book" the writers didn’t know what we know today.

Well, what MOST of us know today.

Mr. Hitchens and other atheists who agree with his premise obviously still have a bit of reading to do on the subject. You see, what the eyewitnesses of the time thought was WATER and blood was actually blood that had broken down or separated into serum and red blood cells. There are two ways and only two ways to separate blood serum from the red blood cells -

1) Take a tube of blood and spin it down in a centrifuge or
2) Have the body die and let the blood break down naturally.

That Jesus was dead is beyond question - unless one is an atheist. If you’re an atheist you really don’t have any choice, even in the face of irrefutable forensic medical evidence, but to say that Jesus was just pretending to be dead. The Roman soldier, in an action designed to ensure the death of Jesus, pierced Jesus’ heart and chest cavity and the proof that He was ALREADY dead poured out.

“But He was just pretending to be dead,” says atheist spokesperson Christopher Hitchens

Because dead people only rise from the dead by supernatural means, if you’re an atheist you have to say something like “Jesus pretended to be dead or that He fainted or swooned.”

Based on experience and observable evidence, the Roman Centurion emphatically and accurately pronounced Jesus dead.

In a strange bit of irony, it appears the Roman soldier knew by instinct what modern science has confirmed today. Christopher Hitchens on the other hand, and all like-minded atheists haven’t even caught up with a bronze age knowledge of medical science.

This is where atheists join the type of thinking that is used by those who deny the Holocaust. 'If you don't like the obvious, just deny that it happened.'

When you live by the creed - "There is NOTHING more to life than what the senses can detect," either Jesus pretended to be dead OR Jesus didn't exist.

To atheists:
. If it's historical, it can't be supernatural
. If it's supernatural, it can't be historical

They don't like it when you point out the obvious absurdities of what they believe,

BUT

That IS what atheists are like. It IS how they think.

18 comments:

  1. Rod, why don't you consider lying to be a sin?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pure projection. Look at how much better Rod's polemic works when you substitute one word:

    a commitment to Christianity leads to thinking that is:
    convoluted,
    absurd,
    illogical and
    incoherent

    ReplyDelete
  3. One atheist said......not this is what atheists are like or how they think.

    Benny Hinn, A Christian believes and says some pretty amazing and heretical things. Using your methods I could then say This is what Christians are like and how they think.

    Silly, isn't it?

    The history is slim on whether or not Jesus was a real person. Even if he was.........it requires FAITH to believe he was God, the son of God, and that he resurrected from the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Would you agree that there is just as much evidence for jesus' resurrection as there is for the holocaust? An answer to this may prove useful for future debates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WEM said:
    Pure projection. Look at how much better Rod's polemic works when you substitute one word:

    a commitment to Christianity leads to


    Ya it is actually better since a commitment to Christianity is something that makes sense, that we see often. Commitment to Atheism on the other hand... just sounds weird. What does it even mean?

    @Atheistsnackbar
    Debate? what debate? lol

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Would you agree that there is just as much evidence for jesus' resurrection as there is for the holocaust?"

    There is far MORE evidence for the Holocaust. You're missing the point. For those who don't want to believe in either or both events, the amount of evidence doesn't matter does it?

    How come you guys rarely, rarely address the meat of the post. Given the facts as we know them, don't Hitchen's comments seem ridiculous?

    . The Christian Church exists (or don’t you believe that it exists?)
    . The sceptic and Christian killer Paul was converted (or don’t you believe that?)
    . The sceptic and brother of Jesus, James was converted (or don’t you believe that?)
    . The character of the disciples changed dramatically (or don’t you believe that?)
    . The tomb was empty (or don’t you believe that?)
    . People who were once fiercely monotheistic sacrificed everything of worldly value to worship Jesus (or don’t you believe that?)

    Christianity is deeply rooted in history and these facts of history demand and answer. Why did these things take place? Something significant took place. Unless you are someone deeply and I think irrationally committed to a naturalistic world-view, a resurrection from the dead best explains the cause of these events.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a Jew, I'm glad to see you acknowledging that Christianity is polytheistic:
    "People who were once fiercely monotheistic sacrificed everything of worldly value to worship Jesus"

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one."

    Based on the objective empirical evidence that they observed, they accepted Jesus AS God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How come you guys rarely, rarely address the meat of the post

    What, do you think we should address that point? When it's embedded in lies and laughably transparent distaste for those you want answers from, it shouldn't take a high school diploma to understand why you don't get them very often.

    Start acting like an adult, and you'll be treated like one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is far MORE evidence for the Holocaust. You're missing the point. For those who don't want to believe in either or both events, the amount of evidence doesn't matter does it?

    YOU are missing the point… AGAIN, it’s not a question of ‘not wanting to believe’ anything.

    How come you guys rarely, rarely address the meat of the post. Given the facts as we know them, don't Hitchen's comments seem ridiculous?

    On most occasions, when people address the meat of your post or comments, you dismiss them, comment on parts of it, misrepresent the answer, and show that you did not understand.

    Concerning Hitchen, why should we care what his beliefs are if we don’t share them? I don’t give a shit about what other ‘Atheists’ believe as it tells me nothing about what they believe and why, and it tells me nothing about why they don’t believe in a god and why.

    A list of points! NICE! I will try not to read in advance to be as honest as possible…

    The Christian Church exists (or don’t you believe that it exists?)

    Yes. I told you that I exist too, but you did not confirm that it was true…

    The sceptic and Christian killer Paul was converted (or don’t you believe that?)

    Possible yes, and I would say highly probable in fact since he contributed to the beginning of the religion in question.
    Not an argument supporting the truthfulness of what he converted to though, no matter what it is… or what it could have been…
    Many people converted to many religions; why are these not true?

    The sceptic and brother of Jesus, James was converted (or don’t you believe that?)

    Exact same thing as above…

    The character of the disciples changed dramatically (or don’t you believe that?)

    Again…

    The character of the disciples changed dramatically (or don’t you believe that?)

    No I don’t believe that if it means that the body magically disappeared. Why? because things in the real world do not magically disappear…
    Why should we make an exception for that one thing?

    People who were once fiercely monotheistic sacrificed everything of worldly value to worship Jesus (or don’t you believe that?)

    See Paul, brother of Jesus and disciples above…

    Plus, what the fuck, they ‘were’ monotheistic? So they are not anymore? Believing in the trinity makes you a non-monotheistic? Does that make you a polytheist? Never heard that before…

    Next… oh that’s it? Lol…

    Christianity is deeply rooted in history and these facts of history demand and answer.

    Right, CHRISTIANITY is deeply rooted in history, because PEOPLE believe in it. Period. Grow up.

    Unless you are someone deeply and I think irrationally committed to a naturalistic world-view, a resurrection from the dead best explains the cause of these events.

    These people already believed in a god. These people already believe in witches, demons, angels and all sorts of things that you would not consider real right now. You’re the one who needs to justify why we should believe that this one particular thing, the empty tomb, needs to be explained by an extraordinary complex thing called a resurrection: something that you cannot properly explain and that you cannot prove to be even remotely possible now.

    A naturalistic world-view has nothing to do with that. You are trying to shift the burden of proof once more. Or in other words…

    We do not understand event ‘X’, therefore…
    GOD DID IT!!!

    (why?)

    Because people believed in ‘X’ really really strongly, therefore…
    GOD DIT IT!!!

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Based on the objective empirical evidence that they observed, they accepted Mohammad as THE prophet.

    "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one."
    That's right. ONE. THREE does not equal ONE.
    The gods of the "New Testament" have nothing to do with reality.
    You're are like the Mormons and the Muslims.
    Making up your own stuff trying to ride on our backs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is far MORE evidence for the Holocaust. You're missing the point. For those who don't want to believe in either or both events, the amount of evidence doesn't matter does it?

    You suggest that these two events are analogously congruent under the condition that we "deny" them. The connotation of denial, as it pertains to the holocaust, is that of absurdity, due to the amount of evidence attached to the event. (The gravity and seriousness of the event adds to, but is not exclusive to the connotation)

    We do not normally associate "denial" as a condition for 'not accepting a resurrection as possible'. Since you propose that we take the connotation of absurdity from denying the holocaust and inject it into Christianity's resurrection story, we must establish the purpose by which you base your proposition. The obvious purpose is on grounds of the "amount of evidence". If the holocaust lacked sufficient evidence, denying it would not fit into a connotation of absurdity. Therefore the amount of evidence does matter. Unless there is another base condition, by which you can justify an assumption that these two events are analogously congruent, then I cannot be "missing the point." Simply stating that I "miss the point", does not make it true. Try again.

    Or perhaps the point you refer to is a placebo, existing exclusively within the twisted corridors of your cerebral cortex, imcompatible with reality... just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Next… oh that’s it?"

    No, there's the empty tomb - or do you agree with Hitchens?
    =======

    "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one."
    That's right. ONE."

    Most of the followers of Jesus were devout Jews who believed in Creator God. They were monotheists to the core YET they recognised Jesus as God incarnate. What were they witnessing to make them believe that? To be kicked out of the Temple was to be kicked out of the community YET what they saw and experience led them to give it all up and follow Jesus. What happened?

    Paul had extensive rabbinical training under Gamalial. Read Philippans 3:5 - 11 to see what he gave up in order to follow Jesus. Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees a monotheist of the highest order saw in Jesus - God. What did he experience to make him believe that?

    If you're listening in, don't be swayed by these atheists whose depth of analytical thought is one millimetre deep. Ask yourself, What took place to bring about such dramatic change in these people.

    I can tell you that it is the same thing that brought me from someone who served only myself to now worshipping Jesus as Lord and Saviour of my life.

    Jesus is alive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. . The Christian Church exists (or don’t you believe that it exists?)

    Sure, so does the church of the flying spaghetti monster, which doesn't prove anything.

    . The sceptic and Christian killer Paul was converted (or don’t you believe that?)

    nope

    . The sceptic and brother of Jesus, James was converted (or don’t you believe that?)

    nope

    . The character of the disciples changed dramatically (or don’t you believe that?)

    nope

    . The tomb was empty (or don’t you believe that?)

    nope

    . People who were once fiercely monotheistic sacrificed everything of worldly value to worship Jesus (or don’t you believe that?)

    nope


    You and Hitchens must both be delusional, because you both falsely assume that Jesus was a historical person. It was all made up by Constantine! He was looking to invent a new religion to compete with Mithraism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What's confuses me is why Rod even asks those questions. He's told us before that atheists reject everything in the Bible - so why would he wonder if we accept parts of it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. What do you think, Hugo? Why was the tomb empty? The disciples didn't have the power to steal the body. The enemies of Jesus had no reason to steal it. Hitchens' answer is absurd.

    The resulting conversions and the rise of the Church, notwithstanding tgta's moronic reply above, all point to exactly what the writers of the documents said happened.

    What's your answer to the empty tomb?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "What do you think, Hugo? Why was the tomb empty?"

    I don’t know... do you? No you don't, you just eliminate all explanation that are not a 'supernatunal resurection' to conclude that it is.

    "The disciples didn't have the power to steal the body. The enemies of Jesus had no reason to steal it. Hitchens' answer is absurd."

    Yep, his answer is absurd; maybe he was making a joke to contrast the absurd idea that it MUST be a resurrection? Who knows...

    We learned recently that Jesus might not even have been nailed on a cross, it could have been a pole or something like that, as it was very common. So how can you go in such details concerning other things!?

    The resulting conversions and the rise of the Church, notwithstanding tgta's moronic reply above, all point to exactly what the writers of the documents said happened.

    The resulting conversion proves ONE thing... they did believe what you wrote.

    That’s the main problem of your recent post by the way; I took the time to read it all. I should reply to it, because I think it was an honest way to present your reasons to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

    Except for the start and end which shows that you are too dishonest to admit that for some people it’s not convincing enough. You think they must be lying and forget that you are the one who has faith in all this, not evidence.

    ReplyDelete