Why Should God Appear/exist At All?

[nailit]

I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?

[Clanad]

I see we've reached the magic 200 post mark, at which point these exchanges just kinda wither… but, I'm not sure you are 'steady on' in what your views are, naomi… minor example:

"Irrelevant. No other (I’ll say ‘alleged’ for your benefit) historical event continues to influence billions or to impact upon the world and upon people's personal lives as the 'alleged' history of religion does. It’s a meaningless analogy. " Your post of 23:07 Sun 04th Oct 2015… followed by:

"No, Naomi doesn’t say that. Naomi says that this story warrants even more thorough - and certainly more honest - investigation." Posted at 07:54 Thu 08th Oct 2015. Bit of a dichotomy there… but that's Ok…

I wasn't referring to the link you posted re: "face napkin", but to the fact several good references to John's recognition of the folded cloth laying separately from the winding sheet in the empty tomb clearly meant something extraordinary to him… such as it gave lie to any attempt to blame the missing body on grave robbers…

One source says "John saw the burial wrappings and his sharp intuitive mind drew an inference that no one had stolen the body of Jesus. It was impossible because the wrappings were still intact just as they were before the body left it. A grave robber would have had to unwind all those strips of sticky spice filled bandages. It was obvious no one had done that. The undisturbed grave clothes demonstrated that Jesus had risen through and out of them. The face cloth was just as it had been around the head of Jesus. It was also clear to John that enemies had not stolen the body of Jesus. Even the space between the head wrappings and the body wrappings was unaffected. The body just disappeared out of the wrappings.

John "saw" the mummy like windings without a body. The wrappings were in the shape of a head, but there was no head inside them. The wrappings from the shoulders down to the feet were intact, but there was no body inside…"

You, too, have a nice day! (Sincerely)

[Zacs-Master]

Maybe they used Mimosian Anti-Matter Chopsticks to fold everything?

[Samuraisan]

All a fascinating read. Although I wonder if anybody gets through Clanad's posts in their entirety.

Oh well, we will all find out the "truth" sooner or later, but the we won't be able to tell anybody.

[naomi24]

Jom, // Naomi, to seriously believe the bible you need a compartmentalised brain//

But in this instance Clanad doesn’t believe the bible. It’s worse than that. He believes his “several good references” and his “one source” – all of whom remain enigmatically nameless.

[jomifl]

It is being selective with facts that has got us where we are today....where are we by the way?

[Clanad]

Naomi, just as I think maybe we're going to have a somewhat meaningful information exchange you go off on one of your tirades discussing something that I never even approached and then calling my mental health into question…

By 'several good references' I simply meant writings by interested scholars, preachers and others that make a lot of sense… just as you've quoted extraneous sources… the one quoted in my response is found here: http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/jn20v8.html

There are numerous others just as there are those that one could quote that don't agree with the well reasoned (in my mind, mental health problems and all), but I'm sure you know that.

This one is especially unique in that it uses the Greek words and translates them in context: http://www.lectionarystudies.com/studyg/studyn/easterdayign.html

What I do notice is you don't address the "Bit of a dichotomy there… but that's OK" concerning your two highly differing positions as quoted… but that's as usual also...

[Psybbo]

Jesus wept!

[naomi24]

... as well he might....

[Hypognosis]

@Clanad

You say "face cloth and _windings_". You even allude to the body being wrapped in mummy fashion. What, then, do you make of the Turin Shroud?

That was what I was actually angling at.

I like the way you colour my lack of *knowledge* (aka ignorance) of Jewish burial practices as "lack of understanding". Your need to make me appear stupid, as a way to undermine my position, I take as a great compliment.

[Hypognosis]

On Primary and Secondary sources.

http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/secondarysources.html

[naomi24]

My post detailing the irrefutable irrationality of Clanad’s post at 13:25 Fri 09th Oct 2015 has been removed – but never mind – he clearly got the message before the itchy finger struck. For the late-comer to the thread, my lengthy efforts were wasted – but if the mood takes me tomorrow I’ll repeat my response to Clanad’s clearly (well, to anyone who really thinks about it) illogical claims.

[naomi24]

Note to self: Keep a copy of everything you post here.

[naomi24]

Clanad, re your post at 13:25 Fri 09th Oct 2015 and my zapped response in which, having spoken to you at length over the years on this subject and hence being somewhat rather more au fait with your beliefs than the zapper, I expressed my genuine concern for you.

I repeat, in the first sentence you say the napkin was folded and found lying separately from the rest of the burial wrappings, and in the second you claim that the face covering was not only discovered in its original position, but also that it retained the shape as it would have been when wrapped around the head. Logic dictates that a folded piece of cloth cannot possibly retain the shape of the head that it had previously been wrapped around.

John says //And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.//…..

…. so why are you even considering the possibility that an alternative story written by modern day men who, in truth, know no more about it than anyone else, may be the correct one? You say //By 'several good references' I simply meant writings by interested scholars, preachers and others that make a lot of sense…//

What sense? None of what they say is there, and therefore, it follows that they are either imagining it, or it is a deliberate fabrication.

As for your problem with what you view as a “Bit of a dichotomy” which you say I haven’t addressed, your attempts to align the story of Jesus to other (alleged) events in history is meaningless simply because the former introduces the concept of the supernatural into the mix, something that the rest don’t, and therefore, there can be no comparison. Before the story of Jesus, if it is to be believed at all, can be considered ‘history’ it requires far more thorough investigation.

And incidentally, no tirades from me. Simply rational observation.

[Hypognosis]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", naomi. You must be do tired of typing that phrase but I am quite happy to sub-contract, for you.


As my head hit the pillow, last night, the dreadful thought crossed my mind that Clanad might have thought that, by "secondary", I meant "second-rate". That would explain his stress on the *quality* of Tacitus's writings and his thouroughness as a historian.

Oh dear.

Well, I hope he reads the link I posted. How a scholarly person can have had those definitions escape their attention for their entire lifetime is beyond my imagination.

So, Tacitus: first rate historian but still dealing with second-hand tales.

At some point, I would like to enquire what faith(s) Tacitus subscribed to, at childhood and at death. Was he a convert or a dispassionate observer?

[naomi24]

Hypognosis, // "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"//

Thank you. In a nutshell, yes.