God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Dyakovo]

If god sent itself down to earth to fake die for a crime of evil that it is ultimately responsible for doesn't really carry much weight in terms of sacrifice.

That's why I said Jesus not being human ruins the point of the sacrifice: God by definition cannot die, so sending itself down is not real sacrifice, it's a matter of pointless theatrics.

And the idea of the Trinity is preposterous. It's theologically just handwaving issues with scripture and saying it makes sense because god.

First, God, Jesus in this case did not "fake die". He actually died and became dead, but was resurrected, got it?

Who/what resurrected him?

[The Rich Port]

I hope this isn't considered spamming, cause I'm sharing something that means something to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OTz-lpDjw
This is all I have to contribute to this thread: just gotta have faith people, just gotta have faith.

... That's all you have to offer?

... It's really not much, is it?

How sad.

Some examples of written works about Alexander the Great: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_z1b.html

Just for quick reference, and without addressing the rest of your points, that's not a good link for your counter-argument. Indeed, that very same link is usually used to demonstrate the lack of contemporary surviving written historical evidence for Alexander's life.

Looking at each source in that link in turn:

Callisthenes: As the source itself states, 'the book of Deeds of Alexander is now lost, but underlies much of what was written later' and 'Callisthenes' book on the Deeds of Alexander and the Royal diary are primary sources. They are now lost, but were used by secondary authors'; so the source doesn't survive, but is assumed to be the underlying original document leaned on by several subsequent authors.

Arrian of Nicomedia: His Anabasis is one of the most important sources for the life of Alexander; however, As Arrian was born in 87 AD, and the Anabasis was written in the 2nd century AD, he's not even remotely a contemporary source. Indeed, he's a less contemporary source by several centuries than many of the ones you object to when cited by Scrin.

Ptolemy: Like Callisthenes, a contemporary of Alexander. However, his memoir of Alexander's campaign doesn't survive, and is only known via Arrian's Anabasis; which, as we've seen, was written some 400 years after the events it describes.

Aristobulus: The same situation with Ptolemy.

Onesicritus of Astypalaea: As your own source says, "he published How Alexander was educated, a primary source that is now lost. It is certain, however, that in this book, he claimed to have been the commander of the fleet, which was not true and caused admiral Nearchus to write an account of his own."

Nearchus: As the source notes, "Nearchus retired to write a book called Indik. The Indik is now lost, but its contents are well-known from several sources, especially the Indik by Arrian" - which, as we've seen, was written some 400 years later.

Plutarch of Chaeronea: Wrote a very influential Life of Alexander - but Plutarch lived from 46-c.120 AD; so as with Arrian, he lived several centuries after the events described, and is not a contemporary source.

Summed up, all of the sources you offer in that link are either lost - we only know they existed via much later second-hand sources - or were written several centuries after the events they describe. Furthermore, all of the lost contemporary sources cited above were written by followers of Alexander, and therefore certainly can't be considered as neutral third party sources since they were written by individuals who accepted (in public, anyway) the divine nature of their leader. And those are the good historical sources for Alexander. It is therefore misleading to state 'Alexander has a lot more going for him in this department, with several written accounts created during his lifetime' since none of those accounts actually survive in their original form.

Some will be tempted to reply with 'but Demosthenes!'; but there are problems with that too.

Again, I'm not tackling the rest of your points; I'm merely noting on the very narrow point quoted above that the link you offer isn't remotely a good counter-argument to Scrin's point - indeed, it actively undermines the counter-argument you're trying to make. On the basis of your use of that link, Scrin's earlier statement that you don't wholly understand the nature of Classical historical evidence is, alas, not wholly unjustified.

You would be on much better ground if you cited the archaeological evidence for Alexander as a counter-argument rather than the historical evidence - though any reasonably committed advocatus diaboli can counter that as well (for rhetorical purposes only, I stress).

What's more ironic is nobody worships Alexander as a god

Well, not anymore, anyway.

I beat you to it, admit it I ninja'd.

Anyway, CHURCH OF ALEXANDER, WHO'S WITH ME. BRING IT BACK. BRING BACK OSAMA AND CLEOPATRA.

[Neutraligon]

I still don't see how vicarious redemption through the murder (or death sentence) of another person is supposed to show compassion.

This.
Now, if one claims that Jesus *is* God; or say "an avatar" of God, or "God becoming Human" then yes, I see the compassion.
But letting someone else being tortured to death ? Not so much.

That just makes it more confusing, he sacrifices himself to himself to forgive humans for a situation he created in the first place.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Who/what resurrected him?

God the Father.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Who/what resurrected him?

God the Father.

Wasn't God the one crucified?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

God the Father.

Wasn't God the one crucified?

That's it, you don't read into anything I'm saying in the last page. God has three different persons, one is in Jesus Christ, another is in God the Father. That's why I added "the Father", to remove confusion.



This image could get handy.

[Aelex]

God the Father.

Wasn't God the one crucified?

This trinity is indeed a little confusing.

[Dyakovo]

Who/what resurrected him?

God the Father.

So he didn't die.

[Neutraligon]

Wasn't God the one crucified?

This trinity is indeed a little confusing.

A little? I mean Jesus speaks to god in second person, refers to god in third person, has things he does not know but god does know, sacrifices himself to himself for all of three days (what a sacrifice for a supposedly immortal being) for a situation and rules he supposedly created in the first place.

If Gos is all one being, then shouldn't Jesus have all the knowledge of the other two parts? If they do not have all the same knowledge then how are they one being?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wasn't God the one crucified?

That's it, you don't read into anything I'm saying in the last page. God has three different persons, one is in Jesus Christ, another is in God the Father. That's why I added "the Father", to remove confusion.



This image could get handy.

So they're all the same thing, but they aren't. Literally doublethink.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

God the Father.

So he didn't die.

Jesus died, but was resurrected.

[Neutraligon]

So he didn't die.

Jesus died, but was resurrected.

So where was the sacrifice?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

This trinity is indeed a little confusing.

A little? I mean Jesus speaks to god in second person, refers to god in third person, has things he does not know but god does know, sacrifices himself to himself for all of three days (what a sacrifice for a supposedly immortal being) for a situation and rules he supposedly created in the first place.

If Gos is all one being, then shouldn't Jesus have all the knowledge of the other two parts? If they do not have all the same knowledge then how are they one being?

Most Christian theologians admit the Holy Trinity is the most confusing doctrine in Christianity.

God has three distinct persons, Jesus is not both three distinct persons. Adding to that is Jesus, being a human cooperates with the human limitations of his nature (Yet still being divine.)

Skeptics complain that if God is indeed real, God would be too incomprehensible to man, so here it is, the incomprehensible doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

[Sociobiology]

Wasn't God the one crucified?

That's it, you don't read into anything I'm saying in the last page. God has three different persons, one is in Jesus Christ, another is in God the Father. That's why I added "the Father", to remove confusion.



This image could get handy.

If a = b and b = c, then a = c, and god disappears in a puff of logic.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Jesus died, but was resurrected.

So where was the sacrifice?

God the Father (to reduce confusion) accepted Jesus's death in the cross as a sufficient payment for all mankind's sins. There is no need for Him to remain dead.

[Vissegaard]

Jesus died, but was resurrected.

So where was the sacrifice?

In undertaking all the suffering of a mere mortal's death in order to bring hope to the people.

[Neutraligon]

So where was the sacrifice?

God the Father (to reduce confusion) accepted Jesus's death in the cross as a sufficient payment for all mankind's sins. There is no need for Him to remain dead.

So again, where was the sacrifice?

[Neutraligon]

So where was the sacrifice?

In undertaking all the suffering of a mere mortal's death in order to bring hope to the people.

And that is a sacrifice when he gets to go to heaven for the rest of eternity and supposedly knew that fact (or did he), how? By the way, if god is supposedly all knowing, then wouldn't he already know about what death is like? Again seems like a purposeless death. Why sacrifice himself to himself instead of just forgiving people for a "crime" they never committed.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

God the Father (to reduce confusion) accepted Jesus's death in the cross as a sufficient payment for all mankind's sins. There is no need for Him to remain dead.

So again, where was the sacrifice?

That's the sacrifice, get over it, the sacrifice only occurred in a duration of 3 days. It does not have to be melodramatic as a death of a lifetime.

[MERIZoC]

Wasn't God the one crucified?

That's it, you don't read into anything I'm saying in the last page. God has three different persons, one is in Jesus Christ, another is in God the Father. That's why I added "the Father", to remove confusion.



This image could get handy.

If you're part of a sect that buys into that.

[Neutraligon]

So again, where was the sacrifice?

That's the sacrifice, get over it, the sacrifice only occurred in a duration of 3 days. It does not have to be melodramatic as a death of a lifetime.

I still fail to see it as a sacrifice given that he supposedly knew he would end up in heaven for eternity. The "sacrifice" was not only purposeless, it wasn't even a real sacrifice. How is dying for all of three days a sacrifice at all? Seems like a bargain to me.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So again, where was the sacrifice?

That's the sacrifice, get over it, the sacrifice only occurred in a duration of 3 days. It does not have to be melodramatic as a death of a lifetime.

That's not a sacrifice, that's faking your death to get out of jail.

[MERIZoC]

Wasn't God the one crucified?

That's it, you don't read into anything I'm saying in the last page. God has three different persons, one is in Jesus Christ, another is in God the Father. That's why I added "the Father", to remove confusion.



This image could get handy.

If you're part of a sect that buys into that.

[Neutraligon]

That's the sacrifice, get over it, the sacrifice only occurred in a duration of 3 days. It does not have to be melodramatic as a death of a lifetime.

That's not a sacrifice, that's faking your death to get out of jail.

And that still doesn't even get into why such a "sacrifice" was considered a good thing. Even if Jesus where a part of god or an avatar of god, I still do not see how "sacrificing" him would do anything about humankinds supposed sins.

[Mavorpen]

That's not a sacrifice, that's faking your death to get out of jail.

And that still doesn't even get into why such a "sacrifice" was considered a good thing. Even if Jesus where a part of god or an avatar of god, I still do not see how "sacrificing" him would do anything about humankinds supposed sins.

It would be like punishing your child by locking them in a room forever, then having another child and them killing them to absolve the first child of their "sins."

Of course you can do the mature and logical thing and just forgive them, but that's silly.