Opening Shot of the War on Easter (Skeptic's Easter Challenge to Xtians)

[NAO]

Think you know the Bible and can trust it's account of things? Take Dan Barker's famous "Easter Challenge".

An Easter Challenge For Christians
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

excerpt...

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

read the entire Easter Challenge, with a few hints and cheats revealed, here:
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

[kenny blankenship]

1. What I want to know is

how does Jesus lay all those eggs around the lawn, and why doesn't he hatch them if He respects Life so much?

[LynnTheDem]

2. *I* wanna know how he makes them all turn into choccie.

Imagine having the power to do that oneself!

Oh weight...maybe a bad idear...

[beam me up scottie]

3. Best. Easter. Post. Ever.

[NAO]

4. Silly Homo Rabbit, Easter Eggs are colored with GAY colors...

to support the Militant Homosexual Agenda. Peter/Penny Rabbit is an "activist cartoon" that comes straight from the bowels of Hell.

OK, seriously, Easter is all about Jesus coming back from the dead, just like those zombies in "Dawn of the Dead". He even eats flesh and drinks blood, just like the zombies in the movie!

Plus, Satan wants you to think that Easter is about the Spring Equinox. That is why he counterfeited the celebration of renewed life all over the world in advance of the "historical" Jesus.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Zombie Jesus

Damn, you're a bad influence on me.

[WhollyHeretic]

8. .

:rofl:

I had to go googling after seeing that, I love zombie flicks. I found this one...



:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

9. I adore zombie flicks too.

I can't remember if MST3K ever watched one.

Here's some more Zombie Jesus:

[WhollyHeretic]

10. "mouthing what I would guess to be the Aramaic word for "brains."

:spray:

It is about as plausible as the majority of conspiracy theories I see tossed around.

I just found MST3K did do a zombie movie http://www.dapcentral.org/ap/episodes/0604/ I'm going to have to track that down.

[beam me up scottie]

11. "Oh, Motorhead, I have their new collection of Cole Porter tunes."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That one is a must have!

[salvorhardin]

25. Tom Servo is great!

[beam me up scottie]

28. Amazing, isn't it?

A masterpiece only a truly sarcastic smart-ass can appreciate.

[donco6]

77. You are so going to hell.

Ha! This is beyond bizarre.

[beam me up scottie]

78. I know.

My ex-mother-in-law reserved a spot for me when I wouldn't convert.

She's waiting for me there now, I'm sure.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Is the Easter Bunny meant to be a boy?

If so, why is he going around laying a bunch of eggs? Isn't that kind of supposed to be a girl thing? Is the Easter Bunny transgendered, or even a hermaphrodite? Just what kind of an agenda is being pushed here anyway?

[trotsky]

6. BWAH HA HA HA

[Goblinmonger]

7. That's hilarious

I found some Jesus eggs for you

[Zhade]

30. *I* want to know why the bible says rabbits chew their cud...

...and have cloven hooves.

[NAO]

33. Because they are GAY rabbits. "Chewing the Cud" is gay slang for...

...political support of the Militant Homosexual Agenda.

P.S. The floppy-eared ones are Secular Humanists and the long-haired ones are lesbian baby killers, as seen in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Those can ONLY be defeated by The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

[beam me up scottie]

34. NAO!

I've never seen you like this!

You're a scream!

[Zhade]

74. "1...2...5!" "Three, sir." "Three!"

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

45. They don't chew their cud, but they do eat their shit.

Maybe the writers of the Bible mistook the one for the other.:shrug:

[pnwmom]

12. You're lumping all Christians in with the fundies. This is offensive.

You don't have to take the Bible literally, as if it were a science or history text, in order to be a Christian.

[NAO]

13. No, but most do. Why I Raise the Standard of Revolt (Ingersoll)

In "Some Mistakes of Moses", the great orator Robert G. Ingersoll ridiculed the literally believed stories of the Bible at great length. He gave the reason why he felt the need to do so:

"Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to
light a thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never
see. Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we
would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and
account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying
that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told
that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of
God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the
source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is
the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the
only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance with
every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free,
unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt."

Some Mistakes of Moses
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html

[pnwmom]

23. You're wrong. Most don't. n/t

[NAO]

32. Most Do: The National Association of Evangelicals=30 million

and that is just in the US. Their are hundreds of millions of Evangelical Christians in Latin America and all over the world.

Here is the first point of the NAE Statement of Faith from their website:

"We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God."

Words like "inspired", "only", "infallible", "authoritative" and "Word of God" suggest fiercely held literal belief.

MOST Christians DO believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I will concede that not ALL Christians believe this way; possibly quite a few do not; but numerically, the majority do take the Bible as "Gospel Truth".

[pnwmom]

35. Evangelicals are just a fraction of American Christians.

The single largest group is Catholic, and they do not teach that the Bible should be taken literally. That is why, for so long, literalists didn't even consider Catholics to be Christian. Many still don't.

[pnwmom]

36. Catholics, for example, comprise 23% of the U.S. population -- far greater

number than Evangelicals. And, as I said, Catholic theology doesn't teach literalism.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

16. You just say that

Bescause zombie jesus ate your brains.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Here's a hearty atheist back slap, Sal!

And a high five, too!

Evil atheists just LOVE all this melodrama.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Didn't you accuse Goblinmonger of being thin skinned last night?

After you constantly ignored his definition of his atheism in order to paint atheists as anti-theists?

Your posts do speak for themselves.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Zebedeo.

[varkam]

59. Looks like I got here too late...

all I can see are deleted messages. Oh well, I can use my imagination...

[salvorhardin]

21. Can you hear it?

[beam me up scottie]

22. Dammit, Sal! I just lost us another election.

Bad BMUS!

[salvorhardin]

24. Funny that huh?

Nothing to do with a lackluster candidate who refused to fight, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda ("Did you hear Kerry shot a whole batallion of unarmed Marines?"), defective electronic voting machines, gerrymandered districts that resemble nothing less than English garden mazes, vote suppression ("No sir, you don't vote here, you vote in the abandoned industrial chemical plant 10 miles outside of town"), purged voter rolls, low youth vote turnout or that 1.4% of the population that really is fundamentally crazed (or just gullible enough to believe that everything Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell tells them is true) but nevertheless turn out the vote. Nope. It was all the fault of the people who demand that the first amendment be enforced and want to make sure we win the war on zombie saviours.

[beam me up scottie]

27. And the pro-choicers and GLBT rights people too.

Don't leave them out, we're all equally selfish and equally to blame for the demise of the party.


If I had a dime for every clueless nitwit that whined that "special interest" groups were hurting the Democratic party, I could buy the next election.

[salvorhardin]

29. Don't forget those lazy ass disabled people too

They're costing us votes by demanding that the ADA actually, you know, maybe be enforced occassionally. All those damn fringe groups that only add up to something like 80%-90% of the population -- we don't need them, they're costing us the votes of the 1.4% of the population we really should be going after.

Hey! I know! Our next campaign slogan can be "A creche in every pot, and a magnetic saviour in every garage!" Golly gee, just like the old days. Come on, sing it with me!

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

And you know who you were then. Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.

Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.
Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Praise the meat and damn the skin,

Open your kisser and cram it in.

~Archie Bunker

[NMMNG]

76. Screw the disabled

They only suck up our tax dollars anyway. It's not like most of them actually contribute to society in any meaningful way. Then all they do is whine because they don't have curb cuts, wheelchair ramps, stem-cell research, special accomodations everywhere and the like. Even the Bible says that the disabled are not worthy (Leviticus 21:21-23). If the Bible says it, it must be true and worthy of putting into the general Law of the Land. :sarcasm:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

48. You poor persecuted Christian.

:nopity:

It must be so hard for you to belong to the 80% majority....

[Bill McBlueState]

40. are you really *offended*?

Some of the responses may be a little out of hand, but the original post does nothing other than challenge certain religious beliefs. If you take offense merely at having your beliefs challenged, the religion and theology forum may not be the place for you.

[pnwmom]

41. Many of the responses are more than a little offensive.

The original post isn't offensive in and of itself. In fact, I was asking the same kind of questions . . . in the 6th grade. That's when my religion teacher explained that we didn't have to take the Bible literally.

[pnwmom]

42. And I'm not offended at having my beliefs challenged, just being

lumped in with the fundies. We're all not the same.

Just as not all atheists are crude, immature jerks.

[varkam]

60. Just curious

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic - if you don't take reason for belief in the resurrection from the bible....where does it come from?

[NMMNG]

14. The Easter story is rife with contradictions

Much like the rest of the Bible. No surprise. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

26. Religious language is full of paradox and mystery.

Religious language is not the same as scientific or historic language. It is closer to poetry and art. That doesn't mean it doesn't carry its own truth.

Peace.

[immoderate]

37. Who decides which part is the truth?

--IMM

[pnwmom]

39. Each of us has to decide for himself or herself. You can't force faith.

[immoderate]

43. What's the difference between that...

and making it up as you go along?

Everyone gets his own view. Kind of begs the issue of what is truth, or reality. So god is something you make up for yourself. Not that I object, except when someone asserts that as authority.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

47. The difference is in the effort you take to inform yourself. You learn

as much as you can from the experiences/insights of others, but it all comes down to individual conscience. That's only my opinion, but it's an opinion shared by many other people with a faith .

We're not all robots.

[immoderate]

49. I wouldn't tell you what to believe. Knowledge is something else.

It's my belief that the human condition is improved by us learning more about reality. Many people agree with that, and many do not. So be it. In some places, bringing up such matters is considered rude. R/T is an exception.

To my mind faith is the opposite of reality, and while having its benefits in the short run, leads to undesirable consequences. Pointing out that it's a position shared by many, is invoking the "everybody does it" argument, (argumentum ad populum) not a resounding endorsement. I agree with the "not all robots" part, as many times I have heard people espouse a religion, then go on to hear them carve it up according to their own preferences. Which brings us back to your original point. You believe things according to some emotional note or esthetic feeling, which means that you or somebody else just makes this stuff up. By that thinking anything is as good as anything else. I reject that.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

51. Are you deliberately trying to twist what I say, or am I that unclear?

I'm not using the "everybody does it" argument. I'm saying that lots of people have faith based on an individual (but informed and rational) conscience -- rather than an impossibly literal interpretation of the Bible.

[pnwmom]

53. Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive. Read Albert Einstein.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

[immoderate]

56. Einstein did not practice any religion.

Nevertheless, he was a beautiful man. He had a profound recognition of the spiritual (emotional) aspect of humanity. I get the same feelings when I encounter a beautiful sunset, the play of children, the pictures of galaxies from the Hubble, etc. In his writings he expressed the notion of god as those principles that govern existence, and finding them was his life-long quest, which he did not achieve. Einstein also rejected quantum mechanics because he found it esthetically objectionable. ("God does not play dice...") Apparently he was wrong there.

Faith allows you to believe things that aren't true. Fundies do it all the time. It has its place, but one should be aware of that caveat.

Wasn't trying to twist your words. Just pointing out that whether all, many, or a few people embrace something does not give it validity.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

58. Einstein didn't practice any institutional religion. But that doesn't

mean he was a person without faith.

[immoderate]

66. He had faith that there was a unified field theory.

Which he sought and didn't find. That was the faith that all the observed universe could be explained by some unitary principle. Is this the kind of faith that you mean? People are sanguine about all sorts of notions, such as their grandchildren will enjoy a comfortable future in a world of economic justice, and ecological paradise. They hold these against the evidence around them and it helps them get through the day. It is part of the human condition. I hold those faiths and deal with the dissonance.

There are those that have faith that Jesus will come again and they'll be floated out of their bodies to dwell eternally in heavenly paradise. I can't make myself go there.

BTW, Even Einstein, whom I personally revere, could have a faith that is false. I think his efforts were noble though.

Where I do not have faith is that there is some special purpose for humanity beyond what they create themselves, or that there is some sentient power beyond humanity that orchestrates events and reacts to human deeds. The acts of religion: prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, (I can't think of any other) have no effect on subsequent events. They might make you feel good, but that's in your head. Brings us back to my original thought, people make this stuff up.

--IMM

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. FSMism is the one true faith

I will be awarded with unlimited molten cheese in the afterlife, for I'm a true believer.

[manic expression]

46. If that's what you truly believe

that's fine. It doesn't matter if someone believes in FSM, the divinity of cheese or anything else, as long as they are true in their intentions and practice. Everything is divine, so it doesn't matter what you devote yourself to or what you pray to.

[immoderate]

50. Check that.

Do you really think that there might not be some practices or beliefs, that sincerely held, might nevertheless be truly odious?

--IMM

[varkam]

61. Like...ohh...I don't know....

Klansmen who sincerely believe that blacks are genetically inferior and a blight upon humanity?

[manic expression]

63. Since that has so much to do with religious beliefs n/t

[varkam]

64. Given that the bible has been used to justify slavery..

I'd say it might. Besides, I was responding to another poster asking a rhetorical question regarding sincerely held beliefs that are odious.

A belief is a belief is a belief - it doesn't matter if some old white dude in the sky is involved.

[manic expression]

65. And

it has been used to justify and motivate the civil rights movement, it has been used to justify pacifism. I disagree with the book as much as you do, but it can be used for good and that should not be ignored.

What I was saying was that if someone believes in FSM, that is valid. That doesn't mean a worldview (or another belief that has to do with the more immediate world) that is derived from a belief in FSM is valid or correct or not odious, or that a practice that relates to a worldview that is derived from a belief in FSM is valid or correct or not odious.

[immoderate]

67. And if someone sincerely held a belief like...

praying for a goal is better than working for it. Or killing apostates will please a deity. Or performing rituals will cure a disease better than medicating it.

Your generalization is sometimes true. But there are tons of exceptions. Just like sometimes wishes come true. What is the value of the wish?

I submit that holding a belief is not as desirable as knowing truth.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

70. And I submit that there are different kinds of truths -- historical,

scientific, religious, artistic, etc. -- and that each has its place. I would never advocate prayer as a replacement for modern medicine. I would pray and ALSO use the best that the science has to offer.

Some might believe that scientific truth is the "ultimate," but if you study philosophy, or the history of science, (or the history of medicine -- shudder) you learn that even scientific truth has its limitations.

[immoderate]

73. Agree

Science avoids words like truth and proof. Medicine has often avoided science. Note that the traditional medicine man was also spiritual leader, so some of the origins of medicine were anti-scientific. Science works when it limits the variable being tested, often difficult or just ignored in medecine. Add to that, the individual variability of organisms and other human factors like greed and it makes the failures of medicine understandable.

However where things are well established in science, like gravity or evolution, and some assert principle which contradict those, the resolution becomes a game of manners.

Truth, as I define it, means a correspondence with reality. Artistic truth, on the other hand presents a problem, as when I think that someone's favorite outfit is ugly.

--IMM

[manic expression]

62. Surely

but I also specified the intention. I was saying that it doesn't matter what you pray to, as long as you are sincere in the belief and the practice, that is fine. As far as beliefs that are not "I believe in the divinity of x", ones that have to do with the more immediate world, that is completely different.

[Redbear]

52. The Bible is not historically accurate. Period.

Anyone who tries to use it for that will be made a fool.

[pnwmom]

54. Yeah? So? n/t

[Redbear]

55. You can't use the Bible to prove the details of an event.

The implication from the link is that fact proves the event never occurred. That is not logical.

[pnwmom]

57. what link? who says the Bible is a history book? I'm not defending the

fundies.

[Redbear]

71. Sorry. I meant the link in the original post.

:-)

[immoderate]

68. What is the logic in asserting the event did occur?

Granted the bible is no proof either way. On what basis do we assert a resurrection happened? How often does this happen?

--IMM

[pnwmom]

69. Again, if the resurrection were something that could be proven either

scientifically or historically, then believing in it wouldn't be a matter of faith, would it? This is exactly why it's called a "leap of faith."

So why am I a Christian? I'm not an evangelist and I haven't read the Bible from cover to cover (or even close). But the words of Jesus (in the New Testament) are something I do respond to. Their truth speaks to me. . . even across the ages. Jesus was the one who replaced "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek" (if someone hits you) and "blessed are the peacemakers." If I'm wrong to want to follow Him, then so be it.

But don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you. Again, it is a matter of faith. No one can push that on anyone else. I just don't like it when my own faith is grossly insulted. (As in the cartoons, not in your questions.)

[immoderate]

72. We agree on the words.

I think that I am in accord with the teachings of Jesus. Most atheists I know are that way. His principles make sense to those with a social conscience.

The cartoons (which I didn't post) present another problem. I generally try to avoid hurting people's feelings. On the other hand, I also fee there is (almost) nothing above humor. Two fuzzy lines crossing here, cause a problem, particularly as I understand R/T. I call this place the arena.

--IMM

[The Straight Story]

75. Answers:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillhayseed.html

http://www.peterballard.org/easter.html

And if so desired will take the time to answer myself later this week as time permits.

[papau]

79. Excellent response :-)

:-)