NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.

have you heard of the words 'urban legend'? Licking your elbow is one of those.

There exists a subtle difference between the degree of impossibility involved in a being having been cruxified and then being reanimated three days later, and that involved in licking one's own elbow.

Ok. You don't like that one? How about these:

Science has PROVEN that:

1. Bumblebees cannot fly

2. Kangaroos cannot jump

you should probably just ignore the people who say things that happened in the Bible are impossible.

you aren't going to be able to convince them otherwise as they will find your sources biased and you aren't going to be convinced by anything they say because you will find thier sources biased as well

I am trying out a new line so they will leave me alone.

"Maybe it isn't impossible so much as highly improbable"

it isn't really working though, so I have decided to try to avoid the whole discussion

*not getting a good start replying to this thred though huh? :(

Ok. You don't like that one? How about these:

Science has PROVEN that:

1. Bumblebees cannot fly

2. Kangaroos cannot jump

*Groans* Oh sweet Jesus...let's try to make better arguments for the possible nature of miracles than elbow licking and semantic backflippery. :(

There exists a subtle difference between the degree of impossibility involved in a being having been cruxified and then being reanimated three days later, and that involved in licking one's own elbow.
I think you mean improbability.

there really isn't any degree of imosibility it is either impossible or possible....

Ok. You don't like that one? How about these:

Science has PROVEN that:

1. Bumblebees cannot fly

2. Kangaroos cannot jump


1. Also a myth. It was started on the false information that bumblebee's wings only moved up and down, when they move in a more circular motion.

2. Kangaroo's have strong hind legs and a tail for ballance. Who has proved that they cannot jump?

There are zero people in the Universe.
Because there are an infinite number of planets, and only a finite number of those are inhabited.
Any number divided by infinity is so close to zero that it doesnt matter.
Therefore, nobody exists.
Thank you Douglas Adams
(in bold because some fool is going to start screaming "ZOMGUSTOLETHATFROMHH2G!" otherwise)

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.
Great! Now nail yourself to a piece of wood, have someone stab you through the heart, and then get up and walk around three days later. If you can pull that one off I'll join whatever religion you want.

Great! Now nail yourself to a piece of wood, have someone stab you through the heart, and then get up and walk around three days later. If you can pull that one off I'll join whatever religion you want.

And I want video of that...and you licking your own elbow. I like proof. That's just me. Prove it and I'll believe it.

2. Kangaroo's have strong hind legs and a tail for ballance. Who has proved that they cannot jump?
It has been proven that the energy needed to lift a kangaroo up from the ground and then back down and then back up from the ground and so on requires so much energy that a single kangaroo can't possibly eat enough to keep on jumping.

Therefore, kangaroos don't jump.

The fallacy here is that "a kangaroo" is more or less treated like "sack of potatoes". It is lifted, put down. Lifted, put down. Kangaroos don't work like that. Kangaroos bound, using all kinds of shortcuts to cut energy costs. Doing that, they can get enough energy from their food for their jumping lifestyle and can continue doing it.

Great! Now nail yourself to a piece of wood, have someone stab you through the heart, and then get up and walk around three days later. If you can pull that one off I'll join whatever religion you want.
Being the metaphorical/literal/whatever Son of God really helps with that, you know? :p

And I want video of that...and you licking your own elbow. I like proof. That's just me. Prove it and I'll believe it.
Ahh...but you shouldn't need to have proof, as faith is everything. We need to accept that Kelikstadt can indeed do the impossible and lick his elbow. have faith brother! Kelikstadt is the almighty one! I have not seen the elbow-licking miracle but truly I do believe!


Certainly'll make a change for all those Christians that cross themselves. From now on, they'll have to try licking their elbow whenever they go to church.

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.Most miracles I've encountered in the Bible have logical explanations. So what is a miracle? Personally, I believe it isn't the impossible happening, but the possible happening at the right time.

Ok. You don't like that one? How about these:

Science has PROVEN that:

1. Bumblebees cannot fly

2. Kangaroos cannot jump

OMG!!!!1 It's a frickin' miracle!!!

:rolleyes:

Being the metaphorical/literal/whatever Son of God really helps with that, you know? :p
I thought we were all god's children. In that case, we should all be able to pull it off.

I thought we were all god's children. In that case, we should all be able to pull it off.
Only by distant relation ;)
Close relatives can do cool things, like walk on water, rise from the dead and incinerate bushes. Your free to try if you want.

Only by distant relation ;)
Close relatives can do cool things, like walk on water, rise from the dead and incinerate bushes. Your free to try if you want.There's been an incinerated bush? Where that?

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

If you want to get seriously pedantic, current scientific knowledge states that it actually isn't. It's just, as someone else has already said, highly improbable.

The two main contested points that are "impossible" are, naturally, the most well know - namely the virgin birth an the resurection.

1) The virgin birth is seriously improbable but the technology required to actually test it is very recent - so no-one can be sure that there haven't been any cases since. It works under the theory of parthenogenesis (the process by which an egg develops, unfertilised, into what is basicly a clone of the single parent, known to happen routinely in about 1 in 1000 species on the planet, but has not been conclusively proved either way in humans).

The only problem this theory tends to cause for religious believers is that in all likelihood it would mean that Jesus wasn't perfect - If he had by lucky chance escaped a plethora of mental handicaps, conditions such as obesity and epilepsy to name a couple (which aren't referred to in the bilble) - he would have been apparently male but genetically female - and therefore sterile (which isn't referred to as ever being tested, therefore fits with the theory)

2) The resurection simply challenges whether or not we trust Roman medical science as it existed at the time (and is thus a lot easier to explain). It could be explained by the simple (but again improbable) idea that he wasn't dead in the first place. We know that a lot of crucifixtion victims didn't die on the cross (that was what the whole thing about stabbing people in the side with a spear was all about). We also know that people have survived spear wounds too.

What we also know is that, even in mordern medicine, doctors have been known to pronounce people as dead, only to have their 'body' resuscitate itself a few hours later (this is due to being 'clinically dead' - as the Romans would likely have been able to deduce - only means that your heart has stopped pumping and your lungs have stopped breathing: you may be, however, still alive since your cells have carried on respirating with what blood sugar and oxygen is still left.)

We also need to look at the timescale - there is no need to say that Jesus didn't re-animate until three days later - he may have done so within minutes of the chamber being shut and spent the next couple of days wondering how to move that bl**dy big rock!

I think you mean improbability.

Indeed.

Isn't one of our core beliefs that God can do impossible things? By virtue of being... God?

So the impossibility of rising from the dead is irrelevant.

Of course, God cannot always do the contradictory.... he cannot make a rock so big he cannot move it.

For example, he had no trouble moving the big rock in front of his tomb.

For example, he had no trouble moving the big rock in front of his tomb.

I forgot to mention - that one takes no thinking about whatsoever. Is it common sense to assume that even 2000 years ago there were graverobbers? ;)

oy, demented hamsters! check the trivia thread, and you'll find that i can lick my elbow as well! i want to be worshipped too! it's my right!

on-topic: it si rather ridicolous to debate how probable any of the miracles are or were. because religion/faith is not about accepting scientifically proven facts, but about faith.
that, actually, is/was the point of miracles as far as i know. it is god making things that are not possible scientifically, that is, without devine intervention, happen. he did that in order to make people believe in him, just as DCD pointed out in his post. if people saw such "impossible" things to hapen, they were bound to believe.

well, we do not have proof that any of these miracles happened. in case anybody says "the bible, doh" - that is not proof for me. i wish there wa some proof, so that i could start to believe, but things being as they are my scientific and logically trained mind does not allow me to believe.

please, do not try to argue miracles are scientifically posssible. that would be against the core of what makes a mircale a miracle. what the hell would a miracl prrove that is scientifically possible?

oy, demented hamsters! check the trivia thread, and you'll find that i can lick my elbow as well! i want to be worshipped too! it's my right!I guess you don't bother with Deutsche Telecom then?

laerod? wtf? :confused:

Only by distant relation ;)
Close relatives can do cool things, like walk on water, rise from the dead and incinerate bushes. Your free to try if you want.

I walk on water regularly... but really only in the winter. I haven't been dead yet, but I will get back to you about it when I am. Of course, if I went around attempting to incinerate Bushes, I might end up dead rather quickly, so I could let you know how the rising thing works sooner rather than later, except I am not THAT kind of political activist.

you must under stand that religion expecaly based off of jesus's miracales are strictaly faith and belief. If he really is the son of god (which i belive) then he should be able to prove he is or he deserves to be with his wonderful mircales of healing and patcence so the so called immpossible is possible


(i suck at spelling :( )

laerod? wtf? :confused:
You don't know that commercial that asks "Wanna bet you can't touch your elbow with your nose?" (not quite the same as licking...but who knows?)

(i suck at spelling :( )

Sentence structuring as well.

no, i don't , laerod. and, i CAN touch my elbow with my nose. big surprise. can i have my phone contract for free now? and the internet, please?

no, i don't , laerod. and, i CAN touch my elbow with my nose. big surprise. can i have my phone contract for free now? and the internet, please?You must talk to the friendly people of the Telekom for that. (And you don't need the Telekom for free internet. I haven't paid for mine in over a year)

please, do not try to argue miracles are scientifically posssible. that would be against the core of what makes a mircale a miracle. what the hell would a miracl prrove that is scientifically possible?

I wouldn't dream of arguing that miracles were scientifically possible - by definition they are not. What I can argue, though, is that most of the 'miracles' refered to in the bible are not neccessarily so. They are highly improbable yet technically plausible - therefore they are not 'miracles' - but I can still argue that they may have happened. The arguement about whether or not they actually happened is another question entirely - but it is possible.

EVERYTHING is possibel if you accept the option "devine intervention".

laerod: yeah, i ought to. maybe i can be starred in a counter-commmercia or something..:D and well, i'm having free internet..in uni..but i'm talking about at home..or are you hacking somebody's w-lan? :eek:

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.
i dont have a problem with its possibility

i have a problem with its truth.

If you want to get seriously pedantic, current scientific knowledge states that it actually isn't. It's just, as someone else has already said, highly improbable.

The two main contested points that are "impossible" are, naturally, the most well know - namely the virgin birth an the resurection.

1) The virgin birth is seriously improbable but the technology required to actually test it is very recent - so no-one can be sure that there haven't been any cases since. It works under the theory of parthenogenesis (the process by which an egg develops, unfertilised, into what is basicly a clone of the single parent, known to happen routinely in about 1 in 1000 species on the planet, but has not been conclusively proved either way in humans).

The only problem this theory tends to cause for religious believers is that in all likelihood it would mean that Jesus wasn't perfect - If he had by lucky chance escaped a plethora of mental handicaps, conditions such as obesity and epilepsy to name a couple (which aren't referred to in the bilble) - he would have been apparently male but genetically female - and therefore sterile (which isn't referred to as ever being tested, therefore fits with the theory)

2) The resurection simply challenges whether or not we trust Roman medical science as it existed at the time (and is thus a lot easier to explain). It could be explained by the simple (but again improbable) idea that he wasn't dead in the first place. We know that a lot of crucifixtion victims didn't die on the cross (that was what the whole thing about stabbing people in the side with a spear was all about). We also know that people have survived spear wounds too.

What we also know is that, even in mordern medicine, doctors have been known to pronounce people as dead, only to have their 'body' resuscitate itself a few hours later (this is due to being 'clinically dead' - as the Romans would likely have been able to deduce - only means that your heart has stopped pumping and your lungs have stopped breathing: you may be, however, still alive since your cells have carried on respirating with what blood sugar and oxygen is still left.)

We also need to look at the timescale - there is no need to say that Jesus didn't re-animate until three days later - he may have done so within minutes of the chamber being shut and spent the next couple of days wondering how to move that bl**dy big rock!


A spear piercing the fluid sac around the heart would most certainly be fatal. And the rock was too big for any one man to move, plus it was sealed with a Roman seal, which was death for anyone to break. Plus there were the soldiers on guard against the disciples stealing the body. Plus anyone who went through the torture that Jesus went through, even if they somehow survived it, would be in no condition to move anything, and would certainly not gain strength over time,while bleeding from the brow, back, side, wrists, ankles,no food, no water. Try it sometime!

One of the biggest arguments against the resurection (I'm talking about Jesus here) and most of the other miracles described in the bible is: "They're impossible."

A few years ago I read that it is impossible for a human being to lick their own elbow. I tried. And succeeded. I can lick my own elbow. That is supposed to be impossible.

Think about it.
It doesn't count if you cut your arm off first.