here's a topic: in your worldview, if you reject Christianity, where does reason come from? Is it universal and immaterial? The same for the truth, does it exist, is it universal and immaterial? If so, justify it.

Death is death not just when humans do it. Either you failed to specify a human clause or its a completely self contradictory argument.

A lion is given an illusion of choice because if he doesn't cause death he doesn't eat. If he doesn't eat then he dies of starvation resulting in death. The only choice he has is death its either me or the gazelle.

Likewise you can use a human as an example.

There are circumstances that force our hand whether we like to or not that result in death, including accidents. This has nothing to do with some magic deity, forces of evil or even morality. It is life itself.
Things are born then they die you are attaching all these labels in hopes to trick people that your particular wizard is pulling the strings behind the curtain.

A lion is not given choice by nature, lions were not made in the image and likeness of God. Lions are not rational agents subject to morality. People do die from car accidents, what is your point? when I am speaking of death I am speaking ontological not the biological particular, if we have the divine life inside of us (theosis) we live with Him, the actual source of Life. God died so we may be sons by adoption, as Adam was in the garden before he decided to give up his inheritance. Physical death is a symptom, the separation from the source of Life is the disease.

like the entire point of his victory on the cross is him actually defeating death, unshackling humanity from death's power and allowing us to freely choose Life (Him).

Christ isn't a "wizard pulling strings" he's a savior destroying the shackles of death in a loving act to His creation through voluntary sacrifice.

this is the true Pascha, as you called it before 'easter'.



This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 7 2026 12:26am

Firstly a book tells you that lions don't make choices or have morals. When in fact they do, maybe not to the same degree or complexity but animals exhibit moral behaviour. Plenty of experiments have demonstrated them behaving morally showing empathy, altruism and sense of fairness etc. There are cases where animals form unlikely friendships despite their so called nature they choose not to kill even though they easily could.

Secondly only according to your book that assumes we were made by some being in their likeness. This isn't proof thats just one giant ass assertion.

Thirdly people die both from direct decisions they make or by indirect things like accidents and inevitably from old age because the body is programmed to live only so long. You stated "death, decay, and destruction are the consequence from straying away from the sustainer of life" this is completely false and begging the question. We don't die because some magical entity tells us to not eat shrimp on Sundays we die because we don't pay attention when driving on the road or because of cancer.

I said they aren't subject to morality, not that we cannot see behavior in them we might consider aligned with "good". This presupposes the "good", which you cannot justify outside of God making your entire case grounded on nothing. To you morality is just your arbitrary preference.

The grounding isn't a book, it's Logic.

How is this both "false" and "begging the question"? You really have no idea what these terms mean and it shows. Pointing out that reason requires a grounding is an epistemological necessity, I am providing that grounding through the Logos. The justification is the preconditions of intelligibility itself through the transcendental argument and whenever this comes up you dodge because you are incapable of justifying reason or logic itself while relying on it.


You are focused on the mechanism of death, the biological particular, rather than the ontological cause aka why we are subject to decay in the first place. This is what I stated above to differentiate the symptom from the disease.

and this "don't eat shrimp on Sundays" thing, what are you talking about? another lack of understanding of Christianity?

This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 7 2026 01:40am

Again you have made an assumption that morality needs to be grounded at all. Then you assumed that your particular wizard has the final say despite how rational people might perceive it. All you have done is outsourced your agency to self determine. In other words you just traded your preference of right and wrong for the preference of a deity that you prefer. Also what are the odds your selected god's preferences that just so happen to coincide with yours? Its like forming an LLC but for your Morality.

Morality isn't logic its preference. Logic cannot determine truth of moral premises on its own it only validates the conclusions drawn from the premises.
Morality isn't always logical either you are confusing the two.

Your statement "death, decay, and destruction are the consequence from straying away from the sustainer of life" is begging the question because it assumes its own conclusion that there is a "sustained" and that straying away from him/her leads to death, decay, etc.. At the same time it is false as i pointed out death isn't determined by some abstract morals set out by your imaginary wizard but by not following physical laws like jumping off a building or being unlucky and getting hit by a tree branch etc.

This post was edited by addone on Apr 7 2026 02:47am

programmed?

I see you have a short term memory and refuse to go back and read what Shadowoffury gave to you. You do anything in your power to evade the question.

I told you this before, if you want Christianity to die then simply disprove the Resurrection. If you can disprove the Resurrection then that would mean all our Sundays at Church were for nothing and the Minister was preaching a lie to us this entire time.

Before you say "It's not my job to disprove the Resurrection" might I remind you of who created this thread in the first place with that goal in mind?

If you evade or dodge the request then Christianity will continue to thrive for thousands more Years, well after you're gone.

Or you can end it all right here, right now, by disproving the Resurrection. Let's see what new evidence came to you more than 2,000 Years after these events took place?

Let's see if I will reply with my programmed line of: "Because you failed to disprove Christianity then it will continue to thrive for another day."

Easy
It didn't happen because there is no proof that it did.

Creating the thread =/= creating the initial claim.
Default = fake until proven true not true until disproven fake.

This thread is stating the Default status or rejecting the initial christian claim.
The things that are illogical, contradictory and or disprovable then I shall disprove. But I am not under obligation to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

Btw in case you missed an interesting plot hole https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=107619089&f=119&p=688026030

Looks like major gave you great answers while I was asleep.

John 5:24 NASB1995
[24] “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

These examples you give were things overcome on the cross. Jesus freely gave his life and through Jesus we have that same spirit. Death, sickness, suffering, etc have all been defeated and no longer holds victory over the life of God's new creation.

We get to live free from sin, free from these things we were never created to deal with, and that answer is Jesus.

(Death) to sin, alive in Christ = a beautiful thing.



Historically accurate that Jesus existed.
The tomb is empty.
His Resurrection is the most important part of history and forever will be.