Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

Part one: Answering Izbo10’s accusations in his second argument I have not changed any definitions about the word “zombie”, but rather used the words spiritual and cognitive to characterize Jesus’ resurrection. “Jesus was not only resurrected bodily, for otherwise he could not have rolled the stone back or ascend to heaven, but he also retained his faculties for speech and thought….Since both speech and thought are outside of what one would characterize as "bodily", it implies a spiritual rebirth, or rather, a cognitive one.” [1] There is no mention in the word zombie, and in fact, I was attacking one of Izbo10’s premises in getting his conclusion, “Jesus is a ‘zombie savior’. In addition, he has continued to neglect my rules by making ad hominem statements, especially when he writes “I[']m sorry [that] mommy don't let you watch horror movies yet, but that’s not my problem in this debate.” [1] But, as I would like to point out, this debate, like others, is technical, and by posting clips of movies, Izbo10 has wasted enough time to attack my fairly weak argument, the contention of a “force” vs. “being”. Part two: None of the definitions can apply to the state of Jesus after his resurrection [Refer to first round] The first definition states that a zombie, in the religion of voodo, which is practiced chiefly in and out of the Carribean [2], is "mute and will-less". This is contrary from how Jesus was depicted, for, again, after his grave was discovered undisturbed, he spoke, and instructed, "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation…" [3]. Here, he is not "mute", or "silent....incapable of speech" [4], for he has spoken and instructed his discples before ascending to heaven. Nor is he without will: the act of speech is accompanied by an intention, a deliberate decision, that characterizes the word "will". Second, if Jesus was resurrected (or, "raised from the dead; brought back to life [5]), then how can he still be characterized as "dead"? To say so is a contradiction to the very essence of the word "resurrrection" or "rebirth" that occurred to Jesus. Therefore, the only similiarity is that the zombie can be "brought back to lie by a supernatural force", which is in light of Jesus, similiar to how God, who can be characterized as a being and a force, because of his omnipresence, revived him. However, the zombie is a "dead body". A "body" is merely the "physical structure"; characterizations of the body, as I pointed out i my opening round, do not include concepts of mind, will (which is seen in his speech), or reasoning. So, therefore in this case, the word "zombie" only applies because both are raised by the so-called supernatural force. In the second definition, Jesus is obviously not "a god of voodoo cults of Afrian origin worshipped especially in the West Indies". Jesus is not a god, nor is he entirely designated to aspects of human life that gods are entitled to. Because of the article "a", we know that this god is not the "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" [which is emphasized with the article, the], but merely one of several deities...presiding over some portion of worldly affairs". [6]This is not possible since Christianity is monotheistic, and emphasizes only one Deity; this implies that Jesus was one of several deities, as a part of a polythetistic religion.In addition, I would like to re-assess Izbo10's own definition, "A dead body tht has been brought back to life by a supernatural force". Yes, God [I am recanting my previous discussion on "force" vs "being", where I stated that a being is marked by sentience, unlike the inanimate force], can be characterized, in the loosest sense of the word, as a "force". But the contention here is with the "dead body". There is a clear line between "body" and "soul", with the "soul" "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body" [7]. I can clearly emphasize that Jesus did have a soul, in following this definition: 1. Life: Jesus obviously was resurrected and managed to roll back the stone and ascend to heaven. He was given life. [3] 2. Feeling: There are subtle inferences to be drawn from what Jesus states. For example, when Jesus "rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart" [3], displaying the feeling of anger that is emphasized when someone rebukes, or scolds, someone else. 3. Action: Jesus obviously acts: he rebukes the disciples, instructs them, ascends to heaven, and approaches Mary Magdalene [3]. Action emphasizes will and deliberate intention and purpose for that action. It is different than, say, a dead body walking and doing so, which is not entirely out of its will or volition. 4. Thought: Since thought is the precedent of action (One thinks before acts, or decides whilethinking), and Jesus is shown perfoming deliberate action, then it should be reasonably inferred that Jesus had thought. I will continue to rebuke the other definitions in the next round. But I do have to respond to Izbo10's own "convincing" argument: 1. Izbo10 is using "popular culture" to combat my definitions. But, "they are typically depicted as mindless, shambling, decaying corpses with a hunger for human flesh, and in some cases, human brains in particular" [8]. Notice the word "typically" that emphasizes a conventional image of the walking un-dead. Even the image of the zombie, as the "mindless" body cannot be applied to Jesus since he has spoken and instructed to his disciples, he must have the "mind", which hold the properties of reasoning and thought that Jesus has [see above]. But: The Fallacy of Exceptions: that examples prove that a common/conventional image or defintion of a term or character. Izbo10 believes that by showing only three examples, he can prove that the conventional image of the zombie, as this mindless and "mute" corpse, to be untrue and therefore applies of Jesus. This is false. Izbo10 should show that in popular culture, that zombies do have speech and thought on a common basis. Otherwise, his argument is a bit useless for now. Examples of the fallacy: Slasher films typically have their protagonist/some character surviving at the end. A Nightmare on Elm's Street has Freddy Krugger killing everyone, including the last surviving protangist at the end. A Nightmare on Elm Street is a slasher film [9]. Considering this, we can inferr that the first premise is false. The common definition for slasher films is that they involve some sort of psychotic killer (Kruger in this case) on a spree of murders (in the victimns dreams). So, in spite of its differences, the film can still be considered a slasher film. [10] All I can say, for the Zombies itself, is that they have been both resurrected bodily [partially] and in cognitiion [speech]. But, they are not analogous to Jesus who was characterized as having hair as white as wool, a voice like rushing waters, and feet like brass. All this, considering the fact that Jesus "came from the clouds", and thus heaven, how could a being of heaven, which has been symbollicaly linked to the concepts of perfection, beauty, and purity, can still be this decaying, dead corpse? The language used obviously emphasizes the heavenly nature of Jesus, a marked contrast to the decaying look of zombies (they are commonly depicted as decaying corpses, and are "dead bodies"). I will continue attacking the definitions later. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wiktionary.org... [3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Revelations; Chapter 1, verses 4-20