|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 22:16:01 GMT
Then why blame the religion? And are you not claiming moral superiority over those with whom you have this problem? That’s the same as asking why blame a gun for a school massacre. It’s not the gun, an inanimate object, but the reason for the gun’s invention is the problem. Guns were not invented solely for noble purposes or the betterment of mankind, though the gun lobby will tell you different. I don’t claim moral superiority over religion. I see it for what it is, a human construct no better or worse than the humans who animate it. Religion is irrational. Are you saying Jesus invented Christianity to kill people? I didn't ask if you were claiming moral superiority over religion. I (somewhat rhetorically) asked if you were claiming moral superiority over the people with whom you have this problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 22:27:03 GMT
Here’s our problem. You have a faith POV... This again? Seriously? Yeah, we're done here. It's not our problem. It's yours. Good luck with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 22:37:22 GMT
Are you saying Jesus invented Christianity to kill people? I didn't ask if you were claiming moral superiority over religion. I (somewhat rhetorically) asked if you were claiming moral superiority over the people with whom you have this problem. That is a very childish question. I have not come anywhere close to saying that. Nor I am not claiming moral superiority over anything. I am no more or less moral than the average person. I am better educated on the subject. I’ve presented my CV many times before, but I have a BA in the academy study of religion and a fully trained lay minister in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was a Christian, my goal was to become a deacon, but I left the church years ago after a long struggle. I never forgot what I was taught though. I have crawled threw the belly of the beast as it were. What’s your journey been like? I think that probably explains more than you're willing to admit. Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 23:02:19 GMT
I think that probably explains more than you're willing to admit. Thanks for the chat. Oh, no, buddy. You started this. What do you mean by that statement? I am very interested in what your answer to what it is I’m unwilling to admit. So you can slap that ill-defined "POV of faith" on me while pretending you aren't dancing in circles? No thanks. Walking away from Catholicism is not the same as walking away from Christianity. If you weren't such a brat, I might be more inclined to discuss this further with you. But you are, so I'm not. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 23:22:55 GMT
So you can slap that ill-defined "POV of faith" on me while pretending you aren't dancing in circles? No thanks. Walking away from Catholicism is not the same as walking away from Christianity. If you weren't such a brat, I might be more inclined to discuss this further with you. But you are, so I'm not. Thanks again. Actually, I’m not dancing in circles. I’ve laid the my rationale why the historical claim in Matthew that Herod ordered a massacre probably, not absolutely, didn’t happen. I used only tangible things we can research to figure out what the chances are that it is a valid historical event. I can’t discuss divinity issues because there’s nothing there we can test. We can test what religion is though. One thing I’ve noticed in my discussions with religious people about their religion is when they get really angry with me, I’ve gotten them to think about things they didn’t want to think about. I'm not angry with you, Paul. I'm just tired of your incessant strawmen. However, for future reference, you might want to know that I was not raised in a religious environment. Believe it or not, I was in my twenties before I even realized that the "Christ" in "Christmas" referred to Jesus. So I guess you could say I didn't have the luxury of being warped by religion, much less Catholics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2021 0:51:07 GMT
I'm not angry with you, Paul. I'm just tired of your incessant strawmen. However, for future reference, you might want to know that I was not raised in a religious environment. Believe it or not, I was in my twenties before I even realized that the "Christ" in "Christmas" referred to Jesus. So I guess you could say I didn't have the luxury of being warped by religion, much less Catholics. Then why do you argue on the defensive? If you’ve know Christianity, or any religion, has zero supernatural efficacy or all religion and their gods are a construct of the human mind, then we are on the same page. But I know where are trying to lead me. You want me to say I have a “religion” that is called anti-Christianity or something. One more time, I don’t begrudge people their supernatural beliefs, it is when they insist their supernatural world is real and it takes precedence over the natural world. I'm not arguing on the defensive or the offensive, and I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. This is your dance, not mine, If we're in hostile territory, rest assured it's because I followed you here as I was trying to understand your position regardless of whether or not it's on the "same page" as mine. If you don't want to be questioned and/or have your blunders pointed out, stay off the pulpit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2021 1:08:53 GMT
I'm not arguing on the defensive or the offensive, and I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. This is your dance, not mine, If we're in hostile territory, rest assured it's because I followed you here as I was trying to understand your position regardless of whether or not it's on the "same page" as mine. If you don't want to be questioned and/or have your blunders pointed out, stay off the pulpit. The very same can said about you. I just assumed you were a Christian or Christian sympathetic by your own rhetoric. My bad. You said above you were unaware Christ and Christmas were connected until you were 20. Now how am I, a person with vast experience and knowledge about a subject I’ve spent years studying on purpose, suppose to have a discussion with someone who didn’t figure that out earlier in their life? I’m not putting you down for fun, believe me. But you did admit it. I hope I don’t get banned over this. Some things never change. Later dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 1, 2021 8:22:45 GMT
Bingo. I’ve been saying something similar for a while now. The likes of Paulslaugh, Zos, Sarge, lowracks and to a certain lesser extent Kiera, although she’ll deny it, aren’t skeptical because of the evidence. It’s that deep down they desperately do not want a historical Jesus to have existed at all. Btw knew this was going to be a fun thread when you first jumped on with your opening reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 1, 2021 10:36:29 GMT
If your faith is as needy and shakey as your replies indicate, then perhaps message boards are not the best place for you. A stupid comment. I have no "faith", my position is based on decades of careful reading and research, it's supported by virtually all critical NON-Christian scholars and so it is not "needy" or "shakey". Saying these silly things to me is not going to get you anywhere and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking you're making valid points. What "religion"? I'm an atheist. Yes, there is. For some people. Mainly prominent people. But for everyone else - i.e. for most ancient figures - our evidence is actually pretty scanty. As I said. Try this: compare the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants we know of. See if it is more extensive for them than it is for Jesus. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm saying. I've read it. What's that got to do with anything I've said? See above. If you can't follow the arguments being presented, perhaps you should bow out now. You seem to be struggling to keep up. A quick look at your history reveals you to have been here all of 5 minutes and interested in nothing more than insulting or arguing with anyone who has a different viewpoint to yours. Really not interested in that sort of teen debate. As it's impossible to prove a negative and there is no physical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus and supporting documentary evidence is hugely Christian in source and written after the time he was supposed to exist the only conclusion that can be drawn logically is that the likelihood is that he did not exist. Anyone ignoring that is being purposely obtuse or hiding their faith in claims to be an unbiased opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 1, 2021 12:39:57 GMT
A stupid comment. I have no "faith", my position is based on decades of careful reading and research, it's supported by virtually all critical NON-Christian scholars and so it is not "needy" or "shakey". Saying these silly things to me is not going to get you anywhere and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking you're making valid points. What "religion"? I'm an atheist. Yes, there is. For some people. Mainly prominent people. But for everyone else - i.e. for most ancient figures - our evidence is actually pretty scanty. As I said. Try this: compare the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants we know of. See if it is more extensive for them than it is for Jesus. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm saying. I've read it. What's that got to do with anything I've said? See above. If you can't follow the arguments being presented, perhaps you should bow out now. You seem to be struggling to keep up. A quick look at your history reveals you to have been here all of 5 minutes and interested in nothing more than insulting or arguing with anyone who has a different viewpoint to yours. Really not interested in that sort of teen debate. As it's impossible to prove a negative and there is no physical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus and supporting documentary evidence is hugely Christian in source and written after the time he was supposed to exist the only conclusion that can be drawn logically is that the likelihood is that he did not exist. Anyone ignoring that is being purposely obtuse or hiding their faith in claims to be an unbiased opinion. Insulting? What cause he said your arguments are stupid and silly? They are. And he’s shown why. Dude, you’re clearly out of your depth here. Go cry elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 1, 2021 17:39:58 GMT
Except I’m not denying an historical Jesus ever lived. And the evidence is what I am examining. Considering the level of dubious morals, nastiness, and ignorance his church members have sunk to, Jesus probably wishes he didn’t exist either. He pretty much wasted his time back 2,000 years ago. Considering the entire point of Jesus’ ministry was to die for the “dubious morals, nastiness, and ignorance” of everybody then, no, He didn’t waste His time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 1, 2021 18:13:32 GMT
Considering the entire point of Jesus’ ministry was to die for the “dubious morals, nastiness, and ignorance” of everybody then, no, He didn’t waste His time. Well, that’s nice to know you can have dubious morals, be nasty and ignorant, and still get in the pearly gates all because you uttered the magic words: I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Doesn’t matter if you didn’t believed your savior enough to follow his example. Right, he’s just kidding about that part. You think the Lord will remember the thousands of times he knocked on your door and you refused him entry? The times he ask for you to do for the least of his children you said, fuck that, the scumbag deserved to die under the knee of that officer. Or does his precious blood cover that ignorance as well? That’s an extreme oversimplification of Christianity and called a straw man argument. You don’t get in the pearly gates for uttering some words. You get in by humbling yourself before God, repenting and having faith. And true saving faith should manifest in your actions. You said you’ve studied the bible vigorously. You’re supposed to know this stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 1, 2021 19:25:25 GMT
A quick look at your history reveals you to have been here all of 5 minutes and interested in nothing more than insulting or arguing with anyone who has a different viewpoint to yours. Really not interested in that sort of teen debate. As it's impossible to prove a negative and there is no physical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus and supporting documentary evidence is hugely Christian in source and written after the time he was supposed to exist the only conclusion that can be drawn logically is that the likelihood is that he did not exist. Anyone ignoring that is being purposely obtuse or hiding their faith in claims to be an unbiased opinion. Insulting? What cause he said your arguments are stupid and silly? They are. And he’s shown why. Dude, you’re clearly out of your depth here. Go cry elsewhere. "Dude"? Fuck sake, you're in the 21st century lad. Another teenager supporting his sock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 1, 2021 19:47:19 GMT
Insulting? What cause he said your arguments are stupid and silly? They are. And he’s shown why. Dude, you’re clearly out of your depth here. Go cry elsewhere. "Dude"? Fuck sake, you're in the 21st century lad. Another teenager supporting his sock. Wrong pronoun? Put your preferred personal pronoun in your bio then like the rest of the “woke” fascists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2021 0:34:19 GMT
You don’t get in the pearly gates for uttering some words. You get in by humbling yourself before God, repenting and having faith. And true saving faith should manifest in your actions. “If you truly love God and His will, then doing what you will will, in fact, be doing God’s will.” (Peter Kreeft) |
|
timoneill
New Member
@timoneill
Posts: 19
Likes: 21
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 2, 2021 17:22:30 GMT
A quick look at your history reveals you to have been here all of 5 minutes Yes. Someone here linked to my site a few days ago and I saw the trackback on my site's traffic tool and wondered what article was being linked to. Then I saw some common bad theories being presented here, such as yours, and so did what my site, video channel and podcast all exist to do - debunked the bad history. So? If my criticisms don't make you feel warm and fuzzy then that's not surprising. But I haven't "insulted" you. You made an assertion that a composite Jesus was most likely. Every single time I've seen that claim and I've challenged the claimant to back it up, they've failed. I challenged you to do so. You failed. I often find that people whose weak ideas are challenged and who then fail to back them up then suddenly lose interest in the debate. And often whine about "insults". This is a very regular pattern. We have "physical or archaeological evidence" for a tiny few in the ancient world, so that there is none for this peasant preacher tells us nothing. We have no "physical or archaeological evidence" for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants either. Big deal. That's what we'd expect. No historian on the planet uses this as the criterion for whether an ancient figure existed. If they did, abiout 99% of them would "not exist", which is clearly absurd. Apart from the stuff that isn't. Like Tacitus Annals XV.44. Or Josephus AJ XX.200. The latter records the execution of Jesus' brother James - an event that happened in Josephus' own town while he was there. That's pretty direct testimony. So no, we're not wholly dependent on Christian material. Which is normal for most ancient figures. Try this - find me an account of Hannibal that dates to within his lifetime. Good luck. You don't understand the nature of ancient source material. No, that isn't the "only" conclusion. It isn't even a good conclusion. That's why almost no scholars draw that conclusion. And includes pretty much all NON-Christian scholars. So, wrong. I'm not "ignoring" your bad arguments - I'm showing, in some detail, why they don't work. Your conclusion is based on false premises. And so it's not surprising it's wrong. And not shared by scholars (apart from a tiny few fringe nobodies, though any field has a few contrarians at the fringes). I'm also not "hiding" any "faith", if that weak insinuation is aimed at me. I have an online history that goes back to 1992. Go search it if you like. You'll find that I've been an atheist my whole adult life and you'll also find posts and articles by me arguing against Christian claims about the supposed resurrection of Jesus (such as here), against the claim that Jesus was God (e.g. here), against the claim his coming was foretold by Old Testament prophecy ( here) and arguing in detail that Jesus was simply a failed Jewish apocalyptic prophet (see here). So if you were trying the weak sneering argument that I'm somehow only pretending to be an unbeliever, that just crashed and burned as well. You keep failing here. Completely. Perhaps you should stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Apr 2, 2021 21:56:16 GMT
...and still does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 3, 2021 10:53:46 GMT
A quick look at your history reveals you to have been here all of 5 minutes Yes. Someone here linked to my site a few days ago and I saw the trackback on my site's traffic tool and wondered what article was being linked to. Then I saw some common bad theories being presented here, such as yours, and so did what my site, video channel and podcast all exist to do - debunked the bad history. So? If my criticisms don't make you feel warm and fuzzy then that's not surprising. But I haven't "insulted" you. You made an assertion that a composite Jesus was most likely. Every single time I've seen that claim and I've challenged the claimant to back it up, they've failed. I challenged you to do so. You failed. I often find that people whose weak ideas are challenged and who then fail to back them up then suddenly lose interest in the debate. And often whine about "insults". This is a very regular pattern. We have "physical or archaeological evidence" for a tiny few in the ancient world, so that there is none for this peasant preacher tells us nothing. We have no "physical or archaeological evidence" for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants either. Big deal. That's what we'd expect. No historian on the planet uses this as the criterion for whether an ancient figure existed. If they did, abiout 99% of them would "not exist", which is clearly absurd. Apart from the stuff that isn't. Like Tacitus Annals XV.44. Or Josephus AJ XX.200. The latter records the execution of Jesus' brother James - an event that happened in Josephus' own town while he was there. That's pretty direct testimony. So no, we're not wholly dependent on Christian material. Which is normal for most ancient figures. Try this - find me an account of Hannibal that dates to within his lifetime. Good luck. You don't understand the nature of ancient source material. No, that isn't the "only" conclusion. It isn't even a good conclusion. That's why almost no scholars draw that conclusion. And includes pretty much all NON-Christian scholars. So, wrong. I'm not "ignoring" your bad arguments - I'm showing, in some detail, why they don't work. Your conclusion is based on false premises. And so it's not surprising it's wrong. And not shared by scholars (apart from a tiny few fringe nobodies, though any field has a few contrarians at the fringes). I'm also not "hiding" any "faith", if that weak insinuation is aimed at me. I have an online history that goes back to 1992. Go search it if you like. You'll find that I've been an atheist my whole adult life and you'll also find posts and articles by me arguing against Christian claims about the supposed resurrection of Jesus (such as here), against the claim that Jesus was God (e.g. here), against the claim his coming was foretold by Old Testament prophecy ( here) and arguing in detail that Jesus was simply a failed Jewish apocalyptic prophet (see here). So if you were trying the weak sneering argument that I'm somehow only pretending to be an unbeliever, that just crashed and burned as well. You keep failing here. Completely. Perhaps you should stop. Yeah, a quick check on you seems to suggest you also deny Christian atrocities so it's pretty obvious that you are after a "controversial" reputation to monetise online. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 3, 2021 13:00:02 GMT
Yes. Someone here linked to my site a few days ago and I saw the trackback on my site's traffic tool and wondered what article was being linked to. Then I saw some common bad theories being presented here, such as yours, and so did what my site, video channel and podcast all exist to do - debunked the bad history. So? If my criticisms don't make you feel warm and fuzzy then that's not surprising. But I haven't "insulted" you. You made an assertion that a composite Jesus was most likely. Every single time I've seen that claim and I've challenged the claimant to back it up, they've failed. I challenged you to do so. You failed. I often find that people whose weak ideas are challenged and who then fail to back them up then suddenly lose interest in the debate. And often whine about "insults". This is a very regular pattern. We have "physical or archaeological evidence" for a tiny few in the ancient world, so that there is none for this peasant preacher tells us nothing. We have no "physical or archaeological evidence" for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants either. Big deal. That's what we'd expect. No historian on the planet uses this as the criterion for whether an ancient figure existed. If they did, abiout 99% of them would "not exist", which is clearly absurd. Apart from the stuff that isn't. Like Tacitus Annals XV.44. Or Josephus AJ XX.200. The latter records the execution of Jesus' brother James - an event that happened in Josephus' own town while he was there. That's pretty direct testimony. So no, we're not wholly dependent on Christian material. Which is normal for most ancient figures. Try this - find me an account of Hannibal that dates to within his lifetime. Good luck. You don't understand the nature of ancient source material. No, that isn't the "only" conclusion. It isn't even a good conclusion. That's why almost no scholars draw that conclusion. And includes pretty much all NON-Christian scholars. So, wrong. I'm not "ignoring" your bad arguments - I'm showing, in some detail, why they don't work. Your conclusion is based on false premises. And so it's not surprising it's wrong. And not shared by scholars (apart from a tiny few fringe nobodies, though any field has a few contrarians at the fringes). I'm also not "hiding" any "faith", if that weak insinuation is aimed at me. I have an online history that goes back to 1992. Go search it if you like. You'll find that I've been an atheist my whole adult life and you'll also find posts and articles by me arguing against Christian claims about the supposed resurrection of Jesus (such as here), against the claim that Jesus was God (e.g. here), against the claim his coming was foretold by Old Testament prophecy ( here) and arguing in detail that Jesus was simply a failed Jewish apocalyptic prophet (see here). So if you were trying the weak sneering argument that I'm somehow only pretending to be an unbeliever, that just crashed and burned as well. You keep failing here. Completely. Perhaps you should stop. Yeah, a quick check on you seems to suggest you also deny Christian atrocities so it's pretty obvious that you are after a "controversial" reputation to monetise online. Goodbye. Don’t make this worser on yourself. Quit while you’re way behind, antichrist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 13:47:37 GMT
Yeah, a quick check on you seems to suggest you also deny Christian atrocities so it's pretty obvious that you are after a "controversial" reputation to monetise online. Goodbye. Don’t make this worser on yourself. Quit while you’re way behind, antichrist. I hear you're the antichrist now. Should we all be antichrists? What's the Church's position? I'm so busy down on the farm I won't have much time for the old antichristing.
|
|
