Do you apply this same standard for ALL history you accept as being true?
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
which scripture is "true"? all of it? is mark 16 verses 16-17 "true"?
"Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals?"
yes for instance i dont believe there was a real god called thor or zeus. do you?
"Iââ¬â¢m a polyatheist ââ¬â there are many gods I donââ¬â¢t believe in."
-Dan Fouts
Been through all this on previous occasions. You were referred to one of the most eminent scholars in the field and a Catholic to boot, who refutes the thing. So in your usual childlike manner, you arrogantly and ignorantly dismissed him as a clown.
You have no grounds to support a historicity of Jesus. Even if the passage could be considered, against all the obvious signs of how it doesn't come up to scratch, on its own it is no where near sufficient.
One tiny mention that cannot even be verified anywhere else and doesn't fit into affirmed historical context as most of Jospheus writing does, is no grounding for confirming historocity. You don't even have to be a scholar to understand that. Just sensible.
I don't think you can make any reasonable case that there was a Jesus killed by Romans which led to Christianity. There is no historical evidence of any event as you describe. There is no historically valid evidence whatsoever about birth death or life of a Jesus. Only legend and myth has been confirmed written or recorded.
There is nothing to suggest Jesus was anything else but just one of many God-Man stories which happened to be one that took hold as a religion.
Between Jesus, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Smith is the odd one out being the only one of the three whose historicity can be verified.
Yes I agree with you. It does depend on the standard of evidence used.
If you said "there is no evidence anywhere period that life evolved from non-life so evolution is a myth just like scripture", then you would be factually incorrect.
Also as evolution is nothing to do with the origin of life, it would be a completely wrong comparison to use.
There is evidence of life from non life. It is not proof, it is an extremely high standard of scientific evidence which explains how life from non life can occur. So your comparison albeit hypothetical, is really not a good one.
Right. I agree with that concept entirely.
But historocity does not require "101% conclusive solid explanation". You are making wrong comparisons.
Some corroborative evidence, that fits in context within history as confirmed through other valid sources would be enough. There isn't any. AT ALL!
But you ARE ignoring the evidence.
You are ignoring the evidence there is no evidence! There is nothing of the standards of evidence required to show Jesus ever existed.
It's very simple. There is not a thing, anywhere, which supports the historical existence of Jesus, even by the weakest standards required for historicity.
Quote from traderwann:
Perhaps I'm wrong here but it seems like you have given yourself away, not a Freudian slip but similarly one can read into your words. There are two logical arguments presented, and you perceive or interpret one of them as being emotional. Why are they not both emotional, they both come from humans right? You are showing much more than your bias. Why isn't the response above pure emotion and zero logic? See it apparently comes down to, whatever you agree with is logical and what you don't agree with is emotional! Further, this is almost saying that "emotions are bad", and that any response that appeals to a high EQ isn't worth considering. If you push that approach to it's limit you get anti-social personalities, the question is where do you draw the line. YOU have drawn a line by your words, and that's what I mean about giving things away. I could be wrong, none of this is exact to start and based on a few sentences? Ha! If I'm even close I'm a genius!
As for your other comments, they are all just assumptions and projections. Then you take these projected assumptions and use that to develop a worldview and call that reasonable? It's all based on whatever you want, it's all YOUR assumptions. With taht attitude, you can make anything up and never be wrong. Hellllooooo ... retardation much?! Failing logic and reason. Always! Sorry to be so blunt, that is not very Christian of me to be so rude. Oh well, I'll be more sorry when you change and star being less assumptive and demeaning with your attitude, than the little bit sorry I am now.
I am not the one writing these very long posts. You are the one who seems to be rattled here. And if I deprived you of your meaning in some way, please accept my apologizes
The point is that it MIGHT be true, which is exactly what I said. There is VALUE in knowing what it says. As society moves forward and we learn more and more, knowing that gives you a greater context to analyze thing in. That is more the point. Again all you do is detract, avoid, attack, derail, etc. There is very little GENUINE open minded questioning and conversation. You are in a debate mode, where your goal is to WIN, not to DIALOGUE. When you try to win you ASSUME you are right. When you dialogue you assume nothing, to put it into perspective. Big difference.
The issue is, why do you see everything here as an attack on you instead of a dialogue?
The part in quotes is more unreasonable and illogical nonsense, I can keep pointing it out but how many more? 10, 20, 45, 88, 101? How many times before we get to have an open minded conversation instead of always trying to win?
There are many many GREAT MINDS as you put it, who may or may not be attached to the internet (more ad hominen fecal matter as usual), that are pro-Christian or pro-religion however you want to phrase it. There are many scholars who are also against it. So what? The point is your quote LABELS anyone who says "god might exist" as an idiot and anyone who says "it is impossible" as a genius. THAT IN ITSELF IS F'ING MORONIC!!
lol .. it's funny, you have to assume you are God (i.e. know everything) to reasonably claim something is impossible, never can be, etc.
The irony ... really ... small little athiests running around in circles scared of what may or may not be.
If you want to keep displaying your blinding lack of intelligence that is up to you, but let me point out:
I said ALL OF HISTORY and you replied about 0.00001% (being generous) of it, naming two people. That's it. Not even people. The point is even if it WAS a known real person, you mention freaking TWO. Maybe I should redo my the math. You offfer the most ifintenssimally small argument and proudly offer that up like a 3 year old, clueless but thinking they are the best of the best in their own little world.
It's up to you if you want to keep doing that. If you do, I start leaning towards personality disorders or that this is a very good bot operating. 99% of people would be so embarrassed they probably would not want to post again (to exaggerate to make a point). The big picture is there would be some emotional reaction, not a pleasurable one, from a reasonable person who is TRYING to be honest. That is a huge mistake, a great big "F" by any standard. If you are here just to prove that you refuse to be wrong, no matter what, ok, you've done it. Can you admit that though? Once again, you will ignore, distract, derail and avoid.
If that reaction does not happen, and you just want to "show me" or keep arguing to "win" ... you DO have some sort of personality issue, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I probably am not the first though, think back to others in your life that have said things to you. That's ok, I might to and a lot of people do, but let's FOCUS on what you've said here and what that implies and what the reaction means.
you really arent too bright are you? and you have never studied the bible as you claim.
do you really think this could be true:
Mark 16:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
if you really studied scripture as you claim you should know that those last 12 verses of mark are forgeries according to most credible bible scholars. but you dont know that do you?