You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
One effect of your behaviour here is that the conversation gets lost and hard to follow after pages and pages of your going in circles. Whether you do it on purpose (it appears so) or by accident doesn't matter, it still happens, is unnecessary and annoying. So let's try again:Quote from Free Thinker:
do you believe something, without evidence, if an unknown author wrote it thousands of years ago?
Try answering the question instead of avoiding it. The question was, do you believe something just because ONE one person says it is true?
Let me ask you this: do you need historical evidence if something makes sense? Let's step back a bit. Have you read the New Testament yes or no? If not, that's ok we can wait. If you have the question is, what do you disagree with exactly? Which advice is bad?Quote from stu:
You look for valid historicity , the same way everything is historically validated. As far as Jesus and many other biblical characters are concerned , there is NONE.
There are reputable sources of information that are purposefully anonymous because they want to focus on the subject matter instead of the contributor. One reason for doing this is to avoid ad hominem arguments that focus on things other than the subject matter.
This is what you are doing here, you are avoiding the subject matter. I am trying to direct the conversation back to the subject matter. Does that make sense how I explained it?
Certainly and as usual you are too busy arguing about how right you think you are instead of participating in the conversation. There is no "historical evidence" as the term is being used here to prove that murder is wrong, that raping and pillaging is evil. There is some scripture that tell stories of how this was done in the past (but does not condone it) and then goes on to say it is wrong, if you take it all in context instead of picking and choosing quotes out of context. This is what I am trying to get at. Open your mind a bit and think out of the box. Yes there is SOME value to arguing over historical evidence, but when you step back to the bigger picture and the bigger message ... I am trying to re-define your perspective by asking what I did above.Quote from Free Thinker:
lol. i suspect a lot of things that there is no evidence for could "make sense" to you.
Further, we can see the arrogance and personality issue shine through above. The implication is that FT knows better, is smarter by default, by assumption. We can see it's a problem because when I say the same thing back and ask for a reasonable conversation, all I get is avoidance, distraction, manipulation, spite, avarice, etc. The goal is not to actually make sense, it is just to say whatever words you think will "win", like you are in a debate, willing to lie and manipulate to win what? What are you winning here besides ignorance and inaccurate info?
If you want to establish that Jesus existed historically, of course you need historical evidence. That's what makes sense.Quote from traderwann:
Let me ask you this: do you need historical evidence if something makes sense? Let's step back a bit. Have you read the New Testament yes or no? If not, that's ok we can wait. If you have the question is, what do you disagree with exactly? Which advice is bad?
There are reputable sources of information that are purposefully anonymous because they want to focus on the subject matter instead of the contributor. One reason for doing this is to avoid ad hominem arguments that focus on things other than the subject matter.
This is what you are doing here, you are avoiding the subject matter. I am trying to direct the conversation back to the subject matter. Does that make sense how I explained it?
There is NO historical evidence for bible Jesus. However much it makes sense to you or not, in actuality, there is NOTHING historical to confirm bible Jesus ever existed.
There is though, a formal and clear cut standard for determining whether people did exist or even if they were likely to have existed, and endless numbers of individuals can be established historically that way before during and after the supposed time of Jesus, yet Jesus meets NONE of those historical standards at all.
Numerous other Bible characters are the same, they too have no evidence which stands up even to the most basic of requirements for determining their historicity.
Religion can be a powerful anesthetic to the human intellect, as Jem is always so well able to exhibit.
Denial, abuse, anger, makebelieve, willful ignorance, will often take the place of reality itself, the reality which is of a discrepant non-historical bible Jesus.
With the psychopathy of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc., largely behind it, Christianity is fairly innocuous now. These "crazy" examples are, overall, given the millions who believe, rare and largely harmless.
However, one great evil does remain...
Christmas music.
Please, God, make it stop.
However, one great evil does remain...
Christmas music.
Please, God, make it stop.
Quote from stu:
If you want to establish that Jesus existed historically, of course you need historical evidence. That's what makes sense.
There is NO historical evidence for bible Jesus. However much it makes sense to you or not, in actuality, there is NOTHING historical to confirm bible Jesus ever existed.
There is though, a formal and clear cut standard for determining whether people did exist or even if they were likely to have existed, and endless numbers of individuals can be established historically that way before during and after the supposed time of Jesus, yet Jesus meets NONE of those historical standards at all.
Numerous other Bible characters are the same, they too have no evidence which stands up even to the most basic of requirements for determining their historicity.
Religion can be a powerful anesthetic to the human intellect, as Jem is always so well able to exhibit.
Denial, abuse, anger, makebelieve, willful ignorance, will often take the place of reality itself, the reality which is of a discrepant non-historical bible Jesus.
One problem with your fictional b.s. --- its countered by facts.
Your own expert - the only one you could even conjure up says this..
"Central to Crossan's methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the "Cross Gospel," to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the "Cross Gospel" was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s"
So not only do we have an virtually undisputed quote in Josephus Antiquities... your own "expert" is dating texts which speak of Jesus to well inside the eyewitness period. In the 50s CE.
And recently other fragments of the new testament... have been dated by some experts to well within the eyewitness period as well.
All this is quite remarkable... how many 2000 year old writings of a controversial figure would you expect to survive.
I don't have the engery to dissect this in detail. Clearly though you missed the entire point being made and went off a tangent. The point was about the opposite of what you are trying to distract into.Quote from stu:If you want to establish that Jesus existed historically, of course you need historical evidence. That's what makes sense.
Another post that you ignored, avoided, etc. The above was my reply to the following post from you:Quote from traderwann: Do you believe and accept in the concept of social darwinism and eugenics? I assume so but want to check.
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]