That's a troll answer, and you know it. Which is why I say you have no credible answer to the question.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Pope Francis: Evolution is real
- Thread starter Agoraphobic
- Start date
That's a troll answer, and you know it. Which is why I say you have no credible answer to the question.
I am not able to provide answers to all the questions you can ask, and even less so for some irrational behaviour on the part of certain people.
Cheers!
Cheers!
There's a lack of objectivity on your part when you simply dismiss their actions as stupid people just because you refuse to accept the Biblical narrative as it is, but yet willing to uncritically accept any other story about a pagan Christ. There are certain facts that are not disputed by reputable historians and I think you should take the time to consider this article at http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
Am I required to accept the Bible? Am I not free to accept whatever I want to accept? You are free to accept the Bible, I allow you that. Now, please reciprocate and allow others their freedom. And as far as I know, there are no facts or other evidence supporting the existence of the person we've come to know as Jesus of Nazareth. This is evident from the societies of Christian countries (namely USA, UK, France, and others) distancing themselves publicly from Christian traditions and scriptural teachings, as historically, it cannot be proven. They still embrace and practice the laws and ethics of Christiandom that have been handed down, but to belief the events as having occurred as described in the bible - no. Christianity has been influenced by many other traditions (eg. Christmas tree, mistletoe, etc.) and its practice has evolved, but todate, no physical evidence exists of the person for which the religion is patterned after.
Cheers!
Cheers!
You mistaken me. I am not saying you are not allowed to reject the Bible. What I am saying is that there is a lack of objectivity and no lack of bias in the way you choose to accept the contents of the Pagan Christ but yet reject the Bible. You are willing to say there are facts to support a Roman rebel Jesus but yet no facts whatsoever to support the Bible's depiction. I mean, what do you do with the evidence for the historical Jesus that are accepted by even most critical historians? Just ignore them and pretend they do not exist? And what physical evidence are you talking about? Hair? Fingernails? Pieces of Calvary's cross? Would you believe them even if such relics can be produced? I doubt it. You would just raise another objection and ask "how do you really know"? it is the lives of the disciples that attests to the person of Jesus.
You cited European nations distancing themselves from their Christian roots. That is more because these once Christian nations have been largely secularised and not because evidence have been shown that Jesus never existed, much less a Roman rebel.
Lastly, here's an extract from an interview with Marcus Borg who is NOT a believer. Other Biblical scholars may challenge some of his views especially the last bit.
"We do know some things about the historical Jesus — less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think,” said Marcus Borg, a preeminent Biblical scholar, author and retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University. “Though a few books have recently argued that Jesus never existed, the evidence that he did is persuasive to the vast majority of scholars, whether Christian or non-Christian.”
The following description, surmised from the Gospels, would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg told LiveScience:
Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. and grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class. Jesus' father was a carpenter and he became one, too, meaning that they had likely lost their agricultural land at some point. Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life; he never intended to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as acting within Judaism.
He left Nazareth as an adult and met the prophet John, who baptized him. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision. Shortly afterwards, he began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God." He became a noted teacher and prophet, as well as a healer: More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.
He was executed by Roman imperial authority, and his followers experienced him after his death. It is clear, Borg said, that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "lord" or "the son of God."
Bro, I didn't say that there are facts to support Jesus as a rebel, I merely suggested that the person of Jesus may have been a rebel - that the person may have existed - but not as the character described as the Son of God, in the bible. Both the bible and the book The Pagan Christ are man-made. They are told and it is up to the listener to belief it or reject it. Just like the stories of the Nordic/Greek gods - how many of them are accepted today as factual? To me, the story of the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection - the aspects of Christian faith are not only unbelievable, they are absurd. I would rather accept the person Jesus as a rebel, anti-establishment person that ran into trouble with the ruling authorities in his day - that is more possible.
Cheers!
Cheers!
What evidence is there to suggest your view of the rebel Jesus? Besides, it seems that you have rendered all those things as absurd because as an atheist that's the only option available to you. But in a theistic world none of these are absurd at all, agree?
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.c...-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/
Traditionally chinese believe Jade Emperor(上帝) is the creator of the universe and pray to heaven. This belief dated far back than christianity, don't understand why some bananas rather believe so obstinately in the western jewish version. Since both versions believe in a creator of the universe, what is the different? Look like it is faith based after all or ang moh tua kee?
I refer you to the book "Finding God in Ancient China" by Chan Kei Thong. It is a fascinating research documenting that the ancient Chinese had the knowledge of a Supreme Being and Creator. This knowledge of the one true God was lost after the events at the Tower of Babel when God confused the languages of the people. The difference would be that the Bible preserved the truth about God while the Chinese forgot about God, corrupted or distorted the view of God. And if you think that the Christian view of God is Western Ang Moh, then you really need to correct the misconception!
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Ancient-China-Worshiped/dp/0310292387
I am not a historian, not a theologian, and I do not have any evidence for those thoughts. Just that I made then up to suit a fabricated story of a person people have come to call Jesus, which also existed as other forms in other stories, like being the begotten son of god, the messiah, a prophet. And it does not concern me what they believe to be true, as long as they do not force their "theories" onto others as the TRUTH. To me, the Jesus that lived more likely behaved and acted similar to Roy Ngerng of today's Singapore, gaining the respect and admiration of some, whilst being a prick to the authorities, difference is that there were no elections then, so people were looking forward to a messiah.
Cheers!
Cheers!
It seems that from this reply of yours that you are not interested in knowing the truth after all.
You seem very quick to come to conclusions. Truth is, I do look for truths, just that, the bible does not convince me that it is the truth. And because of this, we are still looking.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Since you said you look for truth, I will take your word as it is. Question is, what were your starting assumptions when you approach the Bible's claims? An atheist is 100% biased. He will NEVER EVER consider the possibility that the Bible's claims can be true in the first place. If this is your position, then it is hardly surprising that you say you are not convinced, for you have already made up your mind even before you look at the issue.
In the first place, your bible presents the way of things only a simpleton would believe - like the creation of the universe in a week, the miracles of god (and his son), of goodness and everlasting life to the peoples. It is a story book, as far as I take it. And its believers take it to levels of irrationality beyond human civility! (eg. accusing people of witchery and burning them at the stake!). Good thing some people are able to see beyond the "ethics" preached by the bible. I can be convinced by physical evidence and reason. The bible belongs in a different category. If not for a section in the bookstore called religion, it would be found in the fiction section.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Wow, for an atheist who claims to be logical you engaged in a classic ad hominem by declaring those who believe the Bible to be true as simpletons. I hope you do not feel yourself as intellectually more superior or "bright" as many of those new atheists arrogantly think of themselves. Truth is there are many many people who believe the plain truths of the Bible who are anything but simpletons, holding prominent places in academia and notable professions.
And just because some have taken the Bible to the extent of witch hunting, does not mean you tar the whole Christian population with that. In the first place there is no Bible teaching that Christians have to hunt witches and burn them at the stake. I think what you think you see beyond as Christian ethics is really a grotesque distortion of what the Bible teaches.
And while you claimed to be convinced by physical evidence and reason, yet you betray yourself when you uncritically and admittedly accept the idea of a rebel Jesus or that there is entirely no evidence for a historical Jesus. Sorry to say this but I don't think you have met your own standard of truth searching.
I don't claim to be superior in knowledge, all I say is that the bible is not the ultimate in truths as you chose to take it. You read the bible and uphold it to be the answer to everything. God is almighty, He (and why a He?) is the beginning and the end. That is being simpleton. Nothing wrong with that, just that not everybody sees it that way.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Another strawman argument. I do not take the Bible to be ultimate truths, simply because the Bible is not such a book. There are many truths that the Bible does not touch on. You need to know what the Bible is about before you make such accusations. But whatever the Bible does touch on, it is true and inerrant. For the Christian, the Bible is ultimate authority since it is God's Word. It is authoritative, such that when what it says conflicts with what man says, it prevails over man's word. It is an admittedly an article of faith I hold to be sure, but it is one that has proven itself well time and again.
Of course there is nothing wrong with believing that God is almighty. Can you show what is wrong with that, using logic? But simpleton is defined as "A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool." And using such a derogatory label on those who disagree with you is uncalled for. Moreover the fact, as I have said earlier, is that there are many believers who are anything but simpletons. But then again, as a relativist you can always like to call what is wrong as right, and right as wrong. And the only time you would stop being a relativist is when you have been offended and wronged by someone else e.g. someone stole your money. Then you would say stealing is wrong. But what if the thief is a relativist who thinks stealing is from you is right for him? See your predicament?
What's a strawman argument? You may look to the bible as an authoritative text, others would not, and do not. It is a story book, like Aesop's Tales, except some people take the stories in the bible as actual events that happened, some may have, some are plain made up. You are good with words, but you are unable to convince me or others to agree with your stance of your sacred book. This is what the bible is about - the old testament is old Hebrew folklore and roughly outlines the journey of man's development from creation by God to freedom from slavery, and the new testament is about Jesus Christ and the end of the world. What else is it about? And you call that God's word? God wrote the bible? Bro, man wrote it. Or rather, some men.
Who made you? God. Who made the universe? God. Will you go to heaven or hell? God will be the judge. Will you live or die? It's up to God. That is being a simpleton.
Cheers!
Who made you? God. Who made the universe? God. Will you go to heaven or hell? God will be the judge. Will you live or die? It's up to God. That is being a simpleton.
Cheers!
A strawman argument is a tactic employed by many people where they make up an argument that does not correctly represent the position of the opponent and then proceed to demolish the arguemnt and claim that their opponent's view has been discredited. This you have done more than once here.
In all debates we are looking to persuade a reasonable man on the street. That's the standard. If you aren't convinced by what I said, it may well have nothing to do with me, but could well be that you are refusing to be convinced regardless of what I say. And I think you have pretty much showed that here. Contrary to what you claimed for yourself I am not convinced that you are seeking the truth using logic and reason. Why? Because you dismiss the Bible as mere folklore and fiction story, just like that. Since you have already decided that you would not take the Bible seriously, regardless of anything I have said, we would just end up jumping from one issue to another. And you will give troll answers to serious questions, as you already did so earlier. Can I just ask you if you really are serious about discussing the Bible? Are you willing to be open minded about the Bible?
Everyone taking the bible seriously will be a winner. I am not a science student, but using the bible as the inerrant guide and highest authority I am able to successful discredit evilution claims made by atheists like Agoraphoic. The bible is really a great bible, it made me a winner in this life and after life.
Atheism is wrong. The path to atheism is easy but the path to Jesus is hard. Bro Agoraphoic, many christians probably have told you will still go the heaven. They are nice being good christians. You are an old timer here, I care for you. I have to tell you words that don't please you in order to save you. You will go to hell unless you accept Jesus. This is the hard truth. Think for yourself, family and loved ones. Wake up!
Atheism is wrong. The path to atheism is easy but the path to Jesus is hard. Bro Agoraphoic, many christians probably have told you will still go the heaven. They are nice being good christians. You are an old timer here, I care for you. I have to tell you words that don't please you in order to save you. You will go to hell unless you accept Jesus. This is the hard truth. Think for yourself, family and loved ones. Wake up!
Similar threads
