Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 06-05-2006, 10:59 PM

We see you reading the thread, Patriarch. The Great Eye sees all, you know.

Will you be defending your claims anytime soon?

Patriarch Verlch · 06-06-2006, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

You might want to learn something about using other people's copyright lyrics before posting the complete lyrics of a song. It's illegal. Still, I suppose theists don't care much about other people's rights.

Yes, and actually at the time, they probably were. Except that they were not being serious and actually comparing themselves to Jesus.

No.

You mean John Lennon's words. "Imagine" was written years after the Beatles broke up.

This is a a new one. Proof of God by John Lennon lyrics. You really don't have a clue, do you?

Norm

Quote:

"Just like the Beatles" — what a comparison!
The Beatles were some of the most blatant, ANTI-CHRIST performers the world ever heard!

The press officer for the Beatles, Derek Taylor, said, "They're COMPLETELY ANTI-CHRIST. I mean, I am anti-Christ as well, but they're so anti-Christ they shock me which isn't an easy thing." (Saturday Evening Post, Aug. 8, 1964).
Paul McCartney said, "We probably seem to be anti-religious. . . none of us believes in God." (Hit Parader, Jan 1970, p.15)

John Lennon, in his book, A Spaniard in the Works, portrays Jesus Christ as, "Jesus El Pifico, a garlic-eating, stinking little yellow, greasy fascist bastard catholic spaniard." (A Spaniard in the Works, p.14).

Lennon also made that infamous statement, "Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I'm right and will be proved right. . . .We're more popular than Jesus now." (San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1966, p.26)

Ray Coleman quotes John Lennon as saying, "I've sold my soul to the DEVIL." (Coleman, Ray, Lennon p.256)

And dc Talk is "JUST LIKE the Beatles"! Don't laugh . . . Guess which song dc Talk has opened up their "Jesus Freak" concerts? Believe it or not — the song "HELP" by the anti-Christ BEATLES!

http://www.av1611.org/crock.html

The question remains, are they more anti-christian than you men here?

Sauron · 06-06-2006, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

http://www.av1611.org/crock.html

The question remains, are they more anti-christian than you men here?

The question remains: are you ever, ever, EVER going to support your claims about extra-biblical sources for Jesus? Or about contradictions in evolution?

How many pages will he go, ladies and gentlemen, before he actually answers the question?

ddc0708 · 06-06-2006, 04:38 AM

I would just like to take the time to let everyone know that I started reading this thread today on my lunch break from post #1... and I just now finished. Thank you to everyone who has posted factual information here to support their arguments. I have a running notepad document open at all times when I read these boards now adays... never know when you will need to copy down some useful info.

I have a few posts that I think I might step backwards on a bit which have been refuted for PV, but I typed them up as I read them and I'd rather not feel as that was a waste of my time LOL...

In fact I'm almost sure that Tomomboy has already said a couple, but whatever it appears from the last 2 pages that a reiteration is in order.

PV wrote: All of these

Quote:

By faith we Christians do things, and speaking of which it takes more faith to

believe in what you do. Life arising out of primordial soup.

I'm sure since you believe that god waved a hand and all of the sudden there was Adam and Eve. I'll take primordial soup over that any day. Considering that the Christian version of Creationism would have our society formed from incest, which by scientific research, is impossible. *yawn*

Quote:

Just like you weren't there the day the atoms decided to become a living cell, you were not there when Jesus or any of his disciples walked the earth. You only have free will to decide if you want to believe in God or not.

neither were you when god created man, but by the same token it was already stated that we only have theories and admit to the possibility of it being unknown while not clinging to old fairy tales imagined out of thin air.
The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That .... being you.

Quote:

Yet you will trumpet the theory of evolution all over the world, as if it's prove able, when you haven't even observed how all this life can start.

Again it was already stated that not all of us believe in evolution... hell alot of us admit that we DO NOT... let me say it again so it sinks in... DO NOT KNOW. So, please, stop assuming that every atheist believes in primordial soup simply because we refute your made up stories. I'd atleast toss around the idea of evolution before I ever tossed around the ill-logic conception of a supernatural being making the world in several days. rofl.

Quote:

Until you can arise life out of primordial soup, your theory is nothing more than a theory. An elaborate one, drawn up in the highest places on earth.

I absolutely love shooting creationism down. You call evolution "drawn up" and "elaborate" HA!!!! A tree with the apple, a wave of a fist and bam there's humans, a world wide flood where Noah fit 2 of every animal on his boat... on and on and on down the line I could go with this, but you get the point. Your fairy tale to fit the ending of death is no better. Atleast ATLEAST AAATLEASSST... people who are thinking objectively for science and logic are doing the brunt of the work. You take up faith like you know everything, but how much thinking does that take? The work is done for you!!! The burden is on you to prove it and yet atheists are the ones trying to disprove it. Typical... an atheist always does the brunt of the thinking and working in a debate. Why? Because any moron can weild faith and pretend he's smart. It takes a real thinker and logical/rational person to think objectively about situations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustFoldsfive

JustFoldsFive

Quote:

Until you can arise life out of primordial soup, your theory is nothing more than a theory. An elaborate one, drawn up in the highest places on earth.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You seem to be using ToE and Abiogenesis interchangeably, but that only shows your complete lack of understanding of one (or both) topics.

I would just like to commend JFF here ... that was well noted. QFT

Oh, :notworthy: Sauron:notworthy: , and :notworthy: Tomboymom:notworthy:

Thank you for giving me interesting reading material to read up on. I really enjoyed reading you guys' side of the debate. Even learned a few things about philosophy

On an ending note, can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get some Extra biblical evidence!!!! I spent an entire afternoon reading this thread and not ONE... not ONE bit has been thrown out there as promised

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-06-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

I like your third premise..it pretty much somes up your thoughts. I'll say it again I AM NOT GOING AGAINST ANY OTHER SCHOLAR. This is all mainstream biblical and atheists scholars. They all have the same evidence but just interpret it differently. Maybe you should read about history..please I beg of you..I'm tired of such ignorance.

Help me out here, I am ignorant and need a pointer to some good scholarly works. Could you please tell me who some of these atheist and mainstream biblical scholars are that you have read? I am particularly interested in the atheist scholars you have read.

Thank you.

TomboyMom · 06-06-2006, 06:54 AM

Thank you, ddc. btw, everything I know about this subject I learned in this forum, and so can one allegiance, by reading the basic questions sticky at the top of this forum.

funinspace · 06-06-2006, 06:57 AM

One allegiance,
Just to note, I don't presume Jesus didn't exist (my guess is that he was a heretical Jewish sage that ran afoul of either the Pharasees or the Romans and was put to death. As far as the Gospels go… I consider them no more or less the Truth, than the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew canon, or the Qumran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

The second objection that has come up a lot is about the credibility of the Bible. Now, I don't know if I'm even going to reference the Bible in this post but if I do I would like you to take it as a credible source, and here is why.

P1. Gospels were written by eye witnesses within 40 years of the events described, there is a fair degree of accuracy here.

When you make statements like the above "Gospels were written by eye witnesses within 40 years", you hurt your own cause. Yes, you are free to believe it, and many Christians do just that. However, you are asking skeptics to accept the most conservative Christian opinions available. Even the New Bible Commentary, is not so strident as your claims. Never mind such sources as the NRSV Study Bible. Both these sources acknowledge that the actual writers of some of the Gospels is not known for sure. Many main stream Christian scholars allow John for example to be written as late as 120AD. Though the majority still keep it to 90AD. You don't need to believe me, just pick of the forward to the 4 Gospels in the NBC and NRSV Study Bible.

Quote:

P2. The Bible is not just one account of these events, but atleast four accounts of relative accuracy.

If so, then you should be able to quickly and clearly describe where Jesus was over the first few years of his life regarding Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Egypt, wise men, houses, and stables.

Here again below, you are asking skeptics to accept the most extreme view of history, forgeries, and evidence.

Quote:

The next Jewish reference is Josephus. He metions Jesus in "Jewish Antiquities". And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

Why would a Jew write the above bolded part? Do you realize that even a great many Christian scholars consider this either heavily embellished or an outright addition by later Christians? The vast majority of mainstream Christian scholars do not agree with you.

Either way, this thread is flying along quite well without me, and I'm not really looking for additional debate. Besides there lots of people here with far greater knowledge than I. I'm just suggesting you consider your audience and if mainstream Christianity agrees or disagrees with the "facts" as you present them. If mainstream Christianity disagrees (or allows a wider potential in years or authorship) with your view of history, then what impact will your demands of historical truths have here?

everettf · 06-06-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The question remains: are you ever, ever, EVER going to support your claims about extra-biblical sources for Jesus? Or about contradictions in evolution?

How many pages will he go, ladies and gentlemen, before he actually answers the question?

I predict he never will.

Aethernaut · 06-06-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

one allegiance: How did Judas die?

Oh, my favorite!

I think that in any discussion of the historicity of Jesus this point needs to be covered early on. It just gets a lot of accuracy of the Biblical account messiness out of the way. So, let me repeat and emphasize the point since it was completely ignored the first time:

One allegiance, how did Judas die?

I've yet to see a convincing apologetic for this point.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-06-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/....ap/index.html
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk...10/sec10-5.htm
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

...thats enought for now.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-07.htm

hmm...So your saying you would pick and choose what is historical out of the bible...seems illogical.

Nice...

From the Tentmaker site you posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tentmaker site

For the past several years it has been claimed by Ron Wyatt that he has discovered Noah's ark. The site he claims to have "discovered," however, was originally discovered in 1959 by a Turkish captain. While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, it is, in addition, too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes.

In Part II of this article we will evaluate the scientific evidence provided by Wyatt for the Durupinar site as wall as review his other "discoveries." We will end Part II with suggestions for evaluating claims sure to arise in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tentmaker site part 2

In Part I of this series I discussed the claims of Ron Wyatt, that he discovered a boat-shaped form (the Durupinar site), that the only explanation for that formation was that it was Noah's ark, and that Wyatt had located its anchors. None of these claims was proven true. In this article I will look at the scientific claims Wyatt also proposed for this site.

Tentmaker is known to be a christian debunker of Ron Wyatt's claims.

I don't think you actually read your links. Is that what you call schollarship? :funny:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2006, 10:59 PM	#251
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	We see you reading the thread, Patriarch. The Great Eye sees all, you know. Will you be defending your claims anytime soon?

06-06-2006, 06:54 AM	#256
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	Thank you, ddc. btw, everything I know about this subject I learned in this forum, and so can one allegiance, by reading the basic questions sticky at the top of this forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.