hatsoff

I wouldn't expect you to be "impressed" with historical arguments concerning Christianity, simply because, at fifteen, you haven't the knowledge base necessary to appreciate them. Also, I urge you to exercise caution when posting new threads. Try taking more interrogative than assertive approaches.

Koyaanisqatsi

What other "reliable documents" claim to chart your eternal damnation/salvation?

We're not talking about "all" documents; we're talking the document. If its claims were true, then there can be no other document of any remote importance, comparatively speaking.

If the "Bible" is true, then it is an eternal torture sentence to all but 144,000 humans. Imagine if 2,000 years from now, the human population has expanded out onto other planets and numbers in the hundreds of quintillions. That would be something like 499,987,087,123,546,859,872 humans. And out of all of them, only 144,000 are raptured by God's grace alone.

Shall we imagine 3,000 years from now and the numers of humans have quintupled again to drive the point home?

It is even theocratically possible (depending on the theocracry) that an evolved form of homosapiens as originating on just one planet (Earth) could one day populate the majority of the entire known universe before "Jesus" comes again, meaning that the number of humans destined to eternal hellfire is 777,566,325,365,845,216,246,965,564,325,012,256,32 5,325.....

I think you get the idea.

Yet the number that are "saved" does not change proportionally. For it is written (according to some sects).

:huh:



Unlike Christians, for example, whose minds have all been closed since the cult myths of a martyred desert nomad Roman slave two thousand some odd years ago?

No, you are going to present compelling proof of your ridiculous claims or shut the fuck up!

We've had over five thousand years of "deity" based morality and man's inhumanity to man.

How's it working for you, because for me? Not so well. I see 90% of the entire global population all essentially believing in the same thing for thousands of years and nothing changing as a result.

But I suppose that's all our fault, right? The 10% non-believers from hell? Jesus, none of us can fucking decide exactly what it means to be "a theist" as mind-boggling as that sounds, how the fuck could we have had any significant impact on five thousand years of creator deity belief?

So, what do you say? Think it might be "our" turn now? And don't try any of that Stalin, Mao, "Atheist's are just as bad as theists" bullshit, because that's a lie. Stalin and Mao and Bush and any other tinplate dictator (including the Romans) has forced worship and thereby tacitly, if not directly, deified themselves for their agenda.

What I'm talking about is things like applying unfettered critical thinking toward real world problems; like global warming; stem cell research; space exploration (which really means, inhabitable planetary realty searches and colonization); etc.

Is any of that the domain of "truthsayers" or "sorcerers" or "prophets" or "trolls" or "demons" or "messiahs" or "leprechauns" or "gods;" aka deus ex machina?

You're young, so you might want to goodle that last phrase.

Well, if you really want to "spread the truth," then hadn't you better first demonstrate exactly what that "truth" is on you own, rather than just repeating what others have told you is the "truth?"

Is it possible to "know" the truth without first discovering whether or not such a "truth" exists?

The answer to that question should be "No," so if it is not to you, perhaps you should start there?

Just a suggestion and welcome to hell.

rlogan

OK, then there is some forgiveness from this quarter.


When I was fifteen I was pretty annoyed at how stupid my father was.

By the time I was 21 you'd be surprised how much the old man had learned.


Then maybe first you should start deciding whether the scribblings of bronze-age goat herders are a better place to be garnering the "truth" about the origins of the earth, the ascent of man, the possibility of rising from the dead, transmorgrifying water into wine, and etc.

Because when we're talking "big picture", you need to think about whether we've actually learned anything as a species in the last two thousand years that might call superstitious nonsense into question.

garrisonjj

Excellent points! What does all the FUCKIN prayer in the world change? Absolutely nothing! Correct me if I am wrong!

Steven Carr

Well, let us take a source that is generally considered reliable (although hardly infallible) Josephus.

In fact, some people think Luke/Acts used Josephus as a source. But Luke/Acts never names sources, so we cannot know.

From my debate with Paul Marston http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston6.htm

Josephus mentions his sources frequently, among them: Berosus, Jerome, Mnaseas, Nicolaus, Manetho, Moschus, Hesiod, Menander, Dios, Herodotus, Megasthenes, Philostratus, 1 Maccabees, Polybius, Strabo, Livy, etc. Not all these sources are good but at least we can see where Josephus is coming from. Some of these sources are still extant and we can see how Josephus used them. We can see where Josephus changed from one source to the next, as his knowledge gets more or less detailed. Josephus would often quote his sources directly.

For example, when Josephus quotes Herodotus, we can examine his reliability, by seeing if he distorts what Herodotus wrote or if he just lapped up Herodotus uncritically.

But when Luke/Acts quotes from ancient Greek authors, this lessens his reliability.

Peter Kirby (all hail) has an article here http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html on how Luke seems to quote from Euripides.

He goes into a lot more detail than I could ever manage.

Peter writes about the other Peter's prison escape in Acts 'My bet is that this kind of prison escape scene was stock in trade for fiction in the first century. Which definitely casts doubt on historicity, but doesn't necessarily indicate Euripides as the sole source (or in the mind of Luke while writing at all).'

So there is doubt on the historicity of that scene in Acts.

But what does Acts bring to the table to establish historicity? Nothing. The author may have used secular sources for his geography and backround information, but we really know very little about his sources (perhaps he used Paul's letters?), or who he was.

He may have been a companion of Paul, but he may have been an infant when or if he was with Paul.

We just don't know.

There is no provenance.

And historians just don't like that.

Steven Carr

Would any Christian have made up a story of Jesus killing one of his childhood friends?

Of course not.

So the story in the Infancy Gospel about Jesus killing a child who threw a stone at him just must be reliable.

Steven Carr

Another error in the Bible pointed out to us by our new poster!

John 4:39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did."

'Many' people believed a women's testimony in the Bible.

But this is an obvious mistake because 'the testimony of a woman was a peice of crap, it was disgraceful'

Sven

Apparently you've only read arguments from very ignorant atheists up to now. Because you appear to lack any basic knowledge of BC&H.

:rolling:
You are 15 years old and tell this to historians who have studied historical documents for decades? :rolling:

Yeah, and things like archeology and documents from all over the world certainly won't exist in 2000 years. Can anyone say "weak analogy"?

See, "thinking" is not an argument. Especially when your thinking is based on virtually no knowledge of the subject at hand.

Oh, the insults already begin. Let me tell you a little secret: A large part of the atheists here are fromer Christians who deconverted precisely because they did the research.

You mean a closed mind like in "researching the topic extensively and based on this deciding that Christianity is bunk"?

Correction: You spread what you believe to be the truth.

Huon

Well, look at Christian references, and tell us the exact dates and authors of the Gospels, and Acts, with some proofs, if possible.

TheBear

Goldenroad,

As of this posting, you have only two posts in this thread. Just about each and every point you raised, has been addressed. You merely hand waived points addressed between your OP and your second post. You really need to answer all the challenges presented here.




I'll present one of my points another way.

If a large multitude of Muslims, (say, a few thousand), amasses in your town square, would only Muslims chronicle such an event?