Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 03-18-2003, 06:38 PM

Magus55:
Jesus is in more books than any other person to exist in history.

Did you check?

And how is he much different from (say) Julius Caesar?

As Richard Carrier has pointed out, the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar is MUCH better than the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.

The people of the Bible are in graves, artifacts from Jesus' time are in museums, including the boat believed to be where Jesus appointed some of his apostles.

There is plenty of similar evidence for the historicity of Greek mythology. Homer had described bronze armor and boar's-tusk helmets -- both of which have been found in Mycenaean sites.

And stories of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur? The "Palace" of Knossos is very mazy, and there was some strange sport of riding bulls practiced in its central courtyard. Not quite a Minotaur, but not too far off.

So if "mythology" was right about those, was it not also right about the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus?

We have original manuscripts ( Dead sea scrolls) of what the Apostles and others wrote down while watching and following Jesus.

Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls were nothing of the sort.

And we have paintings from people who saw Jesus.

WHERE???

Sr. Zonules · 03-18-2003, 06:53 PM

Also, the paintings of Jesus that DO exist are very inconsistant, and seem to be based upon whatever ethnicity the painter is. Hell, if I lived in the gaza strip for 30+ years with no sun-tan lotion, i'd be VERY dark (a lot darker than the usual light-brown or blue-eyed jesus with the long light-brown hair). And I'm of british and irish decent.

When I ask people where those paintings come from, they never seem to know...

7thangel · 03-19-2003, 06:39 AM

QueenofSwords,

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

I realized that you have an excellent way of maneuvering debates.

Why, thank you. I recognize what humility it must have taken for you to confess yourself unable to defend your position.

Look, my statement is ambiguous, and you responded that I confess unability to defend my position, which I did not. Just like when I said "correction' you implied "torture," which can be surely taken diferently to what I really mean. I did intentionally made that ambiguous statement, and as I have expected, you show a pattern of twisting what I really mean.

Quote:

I referred to Evil as the "tool" of God in making our state better.

Actually, no, you said, "But to say that God promotes this evil things instead of being a tool for us to be in better state of being is". Now, perhaps it's your (shaky) grasp of English, but the word "tool" could apply equally to "god" or to "evil". Perhaps next time, you could try to express yourself more clearly and specifically; you will agree, I am sure, that if your god exists, it does him no favors to have vague and ambiguous statements made about him?

Again look, you said that the word tool could equally apply to God or to evil. If you then understood it thus way, you have had the honesty that your hint is wrong when I was am denying that I do not mean to worship a tool. If you have told me my statement is vague, I would have had told you that English is my second language, and I do really have a hard time expressing myself clearly. And I would actually appreciate if you correct me from time to time.

As concerning vagueness and ambiguity of statement about God, it does not really matter that much because it is God himself who gives us knowledge and understanding of His words. The Bible itself is written in mysteries and figure of speeches because of what should be known of God is only given to the chosen.

The original post states that God himself will destroy the wisdom of the wise. The end of this is to prove that God is the giver of wisdom and understanding, and thus no man should glory before God.

Quote:

And responding unto me childishly on this matter,

Remember, Jesus said, "unless you become as a little child, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

Again look, do you therefore admit that you are acting childish? that you also adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Do you think that would be a good argument? Actually no, because making such statement is accepting that your childish behaviour is right. And worst, you are actuall childish and have misrepresented what your quote really meant. And if you deny being childish, then you become pointless. Either way, I win.

Quote:

I feel stupid to continue my arguments with you.

That's probably due to my pointing out the complete lack of evidence and logic in your "arguments", not to mention your apparent worship of a torturer.

If you rightly represented what I mean then you have the right to examine my logic. By the way, can you call the "corrections Dept." as "torture dept.?" Don't you see that logic why I do not mean "correction" as "tortures?"

Quote:

Sorry, but hope to talk to you when you grow up.

Would that be before or after your god applies a "high degree of suffering"? Are you looking forward to that?

People are suffering a lot just by hearing the words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, Bible, Chapter and Verses. And I guess I already see that in you.

Hoping you change the tone of your responses.

Queen of Swords · 03-19-2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by 7thangel
Look, my statement is ambiguous, and you responded that I confess unability to defend my position, which I did not.

Well, since you have not defended your position so far, and your statement is indeed ambiguous, how did you expect me to interpret it?

Just like when I said "correction' you implied "torture,"

No, you said "high degree of suffering" and implied that this suffering would be meted out in order to force people to believe differently. That's torture.

which can be surely taken diferently to what I really mean. I did intentionally made that ambiguous statement,

Why? Can you not make clear statements?

and as I have expected, you show a pattern of twisting what I really mean.

Well, if you don't state what you really mean, if you make ambiguous statements, do you really expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt each time?

Again look, you said that the word tool could equally apply to God or to evil. If you then understood it thus way, you have had the honesty that your hint is wrong when I was am denying that I do not mean to worship a tool.

Or maybe you're confused and you regard your god as a tool only when it applies to hurting people, but not when it applies to worshipping him. See, there are so many different ways to look at ambiguous statements.

If you have told me my statement is vague, I would have had told you that English is my second language, and I do really have a hard time expressing myself clearly. And I would actually appreciate if you correct me from time to time.

If you're willing to discuss matters reasonably and fairly, the language barrier should not be much of one. I don't mind helping people with English, and I'll do it as tactfully as I can (I used to work in an ESL program - English as a Second Language), but not when they appear to think that "rational discourse" involves speculations on one's psychological state - see below.

As concerning vagueness and ambiguity of statement about God, it does not really matter that much because it is God himself who gives us knowledge and understanding of His words. The Bible itself is written in mysteries and figure of speeches

All the more reason not to trust it. A book on which eternal torture or eternal happiness depends should be written clearly. You have already seen what happens when ambiguous statements are used.

because of what should be known of God is only given to the chosen.

This is not fair to those who might repent and become "chosen" if they were shown straightforwardness and rationality.

The original post states that God himself will destroy the wisdom of the wise.

I don't have much respect for anything which tries to destroy wisdom. Perhaps God is threatened by wisdom or feels He cannot compete with it?

The end of this is to prove that God is the giver of wisdom and understanding, and thus no man should glory before God.

If God is the giver of wisdom, don't the wise get their wisdom from him?

If the answer is yes, why should he destroy something he gave them?

And if the answer is no, where did they get their wisdom from, then?

Again look, do you therefore admit that you are acting childish?

My statement only served as a gentle reminder to you that childishness is mandated by Christianity as a means - indeed, the means by which one enters the Kingdom of Heaven.

that you also adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Which teachings would those be? I'm sure there are a few I might agree with.

Do you think that would be a good argument?

Who's making an argument? I only quoted the bible to you. Did you think Christ was arguing in favor of childishness? If so, you might want to take it up with Him, not me. I'd prefer to concentrate on the argument of how you know God will mete out a "high degree of suffering" and how this differs from a "moderate degree of suffering".

Actually no, because making such statement is accepting that your childish behaviour is right.

What childish behavior would that be? Quoting the bible to you?

And worst, you are actuall childish and have misrepresented what your quote really meant. And if you deny being childish, then you become pointless. Either way, I win.

Well, go buy yourself a big lollypop or something.

I haven't admitted or denied anything; I merely pointed out that the bible says, "unless you become as a little child, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven". With that in mind, is there anything wrong with becoming as a little child? I mean, you don't want me to be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, do you?

If you rightly represented what I mean then you have the right to examine my logic.

Why, thank you for the permission.

By the way, can you call the "corrections Dept." as "torture dept.?"

I don't know, can you call a human slaughterhouse a "concentration camp"? If I'd never heard of the Holocaust, I'd think that was a place where some serious thinking was done.

Don't you see that logic why I do not mean "correction" as "tortures?"

I see that when a "high degree of suffering" is meted out in order to force people to convert to some religion, it's often necessary to use euphemisms so that the whole process appears to be at least one step above torture.

People are suffering a lot just by hearing the words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, Bible, Chapter and Verses. And I guess I already see that in you.

I have this vision of you in a jumpsuit, one hand to your forehead, moaning, "Captain... I sense pain... great pain!"

If you don't watch Star Trek, you might not get the reference, but suffice to say, what else do you see in me besides suffering? Please tell me more. Will I also meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger? And do I have to pay you for the unwanted psychoanalyzing or is that free?

Hoping you change the tone of your responses.

"Look to the plank in thine own eye." -- Jesus Christ.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-19-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Says you. People quote from other historical books all the time, Bible is historically accurate. Therefore we can do whatever we want. Its your own opinion that we can't quote from the Bible, there is no law that says we can't, therefore its a weak argument. I say you can't quote from any historical book. Prove Louis the XIV existed.

The Bible claims that the Earth is little more than one-millionth of its actual age. This is a use of the word "accurate" that I have not encountered anywhere else.

Then there are the various prophecies of the destruction of cities that actually were never destroyed. And five cities in Egypt will speak Caananite, which is now a dead language. And so on...

Quote:

The people of the Bible are in graves, artifacts from Jesus' time are in museums, including the boat believed to be where Jesus appointed some of his apostles.

I find it very hard to believe that any genuine museum would make such a wild and utterly unsupportable claim. So, either the museum isn't claiming that but a handful of fundies are, or this "museum" actually consists of a handful of fundies and some rotting wood dragged out of the Sea of Galilee.

Quote:

We have original manuscripts ( Dead sea scrolls) of what the Apostles and others wrote down while watching and following Jesus. And we have paintings from people who saw Jesus. None of that is good enough for you, so Louis the XIV isn't good enough for me.

Let me guess: we also have Aramaic copies of the National Enquirer from the period, a box of "I am the Way" promotional keyfobs and maps of Old Jerusalem, and a video cassette showing the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Betamax format, so it must be old).

Quote:

but im sick of attitudes of people here who basically think im psychotic because i believe in something.

I think "psychedelic" might be a more appropriate phrase. I have no idea why you believe these artifacts exist as claimed.

MrDarwin · 03-19-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Jesus is in more books than any other person to exist in history. You can find him in any encyclopedia, millions and millions of books written by authors around the world.

The problem, as pointed out numerous times by others, is that Jesus was never mentioned by any of his contemporaries; we have nothing that was written by him, nor anything that was written by anybody who personally knew him. Everything we know about Jesus comes to us second-hand, from people who never knew him, repeating stories they had heard from others about him, long after he had already died. Even worse, these stories come to us from those who have the greatest vested interest in asserting the truth of the stories attributed to him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
We have original manuscripts ( Dead sea scrolls) of what the Apostles and others wrote down while watching and following Jesus.

Hoo-boy! Magus, how much do you actually know about your own religion? None of the dead sea scrolls were written by the apostles of Jesus. None of the dead sea scrolls even mention Jesus or any of the events he was supposedly involved in.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
And we have paintings from people who saw Jesus.

Can you show us any of these paintings? Or are you simply making things up off the top of your head to support your own shaky claims?

MrDarwin · 03-26-2003, 01:12 PM

*bump* just so Magus doesn't forget!

Taffer · 03-26-2003, 02:33 PM

Magus, I always hear you referring to evidence you've supplied earlier, but I seem to have missed the threads in which they were discussed. Can you give some key quotes or at least point me toward the threads?

I find it rather hard to see who is the butt of the joke here since I haven't seen your real attempts at conversion; I just see you talking morosely about failed debates with atheists who just didn't want to see sense. I'd really like to see these threads.

Mageth · 03-26-2003, 02:45 PM

And we have paintings from people who saw Jesus.

Now that is funny.

From here:

Quote:

In the church's early centuries, Jewish scruples lingered and Christians felt it was wrong to render visual representations of God incarnate, choosing instead to represent Jesus with letters or visual symbols, including the fish, the lamb and the cross.

AFAIK, the oldest representations of Jesus we know of dates from around 300-400 AD.

Or maybe Jesus really was a little lamb or a fish.

Queen of Swords · 03-26-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
I'd really like to see these threads.

I have a few links handy. Enjoy.

Islam, women and Heaven

About heaven this time

Did god create our souls? for Magus55

(Magus55) How valid is the Xian experience?

Jesus' prayer wasn't answered

The problem of punishment out of proportion to the crime

The Egyptian Firstborn

What is SOOO great about Heven?

Worshipping Satan

Can an atheist sin?

The Prophesies

Science and the bible

You don't need meds to quit christianity

03-18-2003, 06:53 PM	#72
Sr. Zonules Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: N 47� 11� 14�, W 122� 10� 08� Posts: 82	Inconsistant paintings... Also, the paintings of Jesus that DO exist are very inconsistant, and seem to be based upon whatever ethnicity the painter is. Hell, if I lived in the gaza strip for 30+ years with no sun-tan lotion, i'd be VERY dark (a lot darker than the usual light-brown or blue-eyed jesus with the long light-brown hair). And I'm of british and irish decent. When I ask people where those paintings come from, they never seem to know...

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

03-18-2003, 06:38 PM	#71
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Magus55: Jesus is in more books than any other person to exist in history. Did you check? And how is he much different from (say) Julius Caesar? As Richard Carrier has pointed out, the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar is MUCH better than the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. The people of the Bible are in graves, artifacts from Jesus' time are in museums, including the boat believed to be where Jesus appointed some of his apostles. There is plenty of similar evidence for the historicity of Greek mythology. Homer had described bronze armor and boar's-tusk helmets -- both of which have been found in Mycenaean sites. And stories of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur? The "Palace" of Knossos is very mazy, and there was some strange sport of riding bulls practiced in its central courtyard. Not quite a Minotaur, but not too far off. So if "mythology" was right about those, was it not also right about the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus? We have original manuscripts ( Dead sea scrolls) of what the Apostles and others wrote down while watching and following Jesus. Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls were nothing of the sort. And we have paintings from people who saw Jesus. WHERE???

03-19-2003, 07:14 AM	#74
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by 7thangel Look, my statement is ambiguous, and you responded that I confess unability to defend my position, which I did not. Well, since you have not defended your position so far, and your statement is indeed ambiguous, how did you expect me to interpret it? Just like when I said "correction' you implied "torture," No, you said "high degree of suffering" and implied that this suffering would be meted out in order to force people to believe differently. That's torture. which can be surely taken diferently to what I really mean. I did intentionally made that ambiguous statement, Why? Can you not make clear statements? and as I have expected, you show a pattern of twisting what I really mean. Well, if you don't state what you really mean, if you make ambiguous statements, do you really expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt each time? Again look, you said that the word tool could equally apply to God or to evil. If you then understood it thus way, you have had the honesty that your hint is wrong when I was am denying that I do not mean to worship a tool. Or maybe you're confused and you regard your god as a tool only when it applies to hurting people, but not when it applies to worshipping him. See, there are so many different ways to look at ambiguous statements. If you have told me my statement is vague, I would have had told you that English is my second language, and I do really have a hard time expressing myself clearly. And I would actually appreciate if you correct me from time to time. If you're willing to discuss matters reasonably and fairly, the language barrier should not be much of one. I don't mind helping people with English, and I'll do it as tactfully as I can (I used to work in an ESL program - English as a Second Language), but not when they appear to think that "rational discourse" involves speculations on one's psychological state - see below. As concerning vagueness and ambiguity of statement about God, it does not really matter that much because it is God himself who gives us knowledge and understanding of His words. The Bible itself is written in mysteries and figure of speeches All the more reason not to trust it. A book on which eternal torture or eternal happiness depends should be written clearly. You have already seen what happens when ambiguous statements are used. because of what should be known of God is only given to the chosen. This is not fair to those who might repent and become "chosen" if they were shown straightforwardness and rationality. The original post states that God himself will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I don't have much respect for anything which tries to destroy wisdom. Perhaps God is threatened by wisdom or feels He cannot compete with it? The end of this is to prove that God is the giver of wisdom and understanding, and thus no man should glory before God. If God is the giver of wisdom, don't the wise get their wisdom from him? If the answer is yes, why should he destroy something he gave them? And if the answer is no, where did they get their wisdom from, then? Again look, do you therefore admit that you are acting childish? My statement only served as a gentle reminder to you that childishness is mandated by Christianity as a means - indeed, the means by which one enters the Kingdom of Heaven. that you also adhere to the teachings of Christ? Which teachings would those be? I'm sure there are a few I might agree with. Do you think that would be a good argument? Who's making an argument? I only quoted the bible to you. Did you think Christ was arguing in favor of childishness? If so, you might want to take it up with Him, not me. I'd prefer to concentrate on the argument of how you know God will mete out a "high degree of suffering" and how this differs from a "moderate degree of suffering". Actually no, because making such statement is accepting that your childish behaviour is right. What childish behavior would that be? Quoting the bible to you? And worst, you are actuall childish and have misrepresented what your quote really meant. And if you deny being childish, then you become pointless. Either way, I win. Well, go buy yourself a big lollypop or something. I haven't admitted or denied anything; I merely pointed out that the bible says, "unless you become as a little child, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven". With that in mind, is there anything wrong with becoming as a little child? I mean, you don't want me to be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, do you? If you rightly represented what I mean then you have the right to examine my logic. Why, thank you for the permission. By the way, can you call the "corrections Dept." as "torture dept.?" I don't know, can you call a human slaughterhouse a "concentration camp"? If I'd never heard of the Holocaust, I'd think that was a place where some serious thinking was done. Don't you see that logic why I do not mean "correction" as "tortures?" I see that when a "high degree of suffering" is meted out in order to force people to convert to some religion, it's often necessary to use euphemisms so that the whole process appears to be at least one step above torture. People are suffering a lot just by hearing the words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, Bible, Chapter and Verses. And I guess I already see that in you. I have this vision of you in a jumpsuit, one hand to your forehead, moaning, "Captain... I sense pain... great pain!" If you don't watch Star Trek, you might not get the reference, but suffice to say, what else do you see in me besides suffering? Please tell me more. Will I also meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger? And do I have to pay you for the unwanted psychoanalyzing or is that free? Hoping you change the tone of your responses. "Look to the plank in thine own eye." -- Jesus Christ.

03-26-2003, 01:12 PM	#77
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	bump just so Magus doesn't forget!

03-26-2003, 02:33 PM	#78
Taffer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bern, Switzerland Posts: 348	Magus, I always hear you referring to evidence you've supplied earlier, but I seem to have missed the threads in which they were discussed. Can you give some key quotes or at least point me toward the threads? I find it rather hard to see who is the butt of the joke here since I haven't seen your real attempts at conversion; I just see you talking morosely about failed debates with atheists who just didn't want to see sense. I'd really like to see these threads.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.