Roger Pearse

This form of argument appears to mean "We have no evidence for these claims, but our excuse for continuing to make them is that the evidence which would prove them was destroyed by those we are accusing." I don't think such arguments need discussing. We can only write history based on evidence. Anything else is fiction.

This appears to be the argument that "We will pretend that all the groups who ever claimed the name Christian, or are studied with the Christians today, were just as much Christians as those who took their teachings from the apostles, even though they obviously differ wildly from it. Then we will jeer at the modern Christians -- who hold to the same views as the early ones, and, like the early ones, reject deviance -- that early Christianity is 'diverse'". Again, I don't believe that argument is worth discussing.

Christianity may or may not be true. But once arguments like these are made against it, we may be sure that truth is not the concern of those making them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sheshbazzar

In this case that evidence consists of a trail of obvious forgery and mass murders perpetrated in the expansion of Christianity.
By your reasoning, the Mob is to be considered as being innocent of any crimes if they accomplish an untraceable disposal of their victims, buy out the politicians, cook their books, and can produce forged written testimony that they were all in church at the time.

I don't buy your reasonings nor your cover-ups and apologies for Christianity. The blood is on its hands and no amount of mealy-mouth will ever remove it.


All the best,

Sheshbazzar





.

Sheshbazzar

A statement which assumes that there were any actual 'Apostles' that were not simply the creations of the latter Christian religious fiction.

I do not accept that there ever was any human flesh and blood 'Jesus of Nazareth', and thus find no reason to accept the story that this fabricated fictional religious character ever appointed any so-called 'Apostles', or that there ever were any such.

I find nothing of the Christian religion claims that is not composed of superstitions, imaginative religious fiction, and outright blatant lies.

All the best,

Sheshbazzar

Jaybees

Why single out Xtianity? Aren't these traits characteristic of virtually all religions?

Sheshbazzar

Far as I am aware of.

However, this thread is in 'Abrahamic Religions' and is concerned with 'Constantine and the Trinity'
and hence is thereby limited to discussion of the Christian forms of religion'. I am not 'singling out' Christianity.

In other Forums and threads I have likewise withstood the Theistic claims and superstitious drivel of the non-Christian religions.


All the best to you,

Sheshbazzar

avi

Well written Sheshbazzar!

:thumbs: