The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:Heyyy ! 

AmericanIdle wrote:

Heyyy !  How come it's alright for Becky, what's her name, to be sarcastic but not me ??

If we can't have a little fun here, we might as well convert to (your religion here).

I'm sorry, you're right.  I like to have fun too, you know that.  I'm just worried that people will get a bit carried away as I've seen in other forums and lose complete site of the topic at hand.  That's actually what I meant by that.  Becky definitely uses it, but she doesn't lose site of the topic at hand in this book. 

AmericanIdle wrote:

You are absolutely right, caposkia, and this is how the violence and the hatred starts.  The bible is very clear on what is to happen to those who choose not to believe.  You are now standing at the very peak of Mt. Intolerance.  Look, I can see the whole world !

What's wrong w/ this ?

right! 'cause the Bible says "KILL ALL WHO DO NOT BELIEVE!!!!!!.... Or at least make them feel like a pea in an ocean. "  Ref:  The book of BS 4:78

Or maybe it's just people out there who want to be noticed and will use any means to do so, in the process give Christ a bad name and give people excuses to hate.  The teaching of Jesus is Love.  Plain and simple.  Explain to me where violence and hatred comes into that teaching... and I want specific references from Jesus' teachings.  That would be the New Testament. 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Eh... the Bible.  It's clearer than people want to believe.

I agree. The Bible is very clear about many, many things.

According to the Bible, there is a firmament over the Earth, the Earth rests on pillars, there was a great global flood and bad things are the result of the first man (who was literally molded out of clay) eating an apple.

 

...Presumably, though, you think that these areas aren't being literal? And if not, then perhaps your perspective on the Bible is a little murkier and more 'selective' that what you just suggested?

 

Depends on where you want to go with this.  With the scientific knowlege the people had at the time, I'd say the understandings written in those ancient scripts are pretty frikken intelligent. 

Do you want to start another forum so we can continue with this? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleestack wrote:So who are

Sleestack wrote:

So who are you then? If we don't know you, then tell us who you are. Otherwise, there really is no point in even saying that. It reminds me of someone on Jerry Springer to a crowd that is booing them: "You don't know me! You don't know me!"

 

Are you actually willing to listen and accept it? Or are you going to pull the BS card on me and claim that I can't possibly be that way because that's not what a Christian is in your experience?  If you're really interested, let me know. I'll tell you in a PM.  I have already tried to explain my views in other blogs if you want to take the time to research them on this site.  That's why I figured a PM would be more appropriate, that way, any questions will be directly from you and won't get lost in a sea of sarcasm and disbelief. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sleestack

caposkia wrote:

Sleestack wrote:

So who are you then? If we don't know you, then tell us who you are. Otherwise, there really is no point in even saying that. It reminds me of someone on Jerry Springer to a crowd that is booing them: "You don't know me! You don't know me!"

 

Are you actually willing to listen and accept it? Or are you going to pull the BS card on me and claim that I can't possibly be that way because that's not what a Christian is in your experience?  If you're really interested, let me know. I'll tell you in a PM.  I have already tried to explain my views in other blogs if you want to take the time to research them on this site.  That's why I figured a PM would be more appropriate, that way, any questions will be directly from you and won't get lost in a sea of sarcasm and disbelief. 

It's been established you're a cafeteria Christian (take what you like from the Bible - ditch what you don't). Just trying to figure out what flavor you prefer.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And so what?

Brian37 wrote:

And so what? You are missing my point.

If I said, "Helping an old lady across the street is unholy" would that have a positive or negative connotation?

God is love.  Says so in the Bible.  Anything showing love is of God whether you were doing it because the big dude in the sky told you to or not. 

It really seems that you're taking the word out of context.  To mention something is either Holy or unholy is to automatically assume you're referencing to some sort of religious deity. 

You're missing my point.  I'm trying to clarify the intentions of this book.  Whether you want to believe it or not is... well... up to you.

Brian37 wrote:

People not of "your god" have done good deeds like that without fictional beings.

uh... yea!!! let's break this up right here.  This is why I'm trying to explain to you all who I am as a follower.  I don't view people who don't follow my God as bad people.  If I did, do you really think I'd even consider looking at this site let alone talk to people on it?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:AmericanIdle

caposkia wrote:

AmericanIdle wrote:

Heyyy !  How come it's alright for Becky, what's her name, to be sarcastic but not me ??

If we can't have a little fun here, we might as well convert to (your religion here).

I'm sorry, you're right.  I like to have fun too, you know that.  I'm just worried that people will get a bit carried away as I've seen in other forums and lose complete site of the topic at hand.  That's actually what I meant by that.  Becky definitely uses it, but she doesn't lose site of the topic at hand in this book. 

AmericanIdle wrote:

You are absolutely right, caposkia, and this is how the violence and the hatred starts.  The bible is very clear on what is to happen to those who choose not to believe.  You are now standing at the very peak of Mt. Intolerance.  Look, I can see the whole world !

What's wrong w/ this ?

right! 'cause the Bible says "KILL ALL WHO DO NOT BELIEVE!!!!!!.... Or at least make them feel like a pea in an ocean. "  Ref:  The book of BS 4:78

Or maybe it's just people out there who want to be noticed and will use any means to do so, in the process give Christ a bad name and give people excuses to hate.  The teaching of Jesus is Love.  Plain and simple.  Explain to me where violence and hatred comes into that teaching... and I want specific references from Jesus' teachings.  That would be the New Testament. 

 

 

Christ is what the individual believer believes just like Allah is what the individual Muslim believes, but what neither have is evidence for the magic tricks they claim their fictional beings perform or that they even exist at all. What the believer fails to consider(insert religion here) is that they simply like what they believe and the emotional appeal of having a super hero in the sky to protect them is too strong for them to resist.

The fact is, which you don't want to face, is that your myth is in the same boat as all others in history and deserves the same weight as any other deity claim.

Other Christians don't make Christianity look bad to educated atheists because of their behavior We don't reject claims of virgins being knocked up by "spirits" because of the behaivor of Chrisitans. We reject it because there is no evidence of such.

Emotional reactions to human behavior IS NOT a good reason to accept or reject any claim. I like getting presents, but that doesn't make Santa real. I don't like being frightened, but that doesn't mean there are boogiemen under my bed.

Christians giving to charity doesn't equate to human flesh surviving rigor mortis, because the empathy of giving has a strong appeal.

Human behavior is a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether or not a deity exists. Liking or not liking something is not evidence.

I reject Jesus for the same reason I reject claims of Thor and Isis. Magic is magic and fiction is fiction. I may not like how some Christians or Muslims or Jews behave just as you may not like how some atheists behave, but that is a separate issue than backing up a claim with evidence.

You can dance around the issue all you want but the fact remains you have no evidence anymore than any other deity claim in human history.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:'Tis funny

jcgadfly wrote:

'Tis funny that the Christians hate the Jews even though their holy book was written in great part by them. In fact, the son of their God practiced Judaism.

The religions pretty much run from the same sources (each book plagiarized from the other and from earlier civilizations) - why do they hate each other again?

No True Christian hates a person of another religion.  "love your neighbor/love your enemies, etc." 

Quote:
Actually, most Christians show up to their churches for mainly social reasons. It wouldn't surprise me if christians believed just to suck up to the majority in their environment.

sadly, this is true.  She talks about this in her book too, very sarcastically.  It's what Christians like her and I are quite disappointed with. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: We don't

Brian37 wrote:

 We don't reject claims of virgins being knocked up by "spirits" because of the behaivor of Chrisitans. We reject it because there is no evidence of such.

and what's your reference of research?  is it science?  The problem with using science alone to convince yourself that there is no God is the fact that science's limitations are the physical world.  Let's assume for a moment that there is a spritual world, what form of research... or source for that matter, would you use to familiarize yourself with that world? 

Keep in mind we're assuming there is a spiritual world for this question to be answered.  Until you have a clear answer to that, I don't believe you can emperically say "there is no evidence of such"

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't think there is support for the position that Mohammad grew up as a Christian,

Read your history.  Of course you're not going to find that information in the Quran. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison.

...The title is an insulting attack and a mischaracterization, so yeah, I imagine it would turn a head or two.

Quote:
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote:
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.

No True Scotsman fallacy, and I'm not interested in reading a book based solely on opinion. See: my disinterest in blogs.

Quote:

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

A lack of consistency in your perspective is not a strength, somehow. It's a sign of an incredibly shaky idea. Your ideas all stem from myth, and the myth has proved to be false. Persisting in your delusion after the fact and shifting the goal posts is a rather sad state of affairs.

Quote:
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

Jesus Christ was not a real figure, and there is no magical sky-daddy. The fact that anyone even had to bother debating this should make all of mankind take a few awkward moments to stare down at their feet.

We shouldn't be debating an 'issue' that one side hasn't so much as a single shred of evidence for. What the Hell is there to debate? Your concept isn't even defined, and certainly not defined in a way that is consistent with other believers.

Quote:
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

No True Scotsman.

(Curious: Please indulge me as to what authority you happen to have to define someone as a 'True' or 'Not True' Christian)

Quote:
I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.

Request denied.

I have no respect for conspiracy theorists or cults, and Christians share equally in each field. I'm not going to 'pretend' to have respect for you just because.

I would clarify this myself. Being as we are on a planet of 6 billion people we cannot isolate ourselves from people who buy things we find to be absurd. People who believe such claims are are co-workers, friends and family.

I like to put it this way, "I can like and even love a person who makes claims I find to be absurd. The key is separating issues. One is the issue of the person themselves, and the other issue is the claims they make"

I don't know this OP face to face in person, so I cant say that I do or don't respect them. But as far as respecting hocus pokus as fact, I will never respect absurd claims.

I do however, love and respect my mom. I love and respect many of my co-workers, but that does not mean I respect their claims of virgin births being real anymore than I would if they literally believed and claimed that Thor was the cause of thunder and lightning.

This poster fails to realize that we are not attacking THEM the person, and seem to take it personally, when they shouldn't, when we call a duck a duck and fiction fiction.

TO THE OP........

WE ARE NOT, attacking you, but if you open your mouth and say something that doesn't make sense, we are going to address it unfiltered. It is nothing to be offended by and nothing to take personally.

But to expect us to be dishonest with ourselves intellectually and dishonest with you is and of itself absurd. We are not here to placate your emotions. We are not here to oppress you and none of us know you personally face to face so we are NOT judging YOU. WE ARE looking at your claims and giving your claims our unfiltered view. Nothing more, nothing less.

So please stop with the "poor me" guff, and get on with backing up your claims. If you cant back up your claims, just as if a Muslim couldn't back up theirs, we wont hate you, we merely will not buy what you claim.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Brian37

caposkia wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
We don't reject claims of virgins being knocked up by "spirits" because of the behaivor of Chrisitans. We reject it because there is no evidence of such.
and what's your reference of research?  is it science?  The problem with using science alone to convince yourself that there is no God is the fact that science's limitations are the physical world.  Let's assume for a moment that there is a spritual world, what form of research... or source for that matter, would you use to familiarize yourself with that world? 

Keep in mind we're assuming there is a spiritual world for this question to be answered.  Until you have a clear answer to that, I don't believe you can emperically say "there is no evidence of such"

I am, for the sake of argument, assuming a the potential of a spirit world now.

Okay...

What source... what source... A book?

A particular book?

You say science isn't a valid source, because it doesn't adress a potential spiritworld, well all religious texts of all religions that have ever written anything of theirs down all adress your potential "spirit world", not to mention The Silmarilion and the various stories of Buffy the Vampire slayer... What source indeed.

What makes the Bible so special to you, other than the fact that you happen to have been born into a social cirkle where you were at some point exposed to someone that felt the Bible was special? And before you say anything, yes I have read it; I study Comparative Religion at University, so I've scrutinized that book as much as any Theologian.

 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:God is love.  Says so

Quote:
God is love.  Says so in the Bible.  Anything showing love is of God whether you were doing it because the big dude in the sky told you to or not.

          "Anything showing love is of Allah"

          "Anything showing love is of Elohim"

          "Anything showing love is of Osirus"

Are you seeing a pattern? Again, so what, humans have always claimed in all polytheism and all monotheism throughout human history that their deity and their religious writings claim that the god(s) is the author of love. Old motif, big deal.

"The Bible says so" "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is called circular reasoning.

AGAIN, see if you can spot the pattern.

"The Koran is true because the Koran says so"

"The Torah and Tamud are true because they say so"

"The ancient Egyptian book of the dead is true because it says so"

All these cultures past and present have people who believe(d) as fervently in their dieties as you do now in yours and quote their writings as proof too. Your claims are not special in human history and deserve the same credibility as any past or present.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If theists want to claim we

If theists want to claim we are being tough on them, in the sense that we challenge them to think outside their books without sugar coating it, that I can agree with. But if theists think we are out to oppress them that is absurd.

It never occurs to the theist that we are trying to help them escape the mind shackles of superstition OF ANY KIND. Just as we would want people to know how absurd claiming rabbit's feet work or that Big Foot really exists.

We are not out to harm or oppress, but to get you to think.

Which makes more sense to you?

Thor in reality really makes lighting?

Or

Positive and negative charges in the atmosphere make lighting?

Which makes more sense?

Virgins can get pregnant via "spirit"?

Or

A sperm and an egg make a baby?

Which makes more sense?

The magic of "poof" is real?

Or,

People make up stories and believe them because they like them?

If other cultures and other religions can believe false things to be fact, what makes you think that humanity magically changed?

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

"Vishnu did it"

"Allah did it"

They are all claims that people have made, or still make, that they merely like to believe.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 We don't reject claims of virgins being knocked up by "spirits" because of the behaivor of Chrisitans. We reject it because there is no evidence of such.

and what's your reference of research?  is it science?  The problem with using science alone to convince yourself that there is no God is the fact that science's limitations are the physical world.  Let's assume for a moment that there is a spritual world, what form of research... or source for that matter, would you use to familiarize yourself with that world? 

Keep in mind we're assuming there is a spiritual world for this question to be answered.  Until you have a clear answer to that, I don't believe you can emperically say "there is no evidence of such"

 

You should be embarrassed with yourself with this response.

Do you seriously want me to entertain the possibility of virgin (whom by the standards of ancient times would have been married between the ages of 9-14 btw) in any case, you seriously want me to lend a lick of credence to such an absurdity?

I don't assume a "spirit" world you do, You have no evidence for that anymore than the Ancient Egyptians did for their fictional afterlife stories.

I don't need to convince myself your God doesn't exist, the claims people make using that book of fiction debunk itself. For the same reason you can look at claims of Thor and Osirus and read their culture's writings and know it is false.

I don't need to convince myself that your God does not exist anymore than I would need to convince myself that Jesus did not come from little green men from outer space which Scientology is fond of claiming.

Do you need convincing that Harry Potter can't fly around on broomsticks? I don't need convincing that virgin births aren't real either.

I'm sorry it is not painfully obvious that you have unfortunately bought a fairy tale. I only hope for your intellectual sake you can snap out of it some day.

Genesis alone is enough to discard the entire bible. It puts plant life before photosynthisis. It treats the sunlight and moonlight as separate sources of light. It treats all the points of light in the night time sky as "stars" when we know some are planets, some are stars and some are galaxies. Not to mention that we know it takes 18-22 years for an adult to reach physical maturity but "POOF" magically a woman was pulled from a man's rib fully adult.

DO YOU REALLY REALLY SERIOUSLY WANT ME TO BUY THIS?

Or could it be you merely like believing it because the idea of a super hero protecting you has a strong emotional appeal?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add a couple more

Let me add a couple more things here. Please remember that I am an individual. You posted this thread with the idea that it would stay on track. Others here don't mind the long scenic route, but I cut to the chase. To me the OP is nothing more than a distraction to avoid addressing the magic of deity claims and "POOF" theory.

It is not out of hate that I do this. It is in the hopes that you will shed these illusions that were wrongfully sold to you that you currently buy.

The bottom line is that it is absurd to think that there is a magical dissimbodied being BY ANY NAME (in human history from any culture) with the capability of manipulating all the googles and googles and trillions of googles of atoms in the universe, much less the neurons in our brains.

I am trying to help you escape your fantasy. I am tough on you because I know humanity can do better than ancient fairy tales.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't think there is support for the position that Mohammad grew up as a Christian,

Read your history.  Of course you're not going to find that information in the Quran. 

See Wiki on Muhammad HERE and HERE  Where it says "The "most trustworthy source" for reconstruction of the life of the historical Muhammad is the Qur'an"

Early biographies were by Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger and Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari.

See this article HERE by Michael Hart where he mentions it was on his caravan trading journeys he encountered Jews and Christians. That is the general accepted view. If you have a source other than the Quran or these early biographers for Muhammad please indicate who or where. Europeans wrote much that was hearsay and slander in order to discredit him, such as he died in 666 and was  seeking little more than glory and power. These stories by Europeans and Latins should  be given little credibility. The stories by his followers also seek to glorify him and overlook many things that cast him in a bad light. In any event it is difficult to say with certainty where his basis for Islam originated especially claiming he was raised as a Christian.

I also find it interesting that this was the only comment you had from my previous post. I asked you in a general way if Christianity is true this means the Jews misinterpreted their own scriptures for hundreds of years just where did they or their prophets error. Jesus clearly does not fit as the Moshiach that was prophesied so they have misinterpreted, Christians have or you both have. Apparently you don't consider this important enough to consider? In order for you to have basis as a "True Christian" it would seem you must know better than the religion from where your beliefs were derived how to interpret their prophecies and beliefs. If so, you must know where the Jews errored in their understanding and why certain prophets should be ignored only in some places and accepted in others.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:I am, for the

Nikolaj wrote:

I am, for the sake of argument, assuming a the potential of a spirit world now.

Okay...

What source... what source... A book?

A particular book?

You say science isn't a valid source, because it doesn't adress a potential spiritworld, well all religious texts of all religions that have ever written anything of theirs down all adress your potential "spirit world", not to mention The Silmarilion and the various stories of Buffy the Vampire slayer... What source indeed.

What makes the Bible so special to you, other than the fact that you happen to have been born into a social cirkle where you were at some point exposed to someone that felt the Bible was special? And before you say anything, yes I have read it; I study Comparative Religion at University, so I've scrutinized that book as much as any Theologian.

I never said in that post that the Bible had to be their source for answers.  I just merely pointed out that if what we believe is true, then obviously science wouldn't be the best way of discovering it.  In order for someone to claim as they did, they would have to have some other source which would verify those claims to be true. 

If there is a spiritual world for the sake of argument... there would have to be 1 true way of it to work just as science points out in the laws of our universe. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You bring up Muhammad and

You bring up Muhammad and the OP doesn't seem to understand that their claims are just as absurd as Islamic claims of magic.

I have had Muslims claim Koran verses as proof of the following. "Allah picks the sex of the baby based on congealed blood". No, we know now that it is the XY chromosome factor that determine the sex of the baby.

I also have had a Muslim quote the Koran "mountains moving" as proof that Muhammad knew about plate tectonics.

If this OP can understand that these Muslims are wrong, then it shouldn't be a stretch to apply that same logic to their own claims.

Just as none of us will get 72 virgins in an afterlife, there is no such thing as "spirit sperm" nor are their multiple armed deities that are concerned with human life. These are all false claims people merely like believing because they want to believe it because they think it makes them feel good. They are nothing but hollow placebos that do nothing but retard thinking and shut down the brain to thinking.

I'm glad you brought up Muhammad because I don't want this Christian thinking I only criticize their myths. Crossing your fingers for luck is as useful as prayer and rabbits feet. Superstition by any name is still superstition.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

          "Anything showing love is of Allah"

          "Anything showing love is of Elohim"

          "Anything showing love is of Osirus"

Are you seeing a pattern?

yea, I am.  the first 2 names are in reference to the same Christian God YHWH regardless of whether they're part of a different belief system or religion.  Check your history.  The third one.... I'm not so familiar with... did you mean Osiris?  I didn't see anywhere a reference that he was or is love.  Please reference that for me. 

 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: It never

Brian37 wrote:

 

It never occurs to the theist that we are trying to help them escape the mind shackles of superstition OF ANY KIND.

yes it has.  I know that people like you are on here for that reason.  I respect that.  I've mentioned many times before that I'm on here to test my understanding.  I have said many times that if evidence is brought to my attention that can clearly show my understanding to be false, I will absolutely turn away from this belief. 


 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

          "Anything showing love is of Allah"

          "Anything showing love is of Elohim"

          "Anything showing love is of Osirus"

Are you seeing a pattern?

yea, I am.  the first 2 names are in reference to the same Christian God YHWH regardless of whether they're part of a different belief system or religion.  Check your history.  The third one.... I'm not so familiar with... did you mean Osiris?  I didn't see anywhere a reference that he was or is love.  Please reference that for me. 

 


 

 

So the Big Three religions all worship the Cannanite God El and his fellows? Great, that means I can ignore their beliefs as the myths they are.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:  This

caposkia wrote:

 

 

This question I like.  The difference is True Christians aren't going to shove Jesus down your throat.

Matthew 28:19 wrote:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

caposkia wrote:
They're not the ones condeming people to hell because they're Gay/lesbian, have gotten an abortion, etc. 

caposkia wrote:
They also know that you can follow Jesus Christ and be Gay/Lesbian or another type of labeled "sinner" as the world labels them. 

 

 

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:
  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26 wrote:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

I Corinthians 6:9 wrote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

I Timothy 1:10 wrote:
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

caposkia wrote:
True Christians know that they are just as sinful as the next person no matter what anyone believes in.

But they also believe they are the only one's getting forgiven, so they can't really be as sinful.They aren't going to hell afterall.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
If you want to get into the technicality of the word religion, then technically atheism is a religion as well.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color, off is a tv channel, and not playing football is a sport. It is the lack of belief. The Cambridge online dictionary defines religion as  “the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.’’

An atheist has neither belief in any gods, nor worships any. Religion can also be defined as “a set of rituals and ceremonies pertaining to a deity.” Again, this is not demonstrated in the atheist’s life.

I will assume the Christian reader does not believe in Thor. Is you’re a-Thorism a religion? Do you call yourself a follower of the ‘There is no Thor faith’, and go to Thor unbelief church? No

Try again.

caposkia wrote:
Eh... the Bible.  It's clearer than people want to believe.

So far it's saying a True Christians is pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.

 

caposkia wrote:
right! 'cause the Bible says "KILL ALL WHO DO NOT BELIEVE!!!!!!.... Or at least make them feel like a pea in an ocean. "  Ref:  The book of BS 4:78

caposkia wrote:
No True Christian hates a person of another religion

 

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 wrote:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

hou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Are we talking about the same christianity here.There is only one right.

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See Wiki on Muhammad HERE and HERE  Where it says "The "most trustworthy source" for reconstruction of the life of the historical Muhammad is the Qur'an"

I think...  I'm not 100% sure, but I think if you research the tribe /'s he was a part of, you'll find either a Jewish or Christian heritage. 

Also, if you read further down in the first Wiki reference, you'll find that his source for information was the angel Gabriel, a Biblical angel.  Also, if you read a bit of the Quran, you'll find that the Bible and the Quran are in agreement up to the Children of Abraham.  It is understood by empirical information that he was raised with either a Christian or Jewish understanding. 

I know I said just Christian before.  That was my fault, I have read other texts that show more evidence of the Christian dissent, but I don't remember what they were at this point. 

Note:  The Jews do not accept Jesus as a prophet at all, that's one of a few ideas that lead researchers to believe his upbringing was understood to be Christian.  His tribe did not accept his teachings, which leads researchers to believe they did have a following and found his teachings to be against it. 

[/quote=pauljohntheskeptic]

I also find it interesting that this was the only comment you had from my previous post. I asked you in a general way if Christianity is true this means the Jews misinterpreted their own scriptures for hundreds of years just where did they or their prophets error. Jesus clearly does not fit as the Moshiach that was prophesied so they have misinterpreted, Christians have or you both have. Apparently you don't consider this important enough to consider? In order for you to have basis as a "True Christian" it would seem you must know better than the religion from where your beliefs were derived how to interpret their prophecies and beliefs. If so, you must know where the Jews errored in their understanding and why certain prophets should be ignored only in some places and accepted in others.

First, I'm trying to keep a focus on the topics of the book for which this forum was originally started.  Second, you cannot assume I find no importance in anything anyone writes be it that I am one person and I'm attempting to reply to many many posts all at once.  I cannot and will not be able to address everything, especially if it is getting off the main topic. 

If you want me to continue in depth with this or other topics, please start a new forum and let me know. 

To quickly clarify, Jesus in the New Testament and all over the Old Testament reference to where people went wrong. (This is where a lot of non-believers misrepresent the Bible.  It's not all what is suppose to be but some of what went wrong.)  It wasn't that texts were misinterpreted by the prophets, it's that people started manipulating them to what would benefit them.  Jesus also brought a NEW TESTAMENT or Law with him which changes some of the old understandings and laws.  This change was necessary because people were not following them the way they were suppose to.  They were misrepresenting the prophets teachings. 

If you're referencing to their not accepting Jesus as the coming messiah, then yes, newer Jews misunderstood the texts.  The Old Testament referenced that Jesus was going to come down and rise up as King.  They were picturing an Earthly king that was going to rule with avengence against their adversaries.  They missed the part in Isaiah that mentions he will be lowly and crushed for our iniquities. 

Keep in mind the Jews don't follow a 'cut and dry' Old Testament as it's written in the Bible.  they read the books as individuals and have other books they follow that are not in the Bible.  The Bible is understood to be a breif summary and only has what was considered to be the most important information.  There are many other historical writings that go along with the Bible, but are not included for one reason or another. 

If you would like to continue with this, please start a new forum. 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You bring up

Brian37 wrote:

You bring up Muhammad and the OP doesn't seem to understand that their claims are just as absurd as Islamic claims of magic.

~rip~

I'm glad you brought up Muhammad because I don't want this Christian thinking I only criticize their myths. Crossing your fingers for luck is as useful as prayer and rabbits feet. Superstition by any name is still superstition.

Actually the OP brought up Muslims and Muhammad in

post#37

and I challenged him on his claim Muhammad was brought up as a Christian. He answered it as you say mentioning the Biblical angel Gabe. Clearly a connection between 2 mythological ideas doesn't mean 0 + 0 = anything other than 0.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote: Matthew 28:19

Loc wrote:

 

Matthew 28:19 wrote:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

you can't be "taught" unless you want to be.  We are to tell everyone, but if you don't want to hear it, we are not told to force it upon you!  People came to Jesus to hear his teachings, where ever Jesus was, if people didn't want to hear it, they'd walk away and complain.  Jesus never shunned people for not believing in Him... only for misrepresenting God.

Loc wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
They're not the ones condeming people to hell because they're Gay/lesbian, have gotten an abortion, etc. 

caposkia wrote:
They also know that you can follow Jesus Christ and be Gay/Lesbian or another type of labeled "sinner" as the world labels them. 

 

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

You post that as if I said we believe that it's OK in God's eyes.  I've broken most of the commandments and laws in the Bible... are you saying that means I can't be a Christian?! 

They are accepted into our community if they want to be.  They are not shunned by True Christians because of what they choose to do in life.  It's not my place to call them a sinner when I myself am just as guilty of sin.

Loc wrote:

 

I Corinthians 6:9 wrote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

I Corinthians 6:11 wrote:
Such were some of you; but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

...and if you take the whole story in context, you will read that they were suing each other and going against each other for wrongful acts.  The point was to remind them that they are just as guilty as them, but it's through Jesus Christ that they are justified in God's eyes.  Read on further and you will hear Paul mention that it's not what Jesus taught.

Loc wrote:

I Timothy 1:10 wrote:
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Both Corinthians and Timothy are letters to corrupt churches.  They are reminders of what they're supposed to be teaching.  They all forget that it's about Jesus' love and not about how everyone else is screwing up.

Loc wrote:

 The Cambridge online dictionary defines religion as  “the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.’’


and dictionary.com defines it as a specific fundamental set of beliefs agreed upon by a number of persons... def #2.  The first definition goes on to say that it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...

Loc wrote:

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 wrote:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

hou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

...??? isn't that the Old Testament.... the Jewish following???  May I remind you that Christians follow New Testament teachings and that Jesus brought a new Law to take place of the old.  Therefore voiding such a law.

Loc wrote:

Are we talking about the same christianity here.There is only one right.

ooh...well... that depends.  Are you defining Christianity by the over 5000 different Christian denominations that make up Christiandom, or are you referencing to teachings of Jesus Christ... 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I think... 

caposkia wrote:

I think...  I'm not 100% sure, but I think if you research the tribe /'s he was a part of, you'll find either a Jewish or Christian heritage. 

Also, if you read further down in the first Wiki reference, you'll find that his source for information was the angel Gabriel, a Biblical angel.

This occurs where he is 40 years old meaning he has already grown up.

caposkia wrote:

Also, if you read a bit of the Quran, you'll find that the Bible and the Quran are in agreement up to the Children of Abraham.  It is understood by empirical information that he was raised with either a Christian or Jewish understanding.

I have read all of the Quran.

Except Muslims don't accept the stories of such things as Lot being drunk and naked, David sending out someone to be killed in battle so he could have his wife, and much more.

Your empirical information is from where. Source? As this is not what is generally accepted. His early life is shrouded in myth and legend.

caposkia wrote:

I know I said just Christian before.  That was my fault, I have read other texts that show more evidence of the Christian dissent, but I don't remember what they were at this point.

Note:  The Jews do not accept Jesus as a prophet at all, that's one of a few ideas that lead researchers to believe his upbringing was understood to be Christian.  His tribe did not accept his teachings, which leads researchers to believe they did have a following and found his teachings to be against it. 

OK. One needs to keep in mind the European slant in some texts was intended to discredit him, though there are far easier ways to do it.

 

caposkia wrote:

First, I'm trying to keep a focus on the topics of the book for which this forum was originally started.  Second, you cannot assume I find no importance in anything anyone writes be it that I am one person and I'm attempting to reply to many many posts all at once.  I cannot and will not be able to address everything, especially if it is getting off the main topic. 

If you want me to continue in depth with this or other topics, please start a new forum and let me know.

OK.

caposkia wrote:

To quickly clarify, Jesus in the New Testament and all over the Old Testament reference to where people went wrong. (This is where a lot of non-believers misrepresent the Bible.  It's not all what is suppose to be but some of what went wrong.)  It wasn't that texts were misinterpreted by the prophets, it's that people started manipulating them to what would benefit them.  Jesus also brought a NEW TESTAMENT or Law with him which changes some of the old understandings and laws.  This change was necessary because people were not following them the way they were suppose to.  They were misrepresenting the prophets teachings. 

If you're referencing to their not accepting Jesus as the coming messiah, then yes, newer Jews misunderstood the texts.  The Old Testament referenced that Jesus was going to come down and rise up as King.  They were picturing an Earthly king that was going to rule with avengence against their adversaries.  They missed the part in Isaiah that mentions he will be lowly and crushed for our iniquities. 

Keep in mind the Jews don't follow a 'cut and dry' Old Testament as it's written in the Bible.  they read the books as individuals and have other books they follow that are not in the Bible.  The Bible is understood to be a breif summary and only has what was considered to be the most important information.  There are many other historical writings that go along with the Bible, but are not included for one reason or another. 

If you would like to continue with this, please start a new forum.  

OK, I will start a new thread on this subject shortly.

I'm not new to theology, I went to parochial schools, almost became a minister, converted to Catholicism, went to a Jesuit University for my graduate degree and became an atheist later. I'm well aware of the differences in Judaism and Christianity as to interpretations.

My point in bringing this up in the first place was that it  may be relevant to your claim of what "True Christians" are. You apparently don't see the connection. You may want to reread your Gospels and the book of Acts as well as the Gospel of Thomas perhaps you may see my reasoning. I have read your previous forums and understand what you generally accept. Armstrong's ideas touch on some important points but he misses much of why Jews dismiss Jesus as 'the one'.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

It never occurs to the theist that we are trying to help them escape the mind shackles of superstition OF ANY KIND.

yes it has.  I know that people like you are on here for that reason.  I respect that.  I've mentioned many times before that I'm on here to test my understanding.  I have said many times that if evidence is brought to my attention that can clearly show my understanding to be false, I will absolutely turn away from this belief. 

 

 

If it were a snake it would have bit you by now, but it seems you still have that antidote to reality called delusion.

If you want to willfully believe that a disembodied being knocked up a 9-14 year old girl and that human flesh can survive rigor mortis after three days, we cant stop you. But don't expect us to give you any special treatment just because you cheer lead for a claim. Other people have other claims too. Take a number.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jesus never shunned

Quote:
Jesus never shunned people for not believing in Him... only for misrepresenting God.

I love how the goal posts move at the convenience of the believer.

So according to YOU and your claim, what happens to someone who dies rejecting the claim of Jesus?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

It never occurs to the theist that we are trying to help them escape the mind shackles of superstition OF ANY KIND.

yes it has.  I know that people like you are on here for that reason.  I respect that.  I've mentioned many times before that I'm on here to test my understanding.  I have said many times that if evidence is brought to my attention that can clearly show my understanding to be false, I will absolutely turn away from this belief. 


 

 

Or tweak said evidence till it falls in line with your belief...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

It never occurs to the theist that we are trying to help them escape the mind shackles of superstition OF ANY KIND.

yes it has.  I know that people like you are on here for that reason.  I respect that.  I've mentioned many times before that I'm on here to test my understanding.  I have said many times that if evidence is brought to my attention that can clearly show my understanding to be false, I will absolutely turn away from this belief. 


 

 

Or tweak said evidence till it falls in line with your belief...

The intellectually lazy "tweak" or as I like to call it "retrofitting after the fact because you got caught in a lie" because humans ego cant fathom being wrong. It is more emotionally comforting to continue defending the indefensable rather than take the brave and uncomfortable risk of going outside one's comfort zone and admit when one is wrong.

Again, they have no evidence that virgin births magically happen the way the Bible says. All they have is "God did it" which is nothing but a naked assertion and the same as "Thor makes lighting" or "Allah did it".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Are you

caposkia wrote:

Are you actually willing to listen and accept it? Or are you going to pull the BS card on me and claim that I can't possibly be that way because that's not what a Christian is in your experience?  If you're really interested, let me know. I'll tell you in a PM.  I have already tried to explain my views in other blogs if you want to take the time to research them on this site.  That's why I figured a PM would be more appropriate, that way, any questions will be directly from you and won't get lost in a sea of sarcasm and disbelief. 

I'm just asking who you are, because you have brought up the point a couple of times now. So, who are you? It sounds like you are trying to make it relevant to the discussion, so, that's why I'm asking. I think a quick summary would do fine.

Here's a quick summary of me: (Not really 'all' of what makes me, but, what seems to be relevant to this thread)

I'm not religious at all. Was never baptised. Only times I've been to a church has been for weddings and funerals. I find people's belief in a diety or a higher being or whatever they want to call it, odd. I've known very good people who are religious and people who are not religious. I've known bad people who are religious and non religious. So my atheism isn't a result of me having a bad experience with religion or anything like that, it's just I don't see a need for religion and science has done nothing but confirm my stance on that. That's me in summary.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Except Muslims don't accept the stories of such things as Lot being drunk and naked, David sending out someone to be killed in battle so he could have his wife, and much more.

yes, but they believe they are descendants of Abraham.  I never mentioned the stories beyond he himself.  The Bible has details in it that the Quran doesn't during and vise versa.  They are a completely different following which means I'm sure their stories will be different.  If there was too much similarities, too many people would be questioning it's validity I'm guessing.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not new to theology, I went to parochial schools, almost became a minister, converted to Catholicism, went to a Jesuit University for my graduate degree and became an atheist later. I'm well aware of the differences in Judaism and Christianity as to interpretations.

My point in bringing this up in the first place was that it  may be relevant to your claim of what "True Christians" are. You apparently don't see the connection. You may want to reread your Gospels and the book of Acts as well as the Gospel of Thomas perhaps you may see my reasoning. I have read your previous forums and understand what you generally accept. Armstrong's ideas touch on some important points but he misses much of why Jews dismiss Jesus as 'the one'.

I have read those books a few times.  I guess I don't see what you're getting at.  What will I be looking for when I read through them again? 

Also, you apparently went to a few different versions of Catholic based schools.  I believe you're well versed in your studies and have extensive knowlege... better than me on religions and ancient writings, however, growing up Catholic myself, I have to say I'm not really surprised you became an atheist after. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I love how the

Brian37 wrote:

I love how the goal posts move at the convenience of the believer.

So according to YOU and your claim, what happens to someone who dies rejecting the claim of Jesus?

Honestly, why ask questions if you think my views keep changing?  Last I checked, this is a view I myself have held for years.  oooh wait... you're not making an.... ASSUMPTION are you!!!!

the question you asked me is actually difficult to answer.  It's not something the Christian community focuses on.  So there aren't many questions asked about that, therefore there isn't much followup study on it. 

I would love to tell you my belief on it, however, I have a question for you first.  Are you going to accept this belief that I've held also for years, or are you just going to assume that my "goal posts" have moved again?

It is my understanding that my "goal posts" move whenever I tell you something that doesn't fit your ideal Christian.  That way your belief is still right and mine has to be wrong. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleestack wrote:I'm just

Sleestack wrote:

I'm just asking who you are, because you have brought up the point a couple of times now. So, who are you? It sounds like you are trying to make it relevant to the discussion, so, that's why I'm asking. I think a quick summary would do fine.

Here's a quick summary of me: (Not really 'all' of what makes me, but, what seems to be relevant to this thread)

I'm not religious at all. Was never baptised. Only times I've been to a church has been for weddings and funerals. I find people's belief in a diety or a higher being or whatever they want to call it, odd. I've known very good people who are religious and people who are not religious. I've known bad people who are religious and non religious. So my atheism isn't a result of me having a bad experience with religion or anything like that, it's just I don't see a need for religion and science has done nothing but confirm my stance on that. That's me in summary.

Ok, just wanted to make sure.  I've come across too many people who ask me that same question, then claim that I "change my views" or as said in this forum "move my goal posts" to fit the scenario. 

I grew up in a Catholic family, but my church didn't really teach me anything.  I in fact hated church.  Skip past long boring details, I got confirmed and my father became a Jehovah's Witness.  Knowing that belief was different than my church was teaching, I opened the Bible up for the 'first time' to show him how he was wrong.  It was then that i learned my church didn't teach fully what the Bible taught either.

Skip through more long details.  It came down to my questioning everything including the existance of God.  How could God be real with so many different ways of knowing him?  It was through extensive studies I did on my own and prayers asking God if he was real.  The studies showed me how each religion takes their own little privilages with scripture and tweak it to their contentment.  Certain focuses are taken to far or misrepresented etc. This is why I hate religion.  Religion also causes separation which is not what Jesus is about.  (1 Cor. )

It's through those studies and personal experiences that no one on here will accept that led me to believe God was real, but the religions were flawed.  I promised myself and God that I would never follow a denominational point of view myself and that I would confirm whatever was told to me to be true through studies before I accepted it as truth. 

I soon after discovered many other people that held the same point of view I learned and vowed to keep. These are those whom I call True Christians on here.  They are the ones that don't accept information just because someone who looks like they know what they're talking about says so.  Most of them have learned on their own the beliefs they follow. 

This is why I and all other True Christians don't fit the bill.  My understanding is always carefully considered.  I'm not a follower of Christ because it makes me feel comfortable.  In fact, being a follower seems to have caused more difficulties to come my way in many instances. 

Ever since, I have always tried to better my knowlege.  I've learned that the Bible teaches to always question your knowlege.  Therefore, I look for more perspectives on my belief and following as well as challenges to my understanding.  I also continuously try to look for further evidence to back up what I already know.  I'm always challenging my own understanding.  That's me in a slightly longer summary. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sleestack

caposkia wrote:

Sleestack wrote:

I'm just asking who you are, because you have brought up the point a couple of times now. So, who are you? It sounds like you are trying to make it relevant to the discussion, so, that's why I'm asking. I think a quick summary would do fine.

Here's a quick summary of me: (Not really 'all' of what makes me, but, what seems to be relevant to this thread)

I'm not religious at all. Was never baptised. Only times I've been to a church has been for weddings and funerals. I find people's belief in a diety or a higher being or whatever they want to call it, odd. I've known very good people who are religious and people who are not religious. I've known bad people who are religious and non religious. So my atheism isn't a result of me having a bad experience with religion or anything like that, it's just I don't see a need for religion and science has done nothing but confirm my stance on that. That's me in summary.

Ok, just wanted to make sure.  I've come across too many people who ask me that same question, then claim that I "change my views" or as said in this forum "move my goal posts" to fit the scenario. 

I grew up in a Catholic family, but my church didn't really teach me anything.  I in fact hated church.  Skip past long boring details, I got confirmed and my father became a Jehovah's Witness.  Knowing that belief was different than my church was teaching, I opened the Bible up for the 'first time' to show him how he was wrong.  It was then that i learned my church didn't teach fully what the Bible taught either.

Skip through more long details.  It came down to my questioning everything including the existance of God.  How could God be real with so many different ways of knowing him?  It was through extensive studies I did on my own and prayers asking God if he was real.  The studies showed me how each religion takes their own little privilages with scripture and tweak it to their contentment.  Certain focuses are taken to far or misrepresented etc. This is why I hate religion.  Religion also causes separation which is not what Jesus is about.  (1 Cor. )

It's through those studies and personal experiences that no one on here will accept that led me to believe God was real, but the religions were flawed.  I promised myself and God that I would never follow a denominational point of view myself and that I would confirm whatever was told to me to be true through studies before I accepted it as truth. 

I soon after discovered many other people that held the same point of view I learned and vowed to keep. These are those whom I call True Christians on here.  They are the ones that don't accept information just because someone who looks like they know what they're talking about says so.  Most of them have learned on their own the beliefs they follow. 

This is why I and all other True Christians don't fit the bill.  My understanding is always carefully considered.  I'm not a follower of Christ because it makes me feel comfortable.  In fact, being a follower seems to have caused more difficulties to come my way in many instances. 

Ever since, I have always tried to better my knowlege.  I've learned that the Bible teaches to always question your knowlege.  Therefore, I look for more perspectives on my belief and following as well as challenges to my understanding.  I also continuously try to look for further evidence to back up what I already know.  I'm always challenging my own understanding.  That's me in a slightly longer summary. 

 

This is why people think your goal posts constantly shift - you and the others you describe have a "god" that is open to constant change depending on how your beliefs go that day.

And somehow atheists get accused of having relative morals. I worry more about the folks like you that have a god they can constantly tweak to whatever they like.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:natural

caposkia wrote:

natural wrote:

Nothing explains anything beyond our comprehension. Do you not understand the meanings of words, or what?

yes I do.  Thanks for clarifying my statement.  It's accepted in our world that there are things beyond our comprehension.  Ask any scientist, they will admit this.  It is understood that in the future, less will be beyond our comprehension because of the advance of science.  It is your belief that nothing else clarifies the understanding of incomprehensible things.

You clearly do not understand the word 'incomprehensible'. If it's incomprehensible, it can't be understood. That's the frigging definition. Please explain this magical thing that allows the incomprehensible to be understood. There is literally nothing which can explain the unexplainable.

You are confused. What you mean to speak about is not the unknowable, but the unknown. The unknowable cannot be known. Otherwise we wouldn't call it 'unknowable'. Do you get it yet? Can you understand the word, or is it incomprehensible to you?

Quote:
natural wrote:
science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.

Which is the only universe we know.

I never said there was a parallel universe. 

So then why do you imply that science is flawed because it 'just' helps us understand the universe? You clearly believe that there are some things which can be known which are inherently impenetrable to science.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point in bringing this up in the first place was that it  may be relevant to your claim of what "True Christians" are. You apparently don't see the connection. You may want to reread your Gospels and the book of Acts as well as the Gospel of Thomas perhaps you may see my reasoning. I have read your previous forums and understand what you generally accept. Armstrong's ideas touch on some important points but he misses much of why Jews dismiss Jesus as 'the one'.

I have read those books a few times.  I guess I don't see what you're getting at.  What will I be looking for when I read through them again? 

Also, you apparently went to a few different versions of Catholic based schools.  I believe you're well versed in your studies and have extensive knowlege... better than me on religions and ancient writings, however, growing up Catholic myself, I have to say I'm not really surprised you became an atheist after. 

You should read the Gospel accounts and Acts disregarding Pauline theology and remember Jesus was a devout Jew. You may also want to read what it means to be a devout Jew at a Jewish web site if you don't actually know. I also suggested the Book of Thomas as it may be easier for you to see it there. There is more to it than this but it will begin to show you some of the problems.

I went to Lutheran Fundie schools first for 9 years before I was a Catholic. There were many reasons for my rejection of belief and Catholicism was only a small part.

I will start a new thread in a day or two, really busy right now.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, that's all I was

Thank you, that's all I was asking for.

Not ever being religious, I find it interesting how deeply rooted all of the feelings and beliefs are for people that are religious. From my experiences and observations, it seems to begin in one of two ways... 1. They were brought up that way by their family. 2. Something big happened in their life (usually tragic) and the only thing that brought 'sense' to the situation was religion.

As for bettering your knowledge, and challenging your understanding, what have non biblical/religious resources shown you?

I guess for me, trying to define what a True Christian is, is not what's important, much like trying to define what a True Atheist is. You believe in Jesus Christ, thus making you Christian or, if you dont believe in religion/gods, thus you are Atheist. It's kind of a binary thing, you either are or you're not. If you then want to look under a microscope, then you will see the varying degrees of each, regardless of how much you believe in Jesus or how little you believe in Jesus, you are still Christian. No matter how strongly you feel about being an Atheist or how passive you are about being an Atheist, you are still an Atheist.

Maybe the title of 'True Christian" isn't the correct term to use or even the correct thing to do? Since you like to be challenged, perhaps trying to label and categorize someone (True Christian vs. Non True Christian) is the wrong approach and by doing that (unintentionaly) is one of things that contributes to separating them.

Just my thoughts on that from an outside point of view.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No True

caposkia wrote:

No True Christian that I know of has ever gone door to door asking for money for God.  There are instances where True Christians have gone door to door asking if you have anything you want them to pray about, but there are no strings attached and you usually don't find out what church they represent or where they're from unless you ask them for that information.  Occasionally you'd get some sort of contact information.  That's it.

Right, because as soon as they do, they're no longer a 'True Christian'. As for the Jews and Muslims not being 'unholy', I suppose you missed the bit where JC told the Twelve 'those who are not for me are against me', which, by your definition of 'unholy' would make Jews and Muslims (not 'for Jesus')... 'unholy'.

As for why folks might object to that designation? It has a lot to do with the perjorative connotations of it. For example:

"Unholy" is "against God", you say.

With respect to theological morality, "Good" is defined as 'in accordance with the Will of God'. "Evil" is defined as "everything else". There is no middle ground. So, a theist defining something as "against God"... means you're defining it as "evil", which I think even you can agree might seem a little... unfavorably biased?

I'd suggest using 'a-holy', but let's face it, every last person on this planet gets a-holey enough w/out the label, now don't we?

Quote:

In fact, there's a good chance you happened upon a True Christian church if during the offering they specifically ask guests NOT to put money in the offering plate.  Obviously there'd have to be more to it than that, but it's a start.  Most other churches wouldn't say that in hopes that someone would feel obligated to put something in.

This confuses me. Why would such a church even HAVE an offering plate? If they have one, it's there so people can donate/tithe/etc. If they don't want people to contribute, then wouldn't it be much simpler to not have the plate, and say nothing? Generally speaking, I find people who have the apparatus for donations all prepared, and then tell me 'no no, we don't want your money', are attempting to get both your money and your sympathy, and deserve neither. If you don't want my money, don't provide me with the means to give it to you.

Quote:

It is hard to find these "true Christians" because they're not on a mission to convert as many people as they can in a given... day? week? month? etc.  They're out there building relationships with people.  our way of showing God's love is through usually actions not words. 

And yet, Christ admonished the Twelve against just such a method of expansion. When you come to a place, speak the word of God. If they ask you to stop, knock the dust of that town from your sandals, and move on.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:To quickly

caposkia wrote:

To quickly clarify, Jesus in the New Testament and all over the Old Testament reference to where people went wrong. (This is where a lot of non-believers misrepresent the Bible.  It's not all what is suppose to be but some of what went wrong.)  It wasn't that texts were misinterpreted by the prophets, it's that people started manipulating them to what would benefit them.  Jesus also brought a NEW TESTAMENT or Law with him which changes some of the old understandings and laws.  This change was necessary because people were not following them the way they were suppose to.  They were misrepresenting the prophets teachings.

Jesus came with a new Law? The guy who said "I have not come to wipe away the Law"? Who said that "not one jot or tittle shall be changed" in the Law until the end of time?

That guy came to with a new Law that changes some of the old laws?

So you're saying Jesus lied?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I love how the goal posts move at the convenience of the believer.

So according to YOU and your claim, what happens to someone who dies rejecting the claim of Jesus?

Honestly, why ask questions if you think my views keep changing?  Last I checked, this is a view I myself have held for years.  oooh wait... you're not making an.... ASSUMPTION are you!!!!

the question you asked me is actually difficult to answer.  It's not something the Christian community focuses on.  So there aren't many questions asked about that, therefore there isn't much followup study on it. 

I would love to tell you my belief on it, however, I have a question for you first.  Are you going to accept this belief that I've held also for years, or are you just going to assume that my "goal posts" have moved again?

It is my understanding that my "goal posts" move whenever I tell you something that doesn't fit your ideal Christian.  That way your belief is still right and mine has to be wrong. 

I don't have to assume anything, I know that when I point out the nasty punishments for non-belief in the Bible, people like you try to dodge that by calling it metaphor. If you don't think you are cherry picking you are fooling yourself. It is not that I am assuming, it is that I am way ahead of you because I have seen this argument billions of times and it predictably takes the same path.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:caposkia wrote:To

BMcD wrote:

caposkia wrote:

To quickly clarify, Jesus in the New Testament and all over the Old Testament reference to where people went wrong. (This is where a lot of non-believers misrepresent the Bible.  It's not all what is suppose to be but some of what went wrong.)  It wasn't that texts were misinterpreted by the prophets, it's that people started manipulating them to what would benefit them.  Jesus also brought a NEW TESTAMENT or Law with him which changes some of the old understandings and laws.  This change was necessary because people were not following them the way they were suppose to.  They were misrepresenting the prophets teachings.

Jesus came with a new Law? The guy who said "I have not come to wipe away the Law"? Who said that "not one jot or tittle shall be changed" in the Law until the end of time?

That guy came to with a new Law that changes some of the old laws?

So you're saying Jesus lied?

Jesus didn't lie - he just became irrelevant once Paul's Christ came on the scene. Now all Christians have to do is believe without making an effort to make anything better for anyone else.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:You clearly do

natural wrote:

You clearly do not understand the word 'incomprehensible'. If it's incomprehensible, it can't be understood. That's the frigging definition. Please explain this magical thing that allows the incomprehensible to be understood. There is literally nothing which can explain the unexplainable.

You are confused. What you mean to speak about is not the unknowable, but the unknown. The unknowable cannot be known. Otherwise we wouldn't call it 'unknowable'. Do you get it yet? Can you understand the word, or is it incomprehensible to you?

Would you like for me to mean unknowable?  Unknowable is what you said, it cannot be known there's a reason why I didn't use that word. 

My point was simple.  No one here can claim that God cannot possibly be just because science can't prove his existence.  There has to be another way because LOGICALLY, you wouldn't use science (a physical implementation) to study something that's not physical.  Anyone claiming with certainty that God cannot exist must have another source they used to prove such. 

Don't get me wrong.  I completely understand the mindset;  "I haven't seen enough evidence to believe..."  That's absolutely understandable.  But you can't claim I'm wrong or delusional unless you have some sort of source to back up that claim. 

natural wrote:


So then why do you imply that science is flawed because it 'just' helps us understand the universe? You clearly believe that there are some things which can be known which are inherently impenetrable to science.

Everything that people have made is flawed in some way. If it wasn't it would answer all questions or last forever! No one thing or idea can account for every possible angle of understanding.  This is why there are so many different types of sciences.

I guess your statement above would be contingent upon your definition of science and how open you allow it to be.  Maybe there's a "science" that can understand something beyond the physical.  Maybe it's not understood yet.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You should read the Gospel accounts and Acts disregarding Pauline theology and remember Jesus was a devout Jew. You may also want to read what it means to be a devout Jew at a Jewish web site if you don't actually know. I also suggested the Book of Thomas as it may be easier for you to see it there. There is more to it than this but it will begin to show you some of the problems.

I went to Lutheran Fundie schools first for 9 years before I was a Catholic. There were many reasons for my rejection of belief and Catholicism was only a small part.

I will start a new thread in a day or two, really busy right now.

I know and accept that Jesus was a devout Jew...  That doesn't change what I already understand about his teachings and his purpose.  If he wasn't a Jew it would have gone against prophetic scripture. 

I undestand how busy we all can get.  Please don't feel rushed.  I'm lucky to have found enough time at this point to keep up with this thread for the moment. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You should read the Gospel accounts and Acts disregarding Pauline theology and remember Jesus was a devout Jew. You may also want to read what it means to be a devout Jew at a Jewish web site if you don't actually know. I also suggested the Book of Thomas as it may be easier for you to see it there. There is more to it than this but it will begin to show you some of the problems.

I went to Lutheran Fundie schools first for 9 years before I was a Catholic. There were many reasons for my rejection of belief and Catholicism was only a small part.

I will start a new thread in a day or two, really busy right now.

I know and accept that Jesus was a devout Jew...  That doesn't change what I already understand about his teachings and his purpose.  If he wasn't a Jew it would have gone against prophetic scripture. 

I undestand how busy we all can get.  Please don't feel rushed.  I'm lucky to have found enough time at this point to keep up with this thread for the moment. 

I think you're missing the point - naming Jesus as Messiah goes against prophetic scripture to begin with. The Gospel writers built their stories to fall in line with the prophecies. Doesn't prove anything except the writers knew where to look for the prophecies. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleestack wrote:Maybe the

Sleestack wrote:

Maybe the title of 'True Christian" isn't the correct term to use or even the correct thing to do? Since you like to be challenged, perhaps trying to label and categorize someone (True Christian vs. Non True Christian) is the wrong approach and by doing that (unintentionaly) is one of things that contributes to separating them.

Just my thoughts on that from an outside point of view.

You make very good points.  It is definitely one or the other, no middle of the road. 

Maybe you're right.  Maybe I shouldn't separate myself by saying "true Christian".   I'm trying to figure out how to explain to people on this site my following.  The following that thousands of other followers of Christ follow without people thinking I'm "changing my views" to accommodate what they want to hear.  The best way I could think of  doing that so far is by unfortunately categorizing my following against the stereotype that seems to be consistent on this site.   If you have a better approach for me to use, I'm open to it. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I think

jcgadfly wrote:

I think you're missing the point - naming Jesus as Messiah goes against prophetic scripture to begin with. The Gospel writers built their stories to fall in line with the prophecies. Doesn't prove anything except the writers knew where to look for the prophecies. 

You'll have to reference to me where that goes against prophecies. 

I've heard that approach many times, that the NT writers researched etc...  That's a whole other topic of conversation. 

Simply; with that approach prophesies can never happen because all anyone has to do to claim a fulfillment is to write a story following the appropriate historical research and get enough people to claim it happened.  I guess that means all those "false prophets" were just... heh... pretty dumb and didn't do their homework. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I think you're missing the point - naming Jesus as Messiah goes against prophetic scripture to begin with. The Gospel writers built their stories to fall in line with the prophecies. Doesn't prove anything except the writers knew where to look for the prophecies. 

You'll have to reference to me where that goes against prophecies. 

I've heard that approach many times, that the NT writers researched etc...  That's a whole other topic of conversation. 

Simply; with that approach prophesies can never happen because all anyone has to do to claim a fulfillment is to write a story following the appropriate historical research and get enough people to claim it happened.  I guess that means all those "false prophets" were just... heh... pretty dumb and didn't do their homework. 

PJTS will enumerate the objections better than I.

In the meantime, look at this link http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm.

As far as "false prophets" - bullshit artists that claimed to speak for a god were and are all over the world. They made crap up and attributed it to God.

It's also easy to write in corroboration by creating other stories of people claiming something happened. The Gospel writers didn't do anything special. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Right, because as

BMcD wrote:

Right, because as soon as they do, they're no longer a 'True Christian'. As for the Jews and Muslims not being 'unholy', I suppose you missed the bit where JC told the Twelve 'those who are not for me are against me', which, by your definition of 'unholy' would make Jews and Muslims (not 'for Jesus')... 'unholy'.

hmmm.... I guess you're right.  That would make them unholy by my definition.  I think this "unholy" thing is going a bit far.  We're going back and forth on technicalities.  I think.... I hope you understand my understanding and that I'm not trying to put anyone down or offend anyone by saying "unholy".  The point was that the unholy grail bit was because they're seeking a following that does not follow a deity or god of sorts.  Simple as that.  It's literal.  Nothing to read into. 

As far as Jesus saying that, yes there is no such thing as the middle of the road, if they're not for him, they're against him... HOWEVER!!!! Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet and respect him as a high prophet of God.... So does that make them for Him or against Him???

BMcD wrote:

"Unholy" is "against God", you say.

With respect to theological morality, "Good" is defined as 'in accordance with the Will of God'. "Evil" is defined as "everything else". There is no middle ground. So, a theist defining something as "against God"... means you're defining it as "evil", which I think even you can agree might seem a little... unfavorably biased?

I guess it could be, however if you want to get technical, though we've all done good in our lives, we've all also done bad in our lives, so are we all evil or are we all good?  This is a theological understanding as well.  If everyone is considered the same, then no one can claim a bias.  Remember, there's no middle of the road. 

BMcD wrote:

I'd suggest using 'a-holy', but let's face it, every last person on this planet gets a-holey enough w/out the label, now don't we?

LMAO!!! Yup

BMcD wrote:

This confuses me. Why would such a church even HAVE an offering plate? If they have one, it's there so people can donate/tithe/etc. If they don't want people to contribute, then wouldn't it be much simpler to not have the plate, and say nothing? Generally speaking, I find people who have the apparatus for donations all prepared, and then tell me 'no no, we don't want your money', are attempting to get both your money and your sympathy, and deserve neither. If you don't want my money, don't provide me with the means to give it to you.

The only funding for smaller churches, (which make up the majority of churches) are the members themselves.  A church has to ask for tithe or they will not exist.  Same with this website. 

The point of telling guests not to tithe is to avoid the possible feeling of obligation.  This is usually explained to the people as well before the plate is passed around.  It's not a guests job to support a church they are not a member of.  No one should feel obligated to pay either.  Those churches tell the members to donate at their discresion.  These churches take every angle to make sure no one feels like they are forced to support it. 

The reason why this is done at all is becasue of the many churches out there who have misrepresented the tithe and have made their members and guests feel obligated to pay up and guilty if they don't. We know that's not what it should be. 

BMcD wrote:

And yet, Christ admonished the Twelve against just such a method of expansion. When you come to a place, speak the word of God. If they ask you to stop, knock the dust of that town from your sandals, and move on.

We do that as well, but it's more about building relationships... which Jesus enforced as well. e.g. love!  I'm glad you pointed out what we do when we're asked to stop.  That infoces further why those others are wrong.  Though Jesus went around and preached, the Bible shows he built a relationship with each person that followed him. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:That guy came to

BMcD wrote:

That guy came to with a new Law that changes some of the old laws?

So you're saying Jesus lied?

Testament literally means LAW.  No Jesus didn't lie. 

When an amendment to the constitution is made, it is said to be a new Law though the old law still applies.  It was just amended.  This is the same idea.  You're getting caught up on technicalities. 

In Jesus' case, the old laws still apply, but because he came and died for our sins, the penalties for the laws were amended.  The New Law or Testament states that you don't do what you used to because these laws were broken.  They are still laws and it's still wrong to break them, but the way of handling it has completely changed.  E.G.  hitting children in school becasue they broke the rules.  We don't do that anymore.  Doesn't mean those rules no longer apply, the way we handle them are different.  There is a new Law stating the discipline of children in schools has changed voiding the old Law of discipline. 

Also, I never used the words, " Jesus came to wipe away the old law"  (singluar), I said he came with 'changes' (or amendments)  to 'Some' of the laws.