Brian37 vs manofmanynames
Offline manofmanynames,
You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.
NOW, lets get on with it.
1. Define your god.
Then we will start from there.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Ok bring evidence for the historical Jesus then - you'll still have nothing.
Judging that you assume history gives proof, I seriously doubt you even know what "evidence" is.
We have data, just like Darwin had in developing the ToE, and we create the best explanation to explain the data and phenomenon we're observing. In science and in history the best we can ever get, is the best explanation.
We have the gospels, the rest of the new testament, the references to Jesus outside of them, even if they they weren't written within those three years of his ministry and death. We have a body of distinctive thought, found in the parables, the sayings, the teachings. And the question is how did they develop, what is the best explanation to explain it all?
The best explanation is they developed on the basis of an actual historical person given the name Jesus, who was a jewish teacher, who was crucified under pontias pilate, and who was believed to be the messiah by his followers.
When you feel you developed a better explanation you let me know.
Did I say they used all of Paul's work? No, they used what they liked. Much like modern Christianity.
You act as though you've never read literature - unexpected plot twists are used to get the reader's interest. Just like a hero's altruistic death.
Why perceive it as atonement? You can't sell a religion that has eternal punishment at the end without offering a way out, can you?
I'm glad your getting a laugh. I'm getting from watching you post what basically comes down to "He's real! HE'S REAL! You can't say anything to change my mind! I've got my hands over my eyes so I can't read anyone's posts so I don't accidentally think! God doesn't like it when I think!"
So you've got nothing - that's all I needed to know. It's been nice talking to you.
"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
- Login to post comments
"I am jealous" - Yahweh
Oops.
Even better:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 1 Corinthians 13:4-5
Beloved, let us LOVE one another: for love is of God; and every one who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is LOVE. 1 John 4:7-8
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:5-6
For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. Zephaniah 3:8
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I'm sorry that I can't provide any congratulations for throwing out the kernels of Trail Mix that you don't like and keeping the ones you do.
Before you go patting yourself on the back for the clever wit you delivered w/ that "pulled out of your ass" comment or the clever dodge of having to answer up for the "holy book", let's examine what we do know.
You believe in "jesus christ". One of the few revelations you've provided so far.
You, like most christians who come here cleverly avoid stating much of what you do believe in, knowing that your best shot at debate means not allowing yourself to be painted into a corner by having to answer for the many absurdities of christian ideology.
It also entails complete avoidance of having to answer for the bible and all it stands for. It's hard to win souls for jesus when you have to explain why the blessed scriptures advocate death for picking up sticks on the sabbath or the murder of dozens of children because they mocked a bald man of god or the absurdity of mythological animals or its archaelogical impossibilities or its defiance of scientific facts or its countless inconsistencies.
So instead you pick the parts of the bible that you choose to believe are literal and discount those that you know will hamper a logical debate (Sunday morning prayer meetings are far more forgiving of talking snakes and smiting the men, women and children of entire cites for god so you don't have to pretend to doubt such ridiculous logic while in that company). But here in this forum you get to laugh at the bible (which is what you're really doing w/ this Trail Mix method) when its convenient for you and still remain passionate about those passages which define your own personal ideology as well as assist you in formulating an argument. (I think we could all make a pretty good guess as to the likelihood of you mocking, or even questioning a talking snake or a few thousand yr old earth while sitting/standing on either side of a pulpit... uh yeah).
But there are a few problems with this method.
1.) It's dishonest.
2.) It's cowardly.
And that my friend is what let's me know without a doubt, that you truly are..... a follower of jesus christ.
But dodging methods are transparent and they add nothing of value to your argument.
So at least have the bare bones courage to stand up for what you believe and say so w/ a workable definition...or get off the .....pot !
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Blah, blah, blah. Standard mythicism horseshit. Tacitus, Paul, Arab copy of Josephus. Stop your nonsense
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
By the way manofmanynames, you sound a lot like John Spong. Please tell me you don't subscribe to his ridiculous historical interpretations.
Also, not that I believe in the resurrection, but I think you're metaphorical interpretation of it is not necessarily honest to the sources. Paul in Galatians seems to clearly paint the picture of a resurrected Jesus appearing to many people (Peter, James, Paul, 500, etc.) I think it's hard to metaphorically interpret the resurrection if you're a Christian. It seems clear to me that Paul actually believed that a real resurrection took place.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
I know where the "track" is and it leads to claims of a being with no body magically making the universe. I didn't miss a thing. I am simply not side tracked.
No. But it is a typical tactic of the theist to try to make the atheist out as having psychological problem to avoid providing evidence for the god they claim.
So once again, instead of providing evidence for the god you claim, you use "Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain" tactic.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So your best response is placing your hands over your ears and screaming "He's not a myth! He's not! He's not! HE'S NOT!"
You and MoMN hae similar argument styles.
"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
The poster asked me define my God, and I gave him an answer: Jesus Christ. Rather than questioning the answer, he ignored it and continued asking the same question over again, as if it were not a acceptable response.
I'm a theist, a Christian, who believes in the Christian God, the God who revealed himself in a "reviled and murdered political criminal". And as an Orthodox theist, this is not a claim that God revealed himself partially in Jesus Christ, but fully. If you asking for proof or evidence outside of Jesus Christ, you're asking for evidence that God revealed himself some other way, like God revealed himself in Jesus Christ and a petri dish, but that's not what I believe.
What makes Jesus God? an encounter with him, personal experience, to perceive him as the guiding light of ones life, as the Way the Truth, and the Life, as the Christ, as total sovereign, as the image of what true love is, whose meaning is the source of one's hope, and is the source of one's conviction. If he approached me like Peter, two thousand years ago, and asked me who do you say I am? I would say truly, you are the Son of God.
If this is not a satisfactory answer, I don't know what to tell you. You're just pursuing a God that's not my own.
You may say you need more than that to believe, but that's not my problem right.
The Pharisees sure wanted more as well, and Jesus sure didn't give it.
Ah, so this is a bit novel to me. So let's get this straight, Paul conceived of a crucified messiah first, and this is entirely Paul's idea. And the Gospel writers had a charismatic rabbi who they tacked on the death, and the belief he was the messiah to because of Paul? Is this belief based solely on that Paul's text was written first, before the Gospels?
I'm guessing you don't believe this rabbi was crucified? If not than what happened to him? I mean he said some pretty profound stuff that most religious tradition would love to own up to, I mean Dawkins even wrote an article titled Atheist for Jesus, trying to claim Jesus as atheist. So why was he separated from Judaism? If he was simply your every rabbi that said some pretty profound stuff, all within the context of Judaism why was he "exiled" from Judaism?
This means faith.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
So finding Jesus to be the light of one's life (meaning one's sort of inspiration) is faith?
I should say that all that I afford Jesus, and a belief in God don't equal two. It's not to believe that and than jump to a sort of another belief, but rather to believe is just to believe that.
No, not entirely Paul's idea. Not Paul's original idea at all.
Messiah existed before Paul. Crucifixions existed before Paul. Stories of the Gods dying and resurrecting were around before Paul was a gleam in his dad's eye.
Paul wrote a story that combined the messiah stories with his Gnosticism and created a character called the "anointed Deliverer" (Jesus Christ).
Paul wanted to make a religion around this character. Twenty years later, the gospel writers read Paul's stuff and made a backstory making the "anointed deliverer" a more human character. They probably used a rabbi they liked who may or may not have been crucified to build the character around. They made sure that this chracter fit Messianic prohpecies because they went through the OT looking fotr them and attributing those qualities to their character. They gave him Paul's title of his concept as his name.
What happened to the rabbi? He lived. He died. Perhaps peacefully, maybe not. Chances are he didn't say anything that the Gospel writers gave the Jesus character. They may have liked his look or how he lived.
I freely admit all of the above statements are conjecture. The conjecture is still far more plausible than what you claim as reality.
"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
Well, contrary to what you would like to believe there's a whole web of thought, that you need a better job at explaining away. Like who did the humorous and profound teachings of go the other mile, in reference to the Roman Angaria law; when sewed give your cloak also therefore reducing one's poor self to nakedness; turning the other cheek, requiring those who beat their inferiors to hit them with an open palm, as they would an equal, and such saying and parable that reveal the same unique blend of though belong to? There is in fact a distinctive "rabbi" or "character here, woven through out the various gospels. What happened to him? It's apparent that he must have said something blasphemous for Judaism to cut the cords, and something politically offense if he were to be crucified?
So tell me, why your explanation of the facts, are the best one rather than what I and the consensus would say is the most probable, that "Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist. Was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate and was sentenced to death by crucifixion." And this is the historical figure that gospels based their narratives around.
All the evidence points to the fact that this Rabbi Jesus was always perceived as the messiah, there is not a single tradition that treated him otherwise, gnostic or not, not a shroud of evidence for single sect or group, or following who believed in this Jewish rabbi minus a belief that he was also the messiah or at least claimed to be.
You want us to believe that the Messiah title to this rabbi was Paul's invention, when all the evidence point to the fact that this rabbi was always perceived as the messiah.
And rather than stating what should be the most obvious, that Paul devotes most of his letters to explaining the messiahship of this historal figure, the relationship of his Messiahship to God, and to humanity, you desire for us to take your position which based merely on a poor argument from silence, and the fact that the epistles were written before the Gospels?
Someday I hope you'll get around to what I wrote instead of what you believe I wrote.
I never said that Paul gave Jesus the title of Messiah. What I have said is that the Gospel writers created a character that they made sure fit the messianic prophecies based at least in part on Paul's teachings. That he was made to fit other documents that the writers knew about is hardly surprising. They didn't need an actual rabbi to say the words - they put their words into the character's mouth. Writers do this all the time.
I would love to see the names of this consensus you speak of - I enjoy playing "count the apologists".
I also wish you'd offer proof of Jesus' historicity - right now your conjecture is as good as mine.
"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
Oh jacgadfly, there is proof of Jesus' historicity. If you want non-Christian sources, you have Tacitus and the Arab copy of Josephus. I stated this in my last post, but you ignored it. I'm not saying that everything attributed to Jesus in the gospels is true, but the man certainly existed in some capacity.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
If only the Tacitus and Josephus quotes you cite weren't manipulations or forgeries...
"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
Nice speculation without evidence there JC. Both men were Roman historians (yes I know Josephus was a Jew, but after the Jewish Revolt he went to Rome with Vespasian and wrote his works as a Roman Citizen). All you have to do is read their accounts of Jesus. Especially Tacitus. Does that sound like a forgery to you? Now go.....search for the Arab Josephus account and Tacitus on wikipedia and come back with a poorly researched response.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Well, judging that your ideas or so scant, you can't blame me much for having to read into them, and make assumptions about what you're implying. But sure, I'll occasionally make erroneous ones, and you can correct me of them.
Or they desired to fit a messiah claimant, or the rabbi they thought was the messiah who met his unexpected death on the cross, to fit into the messianic prophecies. Their devotion to him in life led them to be devoted to him as messiah even in his crucifixion. They then went ahead and looked through the Old Testament looking for whatever verses and scriptures they could find, that they could support their beliefs.
It's sort of like how creationist after the fact, read back into the bible looking for verses to support the latest scientific finding, like a day is no longer a day. The Gospel writers were far more creative in their endeavor, but the dependency on Paul to make this happen is quite unnecessary and unlikely, when the OT scripture, Isaiah, the Psalms, and etc... provided more than enough material to read back to their hearts content.
If Paul's idea were used by the Gospel writers, than where's the role of Adam in any of the text? Where's the drawing from the Garden of Eden narrative?
The only real similarity we find in the Epistles and the Gospels, is Jesus is the messiah (a claim you said they didn't need Paul for) and the Crucifixion as a means of atonement. I'm guessing what you're trying to draw from is the idea of "atonement". But what you seem to miss is the elephant in the room. What other way in the tradition of Judaism could you interpret the unexpected crucifixion of someone believed to be the messiah? If you're not conceding failure, in what possible way could you project the crucifixion as not the end of his Messianic ambition? There's really only one possible way, or at least one so obvious, and that is to interpret is as a sacrifice. And the purpose of sacrifices in the Jewish tradition, is for atonement.
Why did they perceive the messiahs role as one of atonement? Because he was crucified.
If you desire to continue believing your barely thought out conclusion, you go on right ahead. If you still feel that you hold a better interpretation, a "more likely" explanation by all means, go ahead and present it. We could sure use the laugh.
Well, judging that history, nor science deals with "proofs", you might as well just ask mathematics for a banana.
You have presented faith as an explanation. The amount you afford it matters little in the explanation of it's origin. If you assume there is something beyond faith at work, so be it, but you have yet to explain that. Not that you are obligated too, I am simply pointing that out. Using vague terminolgy and concepts like 'True Love' does nothing to lend credit beyond anything but an explanation of faith. And in all honesty I'm not sure why the explanation of faith would be bad for a thiest. Care to elaborate?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
I love it when Atheists decide to define what a Christian has to believe....
AmericanIdle, for you to be a true Atheist: you have to be certain that God doesn't exist, you have to be convinced without a doubt that Jesus never existed, you have to think agnosticism is irrational, and you have to believe firmly that all theists and deists suffer from a mind-disorder. You also have to think that curing theism is the most altruistic action a human being can make (Sapient actually told me that once.....honest to God). If you don't do all those things then you're dishonest and you should be shunned as an unbeliever of Atheism.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
I'm not offended by it at all. In fact I agree that my belief in Jesus is based on "faith", if by faith you mean a sense of obedience, loyalty, and trust, but I had a feeling that's not what you meant by it, so i asked so that you could elaborate.
Well, I don't find claiming Jesus as the exemplar of love to be vague, I mean you could have asked me to elaborate on what makes me confer such a title to him.
In fact we use some such references to love all the time, like the mother truly loved her kids, or you're abusive husband didn't love you. There may not be an objective empirical standard in which we can judge what love is in this sense, but their sure is a subjective standard that we all apply to love. In every day speech we ask questions like do you love your girl friend, do you feel your friends love you, beyond just merely liking you.
And if your dewey eyed 14 year old daughter says she loves a guy she's been dating for two weeks, you'd say, "you don't really love him, but that you just are carried away with your emotions even", though at a biological level the feeling of love would be fairly indistinguishable, from someone who we believe really does love her boyfriend.
If I say my mother loves me, is that a vague belief of mine? When i say she loves me, it implies that i have standard in which I judge love to be, of what her character her treatment towards me should be like. Jesus defines the greatest form of love to be sacrificial love, and I agree, and my mothers love for me is surely sacrificial love for me, that if she had to lay her life on the line to save her son, she would, without even thinking about it.
Why I say Jesus is the exemplar of perfect love, is that he lived a life of sacrificial love, to the greatest extent that I could ever conceive of it to be. He loved not only his close ones, but even those far from him, those that despised and hated him, and he loved them to the extent that he would die for them, all the same. And I know of no one, that I desire to love like, more than him.
Perfect love is not vague, when i can coherently express what it that justifies this for me.
No, Tacistus wrote about the Chrestoi "the good ones" - someone came by later and changed it to Christoi.
Lots of good stuff in here re: Tacitus and Josephus.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus
"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
Am I on solid ground if I state all Christians have to believe in Jesus Christ?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
That's Rook's speculation without support. The tacitus account talks about a movement started by a man who was crucified in Judea by Pontius Pilate. What other movement was started by someone named Christ, a crucified Jew in Judea by Pontius Pilate. If you can find one, then I'll be impressed.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Ok bring evidence for the historical Jesus then - you'll still have nothing.
Did I say they used all of Paul's work? No, they used what they liked. Much like modern Christianity.
You act as though you've never read literature - unexpected plot twists are used to get the reader's interest. Just like a hero's altruistic death.
Why percieve it as atonement? You can't sell a religion that has eternal punishment at the end without offering a way out, can you?
I'm glad your getting a laugh. I'm getting from watching you post what bsically comes down to "He's real! HE'S REAL! You can't say anything to change my mind! I've got my hands over my eyes so I can't read anyone's posts so I don't accidentally think! God doesn't like it when I think!"
"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
This should probably win an award for post with the least amount of thought.
1.) Just because you get that rush of emotion that accompanies most any supernatural belief, it really doesn't qualify you for any more particular insight into an ideology than someone who lacks the belief. The doubter has access to the same reading/preaching material as you do. The certainty that you somehow have a superior insight is something we call giving in to the ego.
2.) We haven't established any titles yet, so allow me... I am an Agnostic Atheist. I am not certain that any god can be disproved, but neither do I think there is any necessity to do so. What I do know is that all current theistic beliefs seem to be bullshit whose origins were likely stolen from prior civilizations and re-packaged for contemporary consumption.
3.) I don't have to question the rationale of agnosticism (what are you smoking?) and I don't have to doubt the existence of jesus christ. For the record, I do in fact doubt he ever existed. Attributing godlike characteristics to humans living and applying deity sperm to a human female was as common then as an Evangelist screwing members of his flock or priests buggering children are now.
Whether someone named "Jesus" (Or "Joshua", a name common as John at that time) existed is irrelevant. The bible, which provides what meager evidence there is for his existence is full of all manner of hate, absurdity and contradiction and I could never allow myself to succumb to such ignorance.
While it should be evident that the jesus character is so clearly ripped off from prior godlike characters from civilizations that preceded it, it is amazing to me that humans surrender their allegiance to supernatural bunk in the modern era. If he existed, it's ludicrous to make him a god, or use the bible as evidence.
4.) For the kajillionth time. Atheism is NOT a belief system, nor is Agnosticism. Nor does the doubt of such belief systems require something from the supernatural realm.
YOU believe in something supernatural. YOU should be required to produce whatever credible evidence you might have for such existence. Frustration at not being able to provide such evidence doesn't allow you to turn the tables and try to re-assign the burden of proof no matter how much you might like to.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Well, this is just a naive assumption on your part. Are even fundamentalist who don't believe Jesus is a literal lamb that goes baaa, or comes back with a literal metallic sword protruding out of his mouth, throwing out kernels of trail mix they don't like?
Even they have a standard in which they judge whats literal and what's not literal in the bible. It may not be the most intelligent one, but that's beside the point. Even as child when i heard the story of the tortoise and the hare, i knew that turtles didn't talk. You seem to shun me for the ability to tell the difference between narratives that attempt to teach a moral or philosophical truth, from accounts that attempt to convey something literal facts about the natural world.
Sorry if I'm not as dumb as the village atheist, and can tell the difference.
First off, I'm not here trying to win your soul, so i have no desire to sugar coat anything for you because of this. And I have no problem explaining why certain scriptures advocated death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, or the slaying of countless people, woman and children. And you won't find me sugar coating it one bit. But rather than making a total clown of yourself, presenting this caricature of what you assume would be my answers to such question, perhaps you should actually trying asking those question to me, to see what i really have to say.
Secondly, I would like to say that the bible does not make scientific facts, contrary to what the village atheist, and his buddy over their the fundamentalist believe, such a view is anachronistic, and totally bogus, that even modern anthropology rejects it. And its not that hard to understand why. Nobody gave a shit about the mechanics, about the hows of life, back then. No matter how much your faithful would like to believe, scientific curiosity is not an inherent biological quality, it developed with the rise of the scientific age, when we developed tools to actually explore such question. Even today such pondering, is reserved for people with a sense of privilege. If you travel to some poor village, with the uncertainties of war and famine, you're not going to find people musing about the composition of the stars. If I tried to teach my mother about how the rain is formed, she'd be like, "who gives a shit, just give me my damn umbrella.".
The question for the those living in times of the uncertainty of miseries, of wars, famines, natural disasters, plagues, is not how, but why. What's the meaning of all of this, is there hope?
Oh please, when you find some sort of substance to make such claims let me know. I attend evangelical, fundamentalist services all the time, a great many of my friends belong to this branch of Christianity, so does my mother, and the rest of my family. And they all know where I stand.
i don't laugh at the bible. I take the Bible quite seriously, not just part of it, but all of it. I spend a great deal of time to learn the history, and the formulation of the thoughts that composed them, to understand what's going on within and outside the pages. Far more than you, Dawkins, and your average fundamentalist that's for sure. I laughed at the idiotic assumptions, that wouldn't be made if people weren't so deluded by their anti-theistic passions, not the bible, you idiot.
Sure you can take a guess, and i'm sure you'd look a fool for doing it.
Just quit while you're a head. You devoted a whole page to totally bogus and baseless assumptions about me. And then formulated this imagery conclusion, that I'm dishonest and cowardly. If anyone is a coward, and dishonest it's you. You want to take your gripes about being hurt when you were a small little theist out on anyone and anything that claims to be a theist, even if you have to imagine offenses.
Do you really want more of this tongue lashing and shit? or do actually have something of substance to bring to the table.
Judging that you assume history gives proof, I seriously doubt you even know what "evidence" is.
We have data, just like Darwin had in developing the ToE, and we create the best explanation to explain the data and phenomenon we're observing. In science and in history the best we can ever get, is the best explanation.
We have the gospels, the rest of the new testament, the references to Jesus outside of them, even if they they weren't written within those three years of his ministry and death. We have a body of distinctive thought, found in the parables, the sayings, the teachings. And the question is how did they develop, what is the best explanation to explain it all?
The best explanation is they developed on the basis of an actual historical person given the name Jesus, who was a jewish teacher, who was crucified under pontias pilate, and who was believed to be the messiah by his followers.
When you feel you developed a better explanation you let me know.
Did I say they used all of Paul's work? No, they used what they liked. Much like modern Christianity.
You act as though you've never read literature - unexpected plot twists are used to get the reader's interest. Just like a hero's altruistic death.
Why perceive it as atonement? You can't sell a religion that has eternal punishment at the end without offering a way out, can you?
I'm glad your getting a laugh. I'm getting from watching you post what basically comes down to "He's real! HE'S REAL! You can't say anything to change my mind! I've got my hands over my eyes so I can't read anyone's posts so I don't accidentally think! God doesn't like it when I think!"