God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Immoral and then someOthe

Ezekiel contradicts God's other Word Exodus 20:4-6 - the third commandment of the 10 commandments “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am God, fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Ezekiel is one wacky book and I put it near the top of Bible books that will turn you into an atheist.

The whole thing of jesus being the sacrifical lamb is immoral and not logical. Spilling innocent blood so an evil man can live is plain dumb. It comes from primitive, superstitious pagan religions who didn't understand the causes of disease or natural disasters. In this way christianity is just another pagan religion. Even when I was a christian I was uneasy with this concept. It is just a way to make you feel bad about yourself. I have witnessed people crying because poor jesus had a bad weekend for them. I have heard analogies of this supposed sacrifice but they always seemed weak to me.
Now for those trinitarians out there it is even worse. If you want something done right you got to do it yourself. IOW humans to god are less than useless. He creates us defective so that we will fail him. And when we do he is super pissed at us throwing out more rules we cannot keep, meanwhile commanding our death with lots of prolonged pain and suffering. But instead of being a man about it and forgives us and gentlely help his fragile creation, he decides he must commit suicide because we are just that useless.

Immoral, illogical, demeaning, pointless. We really weren't necessary at all for his masterbatory plan of salvation, just pawns in his game.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ex-minister wrote:
... Even when I was a christian I was uneasy with this concept. It is just a way to make you feel bad about yourself. I have witnessed people crying because poor jesus had a bad weekend for them. I have heard analogies of this supposed sacrifice but they always seemed weak to me.
 

The theology requires only that Jesus be born and die. Old age in bed satisfies the theology.

The entire messy death with crucifixion and all is just production values. If William Wallace has just tripped in the shower and fractured his skull there would have not been an decent ending for Braveheart. Same thing for the Jesus story.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
... Even when I was a christian I was uneasy with this concept. It is just a way to make you feel bad about yourself. I have witnessed people crying because poor jesus had a bad weekend for them. I have heard analogies of this supposed sacrifice but they always seemed weak to me.
 

The theology requires only that Jesus be born and die. Old age in bed satisfies the theology.

The entire messy death with crucifixion and all is just production values. If William Wallace has just tripped in the shower and fractured his skull there would have not been an decent ending for Braveheart. Same thing for the Jesus story.

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jeffreyalex wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
... Even when I was a christian I was uneasy with this concept. It is just a way to make you feel bad about yourself. I have witnessed people crying because poor jesus had a bad weekend for them. I have heard analogies of this supposed sacrifice but they always seemed weak to me.
 

The theology requires only that Jesus be born and die. Old age in bed satisfies the theology.

The entire messy death with crucifixion and all is just production values. If William Wallace has just tripped in the shower and fractured his skull there would have not been an decent ending for Braveheart. Same thing for the Jesus story.

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

Either you are ignorant of what historians mean by a fact or you are lying. However you always have the ability to show which it is by presenting the evidence which demonstrates it really happened.

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:Besides

jeffreyalex wrote:

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

I am going to have to agree with Anony. I don't  see it is an historical fact. The only "legit" documents are in the new testament and they were clearly written decades after the fact. That would not really hold up well in a court of law. It was oral tradition built up over years. If you do have anything contrary to this please present.

 

I am working through an interesting video now by TruthSurge. He studies "Did the resurrection happen"? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmeDfsv4j8

 

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Mark borrowed from Homer

 The video I mentioned above by TruthSurge is very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmeDfsv4j8

 

He presents the theory that the author of Mark was very familiar with the story of Odyssey by Homer and borrowed from it. Seems quite convincing. The gospels are works of fiction. Lots of excellent points to support that. 

Anyone think he doesn't make a good case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote: Do you

Greatest I am wrote:
Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son? Regards DL
 

Yes.

But I do also know that the way people talk about God reminds me of those cartoons for 3 year old children. Extremely naive.

The Bible is this kind of fairy tale.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It only

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

 

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

 

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:   

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

 

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

LOL. The old bait and switch trick. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: Besides

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

 

Good production ?  Exactly what is that supposed to mean ?

The debate on the existence of an actual Jesus and not just an amalgamation of  what the gospel writers wished is not a resolved issue. Yet, you make the assertion that it is a historical fact. From where  do you glean that information ? For if it were proven, the debate would not exist. 

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

 

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

 

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

 

Yeah, Mouse pretty well beat the hell out of him in those other two 'Atheist belief' threads.  He also pointed out that he was most likely two different guys-as one seemed to not be able to figure out the quote function???

I'm usually on the lookout for such vermin, but he slid one past me. I don't even think Extreme caught it after a lengthy debate.  Way to go Mouse!

 

 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote: I think

Greatest I am wrote:
I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim. I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice. I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.
It's a Jewish provinciality that made God do that. Jews traditionally used animal sacrifices to appease God. They tied down their own people and made them bear sins of the city and eat food cooked on a fire of burning shit. They took two goats, killed and burned one, chased the other away from camp to die in wilderness.

And specially, they have a tradition of transferring sins on a sacrifice chicken. They take a chicken and circle it around a person's head, reciting Biblical verses. Then the sinful chicken is killed and given to the poor to eat. And then I suppose the poor people realize they just got tainted by eating a cursed chicken. So they get a new chicken and circle it around their head, reciting Biblical verses... 

Anyway, the idea of sacrificing a son of God for our sins is the ultimate solution to the problem of sinful chicken infinite regression. It makes no goddamn sense at all, unless you realize Jews always searched for someone unfortunate to dump their sins on. Someone who won't die so easily or will hold as a container of sins. Reminds me a lot of today's radioactive waste storage policy. 

Just sayin' so you know next time you'll see someone wearing a small silver chicken foot on their neck.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
ExWell put. RegardsDL

Ex

Well put.

 

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
TeralekYes. The ancients

Teralek

Yes. The ancients knew them as fiction.

Literalism and fundamentalism came about after the protestant movent took hold from what I can see.

Strange that Christians seemed to get dumber over time instead of smarter.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:[Besides

jeffreyalex wrote:

[

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

 

 

Only if you believe in the resurrection. Miracles IOW.

If it did happen, one wonders why none of the 4 main gospels speak of such a fantastic occurrence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Luminon Thanks for

Luminon

 

Thanks for this.

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: The

ex-minister wrote:

 The video I mentioned above by TruthSurge is very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmeDfsv4j8

 

He presents the theory that the author of Mark was very familiar with the story of Odyssey by Homer and borrowed from it. Seems quite convincing. The gospels are works of fiction. Lots of excellent points to support that. 

Anyone think he doesn't make a good case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

Regards
DL


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am

Greatest I am wrote:

Teralek

Yes. The ancients knew them as fiction.

Literalism and fundamentalism came about after the protestant movent took hold from what I can see.

Strange that Christians seemed to get dumber over time instead of smarter.

 

Regards

DL
 

I don't know... they seemed to get smarter in Renaissance... This recent fundamentalism in Islam and in some focal points in the western world is quite recent, and I think it reflects a deeper and rotten problem in society that goes well beyond religion...

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: The

ex-minister wrote:

 The video I mentioned above by TruthSurge is very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmeDfsv4j8

 

He presents the theory that the author of Mark was very familiar with the story of Odyssey by Homer and borrowed from it. Seems quite convincing. The gospels are works of fiction. Lots of excellent points to support that. 

Anyone think he doesn't make a good case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                  Thank you ex-minister for the great link.  I just spent the whole day watching the videos and cross referencing the info with other sources. The information is highly accurate and very informative ;  I recomend it to everyone ,  theist and atheists alike..  

 

 

                       Thanks again ex-minister.

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Greatest I am

Teralek wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Teralek

Yes. The ancients knew them as fiction.

Literalism and fundamentalism came about after the protestant movent took hold from what I can see.

Strange that Christians seemed to get dumber over time instead of smarter.

 

Regards

DL
 

I don't know... they seemed to get smarter in Renaissance... This recent fundamentalism in Islam and in some focal points in the western world is quite recent, and I think it reflects a deeper and rotten problem in society that goes well beyond religion...

It may be that Christians fear the predicted Muslim demographics that will overtake E U countries in 2040 or so.

As well as increases in their numbers in the U S.

 

Regards

DL


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

 

Good production ?  Exactly what is that supposed to mean ?

The debate on the existence of an actual Jesus and not just an amalgamation of  what the gospel writers wished is not a resolved issue. Yet, you make the assertion that it is a historical fact. From where  do you glean that information ? For if it were proven, the debate would not exist. 

 

 

 

"Good production" was a quote from another post above mine. I believe that post meant to suggest that Jesus' death was a good story used for dramatic effect. 

Regarding the "actual Jesus": I'm taking that to mean the historical person of Jesus, apart from claims about his divinity. The existence of the person of Jesus is one of the best attested facts in history, and is held by virtually all historians and scholars of that period. As an example of two such authorities, take Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman—neither of whom are religious, let alone Christian.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Jeffreyalex, Erhart was a

Jeffreyalex, Erhman was a fundamentalist who got educated. I have read a couple of his books and they do more to tear down the history of jesus than cement it. I have also watched him in a debate or two. He knows he can keep a wider audience by saying jesus existed. But even he says that it was a common name and there were many messiahs during Roman rule. He would be comfortable saying Jesus was a composite figure and an highly embellished story. Nearly everything written about jesus is in the NT and for the miniscule others references add nothing. The NT books were written decades after his death and next to zero eye witnesses. So if it the best attested person in history we don't know much. Rulers of Egypt, Greece and Rome had historians write about them while living. They are far better documented.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex.

                  Sorry to inform you that Jesus was a fictional charactor, the name itself is  not even a name, it is a title "God's savior annointed" . There were meny 'mystical cults' around the middle east at the time;  David FitzGerald haas done a fine book on the subject.  Because they were 'Mystical' there was no real name for the mystical messiah. Messiah Yuoshua in Hebrew, Eyushia Messiah in Aramaic, Jesu Cristos in Greek or Jesus Christ in Latin.                   Evidence for this is in the bible. Try Matt. 5:1-5  versus Matt. 10:34-39.  In Matt.5 the Jesus chractor sounds like Mr.Rogers the childrens show host in Matt. 10 the charactor sounds like Mr.T. In parts of the bible he is a wine drinker, in other parts he is a Nazarene [a non-drinking sect of Judaism]. btw when J.C. turns water into wine that is a direct steal from the gods Baccus and Dyonisis. The gospell writers were borrowing from several sources including Homer and each other.                  In short there is no real person Jesus christ, the charactor is a mish-mash  composit from several sources,  some of the sources may have been real itinerent preachers but none of them would have been a REAL Jesus.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

       In parts of the bible he is a wine drinker, in other parts he is a Nazarene [a non-drinking sect of Judaism]     

 

    The correct name of this particular sect were Nazarites.  The character Samson was allegedly from this sect.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, this forum. I

 Wow, this forum. I initially looked forward to some legitimate clear debate. However, I'm now convinced this forum does any atheist cause more harm than good. 

David Fitzgerald? Are you kidding me? Regardless of what the utterly unqualified David Fitzgerald says, and while the Gospels may well be tampered with political documents, the evidence of the historical person of Jesus is overwhelmingly accepted by historians and scholars.

Apart from Christian sources, there are Greco-Roman Pagan and Jewish sources. Even as far as Christian sources go, by any proper non-conspiracist standard for writing history, they seem to indicate Jesus did, in fact, live. For example, take Paul's acknowledgment that preaching the cross is foolishness. The early Christians had nothing to gain by preaching that Christ was crucified. Crucifixion was a most shameful death, and they were mocked for proclaiming that a crucified man was the Messiah, as they had to have known they would be. 

Jeffrick, you clearly have not read any of Ehrman's books, because in his books he makes many points like the above, that they would have been fools to invent a crucified messiah. Another such example from Ehrman is that the early Christians would have been fools to rely on a woman/women's testimony. If they were making it up, Ehrman points out, that was really not the way to go if they hoped to convince. 

Anyway, carry on with this circle jerk, but don't delude yourself into believing that you are doing any serious inquiry. You're as confused as any theist I've ever met, that's for sure. Peaceeeee out.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
         See you

 

        See you fake-deist ( and partner ). 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

        See you fake-deist ( and partner ). 

LOL

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

       In parts of the bible he is a wine drinker, in other parts he is a Nazarene [a non-drinking sect of Judaism]    

 

    The correct name of this particular sect were Nazarites.  The character Samson was allegedly from this sect.

 

 

                 Yeah I know and I have been corrected before. But Nazarite does not appear in the bible whereas Jesus the Nazarene does. The gospell writers where aware of the town of Nazareth without being aware that the town didn't exist in the time of the Jesus charactor.  They confused the sect reference with the town and I think the proper name should be more like "The Nazarite oath/vow". Funny thing about them, they could drink alcohol but NOT wine and they coud have nothing to do with grapes, go figure.

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Jeffreyalex, If jesus had

Jeffreyalex,
If jesus had only died it would be foolish, but he rose from the dead and was god, all-powerful and at the right hand of god. Ask anything in his name and you will receive it. Also the non-jewish world already believed in gods dying and being resurrected (horus, orisis and others).
So this argument that even Erhman makes is weak. This argument works only for believers.
The jewish historian you speak of was josephus who was born 4 years after jesus death and again didn't write til decades later. He was only repeating the story. His famous quote is that of a believer and even Erhman suspects it was added later. As far as the pagan authors they were not eye witnesses and write minor asides about christians who followed someone called christ. If you want to persue this more we can take historian by historian and make their best case. My investigation in the past has left me with jesus could have been an itinerate preacher but he could also have been a composite picture of the many messiahs during roman rule.
Just because people believe something and are willing to die for it doesnt make it true, e.g. 9/11. There are too many religious fables that believers have given their lives for for all religions to be true.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:However, I'm now

Quote:
However, I'm now convinced this forum does any atheist cause more harm than good.

Translation, "Atheists are the bad guy because I cant make any valid argument for the god I claim is real".

Exactly how are we harming ourselves?

The bottom line is that people who claim invisible friends(by any name) have nothing but a claim. When we call the believer out on that, they falsely claim that we are mean or the bad guy merely for being blunt.

This is not about you, this is strictly about the claims you make. If you cannot stand the heat, no one is forcing you to post here or read or posts. But if you are going to take this personally, you are only going to cause yourself pain and waste your time and ours.

We wont barbecue your kittens or rape your women. All of us here have family members, co-workers and friends that believe. If you are going to have a glass jaw about this website, then this may not be the place for you.

 

 

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:However,

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
However, I'm now convinced this forum does any atheist cause more harm than good.

Translation, "Atheists are the bad guy because I cant make any valid argument for the god I claim is real".

Exactly how are we harming ourselves?

The bottom line is that people who claim invisible friends(by any name) have nothing but a claim. When we call the believer out on that, they falsely claim that we are mean or the bad guy merely for being blunt.

This is not about you, this is strictly about the claims you make. If you cannot stand the heat, no one is forcing you to post here or read or posts. But if you are going to take this personally, you are only going to cause yourself pain and waste your time and ours.

We wont barbecue your kittens or rape your women. All of us here have family members, co-workers and friends that believe. If you are going to have a glass jaw about this website, then this may not be the place for you.

 

 

 

Well put Brian. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
As Bill Maher said it

God sent his son to earth on a suicide mission.

 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:However,

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
However, I'm now convinced this forum does any atheist cause more harm than good.

Translation, "Atheists are the bad guy because I cant make any valid argument for the god I claim is real".

Exactly how are we harming ourselves?

The bottom line is that people who claim invisible friends(by any name) have nothing but a claim. When we call the believer out on that, they falsely claim that we are mean or the bad guy merely for being blunt.

This is not about you, this is strictly about the claims you make. If you cannot stand the heat, no one is forcing you to post here or read or posts. But if you are going to take this personally, you are only going to cause yourself pain and waste your time and ours.

We wont barbecue your kittens or rape your women. All of us here have family members, co-workers and friends that believe. If you are going to have a glass jaw about this website, then this may not be the place for you.

 

 

What I meant in saying that it does more harm than good is that people, should they stumble on this forum, and browse through it, will find exactly the same zealotry that would be expected of a fundie nutbag. They will find amateur historians, and folks who think they know some science. They will not find sophisticated dialogue or debate. They will find foot-stomping and sophistry.

I will briefly mention two examples. One, the claim that there is poor evidence for the historical person Jesus. That's true, IF you're applying the same standard of evidence as you would apply to someone who existed 10 years ago. To say not simply that "maybe he didn't exist", but that he certainly did not exist or more than likely did not exist is to perpetrate a fraud and disregard the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of history, held on the basis of evidence they are most qualified to weigh. 

Two, I suggested that the new atheism is irrational by the criteria it, itself, sets for rationality—namely, evidence. 

1) It is irrational to believe a proposition P without evidence.

2) There is no evidence for the proposition "There is no God".

3) Therefore, it is irrational to hold the belief "There is no God".

That is a deductively valid argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. But holy mackerel, the responses. 

 

Actually let me mention, three: I brought up the teleological argument, to receive a response that told me how I would need to do the math if I really wanted to use it. That person had no trouble sounding smart, but if he had known the math he would not have made the response he made. If he had done more reading than simply what it took to satisfy himself that he could get in a fight with a theist, confuse the theist (who is most likely either an idiot, or simply not a mathematician or physicist), and then claim victory, he would have know that he was raising a ridiculous point. "Vary the parameters simultaneously". For Christ's sake.

 

So, I agree with you. I'm an idiot to get worked up about it. That's the long and short of it. I'm just disappointed that the debate between atheists and theists has become the joke that it is today. I'm especially disappointed in the atheist side, because honestly, it's the side with the smarter folks on it, in general. It's wrong that we're building straw men and attacking them, and it's wrong that so many people on the atheist side are obfuscating and confusing people with the three or four amateur arguments they learned from Richard Dawkins. 

Anyway, you're right. This may not be the place for me. But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. Debate with theists who have an IQ higher than their age. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: But just,

jeffreyalex wrote:
But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. 

 

   Read arguments from both sides ?  Many atheists on this forum ( myself included ) not only read arguments from theists, we were at one point in time the actual theists who were making those very arguments.  

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:I will

jeffreyalex wrote:

I will briefly mention two examples. One, the claim that there is poor evidence for the historical person Jesus. That's true, IF you're applying the same standard of evidence as you would apply to someone who existed 10 years ago. To say not simply that "maybe he didn't exist", but that he certainly did not exist or more than likely did not exist is to perpetrate a fraud and disregard the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of history, held on the basis of evidence they are most qualified to weigh. 

 

10 years ago? I was alive then I could confirm. There is far more evidence today so I think you couldn't have meant that.

I do you even one better.

I think there is plenty of solid evidence for George Washington. We can even go to his gravesite.  But you know the big difference between George and Jesus. One they made extraordinary claims about, so it requires extraordinary evidence. Even that aside here I will measure the amount of evidence for George and Jesus on equal footing. 

*** Jesus ****

Here is a list of historians that wrote about Jesus or about the existence of Christians. Again minor references. I encourage you to review them if you haven't already.

 

  Pliny the Younger 61ad - 112 ad

  Tacitus - 56ad - 117ad

  Suetonius - 69ad-140ad

  Josephus - 37a - 100ad

  Mara bar Sarapion -wrote around 73ad

  The Talmud starting at 70ad

Notice the pattern. All were born after Jesus death.

Artifacts: None in existence.

 

 **** George *****

There are many details about his family including Henry VIII gave his ancestors land in the Americas. And we know his father and mother and when they were born and that they lived in Westmoreland County, VA. They moved around a bit and George spent most of his youth in Fredericksburg, VA. George's father died when he was 11. We have his military record and we have his actual writings from 1745-1799. Check them out here

http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/

 

Birth date: Feb 22, 1732 - born Westmoreland County, VA

Death date: Dec 14, 1799 - Mt Vernon, VA

We have paintings of George Washington, painted during his lifetime. Gilbert Stuart. (there were artist when jesus was alive)

Washington Irving met George Washington and subsequently wrote a biography on him in 5 volumes.

There are close to 3000 biographies on George Washington that you can purchase today from Amazon.

 

Artifacts: Go to Mt Vernon, Virginia (his home) and also the Masonic Temple in Alexandria to see dozens of objects related to Washington. 

 

 **** ???? ****

Do you still say you don't see any difference in the comparison?  

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:God sent

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

God sent his son to earth on a suicide mission.

 

If the danger would have been from some other source other than God himself , that would make sense.

Fact is that God created the crisis in the first place.

That means he would have to be insane or wanted to be punished for his own stupidity.

 

Regards

DL

 

 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:
But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. 

 

   Read arguments from both sides ?  Many atheists on this forum ( myself included ) not only read arguments from theists, we were at one point in time the actual theists who were making those very arguments.  

 

 

Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
 Those are separated by

 Those are separated by more than 1700 hundred years. Get the Oxford Very Short Introduction to History if you're unaware that the entire practice of history changed incalculably during that time. Not to mention, that Washington was a prominent figure during his life, and great effort was already being made to keep records at the time, and since. The case was different in the ancient world, and of course, do I need to point out that Jesus was a lowly preacher in a desert, not the leader or founder of a modern nation. 

I can agree with you that the claims that Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, returned to life, etc. are almost definitely fictions. But to suggest that he did not exist is to dismiss evidence without warrant.

I don't know what else to say. Harvard is missing out on a real scholar.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
 Frankly, that you would

 Frankly, that you would even make such an absurd comparison illustrates your impeccable grasp of historical method and good sense. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Come on. Who are you

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 

   Are you insinuating that simply by reading the authors that you suggest that I'm going to change my mind about leaving an obscene religion that advocates slavery and genocide ?   I don't give a shit what these authors have to say if they are in support of such a fucked up belief system.   I didn't have to read Mein Kampf to figure out that the Nazis were fucked up, too.

 

  {edit:  except for Hartshorne and Flew, all the others ...despite their obvious mental acuity...seemed to be firmly wedded to the Abrahamic God concept which is a most perverted and degenerate concept. } 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: Frankly,

jeffreyalex wrote:

 Frankly, that you would even make such an absurd comparison illustrates your impeccable grasp of historical method and good sense. 

You are deliberately provoking me. I am not the one who makes this comparison. Christians do it.
You wrote the silly comparison to 10 years ago.
So since ancients sucked at taking down history we believe what they tell us? That makes sense to you?
But for jesus to be god, that is what they believed, I think he would have more press. I never said he didn't exist, I said he might have been a itinerate preacher or more likely a composite.
I suppose you also believe Hercules was real.
I really don't believe you want an honest discussion now. You just want to ridicule.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 

   Are you insinuating that simply by reading the authors that you suggest that I'm going to change my mind about leaving an obscene religion that advocates slavery and genocide ?   I don't give a shit what these authors have to say if they are in support of such a fucked up belief system.   I didn't have to read Mein Kampf to figure out that the Nazis were fucked up, too.

 

  {edit:  except for Hartshorne and Flew, all the others ...despite their obvious mental acuity...seemed to be firmly wedded to the Abrahamic God concept which is a most perverted and degenerate concept. } 

 

I am completely in support of your abandonment of such a religion. However, an argument for God is not the same as an argument for some given religion. 

With regards to your edit, Mackie was an atheist philosopher, a major atheist philosopher, by the way—he was certainly not wedded to any religion, let alone an Abrahamic one. 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 Frankly, that you would even make such an absurd comparison illustrates your impeccable grasp of historical method and good sense. 

You are deliberately provoking me. I am not the one who makes this comparison. Christians do it. You wrote the silly comparison to 10 years ago. So since ancients sucked at taking down history we believe what they tell us? That makes sense to you? But for jesus to be god, that is what they believed, I think he would have more press. I never said he didn't exist, I said he might have been a itinerate preacher or more likely a composite. I suppose you also believe Hercules was real. I really don't believe you want an honest discussion now. You just want to ridicule.

 

We're talking past each other, that's the only explanation I can see for all this confusion. 

I made the comparison to 10 years ago to make the point that it's ridiculous to hold the same evidentiary standard for a modern historical figure as to an ancient nobody. As far as evidence for nobodies from 2000 years ago goes, we have good evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus did live. It seems he preached a novel message, had followers, and made trouble for the authorities of his time. That's all I'm saying. 

I am adding on that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is the more probable hypothesis that he never existed at all. 

That's all I'm saying. 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

It took only four different approaches to force him to announce he is a Jesus freak. They all have a point their faith will not allow them cross.


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

tonyjeffers wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

Yeah, Mouse pretty well beat the hell out of him in those other two 'Atheist belief' threads.  He also pointed out that he was most likely two different guys-as one seemed to not be able to figure out the quote function???

I'm usually on the lookout for such vermin, but he slid one past me. I don't even think Extreme caught it after a lengthy debate.  Way to go Mouse!

If the Mouse were humble the Mouse would say something humble. Eye-wink

But when responding to a statement that was equivocal they understood and pointed out the problem. When responding to a statement with unassailable logic they did not understand and wanted clarification in favor of theism. Seeing the difference between the two types of posts and exploiting them was the line of theist attack, a point of pride if you will. Attack the attack worked.

I did not connect the two approaches with quoting/not quoting.

Also I raised the point that if their arguments were correct then they were still not beyond multiple gods and they should stop talking about just one upper case god. There was no response to that. It was something they could not address with this approach.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Luminon wrote:
And specially, they have a tradition of transferring sins on a sacrifice chicken. They take a chicken and circle it around a person's head, reciting Biblical verses. Then the sinful chicken is killed and given to the poor to eat. And then I suppose the poor people realize they just got tainted by eating a cursed chicken. So they get a new chicken and circle it around their head, reciting Biblical verses...
 

Someplace around I have a picture or three of chicken swinging magic being done in Israel today. I assume a video would also show the swinger's head bobbing like a pigeon at the same time.

But the entire substance of the OT worship stories is animal sacrifice just like to every other god in the indo-european culture. How can people really be so stupid as to convince themselves the Yahweh cult was intrinsically different from all the rest?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Greatest I am wrote:
It may be that Christians fear the predicted Muslim demographics that will overtake E U countries in 2040 or so.

As well as increases in their numbers in the U S. 

 

Actually it is BS at the moment. They do have a higher birth rate no question but their population is not increasing at that rate. Their adult survival rate is lower as is their life expectancy.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jeffreyalex wrote:
"Good production" was a quote from another post above mine. I believe that post meant to suggest that Jesus' death was a good story used for dramatic effect.

And only dramatic effect which is another indication of the mythology. Real life does not imitate myth.

Quote:
Regarding the "actual Jesus": I'm taking that to mean the historical person of Jesus, apart from claims about his divinity. The existence of the person of Jesus is one of the best attested facts in history, and is held by virtually all historians and scholars of that period. As an example of two such authorities, take Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman—neither of whom are religious, let alone Christian.

Saying a thing does not make it true. Much less does saying someone else says it makes a thing true.

Back up your assertion or stop repeating it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jeffreyalex wrote:
What I meant in saying that it does more harm than good is that people, should they stumble on this forum, and browse through it, will find exactly the same zealotry that would be expected of a fundie nutbag. They will find amateur historians, and folks who think they know some science. They will not find sophisticated dialogue or debate. They will find foot-stomping and sophistry.
 

That response is certainly probable for people like yourself who are ignorant of history and science and logic but then this is not a place to search for an elementary education.

Define sophistry in terms of what has been posted here not what you find by googling.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jeffreyalex wrote:
Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 

Philosophers are bullshit artists. No rational person takes them seriously unless their ideas are demonstrably correct by reproducable experientation. There must be an objective measure of correctness else they are only qualified to sell life insurance and used cars.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml