Blasphemy?? (THE NEW BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE MERGING THREADS)

squeakycheez07
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Blasphemy?? (THE NEW BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE MERGING THREADS)

So, I just wanted to say that the Blasphemy Challenge is all wrong. ....And i'm sorry no one has told you what Mark 3:29 really means. And you can find the same thing about blasphemy in Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10.

Anyways, If you read the whole chapter of Mark 3, you'll see that the pharisess were attributing the power of Jesus with the power of Satan.

Jesus said what he did, not because they sined the worse sin, but becuase they were never going to ask for forgivness in the first place.

The Pharisees rejected Jesus, the only who can forgive, and they rejected the Holy Spirit, the one that would push them towards repentance. And since they repeatedly rejected and denied both Jesus and Holy Spirit....they are never going to ask forgivness to be forgiven.

I hope that makes sense.

Peace out.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Another thread to add to

Another thread to add to the 10 threads hating on the Blasphemy Challenge.

squeakycheez07 wrote:

So, I just wanted to say that the Blasphemy Challenge is all wrong. ....

No, it isn't.

Do you even know why we started the Blasphemy Challenge?

 

Quote:
And i'm sorry no one has told you what Mark 3:29 really means. And you can find the same thing about blasphemy in Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10.

Yeah, and? It still talks about the unforgivable sin.

 

Quote:
Anyways, If you read the whole chapter of Mark 3, you'll see that the pharisess were attributing the power of Jesus with the power of Satan.

Ok, but it's still the unforgivable sin then, right?

Quote:
Jesus said what he did, not because they sined the worse sin, but becuase they were never going to ask for forgivness in the first place.

They sinned the worst sin? So you just said that blasphemy is the worst sin.

Quote:
The Pharisees rejected Jesus, the only who can forgive, and they rejected the Holy Spirit, the one that would push them towards repentance. And since they repeatedly rejected and denied both Jesus and Holy Spirit....they are never going to ask forgivness to be forgiven.

Uh, isn't that what we're doing with the Blasphemy Challenge?

Quote:
I hope that makes sense.

Peace out.

It didn't.

Bye.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


squeakycheez07
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
=) well, i like how you

=) well, i like how you twisted my words.....i said, "Jesus said what he did, not because they sined the worse sin..." I didnt say it was the worse...because pretty much, every sin is the same...to me anyways, i'm not going to throw the bible at you.

And you cant condemn yourself to hell with words. Just like you cant save yourself with words.

Also, you have good points on everything. Good questions. It makes me question why i believe what i believe, and it makes me do a lot of research.

And, i hate religion too. Religion will destroy you. However, relationship with the Lord is a totally differen thing.

Why do you believe what you believe?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
squeakycheez07 wrote: =)

squeakycheez07 wrote:

=) well, i like how you twisted my words.....i said, "Jesus said what he did, not because they sined the worse sin..."

 

Sorry, but you said "worse sin".

Quote:
I didnt say it was the worse...because pretty much, every sin is the same...

Yes, you did say it was the worst, read above.

Why did you even bother opening a thread about this?

We already have like over 10 threads on the same topic.



squeakycheez07
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
...Your right, i did say

...Your right, i did say worse....

I opened the thread because i was to lazy find the other threads.

And anyways, you never answered my question.

Why do you believe what you believe?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
squeakycheez07 wrote: Why

squeakycheez07 wrote:

Why do you believe what you believe?

Believe in what? 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Since as a

Colby R wrote:

Since as a Christian I dont believe (and I know none of you do) that we live in a time of obvious evidence or presence of God.

How honest! 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Blasphemy Challenge is wrong

I know that this is a sponsor site for the Blasphemy challenge so I thought it was a good place to post this.

The interpretation of the verses in either Mathew or Mark about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is wrong. The only unforgivable sin is never accepting forgiveness from God. You can be forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Now if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the presence of overwhelming evidence of Gods existence, then you would lose any chance at salvation. Since as a Christian I dont believe (and I know none of you do) that we live in a time of obvious evidence or presence of God, then your denial does not ruin your chance for salvation.

If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them.


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: The only

Colby R wrote:
The only unforgivable sin is never accepting forgiveness from God.

 

 Wonderful, I did that as part of my video. Not only did I reject forgiveness from god, I gave moral reasons for doing so.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
squeakycheez07 wrote: Why

squeakycheez07 wrote:

Why do you believe what you believe?

I don't believe.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Colby R

BGH wrote:
Colby R wrote:

Since as a Christian I dont believe (and I know none of you do) that we live in a time of obvious evidence or presence of God.

How honest! 

 

Let me clarify. I believe that the fact that I am here is evidence of God. But we dont see real healings anymore people arent raised from the dead like Jesus was or did (lazerus). God does not speak to us in an audible sense. What would you consider overwhelming evidence? I would bet it is not present in the world today. If for instance you saw someone you know very well got healed of paralysis by someone in the name of Christ, out of the blue. Not at a revival thing but just on the street and you knew your freind like a brother. THat would be evidence.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: Colby R

Yiab wrote:
Colby R wrote:
The only unforgivable sin is never accepting forgiveness from God.

 

 Wonderful, I did that as part of my video. Not only did I reject forgiveness from god, I gave moral reasons for doing so.

 

But if you ever decided to go back the other way you would still recieve forgiveness.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: What would

Colby R wrote:

What would you consider overwhelming evidence? I would bet it is not present in the world today. If for instance you saw someone you know very well got healed of paralysis by someone in the name of Christ, out of the blue. Not at a revival thing but just on the street and you knew your freind like a brother. THat would be evidence.

I have one that would be very compelling, "make an amputee's limb grow back",  but not convincing. I need a stack of evidence to be convinced. 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
squeakycheez07 wrote:

Why do you believe what you believe?

I don't believe.

 

You dont believe what? You dont believe science, history, religion, spiritualism, what? You have to believe something, you have to have a basis for your rational way of thinking. Do you believe what the other people on this board tell you. How do you establish any boundries or structure a life if you believe in absolutely nothing.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Colby R

BGH wrote:
Colby R wrote:

What would you consider overwhelming evidence? I would bet it is not present in the world today. If for instance you saw someone you know very well got healed of paralysis by someone in the name of Christ, out of the blue. Not at a revival thing but just on the street and you knew your freind like a brother. THat would be evidence.

I have one that would be very compelling, "make an amputee's limb grow back",  but not convincing. I need a stack of evidence to be convinced. 

OK thats fair and chances are unless Benny Hynn gets some actual real healing power you'll never see it. Now let me ask, what are you convinced of apart from there being no God. What about creation or whatever are you convinced of and what stacks of evidence have convinced you?


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: OK thats

Colby R wrote:

OK thats fair and chances are unless Benny Hynn gets some actual real healing power you'll never see it. Now let me ask, what are you convinced of apart from there being no God. What about creation or whatever are you convinced of and what stacks of evidence have convinced you?

I am convinced of many things but on your question of creation, I am fully convinced evolution is FACT, that is the meaning of scientific theory, " - a large volume of supporting scientific evidence".  Observations in the laboratory, the fossil record, genetic simularity among species, real time studies with fruit flies.... all this supports the theory of evolution and natural selection. These studies have been conducted all over the world at almost every respected scientific university.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I am convinced of many

I am convinced of many things but on your question of creation, I am fully convinced evolution is FACT, that is the meaning of scientific theory, " - a large volume of supporting scientific evidence".  Observations in the laboratory, the fossil record, genetic simularity among species, real time studies with fruit flies.... all this supports the theory of evolution and natural selection. These studies have been conducted all over the world at almost every respected scientific university.

 

You are right that evolution is studied at every respected university. You would not be right in calling evolution a fact considering not even scientist will call it a fact. Not to say that they dont have a fairly convincing argument. I am not a scientist so I dont pretend to know the most hallowed details of evolution but one thing does bother me about it. If everything came from one thing and it has changed or spun off of itself millions of time to create every creature on earth, where are all of the billions of transitional fossils. There are many other reasons why I dont buy evolution but this one always sticks with me.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: You dont

Colby R wrote:

You dont believe what? You dont believe science, history, religion, spiritualism, what? You have to believe something, you have to have a basis for your rational way of thinking. Do you believe what the other people on this board tell you. How do you establish any boundries or structure a life if you believe in absolutely nothing.

I can believe things I hear about science and history, for example, because there is empirical evidence that stands behind it, that supports it.  One definition of belief is 'confidence in the truth...' I have confidence that JFK was indeed shot and killed on November 22, 1963.  There is evidence of that. As far as religion goes, I don't believe in god, as I see no evidence for that belief. Likewise, if someone makes an assertion that I'm not familiar with, I'll do some research before I come to any personal conclusions. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Colby R

pariahjane wrote:
Colby R wrote:

You dont believe what? You dont believe science, history, religion, spiritualism, what? You have to believe something, you have to have a basis for your rational way of thinking. Do you believe what the other people on this board tell you. How do you establish any boundries or structure a life if you believe in absolutely nothing.

I can believe things I hear about science and history, for example, because there is empirical evidence that stands behind it, that supports it.  One definition of belief is 'confidence in the truth...' I have confidence that JFK was indeed shot and killed on November 22, 1963.  There is evidence of that. As far as religion goes, I don't believe in god, as I see no evidence for that belief. Likewise, if someone makes an assertion that I'm not familiar with, I'll do some research before I come to any personal conclusions. 

 

Nice, let me ask you do you believe in the fact that Jesus was an actual person. Also do you have confidence in the historical accounts of Alexander the Great?


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Yiab

Colby R wrote:
Yiab wrote:
Colby R wrote:
The only unforgivable sin is never accepting forgiveness from God.

 

Wonderful, I did that as part of my video. Not only did I reject forgiveness from god, I gave moral reasons for doing so.

 

But if you ever decided to go back the other way you would still recieve forgiveness.

 

Okay, I understand that, but you don't seem to understand what I've said here.

Whether or not god exists has nothing to do with my rejection. If I were to one day start believing in the Christian god, I would still think he's an immoral jackass and I would reject forgiveness since he's he's not worthy to forgive. In order to accept forgiveness, I would have to radically shift my moral system to one where I think it's okay for someone in power to be hypocritical.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:

Quote:

You are right that evolution is studied at every respected university. You would not be right in calling evolution a fact considering not even scientist will call it a fact. Not to say that they dont have a fairly convincing argument.

I must point out, you are wrong here... many, many evolutionary biologists regard this theory as fact. "Scientific Theory" does not mean "a guess". Gravity is a scientific theory also but in science this is the title given to an encompassing idea that has a large body of evidence to support it.

Quote:
I am not a scientist so I dont pretend to know the most hallowed details of evolution but one thing does bother me about it. If everything came from one thing and it has changed or spun off of itself millions of time to create every creature on earth, where are all of the billions of transitional fossils. There are many other reasons why I dont buy evolution but this one always sticks with me.

This is a misnomer, from what I understand there is no such thing as a "transitional fossil". Every living organism past and present has slight genetic differences from other members of their species, therfore every fossil we find is "transitional" in some way. Enough mutations add up and usually seperation from other members of this species a new species will develop.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: Colby R

Yiab wrote:
Colby R wrote:
Yiab wrote:
Colby R wrote:
The only unforgivable sin is never accepting forgiveness from God.

 

Wonderful, I did that as part of my video. Not only did I reject forgiveness from god, I gave moral reasons for doing so.

 

But if you ever decided to go back the other way you would still recieve forgiveness.

 

Okay, I understand that, but you don't seem to understand what I've said here.

Whether or not god exists has nothing to do with my rejection. If I were to one day start believing in the Christian god, I would still think he's an immoral jackass and I would reject forgiveness since he's he's not worthy to forgive. In order to accept forgiveness, I would have to radically shift my moral system to one where I think it's okay for someone in power to be hypocritical.

Could you explain why you feel this way as far as God being an immoral jackass and all that.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Quote: You are

BGH wrote:
Quote:

You are right that evolution is studied at every respected university. You would not be right in calling evolution a fact considering not even scientist will call it a fact. Not to say that they dont have a fairly convincing argument.

I must point out, you are wrong here... many, many evolutionary biologists regard this theory as fact. "Scientific Theory" does not mean "a guess". Gravity is a scientific theory also but in science this is the title given to an encompassing idea that has a large body of evidence to support it.

Quote:
I am not a scientist so I dont pretend to know the most hallowed details of evolution but one thing does bother me about it. If everything came from one thing and it has changed or spun off of itself millions of time to create every creature on earth, where are all of the billions of transitional fossils. There are many other reasons why I dont buy evolution but this one always sticks with me.

This is a misnomer, from what I understand there is no such thing as a "transitional fossil". Every living organism past and present has slight genetic differences from other members of their species, therfore every fossil we find is "transitional" in some way. Enough mutations add up and usually seperation from other members of this species a new species will develop.

I am saying that I have never heard any scientist call evolution a fact, the only way. THere are different forms of evolution from what I understand. Either way the point is what will you believe if science debunks evolution and comed up with another theory?


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I honestly can't

I honestly can't definitively say whether or not Jesus was a historical person.  The account of Jesus are in the bible, or were written long after his supposed life was over.  As for Alexander the Great, I can say with confidence that he was indeed a historical person.  There are many accounts of his campaigns.  I'm not saying that the information we have is 100% absolute truth, but I see enough of it to be confident of his existence.  And I also haven't had a history class in some time, so I really recall very minimally what I've read regarding Alexander the Great.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Either way

Colby R wrote:

Either way the point is what will you believe if science debunks evolution and comed up with another theory?

Debunk?

If evolutionary theory is proven not to be supported by the facts of scientific study and another scientific theory is better supported by the evidence then I would also support that theory.

The thing is you seem to be misunderstanding  what "scientific theory" means. It does not mean there is a scattering of a few data points that support it, it means there is OVERWHELMING evidence to support it. Debunking this would mean disproving every piece of evidence in support of it. 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I

pariahjane wrote:
I honestly can't definitively say whether or not Jesus was a historical person.  The account of Jesus are in the bible, or were written long after his supposed life was over.  As for Alexander the Great, I can say with confidence that he was indeed a historical person.  There are many accounts of his campaigns.  I'm not saying that the information we have is 100% absolute truth, but I see enough of it to be confident of his existence.  And I also haven't had a history class in some time, so I really recall very minimally what I've read regarding Alexander the Great.

My point with that question was to illustrate a point. First all most all historians agree that Jesus of the Bible did in fact exist. Second the first biographies written about Alexander were written 400years after his death as opposed to Jesus whos biography the four gospels were written between 35 and 70 years after his death by eyewhitness accounts such as John.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
please provide me a source

please provide me a source saying that most  historians think jesus existed? It would be great if it included people who aren't christian too. I know of  2 historians off the top of my head who are either a)jesus mythists or b) jesus agnostics aka aren't sure. So please provide some sources before making asserations. thank you


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm not certain as to when

I'm not certain as to when the first accounts of Alexander the Great were written.  I understand the point you're trying to make, and I also understand that Alexander the Great's conquests have given him a sort of 'hero' status by writers of the future which could be an exaggeration of his life.  I still have confidence that he was at some point a real person.  If you recall, I did not deny that there was a possiblity Jesus may have existed as well.  Again, I am not a historian, I cannot tell you whether all the accounts of this person's life is true and what is myth.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: please

zntneo wrote:
please provide me a source saying that most  historians think jesus existed? It would be great if it included people who aren't christian too. I know of  2 historians off the top of my head who are either a)jesus mythists or b) jesus agnostics aka aren't sure. So please provide some sources before making asserations. thank you

This should help you.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Do you really think we would have such a conflict over a person that never even existed.

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R - Did you read my

Colby R - Did you read my response?


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Colby R - Did

BGH wrote:
Colby R - Did you read my response?

 

 Yes I did read and I agree with you to a point. I do understand very well what a theory is. To me there are just too many holes in the theory for me, just like there is not enough evidence for God. I cant believe in something that can change at any moment. Look at a science book from twenty years ago.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I cant

Colby R wrote:
I cant believe in something that can change at any moment. Look at a science book from twenty years ago.

That is the beauty of science, willingness to change with the presentation of new data and new evidence!

That is the MAJOR problem with christian dogma, unwillingness to change no matter what. Because of this we still have christians who believe in a 6000 - 10000yr old earth in spite of the mountain (pun intended) of evidence. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: zntneo

Colby R wrote:

zntneo wrote:
please provide me a source saying that most historians think jesus existed? It would be great if it included people who aren't christian too. I know of 2 historians off the top of my head who are either a)jesus mythists or b) jesus agnostics aka aren't sure. So please provide some sources before making asserations. thank you

This should help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

And this should help you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works

 

There are NO contemporary accounts for Jesus. None. If you took the time to read your wiki post, you'd see that yourself.

 

Quote:
 

 Do you really think we would have such a conflict over a person that never even existed.

 

Yes, provided there were people who believed he existed anyway. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This should

Colby R wrote:

This should help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Do you really think we would have such a conflict over a person that never even existed.

Did you not read the article? It references the bible (considered allegorical), apocraphical textx (also considered allegorical), and gnostic texts (yet again, considered allegorical).

Then it references "historians"/church fathers (ALL of whom lived a century after the alleged Christ's supposed death).

Then it references Flavium. If you can fool youself into believing that a Jew wrote that instead of it being an interpolation - I want to know what you are smoking.

 After this is lists historians whom all lived at least 3 DECADES after the alleged Christ's supposed death. They would have been doing nothing more than repearing the mythology of the Christians at the time.

Conclusive evidence implying Jesus was an actual historical figure: none. 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
 Okay so you want me to

 Okay so you want me to believe that Jesus never existed and early Christians were killed in the belief of a man that never existed. So people were risking their lives to promote the message of a person that never was. Interesting but probably not. I dont know why we need to go further than the Bible to establish the historical figure of Jesus. With over 5,000 greek manuscripts the New Testiment and the Four Gospels have more support to their accuracy than any other work of antiquity. Even compared to Josephus of which we have about 9 greek manuscripts which were written in the 10th 11th and 12th century.  I would say if you refute the accuracy of the Gospels then you would also have to refute the accuracy of every document from that era earlier, if you are willing to hold the Bible to the same standards as all other historical documents.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Also what evidence do you

Also what evidence do you have that Jesus didnt exist? If you say that there are no accepted historical accounts of him outside of the Bible then I would assume that you believe no one existed that is not expressly mentioned in a historical text outside of the bible of course.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:   So people

Colby R wrote:
  So people were risking their lives to promote the message of a person that never was. 

Do the 9-11 hijackers show you that you should believe in Allah?  Why would they risk their lives?   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Colby R

Sapient wrote:

Colby R wrote:
  So people were risking their lives to promote the message of a person that never was. 

Do the 9-11 hijackers show you that you should believe in Allah?  Why would they risk their lives?   

Killing thousands of people in the name of a God that doesnt even tell them to kill does not make believe them. Being martyred for a belief and not being the aggresor is much more persuasive. Before you attempt to bring up the Crusades, I would say they were wrong and in no way biblical. They are a desgrace to the Christian religion.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
 Ha ok back to the

 Ha ok back to the challenge again...finally.  Those merged threads posting didn't work again anyway - that 6th page for some reason didn't work right...

 Even in those threads, which is the same here, some of you guys contradict yourselves and draw attention away from the actual question in what I can only see as avoidance to the actual problem of the challenge you guys set.  Only todagnst ever actually addressed the problem which later slipped away thanks to the merge...

OK you guys...stop with the if he existed nonsense and answer the question.  Why are you still defending a challenge which is based on an out of context reference?  Those of you who have read the other threads know exactly what I'm talking about and for those who haven't - Mark 3:29 as well as Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10 are all incomplete references when alone; they MUST be used in context with the story (even if you don't believe it).  Only Luke did not use
the same words as the other two but becasue history shows that Luke used the other two as influences for his writing, hence his writing style was different, it can be concluded he didn't include it much the same way a newscaster won't include some details that another included on the same story from the AP.  

You guys are wrong on the challenge and changing the focus of the thread to "did he exist" or "I see no evidence" simply is avoiding the topic at hand...

Sapient's new video actually addresses the question that has been asked (FINALLY) in a round about way but still misses the point.  As I just stated, Luke's omission of the full story is from the influence of Mark and Matthew. What I found interesting however is how he managed to expand blasphemy the one and only way of damnation against the holy spirit as something along the lines of "blasphemy is blasphemy is blasphemy" and it does not matter if its according to the one DEFINITION (not example) the unforgivable sin or someone lying about their age.  I'm not sure what passage he was talking about "blaspheme against three times" but I can only assume he referred to Peter's denial which, according to the text, was forgiven him.  

One other thing sapient....guilty by association (your rape children note)??  That's pretty tasteless even for you to be THAT judgmental against a group of people that hold to a different belief that you don't (reminds me of another group from the 40's who did the same thing and justified mass murder by it).  

Look, debating the point without using the text in context is completely futile as it shows your lack of desire to actually want to discuss.   I don't care if you don't believe in the text, take it as a work of fiction if you so want to but even a fictional story has structure to it which you completely ignore for the sake of trying to sound "rational".  

p.s....as to him existing or not....history has already shown that the characters from the gospels exist, the events from the gospels existed, sources outside Christian writers all write about his existence.  And before you start to tear those historians apart, remember, do you do the same about those who wrote about Alexander the Great?  The Greeks?  The Romans?  The Nazis?  Remember Iran's President calls the holocaust a myth and debunked historians on that account.  JFK's assignation was criticized time and time again because of the "magic bullet" even though the proof was there showing they were wrong.  So how it is that you take special case to this?  Because you don't believe JUST THIS ONE?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
What you all need to

What you all need to understand is that it doesn't matter to an atheist whether or not there are any unforgivable sins.  The Blasphemy Challenge is something fun that atheists are doing to publicly declare ourselves.  It's getting us press and helping to organize our online community.  The way you now interpret Mark is most likely completely different then the early church interpreted it.  Blasphemy was punishable by DEATH at one point don't forget.  This idea, that there is no unforgivable sin, is new and nothing but a reaction to the Blasphemy Challenge.  Maybe the Methodists don't believe in an unforgivable sin, but maybe the Catholics do!  Funny stuff if you ask me.  It really makes me laugh when people say that they can't believe in science because it changes all the time.  Science has changed only slightly, as a method of observation, since Aristotle.  Religions, especially Christianity, has had to change drastically in order to keep up with scientific discovery all along.  Religion has had to reorganize when overwhelming evidence contradicts it's foundations.  The reason theists don't accept evolution right now is because they are ignorant to the evidence, whether it is a conscience ignorance or not.  One day evolution will be concidered God's method of the creation of all living things in the universe by all educated theists, just as a large percentage of theists already accept it.   

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:

ShadowOfMan wrote:
What you all need to understand is that it doesn't matter to an atheist whether or not there are any unforgivable sins. The Blasphemy Challenge is something fun that atheists are doing to publicly declare ourselves. It's getting us press and helping to organize our online community.

Then why is it necessary to disprove theism for the sake of your own desire to be "organized"? You have the freedom to not follow a religion. You don't even have to believe in God...trust me if God wants you to believe in him he'll let you know. You don't seek him he seeks you and there is nothing that can be done to ask him to do otherwise.

ShadowOfMan wrote:
The way you now interpret Mark is most likely completely different then the early church interpreted it. Blasphemy was punishable by DEATH at one point don't forget.

Ummmm no. The REASON why it was punishable by death was from old testament rules and man's desire to take God's law into their own hands (which was wrong anyway). It was not God's will to have it done that way (because of it was Jesus would have killed the woman caught in adultry himself). The Gospel of Mark is very cut and dry; you cannot miss it unless you are intentionally trying to.

ShadowOfMan wrote:
This idea, that there is no unforgivable sin, is new and nothing but a reaction to the Blasphemy Challenge. Maybe the Methodists don't believe in an unforgivable sin, but maybe the Catholics do!

If you are a Christian, which is not a religion by the way, it's the belief Jesus as the Messiah, you have ALWAYS believed in the unforgivable sin because it's there in the bible. You cannot be selective in which parts you will and what parts you won't believe.

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Science has changed only slightly, as a method of observation, since Aristotle. Religions, especially Christianity, has had to change drastically in order to keep up with scientific discovery all along.

Oh really? When dinosaurs were first discovered the "scientists" got how to assemble them incorrectly so many times it took well over a century before they started to kinda sorta get it right. For decades since T-Rex was discovered, they believe he stood up right and was a serious predator until Horner came along and corrected it. Observational science said JFK could not have been killed by only one shooter. Observational science discredited flight until the Wright brothers proved it. Observational science had it where the Earth was the center of the solar system. Observational science had it to where the world was flat until....get my point?

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Religion has had to reorganize when overwhelming evidence contradicts it's foundations. The reason theists don't accept evolution right now is because they are ignorant to the evidence, whether it is a conscience ignorance or not. One day evolution will be concidered God's method of the creation of all living things in the universe by all educated theists, just as a large percentage of theists already accept it.

Wrong again. I will tell you that I don't accept evolution because of the assumptions that are made to explain "spontaneous life". Something sparked and somehow it worked? Somehow life decided to change a bit for no reason and made fish walk. Somehow life changed a bit and went from four legs to two. The "evidence" that's presented is questionable even from the DNA level because it has to be assumed that somehow life just decided to change. I know I know you can throw as many technical terms at me concerning how science explained it here and there however have you ever once stopped and thought how foolish you sound? A man impregnates a woman because a man's sperm and a woman's egg are the one's that are biologically compatible. Science proved the how but they failed to ever prove WHY.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein

Now you want to stop bringing up distractions and get back to the point?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R,  I would really

Colby R,

 I would really like to hear your response to this post....

 

BGH wrote:

Colby R wrote:
I cant believe in something that can change at any moment. Look at a science book from twenty years ago.

That is the beauty of science, willingness to change with the presentation of new data and new evidence!

That is the MAJOR problem with christian dogma, unwillingness to change no matter what. Because of this we still have christians who believe in a 6000 - 10000yr old earth in spite of the mountain (pun intended) of evidence.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I will first state that I am

I will first state that I am not anti science, I enjoy hospitals and medicine,x-rays ect. I just dont want to build the foundation of my life on ever changing ground. IMHO the foundation of Christianity has no need to change, that being salvation through Christ. The whole new earth old earth is still a mystery to me simply because the Bible never gives a start date, it just says "In the begining", on the science side I dont think the earth is billions of years old simply because I dont trust the methods of testing age. The age of the earth is a non-essential to me, the essential belief is that God created the earth and everything we see, touch, smell and hear. How long or how long ago is most likely never going to  be answered defenitively. What you see as beuty in the ability to change in science or (evolution) is the very reason I dont believe it. What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea? Why would I invest my time or energy in that. I believe that I have a better purpose on this earth and a greater gift when I die, instead of just being and dying.  


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: What would

Colby R wrote:
What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea? Why would I invest my time or energy in that.

I see your fear here. Change is scary to most people. Sticking with dogma and superstition that has no scientific basis has been a consoling option for many people throughout the ages.

I ask you though read this statement and consider that is may also apply to your "religion":

Quote:
What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea?

I am not going to argue the validity of testing methods with you here, I respect that you are skeptical. But if you are skeptical of science you must also be skeptical of what is written in the bible, taught in the churches and sunday schools and  professed to TRUTH by your preacher/minister.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I am a very skeptical person

I am a very skeptical person and question many teachings of the church. I dont apply the quote to my beliefs because nobody has been able to prove anything wrong especially a believer.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I dont apply

Colby R wrote:
I dont apply the quote to my beliefs because nobody has been able to prove anything wrong especially a believer.

Because dogma always has an answer or ignores the question?

But that really doesn't answer my question, why not apply that quote to your own religion.

Quote:
What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea?

If you honestly feel as the quote states then your religion has just as much, if not more of a chance of being wrong. A farce perpetuated by the leaders who profess dogma with no critical thought.

 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
My faith is not in the

My faith is not in the teachers but in the word, and in the promise of Christ. It is very important for all Christians to study the word and seek appropriate council just like in anything. One problem I have always noticed is that athiests or non-believers want Chrstians to prove their faith according to the standards of the non-believer. The stadard of which the Christian faith is held to is the Bible.

As for the quote, it doesnt apply because there is really only one way in my opinion to disprove Christianity and that is in death. There is no way to actualy prove or disprove a faith. People do get up and lie about what is in the Bible and spread a false message but as a christian we have to look out for those people and challenge their teaching.

I have never seen anyone dodge a question, could you give an example.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I have

Colby R wrote:

I have never seen anyone dodge a question, could you give an example.

You have dodged this very question:

Quote:
What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea?

You ask that question of me but when I ask you to turn it around on your belief system this is your reply:

Quote:
As for the quote, it doesnt apply because there is really only one way in my opinion to disprove Christianity and that is in death.

That is a non-answer. You stated that there was no point in believing in something that could later be proven to be farce. Christianity is subject to that same question. What is the point in believing, according to your logic it may or may not be true.

You do not trust science because it is ever changing and improving as new data comes in. You believe christianity because it is static and rigid - dogmatic. One of the major goals of science is learning about the world in which we live, christianity on the other hand expects believers to tow the line of fairy tales handed down from generation to generation. Belief requires unchanging thought processes IN SPITE of real evidence. 

 


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I will first

Colby R wrote:
I will first state that I am not anti science, I enjoy hospitals and medicine,x-rays ect. I just dont want to build the foundation of my life on ever changing ground. IMHO the foundation of Christianity has no need to change, that being salvation through Christ. The whole new earth old earth is still a mystery to me simply because the Bible never gives a start date, it just says "In the begining", on the science side I dont think the earth is billions of years old simply because I dont trust the methods of testing age. The age of the earth is a non-essential to me, the essential belief is that God created the earth and everything we see, touch, smell and hear. How long or how long ago is most likely never going to be answered defenitively. What you see as beuty in the ability to change in science or (evolution) is the very reason I dont believe it. What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea? Why would I invest my time or energy in that. I believe that I have a better purpose on this earth and a greater gift when I die, instead of just being and dying.
 

 

If the here and now is just a waiting period to your ultimate goal and reward, why don't you just strap on a bomb now, and go to Yahweh/Jesus land? 

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
If it is a non-answer, then

If it is a non-answer, then tell me how you can disprove a faith. I gave an answer if it is not a good answer to you that is fine. I adressed the issues of certain falacy preached by individuals. What more do you want ? Okay,Christianity is subject to the same question but we will not recieve an answer until we die. I also dont believe that Chrisitianity is rigid nor do I need to tow a line. In my experience it is a freedom not a restraint, it is constant and that is a comfort.