Proof that Jesus Christ never existed!!! Christians read!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Proof that Jesus Christ never existed!!! Christians read!

It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed.

I hope you too are able to find this truth.

- Brian Sapient


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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Sapeint,

Look Theists, whatever you are, Sapient is messing with you and trying to get a point across with a failed attempt at R.A.A. However, the Talmud speaks of Jesus numerous times. The Talmud views Jesus as an enemey and does not speak kindly of Him.

However, by doing so, they SPEAK OF HIM. LOL.

Also, the Jesus Seminar admits of Jesus being real. However, they butcher the Bible to fit their view of Jesus via popular vote. It's always 4 out of 5 like that Dentist commercial.

And the guy that started the quest for the historical Jesus admitted of a Jesus (a liberal form of Jesus). Albert Schweitzer.

So this is fun. Thus the burden of proof rests on you since we deny your claim. The Christian has met their burden, unlike your attempt at R.A.A.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yes but the references are not from the tannaitic period and thus are 3 or 4th century statements in response to the Christian religion ( the amoraic period).  I had a disagreement with Robert Funk the had of the Jesus Seminar and unintentionally insulted him about their conclusions of no eschatology in the earliest level of Q.  Albert Schweitzer started the first quest for the Historical jesus that died out with Barth and Bultmann's neo=orthodoxy. The New Quest did not get much further with Bultmann's students which responded polemically to their mentor's position.  There wa a historical Jesus who taught the end of the world in his generation. Unfortunately the end was only for him. 

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles.  He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born.  Paul cast him in an ahistorical  Hellenistic Savior myth.  Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.  The Ebionite movement was wiped out pretty much in the second revolt under ben Kochba. Neo-platonic thought moved another aspect of Jewish thought with the help of the Johannine literature toward Gnosticism.  Logos Christology became predominate in the second century while Paul's writings became old hat. Marcion rejected the Jewish background of god and created the first Christian bible. Other groups of churches reacted against Marcion and Paul's writings came back into popularity as well as the pseudepigraphical ones attrbuted to Paul and Peter/Jude and John.  Various forms of Christianity competed with each other creating more and more writings attributed to the Apsotles. The gospels were attributed to Matthew , Mark, Luke and John. Jesus became more and more divine and everybody got together and created a bunch of trinity theories. The politicians won.

Historical researchers in this field generally see Jesus as a wondering Cynic teacher spouting out words of wisdom and folk philosophy. It does seem to be the core of what developed into Christianity. Jesus was a human who came from Galilee. Galilee was the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism.  Even so only 50% of the population was Jewish. Rabbi Hannina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer were very similar characters to Jesus. ben Dosa called god Abba like Jesus ( meaning Daddy instead of a reverential , father).  He spoke openly with women as Jesus did. The reason that historians posit these as historical is because they are contrary to the believing Jewish or Christian movement. You can see evidence that the church tried to cover up the fact that Jesus was baptized as others to get rid of sin. Historical Jesus research is a discipline to explain the sociological development of what became Christianity ... what historical kernel was the catalyst for all the mythic construction.  It is commonly understood that the bible is mythic in seminaries and theological  schools like Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Emory, Vanderbuilt. The bridge from school to church is teach it as truth and avoid the lack of factual basis. So statements are demythologized and taken into a philosophical meaning rather than a grounded factual historical meaning. Virgin birth does not really mean a women had a child and was a virgin. It becomes a story to honor jesus as both god and man.  So you have pure historical work. Then the theologians that try to make it still meaningful and then the preachers to present it as literal.  When I was in seminary my mentor (Hendrikus Boers)  who wrote Who Was Jesus? was a Marxist atheist from South Africa. He would point to people like Jurgen Moltmann (theologian) as a fraud that needed to be exposed. Then there is the whole moderate movement that tries to salvage some christianity out of the historical/critical conclusions. Crossan was on the Jesus Seminar team. He knows Jesus was simply a person who got into trouble and was removed from being an irritation.  The people who cared about where Jesus was buried did not know where he was buried. The people who did know where he was buried ( communal grave) did not care.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Seventh day Adventist I

Seventh day Adventist

I never read the talmud and will look up some of your references when I get time. However I don't see these as proof, but as defenses against wild stories. It falls into what Dan Dennett identifies as UME, use mention errors. I may speak of Thor, Santa Claus, the easter bunny and Jesus but it doesn't mean they exist or existed as portrayed in books of fiction.
This entire website criticizes religion pointing out the ridiculous, but that does not mean it is proof. It is just dealing with the culture or anti-culture of the time.
Do you believe Mohammand split the moon? If you criticise it does it make the event true?
The fact that the stories match the gospel narrative says they read the stories but did not witness it.

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/


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Ex Minister, from a historical perspective, you have to take various refeernce externally speaking regarding Jesus if you are secular minded and are not into the facts, but into the fabrications. The Talmud is an example among other sources around that period that demonstrate that there was a man who was Jesus who did the things the Bible testifies to.

Obviously, it is an attack on Jesus, and not reliable via the put downs, but indirectly it would be an example of secular proof and use as an ad hominem.

____

TG,

Jesus is not only in the Gemara, but also in the Mishnah. The Mishnah predates Jesus Himself. So your complaint is wrong.

However, even though the later references you speaks of do account for Jesus. Nevertheless, they stem from the tradition of the Mishnah itself. They are used and must be account for. Now if you want to be a dishonest historian and ignore the "evidence," well that's what we would expect.

Q is an argument from silence. There is no source, it's a guess or leap of faith. Since the gospels are so reprobale via history, evidence, so fourth, the pagan secular nut cases had to come up with something to counter it. So they invented a Q source which is FALSE. Silence + Silence always equals Silence.

The Biblical Jesus did not teach the end of the generation. That verse you are talking about is in regard to the transfiguration. LOL. TG, come on.

I already refuted your false notion of the logos. The Logos was a term that became a very common rich phiosophical word. Like empiricism. John used it as a word like I may use a pagan word, Sophia, and pour Christian content into it. You made a logical fallacy of term over concept with this. The Ebonite movement was a cult which is what is to be expected. The only thing we know of them are polemics from Church Fathers. Them being wiped out is tradition.

The Apostle John uses langauge to stress the contrast against Gnosticism. Docetism was the prominent gnostic group at that time. The fact that the Word was made flesh is completely antithetical to the prominent gnosticism at that time. If John was gnostic or influenced by gnostism, he would have said the Word APPEARED as flesh. To say John was influenced by gnosticism goes against the evidence to the contrary, which is to be expected among the fabricaters.

Another example is I John 4:2-3:

Quote:
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."

We also see such examples in other places. The Church Fathers are also against such gnosticism no wonder because of the New Testament. Irenaeus was also against gnosticism as a decendent of John's teaching via Polycarp, his teacher. Your claim is absurd which is what we would expect among the fabricators.

Nobody reacted to Marcion, but rather acted via clairification of the original intent of the author's of Scripture via God Himself. Christianity was attacked, and helped fellow believers not fall into the trap of deception. Marcion some say decended from Simon Magus in Acts who is clearly an enemy of Christianity and does not represent Christianity.

When  you say historical researchers, you are talking about the Schweitzer type of researcher, not an honest historical researcher. I ought to write on historiagraphy.

Quote:
generally see Jesus as a wandering synic 
They see via vote. There is no scholarship here. I debated a Jesus Seminar guy over this. Their books admit that they make Jesus in their own image. They are not reallly historians, but rather wannabe historians. They get credit because the world hates Christ. This is a huge joke.

Your mentor was a Marxist from South Africa. Hmm. LOL. No wonder you're so messes up. The rest of this garbage is old non historical arguments from silence.

Despite your typical parroting of a liberal rant, you do agree that there was a Jesus. And thus TG, you would have to say that Sapient is wrong in his assessment, from a historical sense. There was a Jesus. He was not a liar (Titus 1:2). He was who He said He was, the Savior over those who choose to be resued from torment.

If you wish to dialogue, try to make it a little shorter. If I wanted to write another book, I'd be smoking my cigars now

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,Ex

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Ex Minister, from a historical perspective, you have to take various refeernce externally speaking regarding Jesus if you are secular minded and are not into the facts, but into the fabrications. The Talmud is an example among other sources around that period that demonstrate that there was a man who was Jesus who did the things the Bible testifies to.

Obviously, it is an attack on Jesus, and not reliable via the put downs, but indirectly it would be an example of secular proof and use as an ad hominem.

____

TG,

Jesus is not only in the Gemara, but also in the Mishnah. The Mishnah predates Jesus Himself. So your complaint is wrong.

However, even though the later references you speaks of do account for Jesus. Nevertheless, they stem from the tradition of the Mishnah itself. They are used and must be account for. Now if you want to be a dishonest historian and ignore the "evidence," well that's what we would expect.

Q is an argument from silence. There is no source, it's a guess or leap of faith. Since the gospels are so reprobale via history, evidence, so fourth, the pagan secular nut cases had to come up with something to counter it. So they invented a Q source which is FALSE. Silence + Silence always equals Silence.

The Biblical Jesus did not teach the end of the generation. That verse you are talking about is in regard to the transfiguration. LOL. TG, come on.

I already refuted your false notion of the logos. The Logos was a term that became a very common rich phiosophical word. Like empiricism. John used it as a word like I may use a pagan word, Sophia, and pour Christian content into it. You made a logical fallacy of term over concept with this. The Ebonite movement was a cult which is what is to be expected. The only thing we know of them are polemics from Church Fathers. Them being wiped out is tradition.

The Apostle John uses langauge to stress the contrast against Gnosticism. Docetism was the prominent gnostic group at that time. The fact that the Word was made flesh is completely antithetical to the prominent gnosticism at that time. If John was gnostic or influenced by gnostism, he would have said the Word APPEARED as flesh. To say John was influenced by gnosticism goes against the evidence to the contrary, which is to be expected among the fabricaters.

Another example is I John 4:2-3:

Quote:
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."

We also see such examples in other places. The Church Fathers are also against such gnosticism no wonder because of the New Testament. Irenaeus was also against gnosticism as a decendent of John's teaching via Polycarp, his teacher. Your claim is absurd which is what we would expect among the fabricators.

Nobody reacted to Marcion, but rather acted via clairification of the original intent of the author's of Scripture via God Himself. Christianity was attacked, and helped fellow believers not fall into the trap of deception. Marcion some say decended from Simon Magus in Acts who is clearly an enemy of Christianity and does not represent Christianity.

When  you say historical researchers, you are talking about the Schweitzer type of researcher, not an honest historical researcher. I ought to write on historiagraphy.

Quote:
generally see Jesus as a wandering synic 
They see via vote. There is no scholarship here. I debated a Jesus Seminar guy over this. Their books admit that they make Jesus in their own image. They are not reallly historians, but rather wannabe historians. They get credit because the world hates Christ. This is a huge joke.

Your mentor was a Marxist from South Africa. Hmm. LOL. No wonder you're so messes up. The rest of this garbage is old non historical arguments from silence.

Despite your typical parroting of a liberal rant, you do agree that there was a Jesus. And thus TG, you would have to say that Sapient is wrong in his assessment, from a historical sense. There was a Jesus. He was not a liar (Titus 1:2). He was who He said He was, the Savior over those who choose to be resued from torment.

If you wish to dialogue, try to make it a little shorter. If I wanted to write another book, I'd be smoking my cigars now

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yes the Mishnah predates Jesus but the comments have origination no earlier than 200 CE.  As to your assessment of Q I can show you many years of research I did to satisfy myself that there is another written source beside Mark that Matthew and Luke used.  The researchers that you follow and quote are the real parrots in the sense that they do not start objectively and must come to a conclusion that they already assume and repeat it generation to generation.  I did all of my work by comparing the works of conservative and liberals. Neither are without bias or presuppositions.

Jesus did teach the end of the world within his generation and the worn out transfiguration excuse does not hold up.

There is no second coming because it did not happen and it is not going to happen. Read where the idea comes from: 

I Corinthians 7:

25

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

26

Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

27

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

28

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Since this did not happen celibacy developed from these passages.  So we have such in the Catholic Church. Simply because Jesus did not come.  Paul based all this on early Christian teachings because it was part of early Christianity that Jesus was coming back in their life times. Why because Jesus supposedly said so.

Mark 13:28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

   Matthew 24: 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

   

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35

Luke 21:    32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

It did not happen. And even in the second century they were writing stuff to justify it not happening:

II Peter3: 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

It was a failed prophecy. Christianity was built on it but it never happened. Christians need to get over it.  It has nothing to do with today. It was supposed to happen in the 1st Century CE. It did not JUST GET OVER IT.

here is no second coming because it did not happen and it is not going to happen. Read where the idea comes from: 

I Corinthians 7:

25

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

26

Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

27

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

28

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Since this did not happen celibacy developed from these passages.  So we have such in the Catholic Church. Simply because Jesus did not come.  Paul based all this on early Christian teachings because it was part of early Christianity that Jesus was coming back in their life times. Why because Jesus supposedly said so.

Mark 13:28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

   Matthew 24: 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

   

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35

Luke 21:    32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

It did not happen. And even in the second century they were writing stuff to justify it not happening:

II Peter3: 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

I could refer you to Hebrews and on and on....It was a failed prophecy. Christianity was built on it but it never happened. Christians need to get over it.  It has nothing to do with today. It was supposed to happen in the 1st Century CE. It did not JUST GET OVER IT.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

It is interesting to add that the Soncino Babylonian Talmud was almost destroyed by Modern Jews. Hundreds of years later, they realized that they wanted to not even mention these writings since it would give credence to His "existence" historically speaking.

This was around 1631 if I remember. But a copy remains in Oxford. The Mishna runs up to about 220, but originates much earlier before the birth of Christ. So via the fabricators, even the Jews are part of this fabrication to eradicate truth. It's been studied in private by Jews and They're not happy.

Your posts are so long. Holy Cow. I will try to respond to as much as possible.

Yes, I've read countless hours of this absurd notion of Q. Is it in Oxford? Or Harvard? Where is it so I can read it? Oh, it's nowhere, in the figment of the imagination. I see.

Q is an absurd Joke. If you would like to start a separate thread on Q we can discuss this. It can get very detailed via the history of the non-sense of absurdity.

The celibacy of the Roman Cathlic Pagan Church misreads this to say that marriage is less spiritual then celibacy. This entails if you are a Christian (Rome is not) and if you are given the "gift of singleness." Most are not. This is why Paul says in verse 9, "But if they cannot contain let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn."

So this is absurd.

-The generation thing. Some say it is in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which was in 70 AD. This is discusing t the climactic generation. Jerusalem fell about forty years after Jesus' warning. Once God had judged the fruitless authorities who dominate the temple, Jesus could return at any time. Jesus' Coming Will Catch Most People Unawares (24:36-44) The day in this passage may well refer to the day of the Lord (as in 1 Thess 5:. Such a warning prevents suffering believers from building up undue expectations that would set them up for exploitation (Mt 24:23-27); this sort of warning was especially critical in view of the tendency of many of Jesus' contemporaries to predict signs of the end.

Your notion is absurd.

It was not suppose to happen in the 1st century since nobody knows the day or hour except the Father. Justin Martyr thought it would happen 1000 AD. While Paul did "expect" it to happen, he certainly did not know since it was not revealed to him.

So again, this is bogus. If nobody knows accept the Father (or God), then nobody knows. Not even Paul. They only suspected this.

Bogus arguments that are very old and already refuted dealt with in history.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,It

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

It is interesting to add that the Soncino Babylonian Talmud was almost destroyed by Modern Jews. Hundreds of years later, they realized that they wanted to not even mention these writings since it would give credence to His "existence" historically speaking.

This was around 1631 if I remember. But a copy remains in Oxford. The Mishna runs up to about 220, but originates much earlier before the birth of Christ. So via the fabricators, even the Jews are part of this fabrication to eradicate truth. It's been studied in private by Jews and They're not happy.

Your posts are so long. Holy Cow. I will try to respond to as much as possible.

Yes, I've read countless hours of this absurd notion of Q. Is it in Oxford? Or Harvard? Where is it so I can read it? Oh, it's nowhere, in the figment of the imagination. I see.

Q is an absurd Joke. If you would like to start a separate thread on Q we can discuss this. It can get very detailed via the history of the non-sense of absurdity.

The celibacy of the Roman Cathlic Pagan Church misreads this to say that marriage is less spiritual then celibacy. This entails if you are a Christian (Rome is not) and if you are given the "gift of singleness." Most are not. This is why Paul says in verse 9, "But if they cannot contain let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn."

So this is absurd.

-The generation thing. Some say it is in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which was in 70 AD. This is discusing t the climactic generation. Jerusalem fell about forty years after Jesus' warning. Once God had judged the fruitless authorities who dominate the temple, Jesus could return at any time. Jesus' Coming Will Catch Most People Unawares (24:36-44) The day in this passage may well refer to the day of the Lord (as in 1 Thess 5:. Such a warning prevents suffering believers from building up undue expectations that would set them up for exploitation (Mt 24:23-27); this sort of warning was especially critical in view of the tendency of many of Jesus' contemporaries to predict signs of the end.

Your notion is absurd.

It was not suppose to happen in the 1st century since nobody knows the day or hour except the Father. Justin Martyr thought it would happen 1000 AD. While Paul did "expect" it to happen, he certainly did not know since it was not revealed to him.

So again, this is bogus. If nobody knows accept the Father (or God), then nobody knows. Not even Paul. They only suspected this.

Bogus arguments that are very old and already refuted dealt with in history.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Sure. Lets start a thread on Q.  I can demonstrate the common source that Matthew and Luke added to Mark's text whether it was the same or a similar sayings source. But how do you eat an elephant? A little at a time.   My posts are long because I gotta respond to your stuff. Most of the presvious was just scripture about the endtime in the Jesus' generation.  It was supposed to happen in jesus's generation. When it did not then MAtthew changes Mark's Little Apolacylpse. Luke makes it reflect the destruction of the temple but still within his generation. John revisions it away with his mysticism. The forger of II Peter tries to keep the idea alive.  Schweitzer was right in this regard. As was C. S. Lewis:

   If we have an open mind on that point, the whole problem is altered. If such an end is really going to occur, and if (as is the case) the Jews had been trained by their religion to expect it, then it is very natural that they should produce apocalyptic literature. On that view, our Lord’s production of something like the other apocalyptic documents would not necessarily result from his supposed bondage to the errors    If we have an open mind on that point, the whole problem is altered. If such an end is really going to occur, and if (as is the case) the Jews had been trained by their religion to expect it, then it is very natural that they should produce apocalyptic literature. On that view, our Lord’s production of something like the other apocalyptic documents would not necessarily result from his supposed bondage to the errors of his period, but would be the Divine exploitation of a sound element in contemporary Judaism: nay, the time and place in which it pleased him to be incarnate would, presumably, have been chosen because, there and then, that element existed, and had, by his eternal providence, been devel­oped for that very purpose. For if we once accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must surely be very cautious in suggesting that any circumstance in the culture of first-century Palestine was a hampering or distorting influence upon his teach­ing. Do we suppose that the scene of God’s earthly life was selected at random?—that some other scene would have served better?



    But there is worse to come. “Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”of his period, but would be the Divine exploitation of a sound element in contemporary Judaism: nay, the time and place in which it pleased him to be incarnate would, presumably, have been chosen because, there and then, that element existed, and had, by his eternal providence, been devel­oped for that very purpose. For if we once accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must surely be very cautious in suggesting that any circumstance in the culture of first-century Palestine was a hampering or distorting influence upon his teach­ing. Do we suppose that the scene of God’s earthly life was selected at random?—that some other scene would have served better?



    But there is worse to come. “Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

I've studied the absurdities of Q You're going to simply repeat the same old argument that have been refuted before. Your whole argument is based on silence.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

I've studied the absurdities of Q You're going to simply repeat the same old argument that have been refuted before. Your whole argument is based on silence.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It is only been refuted by a denial of probability to maintain the presupposition of inspiration. You are not willing to suspend your belief in inspiration  and look at it objectively. I did not buy into the various author's writings but prior to studying them had noticed the conflicts in the gospels. When I came across the two source theory I began a comparison


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Hi TG,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

I've studied the absurdities of Q You're going to simply repeat the same old argument that have been refuted before. Your whole argument is based on silence.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It is only been refuted by a denial of probability to maintain the presupposition of inspiration. You are not willing to suspend your belief in inspiration  and look at it objectively. I did not buy into the various author's writings but prior to studying them had noticed the conflicts in the gospels. When I came across the two source theory I began a comparison of the variations the explanation became the most plausible and explained the variations that conservative scholarship had to create a gymnastic impausible maze to believe.

 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...historically speaking via logic, there was a Jesus

Since you didn't live during those times, you have no authority to certify anything concerning any single person that has been written about.

 

Rumours are not difficult to start and perpetuate, even in the 21st century.

 

Under no circumstances can you overcome these realities.

 

Spending your whole life thinking otherwise, is a pathetic waste of energy, and an interesting look into the minds of emotionally underdeveloped adults with severe solipsism, self esteem issues, and a penchent for masochistic codependancy.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hi TG,

You claim is the ad hominem abusive fallacy and you know it. There is no Q. Logically, you admit this. Who had Q? Oxford? Q is a made up source from no where to attack Scripture.

Higher Criticism of this type has been taken to task on this issue.

While you are a pagan, you will naturally attack Scripture since you are narrow minded in accepting the Testimonies of the writers of Scripture as historical evidence. Thus your intolerance blinds you to reality.

You said it becames the "most plausible...." What? I don't often say this, but Q and your arguments about Q are really retarded.

The evidence supports the Harmony of the Gospels, not the fragmentation of the gospels.

This is an example of what I've been talkinga about. Atheism modus operandum is FRAGMENTATION, not unity. Even when the evidence calls for it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The evidence supports the Harmony of the Gospels, not the fragmentation of the gospels.

This is an example of what I've been talkinga about. Atheism modus operandum is FRAGMENTATION, not unity. Even when the evidence calls for it.

Circular reasoning.

Another Epic Fail...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

You claim is the ad hominem abusive fallacy and you know it. There is no Q. Logically, you admit this. Who had Q? Oxford? Q is a made up source from no where to attack Scripture.

Higher Criticism of this type has been taken to task on this issue.

While you are a pagan, you will naturally attack Scripture since you are narrow minded in accepting the Testimonies of the writers of Scripture as historical evidence. Thus your intolerance blinds you to reality.

You said it becames the "most plausible...." What? I don't often say this, but Q and your arguments about Q are really retarded.

The evidence supports the Harmony of the Gospels, not the fragmentation of the gospels.

This is an example of what I've been talkinga about. Atheism modus operandum is FRAGMENTATION, not unity. Even when the evidence calls for it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You speaking it such does not make it not.  Q is a hypothetical that regardless of its actual state of existence explains the nature of the Synoptic Gospels better than a inspirational or infallibalistic position.  Higher Criticism has never listened to opinionated presuppositions of those who would twist the normal concepts of history into a pretzel to recursive Mobius strip.  Around and around without end or grounding into actual explanation...with pure absurdity of apologetics, pure 24 karat unmitigated asininity.  Put your evidence where your mouth is before you call something retarded simply because you can not suspend your faith based lens of illusion that results in a world view of delusion.  Priority of Mark and Q explain the contradictions and variations in supporting redaction criticism as their explanation in contrast to the implausible absurdities of harmonization in order to maintain a belief that is simply an outworn tradition about the canon that is not supported by its nature or fact. As to blaming it on my atheism you are simply using sound bites that reveal your assumptions that are unwarranted and unfounded.

I came to my atheistic position from a belief in scripture not from my present paganism. A fair treatment of the scripture will at least save one from the heresy of orthodoxy.  It is the hard core studying of them with an objective  and unbiasly fair analysis rather than an  a priori apologetic stance and its conclusion that the scripture is inerrant, infallible and/or inspired that allowed me to see  the probable and plausible nature of the texts as opposed the the improbable and implausible dogmatic position that requires the qymnastics of fantasy and fanciful harmonizations that cause the character Jesus to pop up like a windup jack in the box  in repeated scenarios or redundancy and absurdity borderiing on Dadaism and surrealism.  It is this position not a normative understanding of history, reality and science that is a FRAGMENTATION dfrom the real world view to some fantastic world view where the characters in the narrative are no longer function within context but are transported from the meaning of the scriptures to the doctrine of medieval superstition, dogma and absurdity ( did I say asininity? ).

 PS Can you find the really long sentence in all of that?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
HI TG

Hi TG,

Yes, speaking does not make. That's only possible with God via creation, and God said, And logically simply because you speak it doesn't make it so.

But you are arguing from silence. And the YOU have the burden of proof regarding Q since I negate the thesis of Q. I know Q is from the German word for source, but it doens't exist. It's never been found. It's beyond probable. what is your ratio of erro regarding this NOTHING.

Since it doesn't "exist." we can call it donald duck.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Yes,

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Yes, speaking does not make. That's only possible with God via creation,

Special pleading fallacy.

 

Wow, your proofs of god are astounding...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Q IS

Matthew and Luke reproduce 94% or Mark's text.  The high degree of exact word for word correspondence between Matthew and mark, Luke and Mark but not Matthew and Luke in these areas indicate plagarism of Mark at least by contemporary high school or college standards. When we look at what Matthew and Luke have in common not found in Mark we find non-contextually sayings that are placed in the context of Mark  in different places by  Matthew and Luke sometimes to the alteration of Mark's original meaning or text. I discovered this by placing Mark in the center of a three foot poster board with Matthew to the left and Luke to the right. I then drew lines of the corresponding pericopae . Whre Matthew and Luke followed mark the lines connecting them were straight. Where the saying were added jumped around and crisscrossed  widely. 

Next in my study I found that the variations of the stories made more sense if mark was indeed earliest and plagarized by the other gospels.  For Mark consistently presently with the more primitive reading or such that the theology was more primitive than the other two. Matthew for example exaggerates the miraculous and hightens the Christological flavor of the story lacking and in Mark. He does so in such a consistent manner that the stories are sometimes butchered as compared to Mark and the dynamics of the stories left awkward.

As you say Jean this would be a tedious and lengthy process since we will be in a stance of polemic and apologetics unless you can give up your presuppositions and a priori defensive stance. I certainly am subject to change on the understanding of the verses. I came to my position objectively and remain so. I change my understanding as I find new information.  Is that possible within your faith context or environment? If so you are welcome to start the thread and I will do what I can as I have time.  The end may well approacheth or a new beginning depending on someone else's DNA.  I hate exegetica interruptus but we can try for the conclusion.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

If Q or Donald Duck is, then where is this source? Tell me where in the world is this document located? Since this is impossible, you speak out of complete absurd silence.

The gospels have harmony. However, they had different audiences in mind which describes some emphasises over others. For example Mark stresses POWER more then the other 2 since his audience was Roman.

Tell me where Q is being held right now. YOu cannot. TG, I like you, and don't take this the wrong way, but when you speak of Q, you are speaking out of your own ass.

We can discuss nitty specifics of this absurdity if you would like. I'll start a thred on this sometime this week if I get a chance if you really like. But you must agree as logic dictates, you have the burden of proof of that which is nowhere found in the universe. (LOL).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,If

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

If Q or Donald Duck is, then where is this source? Tell me where in the world is this document located? Since this is impossible, you speak out of complete absurd silence.

The gospels have harmony. However, they had different audiences in mind which describes some emphasises over others. For example Mark stresses POWER more then the other 2 since his audience was Roman.

Tell me where Q is being held right now. YOu cannot. TG, I like you, and don't take this the wrong way, but when you speak of Q, you are speaking out of your own ass.

We can discuss nitty specifics of this absurdity if you would like. I'll start a thred on this sometime this week if I get a chance if you really like. But you must agree as logic dictates, you have the burden of proof of that which is nowhere found in the universe. (LOL).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Where are the Ten Commandments Written on Stone? Where are the original documents of the NT. Where is god? You paid little attention to the process by which I determined what is called Q whether it was a written source or one inserted into the navels of the writers in which they obtained there "inspiration".Please don't take this the wrong way.  Actually I can reproduce it and shove it up your ass.  Where's your Ark?

Actually the burden of proof lies with you since my position is the widely accepted one. The theory remains a theory with a typical understanding that there may have been many versions of it floating around in which the authors used different versions. QUOTE THE WIKI GOD:

The Q source (also Q document or Q) is a hypothetical written source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Q (short for the German Quelle, or "source&quotEye-wink is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus.[1]



Along with Markan priority, Q was identified by 1900, and it is one of the foundations of modern gospel scholarship.[2] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was a written document (not an oral tradition) composed in Greek; that almost all of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the original order of the text than Matthew.[3] In the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources.[3] Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.[3] Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.[3]



The existence of Q has sometimes been challenged.[3] The existence of a highly treasured dominical document, being omitted from all the early Church catalogs and going unmentioned by all the fathers of the early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.[4] Despite challenges, the two source hypothesis retains wide support.[3]

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean

 

you are repeatedly speaking out against arguments from silence and I find that really quite surprising coming from a christian. I thought arguments from silence were definitive proof of HIS mastery.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: you

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

you are repeatedly speaking out against arguments from silence and I find that really quite surprising coming from a christian. I thought arguments from silence were definitive proof of HIS mastery.  

 

 

ANd there really is a difference in an argument from silence and a reconstruction of texts from those who quote or copy them.  But then what is the point of demonstrating that. It leads to an accusation that I am using an atheist definition. redneF caught Jean claiming he wrote an article that was actually by someone else. But I guess it depends on what the Christian meaning of "wrote" is.


http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29510?page=1

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

The Ten Commandment and the Arc of the Covenant are recorded, described in precise detail, and there are stories about it. Where are the stories of Q. When was Q written. What is the dimensional size of the document.

I have history, you have crickets.

You have the burden of proof via absurdity.

I could say there is a WW74Y document saying that atheism historically speaking is actually intended in the denial or the lack of belief in whales.

It's just as absurd. But I know where you are coming from TG, I've studied the issue for many many many many years.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

The Ten Commandment and the Arc of the Covenant are recorded, described in precise detail, and there are stories about it. Where are the stories of Q. When was Q written. What is the dimensional size of the document.

I have history, you have crickets.

You have the burden of proof via absurdity.

I could say there is a WW74Y document saying that atheism historically speaking is actually intended in the denial or the lack of belief in whales.

It's just as absurd. But I know where you are coming from TG, I've studied the issue for many many many many years.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

There  really is a difference in an argument from silence and a reconstruction of texts from those who quote or copy them. Did you study with Dr. Jason Lisle??? Q explains the contradiction os the Synoptics better than any conservative harmonization which does abuse to the actually sayings of the scripture.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jeremiah (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 this all seems like a joke

 this all seems like a joke but just in case it isnt im wondering in what way does you life have more meaning? "now that you know jesus didnt exist" and just to throw in a thought of mine, if your right and jesus doesnt exist and God isnt real then when we die we just perish into nothing, seems like life is pretty meaning less then, but just for a moment think if your right and i live my life for jesus (who you say doesnt exist) and i die i am at the same place as you, we both just become nothing and life is over, but on the flip side if christians are right then when i die after living my life for jesus i get eternal life in heaven and you if you continue your life saying that jesus does not exist  will be suffering in Hell. so you have nothing to lose if you believe in Jesus


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Jeremiah wrote:
if your right and jesus doesnt exist and God isnt real then when we die we just perish into nothing,

No, we don't perish into nothing. I would go to FSM heaven where everyone gets unlimited free pasta. You would go to FSM hell, where all the beer is stale and the prostitutes have stds.

Quote:
seems like life is pretty meaning less then,

Why?

Quote:

but on the flip side if christians are right then when i die after living my life for jesus i get eternal life in heaven and you if you continue your life saying that jesus does not exist  will be suffering in Hell.

Oh? How do you know God won't send me to heaven and send you to hell? Show me evidence that God likes Christians more than atheists.

Quote:
so you have nothing to lose if you believe in Jesus

So, devoting your entire life to lies and delusions does not seem even slightly bad to you? Nor being tortured for all eternity?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jeremiah, is it so hard for

Jeremiah, is it so hard for you to carry meaning and purpose to your own life?

Oh and please read up on Pascal's Wager - it really doesn't help your cause.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jeremiah wrote: just to

Jeremiah wrote:

 just to throw in a thought of mine, if your right and jesus doesnt exist and God isnt real then when we die we just perish into nothing

And this is wrong, how?

Jeremiah wrote:
seems like life is pretty meaning less then

Not if you're getting laid regularly.

 

Jeremiah wrote:
but on the flip side if christians are right

That's a pretty big 'if'.

Can you prove that they're right?

Jeremiah wrote:
then when i die after living my life for jesus i get eternal life in heaven

So, in essence, you're selling your eternal soul to the 'one' who grants you eternal life.

There's a metaphor for that, and the guy's name in the metaphor ain't 'Jesus'.

Jeremiah wrote:
and you if you continue your life saying that jesus does not exist  will be suffering in Hell.

Can you prove that?

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Jeremiah wrote:

but just for a moment think if your right and i live my life for jesus (who you say doesnt exist) and i die i am at the same place as you, we both just become nothing and life is over...

You will also have wasted the only life you get living a lie.  How sad.

- Brian Sapient


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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Jeremiah

Sapient wrote:

Jeremiah wrote:

but just for a moment think if your right and i live my life for jesus (who you say doesnt exist) and i die i am at the same place as you, we both just become nothing and life is over...

You will also have wasted the only life you get living a lie.  How sad.

And not only that you could not get him back for conning you into wasting your entire life.  Also on Pascal's wager which god do  I wager on?


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: on Pascal's

TGBaker wrote:

 on Pascal's wager which god do  I wager on?

It's complicated...


cathy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
depressssion

 

you have depresses me..im a catolic, and i dont really go to chapel, unless im taking my sons in to light candles....but i always felt and still to feel conforted by jesus chrits presence. when i pray to jesus he awnsers my prays, so thats all the proof i need


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
How does he answer?

 Cathy,

How often do you pray to Jesus? When you say he answers your prayers, are the answers "yes", "no", "later"?

if so isn't that just random?

 

If the answer is always "yes" then have you asked for a million dollars? If not, try that today. Ask for $1,000,123.76 exactly. Post a picture of the check here for us to consider. If that is too selfish for you, then ask that each person reading this will moments after they read it, will receive a brand new Lamborghini sitting right in their driveway. He says if you ask for anything in his name you will receive it and you can even say to this mountain move and it will. We have tried those but nothing happens. Maybe you are the one who has god's ear and can clear up this matter for us. We would like that. I mean why wait til after death to find out. Wouldn't it be better now? I understand Jesus loves us and wants us to be in heaven, so wouldn't it be in his best interest to make it very clear he exists?

This is a very testable thing, which is what we like here. It needs to work and work repeatedly for all to experience and observe.

 

Oh, feel free, to detail those prayers that have been answered.

 

 

 

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/


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Truth table...

ex-minister wrote:

 Cathy,

How often do you pray to Jesus? When you say he answers your prayers, are the answers "yes", "no", "later"?

if so isn't that just random?

 

If the answer is always "yes" then have you asked for a million dollars? If not, try that today. Ask for $1,000,123.76 exactly. Post a picture of the check here for us to consider. If that is too selfish for you, then ask that each person reading this will moments after they read it, will receive a brand new Lamborghini sitting right in their driveway. He says if you ask for anything in his name you will receive it and you can even say to this mountain move and it will. We have tried those but nothing happens. Maybe you are the one who has god's ear and can clear up this matter for us. We would like that. I mean why wait til after death to find out. Wouldn't it be better now? I understand Jesus loves us and wants us to be in heaven, so wouldn't it be in his best interest to make it very clear he exists?

This is a very testable thing, which is what we like here. It needs to work and work repeatedly for all to experience and observe.

 

Oh, feel free, to detail those prayers that have been answered.

 

 

 

 

There are only 3 possible results for prayer.

1. You get what you want.
2. You don't get all you want.
3. You don't get what you want.

(some wish to complicate by adding in the factor of time, saying "You get what you want but later". This is just window dressing that doesn't add to the argument)

This formula works if you pray to the god of abraham, or your cereal box, allah, or your sneakers... you can only get the same 3 results.

LC >;-}>

Prayer: The weird belief that mumbling incantations to the ceiling, the walls or the floor will cause an extra-dimensional being with magical powers to abandon its plan in your favor.

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cathy wrote: you have

cathy wrote:

 

you have depresses me..im a catolic, and i dont really go to chapel, unless im taking my sons in to light candles....but i always felt and still to feel conforted by jesus chrits presence. when i pray to jesus he awnsers my prays, so thats all the proof i need

No one wants to depress you. Just wake you up.

When I was a Catholic. When I was about 9 years old, in church, I spotted a girl I found attractive. I was a wimp. I pined in my mind after her for years. When I finally worked up my nerve to ask her out she rejected me. I wasted all that time when I could have, right when I first saw her, could have asked, gotten rejected, and went on with my life.

That warm fuzzy feeling of the prospect of something I wanted was a hoax. Just like you wanting a god to exist. It feels nice, but it is merely you projecting your own wishful thinking of wanting a super hero to save you. Just like I wanted so badly for that girl to like me.

It is 2011, we have known for decades what DNA is. If you can accept DNA evidence in court as evidence in a murder trial, then you should be able to accept that it takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. It may put a damper on your desires of a virgin birth, sure, but it is a reality that if you face, can help you convict murderers.

Facing reality is not something to be depressed about. It just means you don't accept myth because a story may sound nice and because you like it.

 

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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I have all the proof I need.

Sapient wrote:
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed. I hope you too are able to find this truth.

 

Since we are told over and over that faith is really all you need, I can say without fear of contradiction that Jesus never existed, I have faith.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


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

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Sapient wrote:
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed. I hope you too are able to find this truth.

 

Since we are told over and over that faith is really all you need, I can say without fear of contradiction that Jesus never existed, I have faith.

LC >;-}>

The first time I read these verses from Sapient 1:1-4, I became instantly liberated.   Truly inspired. I know it is true because it says its true. 

Glory to Sapient.

 

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/


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

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Prayer: The weird belief that mumbling incantations to the ceiling, the walls or the floor will cause an extra-dimensional being with magical powers to abandon its plan in your favor.

also...

Prayer: an opportunity to brainwash yourself more than you already are.

Prayer: it does nothing except for delude the person praying.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Prayer is....

Prayer is easier than actually DOING something.
Prayer is the best way to imagine you are doing good in the world while you are actually doing fuck-all...
 

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lee Larson (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Jesus Myth

     There is no contemporary PROOF that 'Jesus Christ' or anyone else in the New Testament (with the exception of Pontius Pilate) ever existed as historical people. The New Testament as such is not proof of anything but is merely an allegation. A person who believes absolutely in the Bible does not prove anything but his own willingness to take an unproven thesis at face value. The lack of proof does not disprove the Christian myth, it simply means that the Jesus story has yet to be proven and no one is obliged to take it on blind faith. Everything points to the Jesus myth being a work of outright fiction. However, all rational people must consider actual PROOF in the event that anyone ever manages to find any. ##The human race has been waiting for this 'proof' for over two thousand years now, so someone had better get busy. In the meantime, I will not allow myself to be threatened with the fires of 'Hell' for not accepting an absurdity as the absolute truth.

     For that matter, what of this 'God' creature? Where did he come from? Oh, he's been around forever, we're told. I didn't ask how long he's been around, I asked where he came from, and no one, absolutely no one, can give a straight answer. Saying that 'God is a mystery' is another reason not to accept the Bible or any other religion. Let's see the proof; if there is any, then we've got to rethink our outlook on life.

     Until then, I choose to live in the real world and do the best I can rather than 'turn my life over to Jesus' and let him take charge. When 'Jesus' starts writing the checks and paying the bills and mowing the yard, then we'll talk about it.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey TG Baker

Hey TG Baker,

Are you dead yet? If so then you instantly have woken up in hell. If you're in hell i'm sure you will remember me.

You stupid stupid man, you could have accepted Christ but instead you moron you're in pain.

As we speak, you're most likely screaming in unbelievable pain every second because the pain is really torment. You want to kill yourself it's so much torture but you can't.

You're an idiot. Rot in hell pagan. You should have listened to me, and in reference to what the Bible says.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey TG Baker,

Are you dead yet? If so then you instantly have woken up in hell. If you're in hell i'm sure you will remember me.

You stupid stupid man, you could have accepted Christ but instead you moron you're in pain.

As we speak, you're most likely screaming in unbelievable pain every second because the pain is really torment. You want to kill yourself it's so much torture but you can't.

You're an idiot. Rot in hell pagan. You should have listened to me, and in reference to what the Bible says.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Why would Yahweh torture someone for eternity for not being a Christian?  How is that justice?  It sounds like an expression of hate on the part of the early Christians for people who couldn't or wouldn't see things their way.  They wanted their enemies to suffer. 

It's not like it's just a Christian thing, most people like to get revenge, but the doctrine of eternal torture takes it to the level of extreme hate.  It's permanent.  Why doesn't the all-loving Yahweh eventually forgive the sinners?  It would be like watching your pet get tortured while you let it happen, listening to it scream in pain, when you had the love and power to stop it at any time.  It's contradictory.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey TG Baker,

Are you dead yet?

Actually he is you insensitive asshole.  And he would want me to tell you that he's not in hell, because there is no hell.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3611
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey TG

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey TG Baker,

Are you dead yet? If so then you instantly have woken up in hell. If you're in hell i'm sure you will remember me.

You stupid stupid man, you could have accepted Christ but instead you moron you're in pain.

As we speak, you're most likely screaming in unbelievable pain every second because the pain is really torment. You want to kill yourself it's so much torture but you can't.

You're an idiot. Rot in hell pagan. You should have listened to me, and in reference to what the Bible says.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

   Jean's tough talk is just him trying to get his jabs in before Jean himself becomes food for the worms.   How old are you, Jean ?

 

 

 

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

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Cofton (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Did Jesus Exist.... Did father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy....

I compare Jesus to Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, the Pink Elephant at the bottom of the garden, Harry Potter.... and all things fluffy and kind and nice and 'feel good'....

There's no solid evidence that he existed at all, it's no good saying so and so said he did or they wrote about him.... because simply there's no proof that whoever you're naming really knew anyone named Jesus... I mean how gulllible can you be?

To put it into context, imagine in 3000 thousand years time and someone (if of course people still exist) suddenly finds a Harry Potter DVD and manages to play it.  Does the population then believe that there really was a Harry Potter with special powers ??  Of course not.

Yes there may have been a man named Jesus Christ  at that time of the writing..... but when you think of it there are many, many people named Harry Potter as we speak now..... doesn't mean there was one with a wand and special powers.

Come on guys, get a grip...... how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go before you realise you left your brain on the surface?

 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I trust your revelation. I

I trust your revelation. I also trust Acharya S's authority and  the great tradition of Madelyn Murray O'Hare. There's all the reasons to believe, I see no reason why they can't be used for unbelief.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
One's own self is proof

Sapient wrote:
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed. I hope you too are able to find this truth.

of his existence. He is representative of one's human side---opposite ones' animal side. What he represents is seen in all, bar none. Know thyself, and you will see him/you. If you are of the material/superficial/civilized mind you won't understand.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Be careful when

TGBaker wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Sapeint,

Look Theists, whatever you are, Sapient is messing with you and trying to get a point across with a failed attempt at R.A.A. However, the Talmud speaks of Jesus numerous times. The Talmud views Jesus as an enemey and does not speak kindly of Him.

However, by doing so, they SPEAK OF HIM. LOL.

Also, the Jesus Seminar admits of Jesus being real. However, they butcher the Bible to fit their view of Jesus via popular vote. It's always 4 out of 5 like that Dentist commercial.

And the guy that started the quest for the historical Jesus admitted of a Jesus (a liberal form of Jesus). Albert Schweitzer.

So this is fun. Thus the burden of proof rests on you since we deny your claim. The Christian has met their burden, unlike your attempt at R.A.A.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yes but the references are not from the tannaitic period and thus are 3 or 4th century statements in response to the Christian religion ( the amoraic period).  I had a disagreement with Robert Funk the had of the Jesus Seminar and unintentionally insulted him about their conclusions of no eschatology in the earliest level of Q.  Albert Schweitzer started the first quest for the Historical jesus that died out with Barth and Bultmann's neo=orthodoxy. The New Quest did not get much further with Bultmann's students which responded polemically to their mentor's position.  There wa a historical Jesus who taught the end of the world in his generation. Unfortunately the end was only for him. 

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles.  He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born.  Paul cast him in an ahistorical  Hellenistic Savior myth.  Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.  The Ebionite movement was wiped out pretty much in the second revolt under ben Kochba. Neo-platonic thought moved another aspect of Jewish thought with the help of the Johannine literature toward Gnosticism.  Logos Christology became predominate in the second century while Paul's writings became old hat. Marcion rejected the Jewish background of god and created the first Christian bible. Other groups of churches reacted against Marcion and Paul's writings came back into popularity as well as the pseudepigraphical ones attrbuted to Paul and Peter/Jude and John.  Various forms of Christianity competed with each other creating more and more writings attributed to the Apsotles. The gospels were attributed to Matthew , Mark, Luke and John. Jesus became more and more divine and everybody got together and created a bunch of trinity theories. The politicians won.

Historical researchers in this field generally see Jesus as a wondering Cynic teacher spouting out words of wisdom and folk philosophy. It does seem to be the core of what developed into Christianity. Jesus was a human who came from Galilee. Galilee was the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism.  Even so only 50% of the population was Jewish. Rabbi Hannina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer were very similar characters to Jesus. ben Dosa called god Abba like Jesus ( meaning Daddy instead of a reverential , father).  He spoke openly with women as Jesus did. The reason that historians posit these as historical is because they are contrary to the believing Jewish or Christian movement. You can see evidence that the church tried to cover up the fact that Jesus was baptized as others to get rid of sin. Historical Jesus research is a discipline to explain the sociological development of what became Christianity ... what historical kernel was the catalyst for all the mythic construction.  It is commonly understood that the bible is mythic in seminaries and theological  schools like Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Emory, Vanderbuilt. The bridge from school to church is teach it as truth and avoid the lack of factual basis. So statements are demythologized and taken into a philosophical meaning rather than a grounded factual historical meaning. Virgin birth does not really mean a women had a child and was a virgin. It becomes a story to honor jesus as both god and man.  So you have pure historical work. Then the theologians that try to make it still meaningful and then the preachers to present it as literal.  When I was in seminary my mentor (Hendrikus Boers)  who wrote Who Was Jesus? was a Marxist atheist from South Africa. He would point to people like Jurgen Moltmann (theologian) as a fraud that needed to be exposed. Then there is the whole moderate movement that tries to salvage some christianity out of the historical/critical conclusions. Crossan was on the Jesus Seminar team. He knows Jesus was simply a person who got into trouble and was removed from being an irritation.  The people who cared about where Jesus was buried did not know where he was buried. The people who did know where he was buried ( communal grave) did not care.

when applying the term "human".


 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yahweh

Philosophicus wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey TG Baker,

Are you dead yet? If so then you instantly have woken up in hell. If you're in hell i'm sure you will remember me.

You stupid stupid man, you could have accepted Christ but instead you moron you're in pain.

As we speak, you're most likely screaming in unbelievable pain every second because the pain is really torment. You want to kill yourself it's so much torture but you can't.

You're an idiot. Rot in hell pagan. You should have listened to me, and in reference to what the Bible says.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Why would Yahweh torture someone for eternity for not being a Christian?  How is that justice?  It sounds like an expression of hate on the part of the early Christians for people who couldn't or wouldn't see things their way.  They wanted their enemies to suffer. 

It's not like it's just a Christian thing, most people like to get revenge, but the doctrine of eternal torture takes it to the level of extreme hate.  It's permanent.  Why doesn't the all-loving Yahweh eventually forgive the sinners?  It would be like watching your pet get tortured while you let it happen, listening to it scream in pain, when you had the love and power to stop it at any time.  It's contradictory.

is not JC. Yahweh is a Hebrew entity, JC isn't.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Consider

Sapient wrote:

Jeremiah wrote:

but just for a moment think if your right and i live my life for jesus (who you say doesnt exist) and i die i am at the same place as you, we both just become nothing and life is over...

You will also have wasted the only life you get living a lie.  How sad.

Your life isn't very much different then others. One can waste their life claiming to be an Atheist. Atheism can be built on mis-beliefs and falsehoods as well as any life.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Sapient

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed. I hope you too are able to find this truth.

of his existence. He is representative of one's human side---opposite ones' animal side. What he represents is seen in all, bar none. Know thyself, and you will see him/you. If you are of the material/superficial/civilized mind you won't understand.

 

 

                 BULL FUCKIN' SHIT.  THEN FUCK OFF;     EAT SHIT AND DIE!!!!!!!   If any other believes this BS they can do the same!!!!!!!!!

"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?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Sapient

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Jeremiah wrote:

but just for a moment think if your right and i live my life for jesus (who you say doesnt exist) and i die i am at the same place as you, we both just become nothing and life is over...

You will also have wasted the only life you get living a lie.  How sad.

Your life isn't very much different then others. One can waste their life claiming to be an Atheist. Atheism can be built on mis-beliefs and falsehoods as well as any life.

 

 

               Simple equation:  One can live their life based on a fairy tale and die with a fairy tale or one can live their life in the real world and have a real life. I love reality; nothing can beat that,  just try!!

"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?