Saturday, August 21, 2010

Go ahead, make my day

I'm sorry I've been neglectful of you all. I was stuck on a real big job with very little help. We were under a time crunch and money was tight. But we finally finished. But I also have neglected a bunch of other stuff? I'm hoping to be totally caught up and back to normal by the end of the week. Although my body wont recover for awhile longer. I'm getting old.

Now, where do I begin? Santa, gay Nazis, trolls or suicide bombers?

Santa Clause, although a great guy did not accurately fulfill 45 prophecies concerning him and his birth. And more importantly no-one is willing to die for their belief in Santa. Neither of those two points proves anything, but follow closely and think for yourself.

GenSkep and others mentioned Muslim suicide bombers and their willingness to die for their cause. So what. Christians, Muslims and Jewish people, at one time or another were all willing to die for their faith. That only proves that some people are willing to die for what they THINK is the truth. But will people die for what they KNOW is a lie? That's the question you need to ask yourself.

I'm not talking about Christian Missionaries or Muslim suicide bombers willing to die for their belief. I'm talking about 11 dudes who were willing to die who all claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus. Would you lie to die?

Let's leave the Bible alone and look at the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samasota, Mara Bar Serapion, Thallus and of course Josephus. Not only weren't they Christian apologists but many of these guys despised Christianity. They aren't saying they believe this, however they are saying others believed these things. Things like... There was a dude called Christ, who suffered under Pontius Pilate who did miraculous feats And was claimed to have risen from the dead on the 3rd day. That he called himself the Christ, that he was equal with God. He had a group of loyal followers who would meet and sing songs of worship and break bread together. They helped one another out when in need and gave money generously to one another. They live by the teachings and standards set before them by Christ. And that there sins will be forgiven by their faith in Him.

The Gospel message is simple. Christ came, Christ died, and Christ rose again. And even without the Bible we can at least agree that some guy called Christ who thought he was God was walking around the Earth around the time of Pontius Pilate and this guy had a following who at least thought he rose from the dead. 10 of the 11 Apostles were martyred, only John was spared even tho legend has it he was boiled in a vat of oil only to survive.

So you got to ask yourself one question punk, do you feel lucky... well, do ya?
(Try saying that with your eyes squinted and with a raspy whisper)


missed you guys, later, feeno

104 comments:

  1. Ugh, getting old is a bitch.

    The Apostles were willing to die? That's all you got? Al Qaeda found 19 people willing to die for what they believed on 9/11, does that mean they're about 57% more right?

    Maybe I'm not impressed because I'm betting my eternal existence they're wrong, with nothing to gain from it but a feeling of satisfaction that I'm right. All these religious people are wagering is their finite lives, which they themselves believe to have no value.

    I don't feel lucky, but I also don't feel the presence of God, and that's all the proof (or lack thereof) I need.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Al-Queda members will willing to die for something that they hoped was true.

    The early martyrs of the Church died knowing whether something was true or not given that they were eyewitnesses to the claimed events.

    Who in their right mind would die for a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I never accused any Christian of being in their right mind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Who in their right mind would die for a lie?"

    I'm a bit confused by this reoccurring question.
    Has someone said the "11 Dudes" lied?

    First, it is still questionable who wrote the supposed "eyewitness" accounts.

    Second, we don't know for sure that those who wrote them were martyred for their religious faith.

    So, why would JD and feeno ask such an unnecessary and useless question?

    When you can prove some dude named Peter was an eyewitness to the death, burial, and resurrection of bible-Jesus, and when you can prove that dude Peter was martyred for proclaiming what he saw...well, get back to me then.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When you can prove some dude named Peter was an eyewitness to the death, burial, and resurrection of bible-Jesus, and when you can prove that dude Peter was martyred for proclaiming what he saw...well, get back to me then

    Atheists stumble into such imbecile traps so often that it almost becomes predictable after awhile.

    Given the standard that the above commenter has set for herself, she would have to throw out all of recorded history as well if that is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This coming from the person who asks us to consider the massive homosexual Nazi conspiracy, a complete revision of the history of Nazi persecution of homosexuals.

    JD, you are officially retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  7. [If only for thinking bob is a female. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.]

    ReplyDelete
  8. Feeno- all due respect. I have a hypothetical question for you, and I think that we may have discussed this before. Let us say that, in your punkass bitch days, you managed to rob a store. And, during the course of this incident, you accidentally shot the owner- dead. There was one eyewitness at the scene, and you managed to run. You got lucky, and you managed to evade the police for fifty odd years, and then your luck runs out. Fifty years later, you are on trial, and this witness comes forward. To be fair, let us say that the aging process has been normal for this person- slight deficits to hearing and sight, normal cognitive degeneration, and a slightly impairment to speech and movement. During their testimony, there are slight embellishments and differences in their story, but the story is more or less intact from what you can recall.

    Would you allow your lawyer to continue with this trial when you fully know that you can have it thrown out due to the timelapse and walk a free man? Do you feel that this person's evidence is credible fifty years after "said" incident? Would you allow the law to punish you under such standards?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Ginx- The troll is busy writing his PHD thesis on the link between the Nazis and the massive homosexual movement in the world. If we are not careful, history will repeat itself, and before you know it, all heterosexuals will be forced to wear armbands indicating sexual orientation. This will make it much easier to identify them in a crowd. We all need to get armed and be prepared, our underground bunkers need to be fully stocked for the upcoming Holy War.... The homosexual poses a great threat to our traditions.

    (Totally being sarcastic, love the gays. LOL).

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know, as a side rant...

    It is astounding to me. I was walking to work the other day, and I walked by a lesbian wedding at a church near my house. I am so lucky to be Canadian. We have had legal gay marriage for a long time, and I am so happy that it is not even an issue on the table. It is so inconsequential to us.... I feel a certain pride in living a country that supports the civil rights of all minorities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TB 13

    Fair question. I just don't know how to answer it. I guess that's why we have trials? But something happened to these Disciples and even Jesus' own family after the resurrection. When Christ was put on the cross the only disciple who was there was John. Jesus had to tell him to watch out over his Mama because even Jesus' own Brothers weren't around. His family was embarrassed because of Him (except for Mom) and the disciples were afraid to be known as his followers.

    What do you guys think that could have possibly happened to change his family's opinion about Him? James and Jude two of Jesus' Brothers actually wrote books in the Bible. We can read in the Bible where James was even killed because of his faith. The Disciples also changed. They went from sniveling little cowards to bold men of faith even to the point of death.

    So maybe a lot of this stuff wasn't written down or recorded somewhere until 30, 40 or yes, maybe 50 years later. But the church was already using these letters and passing them along to the other churches along with much of the Old Testament before it became canonized.

    bobaloo, Peter walked with the Lord learning from Him for 3 years. Not only was he one of the Disciples but was in Jesus' inner circle, part of the big 3. After Christs ascension into heaven Peter was preaching a risen Christ in Rome. Where he was warned by friends to stop preaching about Christ or he'd be killed. Guess what? That didn't stop him and he was put to death, probably by Nero?

    Geenks said "I never accused any Christian of being in their right mind".

    I don't have a response for that. I just thought it was hilarious and wanted to put it up here again.

    late, feeno aka old punk ass bee-otch

    ReplyDelete
  14. "After Christs ascension into heaven Peter was preaching a risen Christ in Rome."

    feen, you say that as if it were a fact. Interesting.

    "Atheists stumble into such imbecile traps so often that it almost becomes predictable after awhile."
    "Given the standard that the above commenter has set for herself, she would have to throw out all of recorded history as well if that is the case."

    Now that, my friends, was predictable :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. tink - "I am so lucky to be Canadian."

    I think you are probably right. I have lived in the US for all of my 52 years. I have gone from a proud member in the US military to wondering what the hell is wrong with my country. I went from a conservative fundamentalist Christian crazy person like JD, to a liberal atheist.

    The Bush years were hell, but due to the stifling influence from the conservative religious right, little to nothing is changing here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Given the standard that the above commenter has set for herself, she would have to throw out all of recorded history as well if that is the case."

    Oh, and for what it's worth, JD obviously considers it an insult to me by referring to me, a man, as a woman.

    1 - JD doesn't matter. He is an ass. He could insult my dear mother and it wouldn't matter because it would be coming from someone who doesn't matter.

    2 - He considers women to be lesser people than men because he thought I would be insulted by his referring to me as "she", rather than "he".

    3 - I can't wait to see the look on his face when we get to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This coming from the person who asks us to consider the massive homosexual Nazi conspiracy, a complete revision of the history of Nazi persecution of homosexuals

    Where did I ever state that?


    JD, you are officially retarded

    And you Ginx, are a complete bvald-faced liar. Unless you can back up your above statement of course.

    I feel a certain pride in living a country that supports the civil rights of all minorities

    The above commenter cannot prove that there has been a single instance of a support group for those that are formally black. If he can, then I concede the point.
    Troll! Poof!

    Now that, my friends, was predictable

    As predictable as the above commenter not being able to prove that she cannot dispel the idea that she is picking and choosing what she believes from the historic record.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Welcome back Feeno! Give yourself some time off and enjoy it :)

    I think the "die for a lie" argument is pretty weak. First off, the accounts we have of the deaths of the disciples are legendary, and as we know from the legends surrounding the holy grail, the pieces of the true cross (which if you put them all together would likely make three or four), and so on, legends are not always accurate. Even if we accept that the disciples were all martyred, we have no solid basis to believe that they actually had a chance to save themselves by recanting. Perhaps they squealed like pigs but were put to death anyway.

    And of course, it's also important to remember that people die for all sorts of reasons. It's perfectly plausible that someone might die for a lie if they think the lie is important enough. Perhaps they thought it was for a noble purpose anyway. It's very tough to do a psychological analysis on individuals who wrote very little down if anything, who lived two thousand years ago, and whose accounts are certainly influenced by legendary development. It's difficult enough to analyze the motivations of living people, let alone ones that lived in the ancient Roman empire.

    Finally, it's perfectly reasonable that they died for something they believed to be true, even if that thing was in fact false. That is certainly clear from the martyrs for religions throughout history. All these reasons make the "die for a lie" argument weak. It seems as though the necessary details have been lost to history.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh and tinkbell, I second your comments about Canada. It's nice being in a place where such things are accepted and supported - though we're still far from perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jeff, you seem to be a very intelligent and reasonable young man. Can you explain why your well reasoned response will pretty much have absolutely no affect on what feeno, or other believers, believe. feeno will continue to use as evidence for the legitimacy of his faith, what is not evidence (the martyrdom of the apostles and other Christians). His "evidence" is reminiscent of a "Jesus and Mo" cartoon I saw:
    http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/07/tomb/

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mockery and potshots from the periphery are a very convenient way of avoiding logic and its inevitable conclusions. If that fails, just say it is all legendary though even a cursory examination of the writings bears no resemblandce whatsoever to the stuff of legends and myths, not to mention that the writings were produced less than a generation after the events in question.

    The chorus of skeptics here will simply respond "ain't so" but anyone who has cared to look into it knows better.

    Nice post, feeno.

    ReplyDelete
  23. First off- Canada is a multicultural society, the US is a "melting pot".... There is a difference. An immigrant chooses to assimilate here, it is not necessary for survival. There are many people who have lived here for fifty years and can barely string together a sentence in English. That most certainly makes a difference in what would be called our "dominant culture", and I think that we are generally more tolerant of people. It is nice to be able to provide an example of a country where gay people can be married and show very clearly that God does not strike you down with the punishable thunderbolt for it. And, yes Jeff, very right. We have much work to do (like getting Harper kicked out of his big fat seat in the House of Commons).

    @Bob- I really, really pity Americans for the Bush years. It was shameful to watch politics being reduced to a mere stepping stone to gain more personal wealth. And, because of the polarization of the country, and the manipulation of the Christian population (not exactly the professors and intellectual elite of the country), the damage will remain for many many years. It is so sad to see such a great country reduced to ruins because the "sheep" gained power.

    Secondly Feeno- I meant for you to answer the question very literally. Would you allow a lawyer to include her testimony? This is not about the process of trials, this is about the credibility of the evidence that is being provided to you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Crustacean, concerning "mockery and potshots, have you read any posts from the master of such? It goes by the name JD?

    As for "logic and inevitable conclusions", most believers in the bible have never, ever investigated deeper than John 3:16 or Psalm 23. So why concern yourself with "logic"?

    Perhaps you and Bart Ehrman should sit down for a chat after a "cursory examination of the writings".

    As for the "chorus of skeptics" not knowing better because we haven't "looked into it"...I guess my 25 years as a bible believing Christian means absolutely nothing to you.
    Surprise!

    "Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers."
    ~ Bruce Calvert

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ Jeff- You are very right. The belief that you are dying for something is entirely subjective, and it is no platform to validate any type of actions. Even modern history is full of people who willingly died for what they believed to be true- some easy examples being Jamestown, the followers of David Koresh, Buddhist Monks protesting the Vietnam War, etc. It is interesting because Christians do not identify that what those folks died for is RIGHT.... Just as they disagree with the beliefs of Muslim Suicide Bombers. However, they agree with Christians dying for their own beliefs as being right, and that validates their beliefs. Very flimsy rhetorical platform.....

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Bob- MCT is one of the troll's little snide sychophants..... Talk about a chorus.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not at all surprised, bob. From my observations of atheists on the web, the ones who say they are former believers are usually the ones who most wear their atheism on their sleeves, and who feel the greatest need to convince the world as well as themselves that their new found "faith" is correct, I suspect because of the gnawing fear that they are mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I suspect because of the gnawing fear that they are mistaken."

    You suspect...

    Try asking, then you will know if your suspicions are correct...or not.

    I can tell you what I fear - the only thing I fear about the god of the bible are his followers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. tink - have you ever found any Christians on the web who are capable of actually carrying on a reasonable dialogue with non believers? I have found only a few.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No.... None besides Feeno. It is really discouraging and frustrating. And, not just the capability of reasonable dialogue, but just really, really narrow and limited in their knowledge base. And, everything is about right and wrong, never exchange and development. Here is a classic example right in front of us. The troll ran off about how Canada has done nothing for "black" people. Actually, we were part of the Underground Railroad, where slaves escaped to, and lived as free people, away from the slavery system that had stolen them from Africa to live in bondage.

    http://www.pc.gc.ca/canada/proj/cfc-ugrr/index_e.asp

    When I first started rapping, I had read that atheists have more education and privilege which lead to their disbelief. I actually rejected that notion because I felt that it was too simplistic in its explanation. Now, I am starting to accept that it is true. I would love to meet a Christian that could make me doubt myself, I have been begging for it all along. I want that final argument to shut me up. Never, ever happened. In fact, it has validated what I believe even more.

    MCT loves to criticize others for mudslinging- he readily identifies it as being undignified in others. However, he does it every time he comments. Another common trend in them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The troll ran off about how Canada has done nothing for "black" people

    Exactly who is being referred to here in this instance?

    ReplyDelete
  33. >sigh<

    Repetitions. Assertions. Allegations.

    As long as you believe that the words of the New Testament concerning the Resurrection are True - though they're not corroborated ANYWHERE - then you'll never not believe it.

    Boring.

    People die for what they believe. Doesn't make it True.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Mudslinging" every time I comment? Kindly point it out. I will do my best to change if you can show me the error of my ways.

    (I do remember from another comment string that Tink seemed to take offense that I called her a "statist", which of course I only meant matter of factly because she seemed to be advocating government control even over what I am allowed to eat. Someone who prefers the power of government over individual liberty is a statist by definition, and I am not sure why Tink took it pejoratively.

    Other than that, I am not sure what mudslinging I am guilty of. Certainly not the ad hominem attacks and name calling that are all too common on these comment strings.

    Okay, Bob. I will ask. Why did you reject Christianity after twenty-five years?

    And here is another question. Assume for the sake of argument that we are both absolutely convinced that our particular world view is correct.

    My world view says that God created the heavens and the earth, that he is perfectly holy. We on the other hand, have committed cosmic treason and are deserving of His judgment. But God in His kindness sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins so we would not have to face His judgment if we put our faith in Jesus. Because I believe that this reflects reality, it would be utterly cruel and unloving for me to not try to convince you to put your faith in Jesus.

    Your current world view, on the other hand, says that there is no God and we are all going to die. Therefore, how we choose to live our lives has no real consequence. So if you are so convinced that this is the case, why should you care so passionately about convincing others? Doe sit really matter? This is the question I have asked many atheists both personally and in the blogosphere and have never received a satisfactory answer.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clearly being an atheist makes one so nefarious, we aren't caught. That is the only explanation for the fact that there are so few of us in prison. That or the fact that Christians do whatever they please, knowing they'll just beg for forgiveness and get into heaven.

    Does it feel good knowing the most popular prison tattoo is the cross? I'm sure Jesus would have loved that...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Actually, MCT, if you look at every post you have made on this thread you have made, you are slinging mud with your broad generalizations and assumptive stereotypes about atheists and skeptics. If you cannot understand how that is not mudslinging, that really is not my problem. It is not me with that outlook, and I am happy for that.

    Yes, you did call me a statist, of which I took no offense. From my perspective, most Americans oppose any type of federal regulation. Period. You will allow corporations to kill you rather than allow your government to attempt to regulate and protect you. As an outsider, I really do not understand that. I believe that the discussion occurred because I support federal regulation of sodium in your "food supply". In Canada, federal regulation occurs because citizens lobby the government in support of their cause. We ask them to help protect us. Not the case in your country. You allow lobbyists into Congress to support the interests of the corporation. Very sad, and these "companies" do not have any of your interests in mind. All for "individual liberty"....

    Again, you ASSUME because we have a lack of belief in God, that we "live our lives free of no real consequence" (eyes roll up), why would you even bother to "convince us to put our faith in Jesus." Are we not a lost cause?

    Nice Ginx.... So true.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ever want to feel the consequences of your life? Ever want to learn how to look at situations in a complex way and have to fully contemplate the consequences of your actions well before you do anything? Ever really want to feel the full weight of accountability and personal responsibility for every word and action you will ever utter? Remove the safety net of God and the supposed "forgiveness" of prayer from your life.... Changes you, and like Ginx said, seems to significantly lower your odds of winding up in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Feeno:

    I forgot to welcome you back. Welcome back! I got hit recently with a flood of work as well, I know how it feels.

    "…some people are willing to die for what they THINK is the truth. But will people die for what they KNOW is a lie?"


    Aside from Bjork in Dancer in the Dark I can't think of anyone offhand who would die for what they knew was a lie. The question isn't what apostles or anyone else knew, it's what they were convinced of.

    Thousands saw Elvis after He died. Try convincing them otherwise. Followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult all died voluntarily and quite happily (well, maybe not the Branch Davidians) for what they were convinced was the Truth.

    If you've ever learned about dissonance theory, you'll know that when folks who are convinced of an unreasonable truth have their error exposed, they will often, in order to restore consonance and 'save face', dig in deeper and rationalize even more spectacularly. Like End-Time date-setters: when their apocalyptic date comes and goes without an apocalypse, they'll simply declare that their faith has saved the world for a little while, that they are actually responsible for buying us some more time.

    Convictions that are grounded in a sense of faithful inerrancy can never be shaken, save from within.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Maryland Crustacean:

    This is sort of off-topic, but since I'm in a nice mood I figured I'd respond to your question. Certainly there are many "preachy" atheists that try to convince others. But it's most likely more of an artifact of you frequenting religious/non-religious blogs or forums where these people hang out. For myself, I enjoy discussing these issues, but I don't feel any real compulsion to walk up to strangers or to preach to my friends about the truth of atheism. Certainly not like I did when I was a Christian. I discuss these things when I wish to, and when I don't, I change the subject. Simple as that.

    As for why? The common reason I've heard from many atheists is a concern for truth, especially when the falsehood is seen as causing harm. I hope you can agree that religion can cause harm, even if it doesn't always do so. Many atheists believe that science education is important, so they work hard to argue creationists/intelligent design theorists. Personally, I mostly just enjoy discussing these issues, because a) it's interesting to me, and b) because I think truth is important to find.

    Anyway, I'd agree that it's likely the case that former Christians turned atheist generally are more vocal about their atheism. I would reject your assumption that they're afraid they're wrong, however, since most people who make a major life change tend to be vocal about that change. Talk to anyone who decides to make a major change to lose weight. Or talk to someone who decides to pick up and move somewhere overseas. They will talk your ears off about their change, and I think likely it's the same reason for former Christians. I know I personally spent a year of my life researching these things, so I'd like to think that I can use that for more than just my own benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  40. GenSkep,

    Yeah, I could agree... but I think the disciples lost their zeal and maybe some of them their faith? They went back to fishing for fish instead of men after Christ died. Remember how Peter denied Christ 3 times. Thomas doubted. Something happened that made them do a complete u-turn. I think they, along with Christianity would have just died out along with the Disciples had not Christ rose on the 3rd day. And the disciples would have been glad to live in obscurity or the witness protection program.

    just thinkin'? peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  41. Clearly being an atheist makes one so nefarious, we aren't caught. That is the only explanation for the fact that there are so few of us in prison

    "I previously referenced the number of atheists being held by the prison system of England and Wales, where it is customary to record the religion of the prison population as part of the Inmate Information System. In the year 2000, there were 38,531 Christians of twenty-one different varieties imprisoned for their crimes, compared to only 122 atheists and sixty-two agnostics. As Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular have become increasingly post-Christian, this would appear to be a damning piece of evidence proving the fundamentally criminal nature of theists while demonstrating that atheists are indeed more moral despite their lack of a sky god holding them to account.

    However, there also happened to be another 20,639 prisoners, 31.6 percent of the total prison population, who possessed “no religion.”

    And this was not simply a case of people falling through the cracks or refusing to provide an answer; the Inmate Information System is specific enough to distinguish between Druids, Scientologists, and Zoroastrians as well as between the Celestial Church of God, the Welsh Independent church, and the Non-Conformist church. It also features separate categories for “other Christian religion,” “other non-Christian religion,” and “not known.”

    At only two-tenths of a percent of the prison population, HighChurch atheists are, as previously suggested, extremely law-abiding.

    But when one compares the 31.6 percent of imprisoned no-religionists to the 15.1 percent of Britons who checked “none” or wrote in Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the 2001 national survey, it becomes clear that their Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian."

    Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist, 2007

    ReplyDelete
  42. In the year 2000, there were 38,531 Christians of twenty-one different varieties imprisoned for their crimes

    21 varieties? I wonder which ones are Real. Regardless: I, for one, am SO glad that they're all Forgiven. Praise His Name!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think they, along with Christianity would have just died out along with the Disciples had not Christ rose on the 3rd day.

    And you'd think that Mormonism would have died out quickly after being exposed as a fraud, or that Scientology would have fizzled after Hubbard basically admitted that he made it up… but they didn't.

    People are credulous.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I, for one, am SO glad that they're all Forgiven. Praise His Name!

    How do you know this GS?

    neither myself nor any other Christian here, (I would gather) would be willing to state that these people are forgiven.

    We don't even know these people and this is inaccurate for you to say so because one of us argues as such.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "none" of us argues as such. Pardon

    ReplyDelete
  46. TMC, I will address some of your questions as briefly as possible so as not to waste much of our time.

    "Why did you reject Christianity after twenty-five years?"

    It didn't work for me and I didn't witness it working for any of my fellow believers. In short, me and my fellow believers did not display any attributes that I felt were significantly different (better) than the non believers I occasionally came across.
    So, my faith gradually evaporated due to the complete lack of God showing up in my life and in the lives of all the Christians I knew.

    "Assume for the sake of argument that we are both absolutely convinced that our particular world view is correct."

    It would be a wrong assumption, for you would be the only one out of the two of us who is "absolutely convinced". I am still open to persuasion.

    "...it would be utterly cruel and unloving for me to not try to convince you to put your faith in Jesus."

    And yet, instead of trying to convince me, you just add to my steadily growing skepticism by saying things like "I suspect because of the gnawing fear that they are mistaken." even though you have no evidence to back up such a claim, "...and anyone who has cared to look into it knows better." when many, many non believers and former believers have looked into it far deeper than you or I, and they still consider your god to be mythical.

    So, in a nut shell, your attitude is anything but evangelical. So, does that make you cruel and unloving? I don't think so. What it does is show me that if there is a "Holy Spirit", either you are not familiar with "Him", or if "He" does reside in you, what is it about you that would make me want this same "Holy Spirit" that you have?

    "So if you are so convinced that this is the case, why should you care so passionately about convincing others?"

    I am not "so convinced", but I am "convinced". You have mistaken my motives. I don't want to convince you that I am right, for I may very well be wrong. I simply enjoy pointing out to anyone who can or will observe that you (vocal believers) don't know. You believe, but you don't know. You, just like the majority of other believers, confuse belief for knowledge, and you then try to pass of that belief as if it were fact, but you don't know it is fact, so there is a degree of dishonesty and / or wishful thinking at play in the Christian psyche.

    "This is the question I have asked many atheists both personally and in the blogosphere and have never received a satisfactory answer."

    What would you consider a satisfactory answer? I simply enjoy talking about the religion I am most familiar with - Christianity. Consider it a hobby of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Good responses, Bob. I would love to pick up this conversation again if you would care to, but right now it is bedtime.

    I will just say that though I am not above being susceptible to some unchartitable attitudes, perhaps you are mistaking my motives as much as I am mistaking yours. That's one of the disadvantages of communicating by email or blogs... the intent behind words and letters is often missed. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that I do my best to be succinct. Nevdertheless, whether it is a question of me having a stinking attitude or you misreading my attitude, I am sorry if I caused offense.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fair enough TMC, as I am sure my honest critique can be taken as extreme criticism. And as a general rule, I tend to mirror the perceived attitude, good or bad, of my...opponent?...a trait I pretty much detest in myself, but it is me.

    For what it's worth, I wasn't saying your responses or attitudes were "bad" or offensive, but were normal or common. I'm saying that - you, a Christian, are pretty much like me, an atheist.

    If you do decide to continue our conversation and don't want to do it publicly, feel free to email me - r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  50. 50th! Woo-hoo!

    I never type *first just to prove I was the first to reply to a post. But this threat was at 49 and I couldn't resist.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @The Maryland Crustacean

    Much of the Gospels incorporate parallel legends and myths already well established in Greek enlightenment and pagan culture. Also most of Jesus' "miraculous" life follows the teachings of ancient magic, as many of the Greek incantations used by Christ (in the original Greek)mimic the popular Egyptian magic which 'holy men' used in the first century.

    Not to mention obvious parallels between the Christ figure and other mythical figures.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    The Legend Hypothesis: Is Jesus Christ merely a work of Fiction?

    C.S. Lewis, Christianity‘s great apologist, offered the premise that Jesus Christ could have been one of three possible things. Either he was a liar, lunatic, or lord.

    Of course C.S. Lewis is famous for his ability to reason out an answer which effectively dismisses liar and lunatic, arriving at the much championed answer that Jesus was, in essence, divine lord. Yet Lewis, as pointed out by honest critics, is dealing in half truths.

    There is in fact an option Lewis deliberately avoids: Jesus may have simply been a legend. At the very least he was legendary. Certainly his life‘s story was exaggerated to mythic proportions, but this is not something you‘ll likely hear apologists admit to as they slyly attempt wriggle around the slew of dubious problems which cause us to be skeptical of whether or not Jesus actually existed at all.

    Where was Jesus born? Not in Bethlehem. Most historians agree that Jesus was probably born in Nazareth, since this is the city he was initially from, where his parents lived, and where he had family ties. When was he actually born? Nobody knows, although there have been numerous speculations and guesses, none of them historically substantiated, and as such, they become negligible as they don‘t get us very far.

    We do not have a clue as to when Jesus was supposedly born and we only have an unconvincingly vague guess as to where.

    Something else which cannot get overlooked is the striking parallels of Jesus‘ origin story with the myth of the ancient god Mithras. Mithraism was popular long before Christianity came onto the scene, and it is more than an accident that Brumalia, December 25th, just also happened to be the birthday of the ancient sun god Mithras too. When you think about them, the parallels are uncanny.

    December 25th is an important date as it was a major holiday celebrated throughout the Roman Empire, known as Brumalia, the eighth and greatest day of the Feast of Saturnalia. Also fitting is that Brumalia marked the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar, thus marking the end of the year when the crops would wither and die only to be brought back to life the next harvest, which leads us to venture a guess that Christ‘s death and resurrection was simply a symbolic portrayal of the death and
    rebirth of the seasonal harvest coupled with the retelling of these admired and enduring myths.

    Even C.S. Lewis acknowledged this much, making reference to Christ as a ―Corn God.‖ Other heroic deities of antiquity, especially those of Dionysus, Adonis, and Horus all shared an intimate relationship with the winter solstice, were referred to as corn gods, and partook in a ritualistic death and rebirth cycle as well.

    ReplyDelete
  52. An uncertain birth date quite often means an uncertain existence, or else a made up one. It is a well established that Jesus could not have been born on December 25th in a manger in Bethlehem as commonly believed in the Christian Nativity tradition. In fact, from what I can discern, the Jesus Christ of the New Testament is, in all likelihood, mainly an amalgamation of mythic figures such as Oedipus, Adonis, Apollonius of Tayana, Asclepius, Empedocles, Hercules, Romulus, Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Mithra, Dionysus, Hector of Troy, and Odysseus (containing mythemes from the Iliad and Odyssey), and infused with elements reflected in all of the above.

    Now why would Jesus’ story, life history, birth, and death be so uncannily similar to a series of gods and mythic heroes all preceding him? If it was just one similarity with but just one popularly worshipped mythical figure, then I could probably write it off as a sheer coincidence. But when a string of coincidences pile up, and a daisy-chain of near verbatim similarities relying a heavy borrowing from existing myths begins to form a pattern, I don’t see how anyone who has properly connected the dots could fail to see the picture plainly staring them in the face. It’s almost as if someone took the name of a popular god or legendary figure and a list of popular myths and simply changed the name to “Jesus” but kept all the relatable details the same.

    Anyone who considers all the available data should also ponder the implications of such overwhelming evidence concerning the question about the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Coupled with the distinct lack of definitive evidence, more specifically the lack of non-Christian and extrabiblical evidence surrounding the total claims on the subject of Jesus Christ’s divinity, powers, and even plain old existence, predisposes us to be highly skeptical of the inconclusive and inharmonious accounts of Jesus Christ’s origin, death, and post-death resurrection and puts the veracity of the case for a historical Jesus into doubt.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the course of history Christianity has Christianity has transformed, split, spread, has been assimilated and re-assimilated into new and different cultures, in turn these cultures have been bonded and fused with Christianity, causing numerous hybrids of dissimilar varieties of Christian faith. Sometimes these offshoots of Christianity have been completely incompatible with each other, often times their interpretations of key doctrinal issues or Biblical exegesis differing greatly with other branches of Christian faith. All Christian, all different, vary rarely any of them agreeing on the finer details.

    Christianity has been everything and so can’t really be defined as anything in particular. With each new variety of Christian faith there has been yet another variation of Jesus to subscribe belief to.
    Looking back as the historical progression of the Jesus Christ figure, a larger than life persona of mythical proportions, we can now make an educated guess on what he likely was. But this won’t change the fact that most people have a very personalized conception of what he is and means to them personally—regardless of whether or not there understanding is historically accurate or at all historically viable.

    Today’s dime store variety Jesus Christ that has been popularized in modern America is merely a retooling of the 17th century resurrection savior surge of Christianity, and although it probably won’t have any sway on Christians to learn this, it still doesn’t do the real historical version any justice. Needless to say, the Jesus Christ of the Bible is far more enticing and fascinating than the Christ most modern Christians are praying to today.

    ReplyDelete
  53. …the lack of non-Christian and extrabiblical evidence surrounding the total claims on the subject of Jesus Christ’s divinity, powers, and even plain old existence…

    Yup.

    This is what I meant when I referred to the testimony of those alleged 500 witnesses. Apparently not a single one of them saw fit to write about it. Perhaps they were all illiterate - lots of folks were. Even Jesus, apparently, couldn't write in his own language, or any language for that matter. Celsus, a critic of the early church presbyters, said of the early church:

    This is one of their rules: let no man that is learned, wise, or prudent come among us: but if they be unlearned, or a child, or an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare that none but the ignorant, and those devoid of understanding, slaves, women, and children, are fit disciples for the God they worship.

    No offense: Celsus's words, not mine. But look how some things haven't changed. I mean, how much do contemporary believers love to reject, based on scripture, the "wisdom of the world"? Paul's admonition to "reason together" aside, since it was addressed to a group of unlearned-child-idiots … kinda like Glenn Beck putting on professorial glasses and standing in front of a chalkboard in a "University." The trappings of reason, without the substance or method.

    Also from Celsus:

    Before accepting any belief one ought to follow reason as a guide, for credulity without enquiry is a sure way to deceive oneself.

    That resonates with me. Much more deeply than John 3:16.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ GS and Tristan

    This is what I was getting at with my questions about evidence and court procedures. If you look at it literally- You are right about the illiteracy clause...

    The fact is is that these scholars (the most educated elite) took the "eyewitness accounts" of these folks some fifty years later. Artistic merit exists between spoken word and written word.... And, exact recall has statistically been proven to even be impaired within 48 hours of an incident. This is why officers take your statements on the scene immediately- they are hoping to keep a record of your most current memories. This is why lawyers are also happy to point out any discrepancies at time of statement and time of trial, and will often use it to smear your credibility. I often have to document incidents that will have a legal impact... I never leave it. I do it as soon as I can to ensure that my statement is as concise as possible for fear of having to go to court.

    That is literally.... Tristan is correct in alluding to the mythology. At a time when the masses were illiterate, it was much easier to make this stuff seem feasible.

    @ Bob- Well, well said.... It is very true, and when others try to pass off their beliefs as being true, it most certainly creates a defensive, obstinate type of discussion. I would love to be able to find somewhere where I could rap with Christians (and learn) about stuff in a respectful open environment. I do not know if they get it.... and, MCT is right. It is hard to read people in an online environment. All that you can pick up is patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  55. It is a well established that Jesus could not have been born on December 25th in a manger in Bethlehem as commonly believed in the Christian Nativity tradition

    When was the birth of Jesus first celebrated? It wasnt on Dec. 25th.

    ReplyDelete
  56. In fact, from what I can discern, the Jesus Christ of the New Testament is, in all likelihood, mainly an amalgamation of mythic figures such as Oedipus, Adonis, Apollonius of Tayana, Asclepius, Empedocles, Hercules, Romulus, Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Mithra, Dionysus, Hector of Troy, and Odysseus (containing mythemes from the Iliad and Odyssey), and infused with elements reflected in all of the above

    And I think you have given yourself over to complete nonsense passing itself off as real scholarship when you really don't know yourself

    That's the problem with repeating Richard Carrier talking points. If it fits your worldview, run with it and don't bother critically examining it for yourself.

    Of the above amalgamation of false beliefs, which one do you feel you could make the strongest case for as Christianity copying it? The strongest case. Let's hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "If it fits your worldview, run with it and don't bother critically examining it for yourself."

    I wonder if It "critically examined" the claims of Christianity BEFORE It became a Christian? Me thinks not.

    So, before It accuses others of not critically examining claims against the uniqueness of Christianity, It should abandon what It believes (It's own "world view") and start from scratch.

    But, that would require honest integrity, which It seems lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Look Chief Underpants,

    If you want to impress, then begin by answering direct questions when they are put to you.

    Everything else is just hype.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Feeno-

    The argument that the Apostles were martyred and this proves that they died believing in the truth of their cause doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity, the movement, is itself true on every account.A lot of Nazis died for Hitler's cause too... but it doesn't mean Nazism was true--or even a good belief system. So such an argument fails.

    Also, if the Apostles all died, who wrote the Bible which catalogs events after their deaths?

    Unless we stretch the Apostles lives to over 170 years... since this is the time the fourth Gospel was written... but that's just silly. They couldn't have possibly been the ones who wrote the Bible. First off they wouldn't have written it in Greek.

    The 500 witnesses? That's a lot of people, too many if you ask me, because apparently their "testimonies" weren't written down. Instead the Bible claims 500 saw Jesus! Oh yeah, well just the other day 1,000 people saw Elvis alive and well! So what?

    Moreover, if I recall my Bible correctly, the first chapter of Acts (13-16) mentions 120 disciples gathering on the second floor of a house for the Passover supper. I wasn't aware that 120 people could fit in a second story room in first century Palestine. Maybe it was a castle--or a extra-dimensional portal! All things are possible with God!

    So when it comes to numbers and the Bible--I think we can pretty certain that the Bible authors were prone to exaggeration.

    ReplyDelete
  61. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL- that is all that you will ever get.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "When was the birth of Jesus first celebrated? It wasnt on Dec. 25th."

    JD- That's a good question.

    I'll just consult my Bible and... DOH! It's says Christ's birthday is December 25th.

    Well apparently the Bible isn't an authority on everything.

    But you're correct... Jesus of Nazareth, the historical figure, was not born on Dec. 25th.

    And the celebration dates given for his birth are just guesses. Nobody actually knows when he was born. That's one of the many mysteries of the Nazarene.

    However, if you deny the legendary hypothesis, then how do you explain the fact that the Gospel writers confused Mithra's birthday for Jesus'???

    I'm curious.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I haven't followed this thread for a day or two and would like to jump in when I get a chance, but for now Vick, I assume you are joking when you claim the Bible says Jesus was born on December 25th? Or that the Gospel writers postulated any birth date at all?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Further, I think JD's point in asking the question, was to ask not when the birth was, but when was it first celebrated, the answer being not until centuries later when the post Constantine church, already being corrupted by the influence of temporal power, came up with Church holidays in a well intentioned but likely foolhardy attempt to replace pagan holidays. The first generations of Christians did not bother celebrating Jesus' birth. As important as it was, they were much more intent on celebrating His death and resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I am not insane, most excellent Festus."What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” (The apostle Paul, during his defense before Festus and King Agrippa.

    “Before accepting any belief one ought to follow reason as a guide, for credulity without enquiry is a sure way to deceive oneself.” [Celsus, quoted by Gentle Skeptic)

    “I don't want to convince you that I am right, for I may very well be wrong. I simply enjoy pointing out to anyone who can or will observe that you (vocal believers) don't know. You believe, but you don't know.” (Bob)
    ************************
    Indeed. Belief for or against Christianity (or for or against God in general) is in the strictest sense just that: Belief. Nothing wrong with that, because the word or concept is biblical. The word most often used in the Gospels is “πιστευειν” which means “believe” or “trust”, the idea being that you are convinced enough of it that you put your trust in it, even to the point of staking your life on it. Is that the same as “knowing”? Not quite, but pretty darned close.

    As far as knowing or believing, every one of us has to weigh the evidence both for and against and make a decision. I for one have looked at the pro’s and con’s and am convinced of the truth of Christianity. Perhaps you have weighed the evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion. I can assure you that I have arrived at my conclusion with my eyes open and have not suppressed “reason”. After all, the New Testament itself calls Christianity a “reasonable faith” and not without…. (Oh, well!) reason!

    First and foremost, it is entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a God. I don’t have the time or space to get into the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the anthropic principle, etc. You have probably all heard it all before anyway and perhaps have already dismissed it. Others, people more intelligent than me, find these arguments compelling as do I. So it is entirely reasonable to at least be a deist, and the only difference between a theist and deist is that the former believes that God is involved in the affairs of His Creation. Why wouldn’t He be? Especially after one considers some very compelling accounts of His direct involvement; i.e., the Gospels, which are at least worthy of some critical examination and consideration.

    [continue on next comment]

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. [Continued from previous post]

    There are at least four different recorded accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They all were written in a definite place, time, and geo-political situation, concerning events that occurred in Palestine about two-thousand years ago under the Roman government, a time and circumstance about which we have copious amounts of information. These accounts were supplemented by a number of widely circulated letters-written to and about real people, real places and real events-hardly the stuff of mythology. They also shared one fundamental premise: the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    After having seen their friend, teacher and hero die a horrific death on a Roman cross, historical figures like Peter and John would have much rather gone back into obscurity and lived their remaining days as humble and quiet fishermen. In fact, that was their original intention after the crucifixion. But something happened that caused a major paradigm shift in their world. What was it? Similarly, another historical figure named Saul of Tarsus was devoting all of his energies to persecuting and killing Christians, until he underwent his own paradigm shift. They and countless others were not thinking about legends and myths as they faced their own deaths by crucifixion, decapitation, burning at the stake or mauling by lions. They knew one and only one thing: They had known and seen the historical Jesus-who had been brutally murdered on a cross for all to see--alive and well again. Nothing else really mattered. In fact, the apostle Paul boldly asserted that everything hinged on whether or not the resurrection happened; and if it didn’t happen, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

    Toward the end of his life, imprisoned and awaiting execution, the apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.” He used the word “believe” but it is also understandable that he used it together with “know”. He was, after all, an eye witness, a former enemy and persecutor of the faith before the risen Jesus literally knocked him off his horse and changed the course of his life.

    [to be continued]

    ReplyDelete
  68. [continued from previous post]

    Many people have since attempted to debunk the accounts written in the Gospels, attempting to explain away the resurrection. Some just dismiss it out of hand, saying it is scientifically impossible. (Well, duh! I guess that’s what makes it miraculous.) Others have concocted ridiculous theories-such as the swoon theory, the stolen body theory, etc-all of which fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Others have simply made up alternate stories out of whole cloth. And even if someone can postulate a strained parallel between the accounts of Jesus and some mythological figure, it is simply a non-sequitur to conclude that the accounts of Jesus must therefore be mythological.

    Many who have carefully examined all the available written accounts with the same scrutiny one would apply to other historical documents, applying logic and reasoning in the same way that a juror would be asked to examine the evidence before him, have reached the reasonable verdict that the accounts as written must be true.

    Consider for example, just one line of reasoning based on internal evidence, the same you would apply to other historical documents. The book of Acts appears to be intended as a chronicle of the beginnings of the church after Jesus’ death and resurrection. It was written by Luke, who during certain portions of the book writes in the first person, because at one point he was actually traveling with Paul. But the book actually ends with Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. There is no mention of his second imprisonment, much less his death. Neither is there mention of the siege of Jerusalem of A.D. 70. Wouldn’t you think such events would be worthy of mentioning, unless of course they had not happened yet? So it is plausible to conclude that the book of Acts was completed sometime in the 60’s at the latest. And looking again at internal evidence, the author refers to his prior book about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, which is an obvious reference to the Gospel of Luke, which itself in its introductory sentences claims to have been written after several other Gospel accounts. So the events were being chronicled at a time when most of the eye witnesses, as well as their very powerful detractors, were still alive and able to corroborate or refute the writings. Do you think that maybe this might be an argument in favor of the NT’s reliability?

    It seems to me that the major mistake in reasoning made by skeptics is their a priori dismissal of the NT writings because they make allusions to miraculous events; therefore they must be legendary, or must have been inaccurately recorded, lost in transmission, morphed over time, etc. But when you consider things like time proximity to the events recorded, the number of consistent manuscripts, accurate allusions to known facts and events, etc. the NT writings are unsurpassed in their reliability as compared to other literary and historical writings. They just have that pesky problem of claiming miraculous events.

    ReplyDelete
  69. TMC-

    Of course I was being sarcastic when I said the Bible says...

    That's also why I stated directly after it that JD was right... and that nobody actually knows for certain when Jesus was born. ;)

    But just a quick clarification on the 'stolen body hypothesis'.

    This wasn't made to explain away the resurrection as implausible... it's a valid hypothesis for the missing body of Christ.

    Remember, the original Greek version of Mark says the tomb was empty and that's where the story ends. The other Gospels talk about how the women thought the body was stolen... and then angels come onto the scene to reassure them that the Christ is risen.

    Now maybe you believe in all the metaphysical fantasy of the story. Maybe you believe in one angel, then two, or however many the Gospel authors would like to invent... and maybe you like to believe that because it means the Christ is risen.

    But think about it like an outsider. The angels can be explained away as an embellishment (as James D. Tabor has shown) and then we're left with an empty tomb and missing body again.

    Now I'm not saying this changes the story. The Gospel narrative states the Christ rose. What I'm concerned with is the real history.

    And when you strip away the fiction... PROVED to be ficticious embelishment... there is no denying... that what looks like the plausible historical account suggests the body went missing.

    So the stolen body hypothesis explains it... but it would be no more easy to prove than if Jesus had actually resurrected. So I'm not saying it's the god given truth. What I am saying... is that when we survey the whole history of humanity as we know it... the stolen body hypothesis is a hell of a lot more probable than the events Christians like to assert as "historical" when we know for certain they were anything but.

    My problem is with those who pretend the history is something other than was it could have been, simply because they maintain a bias. A true historian must maintain a dispassionate attitude when evaluating the historical information. And I'm afraid anyone who doesn't has already proved they're not concerned with the truth of what the history actually may have been... but would rather, in Orwellian fashion, write their own truth into the history books.

    That's what I have a problem with.

    So when I say I support the legendary hypothesis, it's because I want to give credit to the historical Jesus--but at the same time recognize the borrowing from myth--not because I desire to disprove Christianity--but because this actually is better support for it.

    And that's the difference between me and most Christians. I'm interested in the truth--they're mostly interested in maintaining the faith by pretending they already have the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  70. TMC said: "It seems to me that the major mistake in reasoning made by skeptics is their a priori dismissal of the NT writings because they make allusions to miraculous events; therefore they must be legendary, or must have been inaccurately recorded, lost in transmission, morphed over time, etc. But when you consider things like time proximity to the events recorded, the number of consistent manuscripts, accurate allusions to known facts and events, etc. the NT writings are unsurpassed in their reliability as compared to other literary and historical writings. They just have that pesky problem of claiming miraculous events."

    Again, I must refer you to Richard Carrier's book "Not the Impossible Faith."

    He deals with a plethora of historical information pertinent to this issue--and it's worth reading just for the Roman cultural insights alone!

    Also, if you're interested in WHY skeptics don't believe in the resurrection, the anthology "The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave," edited by Robert M. Price, collects a series of essays in which skeptics meticulously explain why the resurrection account is not historically viable.

    Now I'm not suggesting this book to convince you that your beliefs are mistaken or anything like that. I am recommending it to you so you can get a better handle on why skeptics say what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. TMC - "First and foremost, it is entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a God."

    "So it is entirely reasonable to at least be a deist,..."

    TMC, do you think it "reasonable" to believe in Allah? How about to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? Is it reasonable to be an atheist?

    A deist has no holy book, yet you say he/she is reasonable. Muslims and Mormons have a holy book(s). Is it reasonable to have a religious belief that is based on books other than the bible?

    TMC - "It seems to me that the major mistake in reasoning made by skeptics is their a priori dismissal of the NT writings because they make allusions to miraculous events...They just have that pesky problem of claiming miraculous events."

    But I don't dismiss all of the NT writings. I do dismiss those sections that I find utterly fantastic or implausible, such as walking on water, water to wine, and the resurrection of the dead.

    Do you think it a mistake, or unreasonable of me to dismiss those parts of the NT that could easily be considered mythical, because they are obvious supernatural references?

    I have to ask - in your mind, is it unreasonable for me to dismiss the claims of supernatural occurrences in ANY ancient book that might be somewhat accurate, mostly accurate, or even entirely accurate concerning that non supernatural occurrences, people, and places contained on its pages?

    Simply - If I have never witnessed a supernaturally transformation of water to wine, and I have never read a believable modern day account from anyone who claimed to witness such an occurrence, is it unreasonable of me to dismiss the NT account of Jesus turning water to wine, as a myth?

    TMC - "Others have concocted ridiculous theories-such as the swoon theory, the stolen body theory, etc-all of which fall apart under the slightest scrutiny."

    I would agree that they fall apart if the NT account(s) are completely accurate. But if we allow for the possibility that the NT accounts may not be entirely accurate, then those other theories sound reasonable. It is only in the mind of the person who believes that the NT just has to be correct, that the other theories fall apart.

    ReplyDelete
  72. how do you explain the fact that the Gospel writers confused Mithra's birthday for Jesus'???




    What is the earliest date that you could assign to Roman Mithrisism? If it's any earlier than mid-2nd century, please tell me the source of this information. If a religion post dates Christianity, then which religion appears to be the one copying someone? The earlier or the later?

    Insofar as the earliest date that the birth of Christ was celebrated, it was January 6th, not December 25th.

    It would seem that the Emporer Constantine was the first to place the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25th in about the year 336. This was the day reserved for the pagan god Sol Invictus that Constantine previously worshipped and Sol Invictus was often associated with Mithras. This doesnt disprove Christianity at all and I don't see how this act by Constantine could be a stumbling block to any Christian unless they were rigidly claiming that December 25th was the birthday of Jesus Christ and I don't know of anyone that does.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Insofar as miracles never occuring, TV, how could you possibly claim knowledge that a miracle never occured? That's illogical. Who is being open minded here?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Feeno said.."I'm talking about 11 dudes who were willing to die who all claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus. Would you lie to die?"

    The Maryland Crustacean said... "Not at all surprised, bob. From my observations of atheists on the web, the ones who say they are former believers are usually the ones who most wear their atheism on their sleeves, and who feel the greatest need to convince the world as well as themselves that their new found "faith" is correct, I suspect because of the gnawing fear that they are mistaken."


    Jeff said.."I would reject your assumption that they're afraid they're wrong, however, since most people who make a major life change tend to be vocal about that change."

    Would atheists die and risk eternal punishment for a lie Crusty ?.You Christians cant have it both ways.Atleast we atheists are here today !! ,not just some fairy tale story ,full of supposed truths.

    At least we athiests are actually here today saying where is the real evidence for God-/s? .We are not mere myths written in freaky faith books.

    Would we likely die and risk eternal damnation if we actually honestly saw and real good reason for faith and belief in God or the supernatural? .

    You christian point back to old storys that cant really even be factually proven... and ask this type of question .

    Would we atheist likely honestly lie and risk OUR OWN eternal damnation for it? .

    Today Crusty, where are all the supposed miracles and wonderful signs! of Gods, that were supposedly once "suggested" to be pretty common place everywhere FOR ALL TO SEE ?.

    And yet the only thing "common place" we notice we honestly see about them today, adding up to looking like any real honesty!! ... Is the fact they are honestly seen to be!! pretty "common place" unproven claims made in almost ALL !! ancient faith claims, of almost ALL religions !!.

    They are a dime a dozen !

    Thats the only thing honestly common place! we atheist notice we see about them Crusty.

    Faithful devoted on all the charisma , just wont even bother to take notice of it.

    Jeff said.."As for why? The common reason I've heard from many atheists is a concern for truth, especially when the falsehood is seen as causing harm."

    Thanks...Yeah damn right Jeff ! .And for bl**dy good reasons too.

    Dont i personally know it!.

    Cursed cancer it is!.Nasty lie !.Cause of much pain heartbreak suffering and death and suicide.

    Not that i ever expect many so called caring christians to even bother considder that point.

    They just far to busy thinking we simply can only just enjoy being evil.

    Why? ... because they just want to believe it true ... It give them the warm and fuzzy feeling .. and so help them feel maybe their "faith" belief is true

    Cause that what faithful people do

    ReplyDelete
  75. JD Curtis said..."Insofar as miracles never occuring, TV, how could you possibly claim knowledge that a miracle never occured? That's illogical. Who is being open minded here? "

    Can you prove Trolls dont actually exist under bridges JD? .What about fairy god mothers ,are you open minded? ..Or gold at end of rainbows or underbed monsters , you seen any lately?

    Where do humans draw the line.Are we going to (forever) need to be "open minded" about everything that evidence is never freely available for JD .That would soon create a great society of loony tunes right?.

    Mate we have waited for thousands of years now for some real decent evidence of these so called supernatural miracles.

    I suggest you are being a little far fetched suggesting maybe people like TV are simply not open minded enough.

    That to me sounds far more like! a very tired old worn out sad arse lame excuse.

    Just saying.

    Fair enough if miracles were actually seen to be around .

    But the truth is ,it seems they are not really are they, if we are a little honest about it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. JD said: "Insofar as miracles never occuring, TV, how could you possibly claim knowledge that a miracle never occured? That's illogical. Who is being open minded here? "

    Actually, I hate to say this... but this is a fallacy JD.

    I'm not saying a miracle has never occurred, because that's beyond my knowledge. What I am saying... is in the course of human events not a single proved, tested, and tried miracle has been cataloged. And so to date we don't have miracles of the sort the Bible talks about... thus there's no reason to automatically assume there was.

    Thus I am being logical... because I am taking the standard model of history... and saying that it doesn't predict the regular occurrence of miracles, so there is no reason to suspect one occurred way back when--especially with no evidence!

    I'm open minded. If a miracle could be proved beyond a reason of a doubt, I'd be more than willing to rethink things.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  77. What I am saying... is in the course of human events not a single proved, tested, and tried miracle has been cataloged. And so to date we don't have miracles of the sort the Bible talks about... thus there's no reason to automatically assume there was

    So you would basically agree that an argument that basically consisted of..

    "Being that I, TV, have never witnessed water being turned to wine, nor am I privy to any studies in which it actually had, that means that it has never, ever happened before in the history on mankind"..

    would be a pretty crappy argument right from the get-go. Agreed?

    Thus I am being logical... because I am taking the standard model of history... and saying that it doesn't predict the regular occurrence of miracles

    Miracles, by their very definition, would not be "regular" occurance.

    there is no reason to suspect one occurred way back when--especially with no evidence!


    I must admit that this is something new to me. Since when did the testimonies of eyewitnesses along with written, historical documents not qualify as "evidence" by practically every dictionary in the entire world?

    ReplyDelete
  78. And let me ask again, is there any evidence that Roman Mithrism predates the middle of the second century?

    If not, might I suggest that we eliminate this belief system as one that Christianity 'borrowed' from and move on to the next best example that you could cite?

    ReplyDelete
  79. @JD-

    My point is to be aware of the overlap. The Persians practiced the mysteries of Mirthras, and the religion was already well established by 80. This coincides with when the Gospels were written, between 60 and 120. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that there was borrowing.

    Plutarch (c.40), in the Life of Pompey (writing the same time as Paul), mentions that Mithraism was practiced in Rome as early as 68 C.E.

    Again... I can't say with certainty that the Gospel authors borrowed, but the pattern is there, and if the shoe fits...

    Some modern scholarship on Mithras includes:

    * Beck, Roger, "The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis," Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 88, 1998 (1998) , pp. 115–128.

    * Beck, Roger, "Mithraism since Franz Cumont," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.17.4, 1984, pp. 2002–115. Important summary of the changes to Mithras scholarship.

    * Clauss, Manfred, The Roman cult of Mithras: the god and his mysteries, Translated by Richard Gordon. New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 198. ISBN 0-415-92977-6 here. An excellent concise view of the current consensus.

    * Cumont, Franz, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra : pub. avec une introduction critique, 2 vols. 1894-6. Vol. 1 is an introduction, now obsolete. Vol. 2 is a collection of primary data, online at Archive.org here, and still of some value.

    * Gordon, Richard, Frequently asked questions about the cult of Mithras. Some common misconceptions, and the comments of a professional Mithras scholar.

    * Hinnells, John (ed.), Proceedings of The First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, Manchester University Press (1975).

    * Turcan, Robert, Mithra et le mithriacisme, Paris, 2000. Academic study.

    * Ulansey, David, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, Oxford University Press, 1989. An influential but non-mainstream account.

    ReplyDelete
  80. JD said: "So you would basically agree that an argument that basically consisted of..."

    "Being that I, TV, have never witnessed water being turned to wine, nor am I privy to any studies in which it actually had, that means that it has never, ever happened before in the history on mankind"..

    No JD... I believe what I said (and you quoted but misread) was:

    What I am saying... is in the course of human events not a single proved, tested, and tried miracle has been cataloged. And so to date we don't have miracles of the sort the Bible talks about... thus there's no reason to automatically assume there was

    Let me put it this way...

    "Being that I, nor anybody else, have *ever witnessed water being turned to wine, or for that matter any other miracle resembling those contained in the dubious Biblical account, nor am I privy to any studies in which it actually have investigate such claims critically in which the miracles were proved beyond the reason of a doubt to be the only logical (and probable) conclusion, and moreover, historians and scientists have not yet found a trustworthy account of miracles which could not also be explained via natural means, and furthermore, did not crumble under exacting scrutiny, it is fairly safe to assume that miracles have not likely occurred.

    "Also, since we have no evidence of actual miracles happening prior to the history of mankind, and since the standard historical model, as accepted by contemporary historians, does not readily predict miracles, it is safe to assume that all testimony surrounding the total sum of miraculous encounters, and for which reliable evidence is lacking, are to be judged with a healthy serving of salt."

    That's how I would have worded it. But that's just me. You can believe in miracles without the evidence if you'd like... but that would merely be a devotional belief... *not historical knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Far be it from me to not admit my ignorance when appropriate. I had never heard of Mithra or Mithraism, so I had to go to our friends at Wikipedia to educate myself.

    TV asserts: Plutarch (c.40), in the Life of Pompey (writing the same time as Paul), mentions that Mithraism was practiced in Rome as early as 68 C.E.

    According to our friends at Wiki, it was practiced between the first and fourth centuries.

    TV then admits: I can't say with certainty that the Gospel authors borrowed, but the pattern is there, and if the shoe fits...

    To which I must ask, what pattern are you talking about, because for the life of me I cannot see the faintest or slightest connection betweeen the cult of Mithraism and Christianity. Again, according to our friends at Wiki:

    "The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark in the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite. Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: 'if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic'."

    So after Christianity is well established, Justin Martyr accuses the Mithraists of diabolically parodying the Christian sacrament of communion, and this is supposed to suggest that CHristianity borrowed from Mithraism?

    I must in any event go back to the argument of looking at the NT records in their totality, written openly by and about a number of people within a generation of the events, at a time when detractors could have easily debunked any of their claims. Even supposing that Mithraism came about simultaneously as a rival to Christianity, it makes no sense to suggest that the latter borrowed from the former.

    I can see it now. Peter and John and the other apostles, unlearned fisherman, were somehow well up to speed on all the latest cults and writings, including Mithraism. I can imagine Peter saying,

    "Hey, John. How has the fishing been going? You know, I am still bummed out about them crucifying Jesus. I have been trying to lay low since then. But hey, I just came up with this great idea. I was getting bored mending the nets so I started reading about this Mithra god. It's a new religion. Pretty cool stuff. So I was thinking. Let's make up our own religion. Let's steal and hide Jesus' body and say He rose from the dead. We can start a big following. If we don't piss off the Romans, we will at least really stick it to the Phraisees. They will haul us off to the Sanhedrin and flog the crap out of us, but wouldn't it be really cool if we could make this new religion stick? If we get enough of a following, maybe we can even convert some of them too, like that Saul of Tarsus dude, the dyed-in-the-wool Pharisee. If we can convince him enough, maybe we can get him to travel around the Roman world (he's got connections, you know, because he is a Roman citizen) and he can convince everyone else.

    In the end, all of us are going to get the crap beaten out of us, burned at the stake, fed to the lions or crucified upside down, but our names will go down in history. We will even have cathedrals named after us. Pretty cool, huh?

    So what do you say guys, are you in or not?"

    ReplyDelete
  84. The legendary hypothesis does not hold water for a number of reasons.

    (1) Again, the writings are much too close to the events in question;

    (2) Their specific allusions to times, dates, places and people, as well as extra-biblical sources that attest to many of the same events, throws the NT completely out of the legend and myth genre. Contrary to what was asserted previously, C.S. Lewis did address that issue head on. A former atheist and a scholar of ancient mythologies, Lewis had said something to the effect (I can't find the quote) that he was well versed in myth and fable and what it looks like, and the New Testament (for many of the reasons I have cited) bears no resemblance to myth or fable;

    (3) If the NT writers wanted to foist a lie on an unsuspecting world, they would have removed a number of counter-productive elements from their writings. For example, the four Gospels contained differing perspectives on the same story, resulting in what at first glance might seem to be contradictions. Why not remove them? Furthermore, why would they include Jesus' anguished prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, where it seems he is trying to get out of going to the cross? Even though what he was trying to avoid was not so much suffering and death but rather the totally alien condition of losing fellowship with His Father as He took on the sins of the world, the inclusion of these prayers in the Gospels does not make Jesus look like a mythical superhero. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to portray the disciples for the doubting, egotistical, betraying dolts that they appeared to be in the Gospels. Neither does it help their cause to have the first witnesses to the resurrection to be women, who were of such low social standing at the time that their testimony was not admissible in court. Yet all of these details were included in the Gospels, though it would have helped their cause greatly if they modified or deleted them. But they were included for one and only one reason: because they were true.

    ReplyDelete
  85. bob asks: "TMC, do you think it "reasonable" to believe in Allah? How about to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? Is it reasonable to be an atheist?"

    Though I can respect Moslems and Mormons, I do not think their belief systems can withstand the tests of reason and logical scrutiny, for the same reason that Christianity does. I won't repeat here what I have already said about the reliability of the NT record.

    Is Islam reasonable? In contrast to the eye-witness or intra-generational testimony of the Gospel writers, Mohammed told a completely different version of the events, borrowing from the NT when convenient, but otherwise relegating Jesus to the status of a minor prophet and having him escape the agony of the cross (and therefore no resurrection.) He was in effect saying, "Look, those eye-witness accounts from 600 years ago... don't pay any attention to them. Let me tell you what really happened." Not only was Mohammed's version of events written 600 years after the facts, but of course there was no one else to corroborate what he had to say. People just have to take on faith (or by threat of the sword) that Mohammed's "revelation" was correct.

    Joseph Smith and Mormonism: As far as I know, he is the only one who saw the angel Moroni and also the only one who saw the "Golden Plates" which he claimed to have dutifully translated into the book of Mormon-- with all of its outlandish assertions and made up history (including stories of Jesus coming to North America). All of this "revelation" was in the head of only one man about events that happened 1800+ years prior. No other witnesses, no corroboration.

    Is it reasonable to be an atheist? Again, I said that everyone has to weigh the evidence for and against, and come to a reasoned conclusion. I can respect atheists if they have come to their position (1) with intellectual honesty and (2) have thought through their world view and its implications and have carried it through to all of its logical and inevitable conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  86. So I guess one could reject the belief concerning the occurance of miracles, but to claim knowledge that they have never occured, ever, in the history of mankind would be unreasonable and illogical.

    Is that fair?

    My point is to be aware of the overlap. The Persians practiced the mysteries of Mirthras, and the religion was already well established by 80. This coincides with when the Gospels were written, between 60 and 120. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that there was borrowing

    And I'm going to state that, other than their spellings, there is absolutely no resemblance whatsoever between Persian Mithra and Roman Mithras at all in the way of religious practices, customs and beliefs and they are completely different religions. Completely different in all possible ways.

    Am I wrong to state as such?

    ReplyDelete
  87. The fact is TV, the entire laundry list that you have accepted as being forerunners of Christianity from which the early church borrowed to cobble together some sort of religion was not only debunked, but debunked decades ago.

    It keeps raising it's ugly head every now and again and if one is predisposed to groupthink and the shoe fits, then... Link

    ReplyDelete
  88. TMC - "Though I can respect Moslems and Mormons, I do not think their belief systems can withstand the tests of reason and logical scrutiny, for the same reason that Christianity does."

    You said a deist was "entirely reasonable". It is beginning to sound like, in your mind, someone who believes in an unnamed god is reasonable, but as soon as they give their god a name or identity, it had better be your god's name and identity. This reasoning is suspect.

    TMC - "...Mohammed told a completely different version of the events, borrowing from the NT when convenient, but otherwise relegating Jesus to the status of a minor prophet and having him escape the agony of the cross (and therefore no resurrection.)"

    So! Do deists believe Jesus arose from the dead?

    It looks like you consider Mohammed's view of Jesus to be unreasonable. Is that because you know his view is incorrect, or just because it is unbiblical? You seem to view him as unreasonable just because he didn't believe as you believe. Is my perception correct?

    Again, why do you say deists are reasonable but Muslims are not?

    TMC - "Not only was Mohammed's version of events written 600 years after the facts, but of course there was no one else to corroborate what he had to say. People just have to take on faith (or by threat of the sword) that Mohammed's "revelation" was correct."

    Your description sounds an awful lot like Christianity - The Dark Years.

    TMC - "Joseph Smith and Mormonism: As far as I know, he is the only one who saw the angel Moroni and also the only one who saw the "Golden Plates" which he claimed to have dutifully translated into the book of Mormon-- with all of its outlandish assertions and made up history (including stories of Jesus coming to North America). All of this "revelation" was in the head of only one man about events that happened 1800+ years prior. No other witnesses, no corroboration."

    Again, this sound so much like Christianity.

    Are you telling me that the only reason you became a Christian is because of the corroboration of all the claimed events in the bible with non biblical witnesses?

    TMC - "I can respect atheists if they have come to their position (1) with intellectual honesty..."

    Ok, that I have done. After spending 25 years (1/2 of my life) as a bible believer, and based on my own personal experience as a bible believer and bible student, I have concluded that there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that the God of the bible is real.

    TMC - "...and (2) have thought through their world view and its implications and have carried it through to all of its logical and inevitable conclusions."

    What does that mean? I get the impression that you know what atheism's "logical and inevitable conclusions" are. Please share.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bob, I am scratching my head trying to figure out how to respond or if I should respond at all? Are you not understanding or perhaps missing what I am saying, or are you just having fun with me by twisting my words? I still want to believe you are serious, so please help me out here.

    I said it is reasonable to AT LEAST be a deist, because a deist has concluded that some type of supernatural being created the universe, though he does not believe this Being intervenes in the affairs of men. Einstein said he believed in “Spinoza’s God”. The bottom line is that it is logical and reasonable to look at the ordered cosmos, as did Einstein and many other scientists. They concluded that the universe had a beginning,; they looked at the design and consistency of its laws, the development of life under perfect conditions for it to be created, and they concluded that a supernatural being is behind it all.

    But deism is the bottom rung of the belief ladder, basically limited to believing there is Someone or Something out there. I am obviously not a deist, so your question “So! Do deists believe Jesus arose from the dead?” is a non-sequitur? Of course not!

    From the basic belief in some kind of supernatural being, there are obviously a number of differing belief systems as to who He is and what He is like. I explained very clearly that I have examined the claims of Christianity and why I believe they are true. I also explained very clearly why I believe Islam and Mormonism are mistaken, again by scrutinizing their claims. So what is Bob’s reaction? “". It is beginning to sound like, in your mind, someone who believes in an unnamed god is reasonable, but as soon as they give their god a name or identity, it had better be your god's name and identity. This reasoning is suspect.”

    Just because something is reasonable does not mean it is correct. So I can acknowledge and respect people for their reasoned conclusions (I can even respect people’s somewhat blind and unreasoned faith) but still be convinced that they are mistaken, just as I am convinced that you are mistaken. Obviously, unless you consider theology as some philosophical pastime of no consequence (actually, I suppose you do!) then many of the world’s great religions of history have to be incorrect, because their respective concepts of who God is and what He is like are mutually exclusive. And this is what is so offensive about Christianity in particular, because Jesus did not present Himself as one of many options. He claimed to be God. Either He is God or He is not. He predicted that He would die for the sins of the world and rise from the dead, as His disciples later claimed He did. Either He rose from the dead or He did not. As C.S. Lewis famously said, either He was a lunatic, a liar or Lord of all. He did not leave us another option. And if Jesus is who He said to was, then Mohammed, Joseph Smith or others were deluded at best, charlatans at worst. I don’t take any joy or pride in saying so. I wish it were otherwise, but when you have opposite and irreconcilable world views, somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong, unless maybe you are a polytheist. But that does not mean I can’t respect people who see things differently. I don’t claim moral superiority over anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  90. TMC & JD:

    I know you'll probably just shrug off any book recommendations I might give you, but I thought I might list some scholars which you should familiarize yourselves with.

    Robert M. Price has written an amazingly in depth book called "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" which actually focuses on the legendary hypothesis, since Price is the most prominent of recent supporters for this theory.

    But if you have a Price bias, regardless of how scholarly he is, I would also suggest you read Joseph R. Hoffmann, Stevan L. Davies, Burton L. Mack, Hugh J. Schonfield, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, David Friedrich Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Morton Smith, and Rudolf Bultmann.

    These are the historians whose research I have looked into. You might want to start there... and maybe after reading a couple of them we can have an informed discussion on the formulation of early Christianity.

    But as it is you're merely spouting Christian rhetoric... which is fine if your goal is to evangelize. It does nothing to enhance the discussion about the historical facts however.

    If you know of any Christian theologians or scholars that are a must read... feel free to send some recommendations my way too!

    Peace out!

    ReplyDelete
  91. TMC, no, I wasn't playing with you. My questions were entirely honest. Thanks for clearing up many of them.

    If you feel like it, please answer my last one -"I get the impression that you know what atheism's "logical and inevitable conclusions" are. Please share."

    As to your statement of CS Lewis's comment - "...either He was a lunatic, a liar or Lord of all. He did not leave us another option."

    Actually, there is another option - Perhaps Jesus never claimed what he is reported to have claimed.

    TMC - "I explained very clearly that I have examined the claims of Christianity and why I believe they are true. I also explained very clearly why I believe Islam and Mormonism are mistaken, again by scrutinizing their claims. So what is Bob’s reaction?"

    I didn't "react". I just commented on your comments. It seemed, since you said "So it is entirely reasonable to at least be a deist,..." and you consider beliefs in other named gods to be pretty much wrong or unreasonable, it seemed obvious that as long as a person doesn't name their god or name any of his personality traits, you will consider that a reasonable conclusion. But the moment they give their god a name, or define it in any way, they become unreasonable in your mind.
    I just felt the need to point that out. I am not surprised by your belief. I just find it curious.
    Deists and Christians are reasonable, Muslims and Mormons are not.
    Atheists - well, as long as they are intellectually honesty.

    I find that requirement rather funny when I look at all the supernatural beliefs Christians subscribe to: raising's from the dead, a disembodied hand writing on a wall, water changing to wine, parting of a sea, walking around in a fiery furnace, walking on water, worldwide flood, sticks turning to snakes, and on and on. Yet you require intellectual honesty from me...?

    Even though I am confronted by this attitude from believers almost daily, I continue to be amazed.

    ReplyDelete
  92. These are the historians whose research I have looked into. You might want to start there... and maybe after reading a couple of them we can have an informed discussion on the formulation of early Christianity

    I'm sorry, but is this advice coming from someone who, it would appear, was completely clueless to the fact that Persian Mithra and Roman Mithras were not one and the same? And this revelation merely came about because it was the first example we decided to compare with the early Christian church and it's highly probable that the other examples he cited might be equally unsupported by historical facts as well?

    ReplyDelete
  93. TD Vick, did you get that? If IT thinks any of your conclusions are faulty, IT then considers ALL of your conclusions faulty and will not even consider further reading.

    In other words, you can't reason someone out of Christianity who didn't use reason to get into Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Pleas note that the above commentator is completely oblivious to the fact that I stated in my above entry timestamped at 8:51 in which I wrote...

    "And let me ask again, is there any evidence that Roman Mithrism predates the middle of the second century?

    If not, might I suggest that we eliminate this belief system as one that Christianity 'borrowed' from and move on to the next best example that you could cite?"

    All of this goes to demonstrate the verifiable facts the Blob not only refuses to answer direct questions when put to her, but that she cannot follow a simple conversation, even when a full text of said conversation is immediately under her nose.

    Bravo.

    For an encore, might she now like to offer up the best argument she possibly can from her dream boyfriend, Robert Ingersoll, so I can obliterate it and then she can refuse to comment on it?

    Wait a minute....

    ReplyDelete
  95. I almost want to cry out to the above commenter...

    "..you stuck your big fat runny nose in and dripped snot all over the place.
    Yes, I am insulting you.
    You are a jack ass of the highest order.
    You wouldn't recognize a decent, calm dialog if it sat on your face and wiggled.
    You are a short,chubby, internet bully who hides behind his 13" monochrome CRT desperately trying to offend, but your attempts have no more affect than sand chaffing my crack after a day at the beach.
    I hate you I hate you I hate you I hope you die"

    But I believe those words are the intellectual property of another here.

    I wonder who that might be.....

    ReplyDelete
  96. WOW! It must be home alone again.

    ReplyDelete
  97. It would appear that a certain commenter not only fell out of the stupid tree, but in fact hit every single branch on the way down.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Apparently It is incapable of coming up with even an original insult.
    I'll give It a hint - I am below average in height (5' 7").
    Perhaps that fact will provide It with enough inspiration to come up with something I haven't heard before.

    It wanted Ingersoll's best argument, so as to prove It's penis was longer than his. It is so funny:

    "The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it."

    "Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo."

    "Do I believe in eternal punishment? Hell no. I always believed God could get his revenge in far less time."

    ReplyDelete
  99. If you answer my direct question that you dodged earlier, I will address every one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  100. The Century Mark Is Mine!!!!

    Carry on, Kids.

    Stevolious Centurius

    ReplyDelete
  101. It said..."If you answer my direct question that you dodged earlier, I will address every one of these."

    It is under the mistaken assumption that I care one bit what Its thoughts are on Ingersoll.

    And It lives in a fantasy land where every question It asks deserves to be answered.

    It is an ass.

    ...but, if It so desperately wants an answer to Its question, It can post it again and I'll see if I can muster an answer...but I'll be damned if I am going to wade through the endless lines of dung that It spreads with every tap of Its index fingers, trying to find the question It is obsessed with.

    Congrats Steve. I bow down to your impeccable timing and reflexes.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hey Bob! Thanks for the congrats!

    Actually I was just taking advatage of a serendipitous moment. Sometimes time, space, and personal circumstance come together in rare, but beautiful, combinations. And so it was yesterday when I checked in on this topic and noticed that the 100th post was beckoning to be written. 100 is a magical, Yea! even a mystical number, and whenever possible I like to tap into the hidden powers associated with it by closely associating myself with things of this most wonderful of numbers. As it has often been said, "Opportunity missed is opportunity wasted" and I chose not to waste that golden opportunity and I jumped on it like a fox on a hare! Or like a hare on a carrot!

    But seriously, I think that this might be a record number of comments on a topic here at Feeno's Place in Cyber Space, but the Feenster would have to speak on that, as I don't really know.

    Thanks again for the congrats,

    SteveO

    ReplyDelete
  103. Nobody Cooler, It sure is. But I didn't want to mention it in fear of having to give cash and prizes away to the Lucky # 100.

    So hopefully bobaloo's pat on the back will do?

    Later SteveO, feenO

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hey There Feenster, the Anti-Meanster!

    Gotta say, a self respecting poster probably would not have jumped on that comment slot like a hungry carrot on a turd, but then again, I'm not a very self-respecting poster, am I?

    The pleasure of that act was very self-rewarding, so no external prize could have really added to the sublime personal satisfaction I garnered from merely claiming that slot with a comment that merely claimed that slot! That is, some might question why I couldn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, but not me...

    Keep Laughin', Brother!

    Nobody Cooler Schuler
    Just demonstratin' why you gave me that name!

    PS

    My thanks to all of the sincere posters who, by working diligently at their keyboards without thought of personal reward, allowed this moment of celebration to be realized. THANKS!

    SNS

    ReplyDelete