You can't replace Jesus with Thor..Jesus is a real person. Thor didn't die for your sins, or do things like this:

John 13

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@shinyblurry, read your post out loud. Replace every instance of the work "jesus" with the word "thor". Still sound like a good argument?

Yes, I agree people have used the message for personal gain..but your statement confuses me. Since you admit the gospel was the sincere account of the disciples who wrote it (it would have to be for them to martyr themselves over it), and they preached a resurrected, glorified Christ who is the Savior of the world, why don't you believe them?

>> ^enoch:
i think you misunderstood who i was refering to when i spoke of those who sought power perverted christs message.
the disciples didnt and nor did those early christians who suffered and died for their beliefs.
but there have been many who have used christs message to garner power,influence and to line their own pocket.
this can be traced back to only a few 100 yrs after christs death all the way to present day.
if you would like to call that a conspiracy theory,i guess thats your choice but i think the evidence is overwhelming.

i think you misunderstood who i was refering to when i spoke of those who sought power perverted christs message.
the disciples didnt and nor did those early christians who suffered and died for their beliefs.
but there have been many who have used christs message to garner power,influence and to line their own pocket.
this can be traced back to only a few 100 yrs after christs death all the way to present day.
if you would like to call that a conspiracy theory,i guess thats your choice but i think the evidence is overwhelming.

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

Yep, I am a trinitarian.

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

I would agree that all of these views were represented, but the vast majority of them were trinitarians.

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

The word trinity does not appear in the bible, but the concept of the trinity certainly does. There are many concepts taught in the bible which are not specifically named, so a lack of the word "trinity" isn't proof that there is no such thing. You have to go by what the bible teaches about the nature of God, and it teaches that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, and that there is only one God and not three Gods. Here are a couple of verses mentioning them together:

•Matt. 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.


>> ^Diogenes:
so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?
next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?
1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)
finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Science is God, and Tyson is one of his most worthy disciples.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

Yes, that is what I wanted evidence for, because you seemed to have stated it as if it were conclusively proven. I would ask you how you can justify it without a single citation? We have very early manuscript so we know what the early church was working with. When and how exactly do you think this retconning took place?

I will ask for evidence that the NT account of Satan contradicts the OT.

Now, to say the gospels are written by unknowns is simply not plausible. First, for this to be possible, you would have to argue that the church universally agreed on their authorship without any dissension. This strains credulity..entire denominations have been formed over far less important points. For there not to be even be a whiff of controversy in the early church over their authorship proves this theory to be bunk. You also have the fact that they were written in the memory of living witnesses, including the disciples. This would be a check on their authenticity.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

Well, if Jesus was a real person it really puts a damper on your theory. The details of His life were widely known about, and there were obviously quite a few witnesses as to who He really was. Do you really think its plausible that so many devout jews in the 1st century would completely estrange themselves from their culture and heritage and willingly martyr themselves over a clever fable? It seems like they also would need some solid evidence to do something like that, and a story about Jesus that many people knew to be false wouldn't hardly qualify.

And there is solid evidence. Have you considered any of the evidence mentioned here?:


But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

You're talking about a very narrow definition of omniscience which is logically contradictory. For instance, under this strict definition of omniscience God would have to know every thought He would ever have and be locked into that thought process for eternity. This would make God no better than a robot. But the nature of God by definition is transcendent of this. If God knew every thought He would ever have, there is no reason He couldn't throw them all away and think something else. Does He necessarily have to anticipate everything He would ever think to still be omniscient? No, because it is to know everything that can be known, and I don't think even God can anticipate all of His thoughts, although we can always count on them being consistant with His nature.

Therefore, although God can surely anticipate the actions of limited beings, His own dynamic reactions to His creation can give His creatures a measure of freedom from this predeterminatism and can themselves have dynamic choices. There is no sense in the bible that God is just "going through the motions". He reacts dynamically according to what His creatures do. He gives choices..for instance, He made the prediction that the 4th generation of Israelites would enter into the land He had prepared for them, but it actually turned out to be the 5th generation due to disobedience. So for these reasons I don't necessarily think God is running a kangaroo court. I think He tests our hearts, and gives us genuine choices with genuine consequences.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:
I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.
The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.
I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.
But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.
You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

There is a standard to which those who call themselves Christians can be held. Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” We know who gets to be called one of his followers and who doesn't.

'Verily I say unto you, the popstar shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For teenage pop is an abomination unto the Lord, yay, as is the wearing of mixed fabrics.'

And they brought before Jesus a man named Biebarus, who was a Gentile, and a seducer of virgins. And many a young woman followed after, and there was weeping and throbbing of hearts.

'Behold, this man keepeth his hair as maidens do, and singeth in womanly tones. Pray cast out the demons that possess him, lest he become as the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah.'

But Jesus, tiring of the multitudes, withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place, to enjoy the fellowship of his disciples.

Matthew 19:23-27



>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
boy. you're goin' to hell cause Jesus thinks that shit is gross.

I agree. Teenage-popmusic sucks.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Reefie:
>> ^dannym3141:
8.20 for the bit where god has mind-sex with a girl on stage...
I find it scary that people reject this guy's claim as ludicrous but believe the vicar they visit every sunday without question.

The mind-sex part was why I originally wanted to comment but the other thing screwing with my head is why doesn't someone just assasinate him to prove (or disprove ooo-err!) he can't resurrect?

Jail time, i imagine


We can always hope one of his disciples starts to ponder the resurrection question, that way they can claim they are insane afterwards

^
thank you Sam Harris'

peaceful religion?, if these types of believers were around 2000yrs ago they would probably like to think that they would be a disciple, but would probably be a part of the lynch mob calling for the execution of Jesus. To call yourself 'Christian' or a true-believer in anyway while holding this judgmental, divisional mindset is nothing less than appalling, and i am speaking as a non-believer.