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.

>> ^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.

Brilliantly subversive.

I first heard of Billy Bragg in the 80s, my music teacher told tales of this mad English guy who got up on stage with an amp, an electric guitar, and half sang half screamed really subversive folk songs.

He seems to have calmed down a bit since then.

Brilliantly subversive. That's pretty much an argument ender. I can't wait for the opportunity to use this argument IRL. >> ^bareboards2:

Dan Savage's open letter to Herman Cain:
Dear Herman,
If being gay is a choice, show us the proof. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that's done, Herman, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman. Name the time and the place and I'll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.
Very sincerely yours,
Dan Savage

Hell no. I was a complete stoner of the correct age group who went to see it in theatres, and I hated Super Troopers. Total disconnect with their style of comedy here.

>> ^moonsammy:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^budzos:
Team America was the funniest movie of the 00s.

I wish I could refute that...but I tried and I can't think of any other funnier movie. There HAS to be one...someone help!

Super Troopers?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^budzos:
Team America was the funniest movie of the 00s.

I wish I could refute that...but I tried and I can't think of any other funnier movie. There HAS to be one...someone help!


Super Troopers?

Your video, 60 Minutes - Trey Parker & Matt Stone's Subversive Comedy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the quality doublepromote

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality *doublepromote

>> ^budzos:

Team America was the funniest movie of the 00s.


I wish I could refute that...but I tried and I can't think of any other funnier movie. There HAS to be one...someone help!

www.allsp.com

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
Why don't I watch South Park...these guys really are awesome and every episode I've ever watched I've really liked...what is wrong with me?!

I don't like the name quirky, but I'd lurve a *weird or *subversive channel. *subversive is badass the more I think of it. Do it. Do it. Do it. </peer pressure>

Ya know right wing comedy would be fine if it was funny...if it did something unique. This was a comedic concept down a million times before...which is fine as long as you do it well. They didn't.

Monty Python had a TON of similar sketches from the various shows that the boys were on before. They did them well though and that's what made them funny.

Also they were subversive and left wing which is the only way to be funny because you're challenging an obviously corrupt system.