HOLY SHIT!
I completely retract my defense. That's completely different from the early report I saw, which indicated otherwise.
Imo, after the first rejection, that's totally out of line.
He deserves to be lumped in, if true. That's predatory behavior.
I was wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he lived again, and barely anecdotal evidence that his body went missing.
You vastly overestimate the theories acceptance outside devout religious theological scholars.
It's not all nonsense, just the magic parts.

History. Constantine converted and compiled the bible to consolidate and grow his political powers.

Satan wrote and fulfilled the bible and prophecies to trick you, just like every other religion. See how that falls apart?

Verified "truth" is a fact demonstrable in the physical world.
I don't buy into isms.

No, they were clearly instructions to individuals, not government...please. Even accepting your view, it's still killing, so no one could carry out the governmental stoning imperative...catch 22, you defy god either way.

But, since I don't believe, I don't accept or reject him.

Ahhh, so he didn't die for the world, only his supporters, you say, with non supporters (mostly tricked thorough no fault of their own) getting eternal torture. Diabolical, monstrous in fact.

Only like cancer that only exists when you believe it does.

I do those things for myself, it's working fine and I take responsibility for myself. I would suggest if Jesus worked as you say, to perfection, no Christian would ever be depressed or do wrong, they would be perfect people without problems....1)what about when you/they don't behave perfectly, is Jesus busy?

If there was zero law enforcement on earth and no vigilantes, it would be like that.

A sign, like the cardboard sign the driver's holding? Yep.

I might get in the car out of curiosity, but wouldn't just accept that coincidence or mental implantation means divinity. I would think it's likely I'm being visited by ET, who would be easily mistaken for gods by believers.

2)Again, I must ask, if you know he has that power of personal revelation, but chose to not use it, why would you defy your own God's wishes to try to convert others? Maybe he needs us heathens to be heathens.

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical, especially in the last 80 years or so. There are volumes upon volumes of work, and there are a lot of things that deserve an honest and indepth discussion.

Almost all skeptical scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical person and that His disciples had an experience which convinced them that He was raised from the dead. Many agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb. The origin of Christianity is something which must be accounted for, historically. You can't just wave your hand over it and say its all nonsense.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

On what do you base that conclusion?

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

Because of the person of Jesus Christ, who is verified to be the Messiah from many lines of evidence. Some of these would include the fulfillment of dozens of prophecies, His life and ministry, and His resurrection from the dead.

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

I'm not sure why you think you are holding the keys of facts and evidence in your hand, first of all. Can your worldview account for these things? You would need to establish that before we can talk about what "verified truth" is. What is your worldview, by the way? I am assuming it is scientific materialism. Have you ever looked into whether it is correct or not?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

I think that is easily explained. The laws you are looking at were civil laws which governed the nation of Israel. Consider that our society has a law against murder, yet we execute criminals. Same concept.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

None of your sins would be erased if you reject Christ. You would be paying not only for unbelief, but for all of the other ones too. Unbelief is like any other sin execept that the consequence of the sin prevents you from receiving forgiveness. It is exactly like expecting your cancer to be cured without taking the cure.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, including mine and yours, but you cannot partake of the atonement unless you receive Him as Lord and Savior.

My evidence is not just what we are discussing. Jesus Christ is alive and He is with me every single day of my life. He comforts me in my distress. He encourages me when I feel stuck. He gives me strength to overcome things I otherwise couldn't. He gives me wisdom for every problem and situation. He gives me love for those I find difficult to love. He fills my heart with generosity when I want to be stringy. He helps me do the right thing when I am going to fall short. This is not abstract, but a living reality in my life that grows more and more. He has utterly changed me and made me into a completely different person just like He said He would.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

That's kind of like saying you don't believe in the law so you think you won't be punished when you break it. You have to account for your sin whatever you believe you have any or not. Your conscience, however, tells you that you have done wrong things.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Let's say that you got a sign that the car was legitimate, but you still stubbornly chose not to go. For instance, you had a dream that a green car with a florida license plate drove up to your house, and a middle age woman got out and came up to your door and told you she was sent by God to take you to the cancer cure, and then it really happened. Does that change anything for you?

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

God had revealed Himself to me, personally, and verified the scripture in my as true. I know that He loves me, personally, and I know that He loves you too. My hearts desire is that you would know that love. That is my mindset, primarily.

You see the problem there, right?
You don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so ask it to help you believe in it, even though you know it's not real (and is an insult to your intelligence and beliefs), just abandon reason and rationality until you believe (in something you know is false and harmful)....and forever after. Who's going to do that?
Edit: conversely, if God hasn't verified his word, why would you contradict him by trying to do it yourself? Don't you think he knows his own plan better than you?

No, it's kicking the key out of that lock some guy looking for money and control told you is a prison you are in that's inescapable unless you buy his key (and pay him for keeping that key for you). Rejecting religion means you reject the entire "lock/key/prison" concept.

Third choice, admit sin is a construct of humans to control others more easily and ignore it as the fraud it is.
Remember, bearing false witness is a sin (as is the pride you feel for sharing it), and just because you believe it doesn't make it less false. Better to keep quiet about stuff you can't prove, according to Christianity.

Edit: don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even attempt to answer either question.
How to reconcile the blatant self serving fact that religion requires you to believe that belief in it erases all sin besides disbelief, which must be a sin worse than murder, rape, torture, etc, and is the one sin that was not erased by Christ?

God verifies His word, as He did to me. I wasn't looking for Him and He showed up in my life and revealed that He is God. If you don't believe, ask God to help your unbelief.

Rejecting Jesus Christ is like kicking the key back out of your jail cell and then complaining that you can't get out. Your choice is to either pay for your own sins or let Jesus pay for them.

It doesn't really explain WHY they would believe such things outside they saw lots of YouTube videos. What would cause a person to reject known science that is over 2,000 years old, which was based on super simple observations? I've seen some people blame the Bible, but you'd really have to stretch things to get to the Bible saying it was flat (it makes reference to the four corners, but that's it), unlike using the Bible to claim the universe is 6,000 years old, and the Earth being the center of the universe, both of which it supports directly. So at least, in this case, we can't blame the Bible, though I'd be interested in how many of these people believe the universe is 6,000 years old and the center of the universe, as I'd expect a high correlation. Even rejecting human-caused climate change makes more sense than accepting the flat earth. It just so far beyond stupid to accept it that I can't wrap my head around it.

Congratulations! Your video, Why Australia should reject Gay Marriage, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, Why Australia should reject Gay Marriage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

To me, this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. I understand why some Christians and Christian organizations are trying to fight these culture wars, but it is completely futile. What difference does it make which flag is flying when the culture has basically completely rejected biblical Christianity. The moral decline that is happening is the bad fruit that comes out of that. If you chop off the fruit and branches, they will just grow back because you haven't dealt with the root system.

The confederate flag is being removed because it represents a deep seated division of the nation and culture and an exclusion of non-whites from humanity.
The LGTB/rainbow flag represents inclusion, and a rejection of divisive and exclusionary (and deeply held) "values" that, contrary to the most important teaching of their religion (the golden rule), allow some to force their narrow puritanical ideas about sexuality on others by force.
Total false equivalency.

Ugh - how to I start this:

First, not many Republicans are "right wing" any more. Many vote against free markets and Capitalism and vote for social engineering, wealth redistribution, and growing the size of the Government.

There are a few true right wingers left, but the establishment Republicans are not right wing at all if you test their voting habits against what it means to be on the right side of the political spectrum.

Also, I patently reject that notion that all racists are Republican. If you think racism only happens in the white community I suggest you open Youtube and simply search the term "kill whites".

Not too long ago, David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress.

My point is the only reason these people are voting Republican right now is because the social engineering of the left is seen as anti-white, which I am certain makes it untenable for a white racist to vote for that candidate/party.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

@newtboy

dude..seriously..are we related?

i reject both as well.

and since WHEN is it considered brave and courageous to condemn and denounce nazis?

i am seeing this stupidity all over the social sites,as if bashing nazis is now some blow for justice.

jesus,how can some people be so fucking dim to the gigantic circle jerk they are engaging in....fucking pathetic.

how about take a stand on a more nuanced subject and then get back to me.otherwise you're just smelling your own farts and calling it febreeze...

/drops mic

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

Oh Bob...
You know this is schlock. It's not that he never said the words, it's that he only says it when forced, and never sincerely or without qualifications, and cannot seem to do it without reading a prepared script he obviously didn't write. Whenever he speaks from the heart, he's condoning, excusing, and encouraging the hate groups.
He rejected Duke after getting a week of negative press and sliding in the polls during the campaign for not rejecting him, and tried to pretend he didn't know who David Duke was.
This time it's about not being able to single out actual murderous Nazis without lumping blm and similar groups in with them.
He has never said he doesn't want their vote, and they still say he's with them and is just saying what he has to right now to placate the liberal Jew media, and actions speak louder than words, and he's not taking action and is backing off his stern words.
Pretty sad when the president of the United States can't denounce Nazis without waiting days for the whole story (or even after getting it) or without spreading the blame for their attacks to his political enemies, but he can denounce, deride, and debase anyone that slights him personally in an instant even if he imagined the slight.
Sad.