Here's an email exchange I recently had with a Christian. It's typical of many others. I said:
Him:
Although both of us could be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. How do you propose deciding which one of us is right, if one of us is?His response:
I agree that at least one of us is wrong. Unless one of sees evidence or has an experience to convince us otherwise, neither of us will change our minds. No matter how much you and others want to paint it otherwise, atheism is not a purely scientific conclusion.My response:
It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong. There is no other way but to assume a natural explanation for everything. That method has no need of a god. Historians cannot approach the past any other way, nor can scientists. If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all.
Him:
John,Me:
When you say, “It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong,“ that’s just simply not true, no matter how much you want it to be true. There is not a single branch of science that has concluded that there is no god.
Yes, correct. But here's what science does: It offers natural explanations that better explains the phenomena than your theistic explanations, which are no explanations at all (see my next comment below).Him:
All science does is attempt to explain via natural means how physical events occur. Just because botany explain how plants grow or because geology explains rock formations, that does not exclude the activity of a god.Me:
This god of yours ends up being nothing more than the god of the gaps. And at that point any god will do.Him:
The scientific METHOD has no need of a god, and its conclusions are not dependent on a god.Me:
Then your specific conclusions could be derived no matter what method we use and so could any other god explanation.Him regarding a natural explanation of the Bible:
Using simple logic, if you look at the Bible as a whole (in addition to its parts individually), you have to ask certain questions about continuity and about why it reads so much differently than other ancient texts. That’s where a purely natural explanation falls even more into what’s merely possibly rather than what’s probable.Me:
Did you say you read Hector Avalos's chapter on Yahweh in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith FailsHim:? Did you really read it? Say it isn't so, for if you did I'm at a loss for words here. I really think you are ignorant about the Bible and the results of Biblical criticism. That's right, ignorant. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible nor in how it was written or compiled or canonozied that reveals any divine mind behind this process in whole or in part. There is no statment or series of statements, no book, no prediction, no moral teaching, no lesson of hygene, nothing, that cannot be more credibly explained as the musings of an ancient suprestitious barbaric people living in a high context society. Nothing.
John, be consistent here. Are you willing to apply that standard to every single aspect of human existence? If so, you have lost a lot!! (Including love and all other emotions, beauty and all aesthetics, and most other phenomena that make human life enjoyable.)Me:
Humans evolved from the lower primates so one would expect that with our common ancestors we share with them these emotions. It's NOT HARD TO EXPLAIN AT ALL! There is brain research and psychological studies all showing this is who we are and it can be explained by our cobbled together brain (in three layers, the lowest of which is the reptilian brain) and socializing tendencies discovered by psychology.
I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor cn you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies in a much bigger commune that includes people who have doctorates in Moonieism in a culture that is largely Christian where you speak Christianeze that has a history stretching down two millenia. That's all you are. That's why you believe. That's why you cannot even consider for one minute you are wrong. That's why you must offer one non-sequitur after another and why you fail to understand the implications of what you accept in other areas of life.
572 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 572 of 572Marcus; "Therefore my statement is correct there is no proof of first century Christians killing anyone."
Nope, seems likely they did. I don't "believe" in the sense you want or need me to for this conversation.
Marcus,
"You have serious problem if there is such thing as an eternal soul."
Key word there is "if". Seems you're not all that sure anymore...
"Is it your belief that the electrical-chemical processes of the brain gives rise to consciousness and self-awareness? I don't think you can make sense of that without a soul."
Tell me a cat or a dog isn't conscious and self aware to at least some minimal degree, and that they don't have wills of their own or a soul, and I'll call you a liar. Not that I believe animals have souls; we're just like the animals, only with more basic brain power- like I said before: no "soul" required.
"Possible doesn't mean probable (referring to the resurrection)..."
But "possible" means it hasn't been excluded by proof to the contrary. Like you said before, you believe what you choose to believe, based on authoritative opinions you've heard. And the Bible STILL isn't EVIDENCE.
"The apostles returned to Jerusalem were preaching the resurrection about 40 days after the crucifixion and the authorities could not produce a body..."
How utterly convenient for them! First, the ascension was said to have taken place 40 days after the alleged resurrection. That the apostles waited until after the alleged ascension to proclaim the alleged resurection (and the lack of a body- Jesus had been dead for nearly six weeks. Anyone who knew what he looked like in life would NOT have recognized his rotting corpse if it was sitting in their living room!). After that, didn't the Romans hunt them down and kill most of them eventually?
"I think Jesus being seen by 500+ people at once is extraordinary evidence..."
And not one of those alleged 500 is named, nor do they ever appear elsewhere, except that Paul said later that "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15: 6). Notice that he names not a single one of these witnesses, nor does he say where they vanished off to.
"What would it take to convince you that your older brother is God? I think the resurrection answers this extremely well."
Or it could be he liked the perks associated with being a big fish in his little pond. Who can tell? When the stories aren't written down for 30 years or so, it's not hard to see how they might have been embellished to achieve some desired end. I'm saying it's POSSIBLE, and probability isn't proof.
"And what proof do you have that Paul was a spin doctor?"
Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
Virtually everything in the epistles is Paul's spin on "how to be a good Christian, according to me".
@Ryan
How can you say it's likely true that first century Christians killed people when you have no evidence at all to make such a hypothesis. I guess you are right you can't possible believe that one.
@GearHedEd
I'm certain that there is a such thing as souls and animals do not have them. Spirit and soul are not the same thing. Consciousness does not equal self-awareness. Do you think dogs and cats wonder who they are? Do the wonder is there is a purpose to their existence? I don't think so. Can you prove that they do? Dogs and Cats don't create art or anything that people do besides eat, sleep, and reproduce.
I never said that I believe "based on authoritative opinions " I've "heard." I have given historical evidence. And why isn't the Bible EVIDENCE? Give one reason why it's not evidence. Just because you reject it doesn't mean it should not be considered evidence.
The point is that everyone in Jerusalem knew where Jesus was buried. It wasn't done in secret or a corner. Everyone knew that the tomb was empty as sure as they knew Jesus died. Jesus was only dead for 3 days and as you pointed out the Romans hunted down the Apostles for preaching that later. 30 years is not long enough for legend and myth to replace historical memory. It's already been shown that legendary infusion into the Gospels does not fly.
You are extremely biased. Paul was inviting any skeptics to interview those who were still alive who saw Jesus after the resurrection. Some of them were reading the very letter.
If Paul was such a "spin doctor" why didn't Peter, James, John, Jude, Matthew, Luke, Mark, or the writer of Hebrews refute anything he wrote. Peter even endorsed Paul's writing as scripture. I could prove that but it'd be lost on you because the Bible isn't evidence to you. Recall that during this line of reasoning I have been using sources outside the Bible to show its validity. All you have offered is conjecture and imagination. You've got to do better than that.
Also just because you don't agree with Paul does not mean that he was only voicing his opinion. Prove him wrong if you can
"Consciousness does not equal self-awareness. Do you think dogs and cats wonder who they are? Do the wonder is there is a purpose to their existence? I don't think so. Can you prove that they do? Dogs and Cats don't create art or anything that people do besides eat, sleep, and reproduce."
These are all emotional appeals, and say nothing about whether there's such a thing as soul.
"I have given historical evidence. And why isn't the Bible EVIDENCE? Give one reason why it's not evidence..."
Marcus. NOTHING is evidence of itself. Without ouside corroboration (which the Bible lacks in several critical areas such as the creation and the resurrection), it's just so much circle jerking. Like I said, Oz is a real place if we can visit Kansas. This is semantically equal to saying that the ancient Hebrews actually in the Sinai desert for 40years because there really IS such a place as the Sinai desert. However, not a single shard of broken pottery has ever been found to support that story.
The bottom line is that you choose to believe what you want, and that's ok with me. I believe what I want, and you and all your Christian Bretheren condemn my soul that I don't believe exists into a Hell that I don't believe exists.
That's arrogant.
"What would it take to convince you that your older brother is God? I think the resurrection answers this extremely well."
Of course it does. It was engineered that way. Can you imagine what a poor read the Bible would be if they didn't make absolute claims?
Picture this:
"But you don't have to believe in any of this, it's ok to go your own way..." Rev. 48: 97
They HAD to make outrageous claims, or they'd have no credibility.
@GearHedEd
I made no emotional appeals. What is emotional about saying that animals don't wonder who they are ask about the purpose of their existence but humans do? Animals don't have beliefs about an afterlife but you do. I don't see why you think that is being emotional.
I wouldn't say that Oz is a real place because Kansas is a real place. the argument is that you have a historical text saying an event happened it's more likely that it is true if that location actually existed. Your analogy makes no sense. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exoduspottery.phpYour archaeology is out of date. There is evidence of a large group of people camping at a mountain dating from the time the exodus was supposed to happen.
I thought you said you didn't believe you had a soul. If you don't have a soul why should the idea that I believe those who reject Christ go hell bother you? It bothers you because you do have a soul. You wouldn't think it arrogant if it did not mess with you. The other thing is I don't revel in it. I wish God had chosen to do it a different way, but I'm just delivering the message. If you don't like it. Take it up with the one who sent the message. I'm not conceited. I'm convinced. Not that I'm right but that God is right.
Ryan Anderson said... "Man lives in whale belly for three days... talking donkeys... water into wine...
OK, done.
May 24, 2010 6:55 PM"
What ! $%##&^@??? they can talk but dont have a soul ??
Sheeeeze... holy mackrel!!
Marcus McElhaney said..."@Russ...Ms Helen Ukpabio is not a member of COGIC. Neither does she represent my theology or views personally or for my International Church."
Jim Jones began as a Methodist, learned faith-healing at the Seventh Day Baptist Church, then forged some kind of Pentecostal association, and ultimately ended up with his own, unique interpretation of Christianity
David Koresh was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Marcus whether so happens Ms Helen Ukpabio is not a member of COGIC or even was never a member of COGIC , is beside the point.All these faiths have origins set in christianity and whats recorded in the holy bible.
You have no proof some Africans now involved in witch killings may not have had past involvement in COGIC or even had parents or family or friends who once were involved in this particular faith.But even if it was found out they had, im picking you would still find it just as easy! to simply absolve your faith of all responsibility.
As with any suggestions of killing witches recorded in the bible ..You`d absolve any responsibility by saying that was what was taught then,its not got any responsibility for that stuff still happening now.
This is lots like the police issuing people use of a outdated road code to study,and yet still feeling its quite fine they simply absolve themselves of any responsibility for any deadly mistakes made in the process.
"I made no emotional appeals. What is emotional about saying that animals don't wonder who they are ask about the purpose of their existence but humans do? Animals don't have beliefs about an afterlife but you do. I don't see why you think that is being emotional?"
There you go twisting what I said to suit your failed arguments again! You know VERY WELL that the emotional arguments are in favor of humans having a 'soul' because we can wonder, believe we have a purpose, etc., NOT in relation to the animals' state of being! And they are EMOTIONAL appeals! (There MUST be an afterlife! There MUST be a purpose! Because I can think these thoughts...)
There's absolutely zero evidence of life after death. Ask anyone who's been through a near- death experience, and I'll show you someone who NEVER DIED, otherwise they wouldn't be here to discuss it!
I don't believe in an afterlife, either.
"If you don't have a soul why should the idea that I believe those who reject Christ go hell bother you? It bothers you because you do have a soul. You wouldn't think it arrogant if it did not mess with you."
What bothers me is the attempts by Christians to enforce uniformity of dogmatic thought in THIS life. I could give a shit less what happens after I'm dead, because I won't be around to see it. THAT'S the arrogant part- that you and your fellow Christians think you can or need to instruct the world into your delusion.
Are you going to tell me that animals don't play? That they don't show affection, or fear depending on how their people treat them? That they don't dream? That they don't communicate with us and each other? That they're not living things that have to share the planet with us?
Are you going to say that animals don't have a personal will? They act according to their own desires, and sometimes obey us when we order them around, if it suits their fancy.
And most of Paul is still "How to be a good Christian, according to Paul".
The point isn't that ALL animals are sentient, either, so don't attack my argument from there.
Is a jellyfish aware? I seriously doubt it. How about a salamander? A fish? Maybe, but who knows? These animals are probably driven exclusively by instinct.
How about an elephant? Or any of the cetaceans? Or wolves? If you say that their brains are qualitatively equivalent to a jellyfish, you're being dishonest.
Marcus; as a zealot, you have a warped notion of what it means to "believe" and "evidence". The story of anaias and sapheria is evidence that the early church killed people. I believe it's likely they did. I don't know anything for sure, especially if it happened 2000 years ago. Neither do you, but you believe you know, but you don't.
Marcus,
Based on the answers to objections I've heard from you in the last couple of weeks, I can conclude that either
a) your perception is stunted, or
b) your command of the English language is deficient, or
c) you willfully and vehemently attack anything that disagrees with your religion because it disagrees with your religion, not because it is a faulty argument.
You continually use dishonest techniques and faulty logic in your responses, and misrepresented appeals to emotion or authority, or alleged historicity of the Bible, especially where there is no independent non-Biblical source material (other than Christian apologetics or Discovery Institute screeds).
All I've been saying is that there are alternate explanations that don't depend on magical thinking. And whebn you demand proof of these alternatives, you think you've defeated me if I don't provide any.
First, I don't provide any proof because there is none. Similarly, I reject your claims of proof.
The bottom line is (and I've said this elsewhere) if there was PROOF of Christianity / the Bible,
THERE WOULD BE NO DEBATE.
I said,
"..."After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15: 6)."
Can you say "staged event"? How many of those 500 "witnesses" could tell one guy with a beard and wearing a robe from another guy with a beard and wearing a robe back then? How many of them would have recognized Jesus?
We can all recognize an image of say, Josef Stalin because we've all seen pictures of him.
Not so for Jesus. No photography, no printing presses, no television. How many people would recognize his face? The "500 eyewitnesses" is almost too easy to refute.
In other words, it's a 'fish story', designed to add credibility to the claim.
Jesus even had a brother and isn't there mention of a twin in one of the non-canonical gospels?
I checked out that "biblical chronologist" site.
Really, Marcus?
Everyone else is wrong about the dates for the exodus by 1,000 years?
Nice attempt to shoehorn some truthiness into something that was written not as history but as theology set against a historical background.
Read this, especially the heading "Critical Evaluation", before you attempt to instruct me with modern apologetics again.
That "biblical chronologist" attempt by you was exactly as I've described your tactics, Marcus.
You sent up an appeal to an "authority" who said the kinds of things that you want to hear.
Don't trust the wiki, either. Go to the source material they cite, and tell me if the majority of biblical scholars agree with the "biblical chronologist".
Then, after you see that the most probable explanation is that what I said is the mainstream assessment of Biblical scholars, you have a dilemma!
This is the same argument you used to accept the resurrection as historically accurate (preponderance of consensus)!
If you take the position that "the most likely explanation of the empty tomb is the resurrection based upon your cited "preponderance of evidence" (which, by the way I still don't grant, but I'll let that slide for now), then you MUST admit that I'm right about the Exodus being religious fable based upon the "preponderance of evidence" according to MOST biblical scholars.
Back your way out of that, if you can.
@Ryan, you have no evidence at all the early church killed people. If you wanna throw out the Biblical record why would you accept part of it? How do you know which to throw out and which to accept as evidence. Why think that there were even Christians in the 30's and 40's AD? What reason do you really think that 1st Century Christians killed people. You have no proof. As least I have no records that say they did. The canonical gospels does not say Jesus had a brother. They say He had four. None of them his twin. I am aware of the
gospel" your refer to about Jesus having a twin brother. Some Muslims use the same argument to deny the crucifixion. In order to use this you have to be prepared to say that the those Gospels should have greater weight than the canonical gospels as to what the ancient Christians believed. Good luck with that.
@Gandalf
So you would blame the Seventh Day Adventist Church for David Koresh's theology? The Methodist for Jim Jones? Really? You might be able to make this fly except for one thing: David Koresh and Jim Jones don't teach what Methodist and Seventh-Day Adventist taught when they were members or even today! I'll let you hold Methodists responsible for Jim Jones and the Adventists for Koresh if you agree you are responsible for all the deaths in China because of Mao and all the Russians because Stalin! Stalin was an atheist. Mao was an atheist. According to your logic, why aren't you accountable? Why didn't atheist keep Stalin on a leash? See how stupid an argument that is?
Marcus:
"You took my response about "Souls" as emotional but in order to poor that meaning into what I said you have to assume a lot of things I didn't say. I'm saying that you need a soul to ask who you are."
Asking who you are and what the 'purpose' of all this is = "wonder" an emotion, and it DOESN'T lead logically to "soul".
"You do wonder if life has a purpose don't you? Yep, because you have answered that question with "no.""
Answering "no" means I'm sure that there ISN'T, not *still wondering*.
"You are wrong,..."
ARR-O-GANT! You're presuming that you have all the answers and can educate poor me. I don't NEED you, or your mythology to succeed in THIS LIFE, the only one any of us is sure we have.
"...but aside from that the point is that you asked it and what other creature on earth does that?"
Um, no, I didn't ask that. The " (There MUST be an afterlife! There MUST be a purpose! Because I can think these thoughts...)" passage isn't meant to be MY thinking, but the Christian seeker, trying to make sense of something that just IS, without meaning or purpose; and inventing a bunch of comforting shit like "soul" and "afterlife" so they can sleep without fear of death anymore.
"Out of curiosity, what is your definition of death?"
My definition of death is THE END. Why should anyone want or need more?
"And since you have never died, why do you believe that you will cease to exist when you die? How do you know?"
I belisve that death will be exactly equal in quality and aspect to the state I was in before I was born (minus the theological "truths" you're winding up to paste upon that). Before I was born, I knew nothing, experienced nothing, sensed nothing; had NO experience of time passing, don't remember what "came before" and generally DID NOT EXIST.
"How is it arrogant to tell you information that you obviously don't know?"
It's not. But it IS arrogant to attempt to impose your version of truth on me when I and many others numbering in the billions don't believe the same fairy tale you do.
"There is more to living than playing, showing affections, and communication, or obedience or rebellion or personal will. I think accountability matters."
I agree, accountability DOES matter, but that doesn't point to "soul", or "creator" either. It is dependent on higher brain function that allows us humans to contemplate future consequences of our actions through empiricism. No soul required.
"AS a human being you are more valuable than any animal,..."
unsupported value judgement, and conceited to boot!
"...why wouldn't you have a higher accountability?"
I explained that already.
@ Marcus:
"And how do you know that some animals dream?"
Anyone that's ever watched a sleeping dog cannot deny that they dream.
"Also nice job assuming that 500 people could not recognize one person from another just because they never seen a photograph or video."
I assumed nothing. News in the ancient near east depended on hearsay and rumors. Unless you care to argue that they DID have television, newspapers, etc., there's not much chance a randomly assembled group of 500 so-called "witnesses" would all have certain knowledge of Jesus' appearance AND been close enough to see him clearly at the same time. I suppose you're going to argue that there were no defects in eyesight back then, too.
"What about the 5000+ people Jesus fed?"
What about them? That's another "magical" story, and not the alleged incident we were discussing. But they would have been subject to the hearsay, rumors, bad eyesight and lack of knowing what Jesus looked like that plagues the other alleged incident. So there's no force to your statement.
"Not all scholars agree on the chronology? Shock! Do you really want to argue that scholars who aren't atheists agree that the exodus never happened? I don't think so."
Scholars who aren't atheists seize upon the scripture as the basis of truth and work back from there to attempt to prove it. Generally, they only prove to themselves what they were already convinced of in the first place, and "scholarship" of this sort is rightly called "mental masturbation". But again, that's beside the point, since the bulk of the "scholars" cited in the wiki footnotes are either Christians or biblical theologians and historians. Your assertion is incredibly weak, especially when you cited ONE guy who thinks everyone else got the chronology wrong. And the picture of the pottery shards in the desert was taken in Arizona. Prove it wasn't.
--------------------------------
"I look at the data I conclude that there is sufficient evidence that the exodus happened."
Taken with
"Many experts disagree."
Says unequivocally what I said above: that you cherry-pick which "experts" you choose to believe, because they reinforce your belief. While it is your right to do so, you'll have to accept that others remain unconvinced, and you should stop trying to instruct us all about "truth" until there's LESS DEBATE and MORE PROOF.
"You call me dishonest?"
Absolutely. You fool yourself constantly, and then try to fool the rest of us. I'm not buying it.
Marcus McElhaney said..."@Gandalf
So you would blame the Seventh Day Adventist Church for David Koresh's theology? The Methodist for Jim Jones? Really? You might be able to make this fly except for one thing: David Koresh and Jim Jones don't teach what Methodist and Seventh-Day Adventist taught when they were members or even today!"
Marcus McUntrustworthy ...I can point you to the indoctrination that talks about witch killings which is what Ms Helen Ukpabio ended up being involved in .Talks about sacrifices and people allowing themselves to be put to death,which is basically what then happened in Jonestown.
David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, thought he was an angel and an agent of God.That sounds like pretty BIBLICAL type stuff too ..right Marcus?...He cant have got that stupid idea from anywhere else but (indoctrination by bible) ..right Marcus ..All this stuff all these people end up doing IS actually recorded and discussed within the HOLY BIBLE right Marcus? .Seperations,excommunications,schisms all stuff also discussed in your good book the HOLY BIBLE right Marcus ?.
Now ive provided you a direct connection between what these 3 people ended up doing and where they originally got the ideas from.The HOLY BIBLE which they all read and were indoctrinated with.
Now you being the weasle that you are have mouthed off as usual and started wanking on about Stalin and Mao .Now if its not just old tired worn out christian propaganda.A pitiful worthless attempt of little more than tit for tat .You will be able to point me to the connection between atheists and Stalin and Mao.The indoctrination and written material we all study and try to follow.It must surely have stuff like kill millions of people this indoctrination we atheists all read right? ...Come on big mouth,you know the bible written indoctrination talks about the need to kill witches. The reasons for humans to sacrifice themselves.Discusses matters of angels and agents of God .
So yes its easy to see where the links are.The links are with your book you all read and try to live by....Called the Holy Bible.
Now follow up your tired old christian propaganda stint of tryin connecting atheists with people like Stalin and Moa ...With some real balls and information to make a proper conection like i have been easily able to, instead of just mouthing tired old christian trash talk.
There is obviously a DIRECT connection between whats WRITTEN WITHIN THE BIBLE ,and what ,Ms Helen Ukpabio,David Koresh and Jim Jones ended up doing.
Now Marcus McUntrustworthy its your turn to provide some proper connections between atheists and Stalin and Mao
Wobbling your faithful jaws, aint enough to make a decent honest realistic connection Marcus .We know MANY PEOPLE most likely every single year are led by reading the bible indoctrination,to create shcisms,separations,sects,cults and much much more ..We know this is a actual fact!
Now Marcus whats the honest rub...Its time you put forward a proper case to make the connection you have tried making between atheists and such people as Stalin and Mao
What book is it us atheists all read that could lead us onward to become like Stalin and Mao ?.What special written indoctrination do we all hold in common with information suggesting a need to kill millions of people ?.
How do you be completely honest,yet still make the connection you have between atheists and tyrancy and mentally disturbed dictators
If you want to call yourself honest and Christian etc blah blah ,and make these type connections.
Atleast have the decency and honesty to provide a direct link of how the connection happens
Marcus McUntrustworthy said .."You might be able to make this fly except for one thing: David Koresh and Jim Jones don't teach what Methodist and Seventh-Day Adventist taught when they were members or even today! "
Ohh well big deal Marcus....Maybe most every christian today do not live and behave and follow exactly what christians of old times actually did ...Your point was ??
Some gang members end up doing things, that all the other gang members in that gang might not get involved in.Does this mean the gang this gang member was involved in, had no effect on who he became?.
Marcus the cult i was born into,before becoming a cult/schism had its roots set in a far more liberal type christianity,that only (separated) from not being to (closely involved) with people who were very evil.Thats as far as they took the serperation issue.
When the schism happened this cult took this separation issue one step further,they seperated further from everyone! who was not within their cult.Because that was their (interpretation of the bible)and the issue of seperation.
Now seems by your stupid calculations, the earlier original idea of separation had nothing to do with who this cult finally became.Yet (both interpretations) revolved around (the seperation issues) written and recorded in the very same book whats known as the holy bible.
You are a real blind idiot if you really cant see these people all had (common links) to whats written within the book called the (holy bible).
Did you read this, Marcus?
"The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the biblical books which make up the Exodus story were written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[8] The essentially theological motivation of the story explains the improbability of the underlying scenario: according to Exodus 12:37, 600,000 adult Israelite "fighting men" leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites;[9] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[10] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude," would have numbered some two million people,[11] compared with an entire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.[12] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[13] No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted, or could have hosted, these millions of people and their herds, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, which is estimated to have had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.[14]"
Apparently not.
How long does it take to walk 150 miles, Marcus?
At a average (adult) walking speed of 3 miles an hour, 50 hours. Under ideal conditions.
Nonstop.
Now you're going to tell me that God can do ANYTHING, including parting the Red Sea for more than two days, while the Egyptian army did what? Waited in their chariots for the Hebrews to reach the other side before attacking into the gap in the water?
Puhleeeze.
@GearHedEd, logically the big question of life points to something greater than how other animals process information and look at life. And I'm not talking about the answer to the question of whether or not life has a purpose proves anything. I'm saying that the issue is that human ask that question and other earthly lifeforms do not. The answer is not the point I'm talking about. To answer "No" means that you have asked the question and evaluated the evidence. If you haven't then it may explain why you answer "no" and you shouldn't be speaking. I have answers to such questions because of what God has revealed to humanity not because I'm smarter than you or better than you.
IK never said thst life must have a purpose because you can ask if it has a purpose. I'm saying that how can you claim to scientific and just say that something just is without a reason? That is what people accuse Christians of Doing when we say God created the universe, but that doesn't stop me for searching for why or how. A soul is not comforting at all. It tells me that I'm accountable for every idle word and action I do or say. Not fear, but makes me careful even in what I write.
When I asked you about death I meant how do you describe death? Is it when your heart stops? Is it when brain activity stops? When does it happen? You can't define death as "THE END" without being more careful in what you are saying? How am I imposing my views on you by merely stating them? Whether you believe what I believe or not, agree or not, neither offends me or changes me at all. Why aren't I threatened by your views at all. Of course I think you are wrong, but I don't look at it as if you are imposing anything on me because you challenge what I believe.
Are you arguing that humans are not more valuable than other living creatures. If there was a man or a dog in a burning building, would you not save the man if there was only enough time to save one of them? Why?
If accountability matters, who are you accountable to? To be accountable mean that there is someone greater to be accountable to. Why does it matter if you are accountable or not?
the point about watching a dog sleep and assuming that it dreams is just conjecture and one you cannot prove.
Who said that the 500 people who saw Jesus post Resurrection were randomly assembled? Jesus had more people than that following Him around throughout His ministry.
As for the exodus, I didn't cherry-pick experts any more than you did. There are more than one guy who believes the exodus happened. Like I said, show me a list of scholars who discount the exodus and I bet I can show you a list just as long of scholar who conclude that the exodus did happen.
Additionally as for why the Egyptians did not try to attack Israel as they crossed the Red Sea, the text was clear. The chariots were bogged down in mudd and a pillar of fire was between them and Israel. God released them when Israel safely made it across. (Exodus 14:23-26) Just read the text. It answers you question.
As for no evidence for the 10 plagues maybe you need to study more: The ten plagues in Exodus are attested to in an Egyptian artifact - a papyrus dating from 1200 BCE. The papyrus is referred to as the the Ipuwer Papyrus and it's interesting because it is perfectly parallel the Biblical exodus story. I blogged about this last year.
@Gandalf,
It's okay to call me "Marcus McUntrustworthy" if it's okay to call you "Gandalf - the moron" because "Wise" you ain't.
Now let's be honest for a change. Can you do that? Koresh was teaching that he was Jesus Christ and did orgies and all kinds of evil. So did Jim Jones. No way you can say they got those things from Methodist or Seventh-Day adventist theology or practices. You whole argument hinges on the idea that you can trace their teaching back to traditional Christianity. You failed to do that. Christianity is not about sacrificing yourself? Nothing that ended up being taught by Jones and Koresh can be tied back to the Bible. They taught their followers to worship them not God. Are you really that thick?
There is not connection to the Bible. If you think there are...cite the passages. You seem to be fail to see how the actions of Mao and Stalin are tied to their atheism so I will be clearer. I'm saying that you can't make that equivocation any more than you can blame Christianity for Koresh or Jones or Mrs Helen Ukpabio. That was my point and you missed it...completely. Go back and read my comment. I was not saying that you should be held accountable to Stalin or Mao just because they were atheists. I was drawing a comparison. You Show how unwise you really are. You really ought to change the handle.
1,
Marcus McElhaney said..."@Gandalf,
It's okay to call me "Marcus McUntrustworthy" if it's okay to call you "Gandalf - the moron" because "Wise" you ain't."
Ohh yes please be my guest Marcus ,i only tend to let things worry me that have some reason and is worth worring about ..But remember its not me here who believes in talking donkeys and snakes hmmm .
Who you suggest is wise is no skin off my nose,i mean since when did you the preacher who vouches for a book suggesting donkeys and snakes can honestly talk ...become some wizard and likely good measure! for who might be wise and who`s not?.
I mean stupid suggestions of talking donkeys and snakes ,how freakin wise is that? ...And you Marcus McUntrustworthy are the idiotic fool who still banks his life on a book that suggests they did.
Marcus yes please feel free to call me "Gandalf - the moron" because "Wise" you ain't" ..But please do also let me know when you can actually show me some real evidence of talking donkeys and snakes.
Until then!, i think ill leave it to others to decide for themself maybe what they think may be wise and whats not.I dont really care, but i know this much the next donkey or snake i come across, im most certainly sure!, i wont be the one! thats holding my breath and waiting for it to possibly speak :)
Marcus McUntrustworthy said.."Koresh was teaching that he was Jesus Christ and did orgies and all kinds of evil. So did Jim Jones. No way you can say they got those things from Methodist or Seventh-Day adventist theology or practices. You whole argument hinges on the idea that you can trace their teaching back to traditional Christianity"
No firstly much of my argument hinges on trying to actually help you understand some of what Russ has already tried to explain ..Admittedly that could actually be a little tough to do,considdering you happen to be somebody who even seems to think maybe its a wise guy, to believe donkeys and snakes could possibly actually talk.
See you often talk about this (traditional christianity) bullsh*t.But whats that exactly?....Believers of talking donkeys and snakes?..Polygamy?..Suggestive sex stories-Lots daughters? ...Those involved in types of cruelty? ..witch destroyers?..
The list is endless.With no shortage of sex stories...So lets not try blame it all on Jones or Koresh.
And lets not forget...Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
As Russ has already tried to explain time and time again, Marcus your suggestion of claiming some traditional christianity, is simply bull.Who are you to try and claim whats supposedly traditional or not.You utter wally, why the hell do you think we have so very many dominations and shisms and cults?..its simply because its just not so very simple that folks can actually claim any christianity is actually whats traditional.
Except for Marcus the great, and the arrogant COGIC few right?.
What has this shit ..ohh but but Koresh and Jim Jones were teaching they were Jesus, bullshit got to do with the debate?.That dont change the fact much of their faith still has roots stuck in this book the bible..The domination tactics were learned there..There expectations of jealous leadership .Now stop the weaseling Marcus McUntrustworthy,there IS direct links to this book known as the holy bible.If not why have we seen so many of these types of people arise over time after reading this particular indoctrination?...I`ll explain why ...There is actually a direct link! thats why Marcus...How could it be for any other reason?.There is just far to much accumulated evidence to suggest there actually is a direct connection.
2,
Marcus McUntrustworthy said.."There is not connection to the Bible. If you think there are...cite the passages"
Marcus i have absolutely no need to site any particular passages, history alone speaks for itself. Time and time again reading of the holy bible!, has produced all sorts of christianitys ...I do not need to get involved in your bullsh*t games of citing passages ....You are the utter moron here if you actually argue people have not been led astray by what they thought they read in this book the holy bible.
Im not interested in getting involved in listening to your poncy TRADITIONAL personal interpretations of bible verses .Its totally beside the point of the matter...My arguement does not need to match whether any interpretations are right or wrong! ...My arguement simply is ...All these groups were led to whom they became, by their interpretation of this book they all held in common ..The holy bible
You would need to some freakin blind melon shetland ..off cheech and chong !!...To not see there actually is so a connection with all these different groups and a book they all held in common, named the holy bible.
Now quit your weaseling ..grow some real balls for once...And show me some evidence to back up your deceitful christian propaganda claim ...of how you can be honest and suggest athiesm has direct connections to the tyrants Stalin and Mao
Im calling you out here Marcus.Im sick of this unfounded crap propaganda that is completely baseless.
Ive shown enough evidence of how faithful followers of the common bible have a common connection through their biblical indoctrination.Whether its through wrong translation is a moot point.
Now please ..PLEASE-EEE... back you claim up with some decent evidence.Christian jaw wobbling baseless propaganda, simply aint any decent evidence Marcus.Its just a tit for tat knee jerkers reaction .
You already made yourself look stupid!!, by not being able to match the evidence ive offered for a GENUINE common connection between all these groups and the holy bible they all read in common.
What common connection do you have Marcus?? ..Atheists and Stalin and Mao had no faith? ...Pfffttt weak! ..Grow some balls ,,,if you gonna call yourself christian and honest...Back your claim up with atleast some decent evidence.
I havent used propaganda...it is well known FACT there is a direct common connection between the bible indoctrination, and all these different groups.
Do you have no balls Marcus?..Is your suggest merely tired old christian knee jerk tit for tat propaganda?....If not ...provide some real evidence to make the common connection please!
Marcus; you have listening or comprehension issues.
"Marcus asks,
"...Are you arguing that humans are not more valuable than other living creatures. If there was a man or a dog in a burning building, would you not save the man if there was only enough time to save one of them? Why?"
I'd probably save the dog, because, after all, "dog" spelled backwards is "god".
But seriously... What if I knew the character of the man and it was universally repellent? What if I knew the guy would sue me if I happened to gash his leg on a rusty nail as I was dragging him to safety, good samaritan principles notwithstanding?
I still think I'd help the dog first.
"Who said that the 500 people who saw Jesus post Resurrection were randomly assembled? Jesus had more people than that following Him around throughout His ministry."
There's not a scap of evidence outside the Bible confirming that there was a huge roving mob following around some itinerant rabbi in that region. You're basing your statement on a unique, unreliable source.
As for accountability, I'm accountable to me. I have to live with myself, and despite being an atheist, I feel shame when or if I fail to maintain my personal sense of honesty, integrity, reliability, etc. No brooding invisible sky-daddy required.
"Additionally as for why the Egyptians did not try to attack Israel as they crossed the Red Sea, the text was clear. The chariots were bogged down in mudd and a pillar of fire was between them and Israel. God released them when Israel safely made it across. (Exodus 14:23-26) Just read the text. It answers you question."
Sure. A pillar of fire. Silly me, I thought that was just more of that magical thinking being used to plug a logical hole in the story.
@Gandalf - the moronic and unwise (hey you said you didn't care)
You are still missing my point. I did not say ever that it was tenable to blame all atheists for Stalin or Mao. I think you are afraid that it could be and that is why it makes you so angry you can't even read what I am writing. The stories you keep harping on in the Bible only shows how flawed your understanding truly is. For example, the story of Lot's daughters is a description not a prescription for appropriate and righteous behavior. I keep telling you the context of the command to kill Witches and taking Jesus out of context as a counter is no rebuttal at all. Funny you would even try since you deny Him. You still haven't answered anything. You can't find anything in the Bible to substantiate the actions of Koresh or Jim Jones or the heretical things they taught. I'm not setting myself up as an infalliable interpreter. If you can point out something specific that they taught that is morally wrong is in the Bible, then you need to quit beating this dead horse.
As for why there are so many different cults and sects who still claim the Bible as source, the answer is simple: they misread the Bible or outright reject it. Surely you are proof how easy it is to do that. For example. Jehovah Witnesses do not use an English Translation particular to them and only them. It's not endorsed by anyone outside of their church! The Mormorns believe the Bible "insofar as it is correctly translated" and instead rely more on the Book of Mormon. You simply amuse me. You think that I think my church is the only one going to heaven, but that is so from my mind you really delude yourself. There is an essential core to the belief set of Christian doctrine and otherwise there is plenty of lattitude to have differences of opionion. Sometimes these difference found other denomininations but that doesn't mean that both viewpoints are wrong. As long as those essentials are respected I have no reason not say a person is a Christian. What are those essentials? The things you hate:
God Creating everything
Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection fulfilling the Law and propitiation for the sins of those who believe
The Bible's infalliability and inerrancy
The Trinity
The need for a savior because of our depraved state in sin.
Loving others and following Christ's example for how one should live.
Everything else we argue about is not important enough to cast aside a person for not being "Christian" enough. You deny all of these that is why you are not a Christian. The Methodist, Roman Catholic, Church of Christ, Baptists, COGIC, Seventh-Day Adventists, and many other churches accept these things - they are Christian. There are no Christianities. Koresh and Jim Jones denied these things. They were not Christians.
You are wrong there is no connection between Koresh and Jim Jones of this world to the Bible. You said ".Im sick of this unfounded crap propaganda that is completely baseless." Then stop doing it. If your reading comprehension is better than mine then please show me how I wrongly explained as single Bible passage. I agree it's possible. The Bible is the standard not me and I am claiming that if there is a mistake, it's either gotta be me or you. It's not the Bible. So far it's been you.
@Ryan
Prove it.
@GearHedEd
You said you are accountable to you. Well, I think that no matter what the man has done, I have no right to judge a dog's life as more important than that man's life. Therefore the man should be saved first regardless of anything else. So who's right? You or me? Who decides? A court? What makes their opinion better than yours or mine? Why should I trust your integrity? So far you have failed to impress me. Fortunately, God judges the heart and not the stupid things we right and say so he knows how sincere you may be and I can't know. Let's say I was in the position of either saving a dog or a man, and that man happened to be your only son. Should I sacrifice your son to save the dog? What makes your son more valuable than anyone else? How could you live with yourself knowing you could have saved a man and did not? That's the problem with subjective moral authority. How can we determine the right course of action if my opinion is just as good as yours. It changes it becomes "The right thing is whatever I think is right at the moment. Wow, that sure sounds like a fun way to live doesn't it? Not. Good thing it isn't like that at all.
As for the Red Sea, crossing you asked a question and the text answers the question. If you had read the text you would not have a need to ask the question. Accept or reject the answer. Sure would like to see you show it didn't happen. And you said nothing about the papyrus scroll detailing the events of the 10 plagues at about the same time the Exodus happened. hmmmm. Wonder why. Doing some Research, perhaps? Bring it.
Marcus said "Prove it."
Um, I've repeatedly told you what I use as evidence (listen carefully... E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E!, not "proof", two different things...) that early christians probably killed disadent members. Then you repeatedly say I have no evidence (again... E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E!, not "proof", two different things...)
So either you don't know what words mean or you simply don't read.
Also, why don't you try "proving" half of what you say... like this gem, "Fortunately, God judges the heart and not the stupid things we right and say so he knows how sincere you may be and I can't know"
Prove it, good luck with that.
@Ryan, when you prove that early Christians killed those who disagreed with them, I'll prove that God judges the heart. When you can provide evidence outside of your opinion I'll give you evidence that God judges our hearts. Good luck to you.
Well Marcus, since neither of us can PROVE those points, you're in the clear.
However, I have provided EVIDENCE outside my opinion several times, which is more than you'll ever be able to do.
Marcus; just admit it, if there is no god (more specifically no holy spirit) or the bible is not revelatory, then Acts 5 is fairly strong evidence that Peter had people killed. You don't have to concede either of those points, because I’m aware what you believe, but you apparently need to learn to think critically.
I also absolutely aware of what Acts 5 actually claims to have happened, but without the intervention of a divine assassin, you must admit that murder is the most likely case based on the reading.
I'll say this again, we have no corroborating evidence that divine assassins, holy ghosts or gods exist. But we do have corroborating evidence that cults kill people. It happens quite often. Add that to Acts 5 and it’s a strong case.
Seems you are more concerned with not conceding anything at the expense of your honesty.
@Ryan, that is so flimsy. Get real. You have no proof that the Peter had anyone killed. You cannot prove that it's happened. Just because some people have killed those who disagreed with them doesn't mean Peter did and if you wanna argue that it's likely you have nothing to stand on. I've got more evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit than you do for your fantasy that Peter had anyone killed. You won't accept it but that does not matter. It's outside Bible evidence I have personal and first-hand experience of the Holy Spirit's guidance and deliverance. The Bible is not lying. This is more than what you have.
Marcus; Wow, please try to concentrate. I've already told you I cannot PROVE it. Are you dumb?
@Ryan, the point is if you can't prove that Peter had anyone killed why would you even offer it as a possible counter to what the text actually said? That is what dumb looks like. Why come up with a different explanation and one that you cannot prove or have any evidence for? And on top of that refuse to accept the text since you have no evidence against it. That's not just dumb. That is stupid.
Marcus; because what the text actually says is fantasy. Either it's pure fiction, or there's a kernal of truth, in which case murder would be likely. I guess strokes are possible too. But given what we know about cults...
@Ryan, what is your definition of a cult?
Early Christianity fits pretty neatly. Especially in Rome.
@Ryan, that's not an answer. That's called evasion.
Pot calling the kettle black marcus.
My personal definition would be ANY church, but properly, any group that's exclusive, isolates it's adherents from the society at large, is unorthodox or extremist as compared to the establishment religions, typicall under the direction of a charismatic leader.
Like the early christian church in Rome. Like I'd said...
Marcus; what's your goal here, it doesn't seem like "winning souls" is your goal. It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing, perhaps to bolster your flagging faith?
Just my sense.
@Ryan, let's grant your definition of "cult". Now you say that this matches the church of Rome. Act 5 takes place in Jerusalem. Strike one. The Bible never tells Christians to cut themselves off from society at large. We are supposed to be agents of change - working to help people not condemn or destroy. Strike two. Care to go for strike three? What charismatic leader would you point to heading the Christian church in Acts 5?
@Ryan, I'm just discussing this with you. You haven't been all that nasty -relatively - and I do appreciate that, but you started addressing me directly. I look at this as a healthy, vigorous discussion. I'm hoping that you will see past your wrong reading of the Bible and see what it says and stop making excuses. Instead of saying that the Bible is false and you have evidence when you don't how about admit the truth. You don't want to believe. And that is your right. You will get the consequences of that decision. I'm just trying to tell you that you can have good consequences.
Marcus; "Act 5 takes place in Jerusalem. Strike one"
Wow, no duh, way to nit pick and pretend like you've "won a point". Jerusalem was part of Rome at the time for what it's worth.
Marcus; is this approach sucessfully for you?
@Ryan, it's an important point. You said that the church of Rome was a cult and therefore you believe that is why they killed people. During the time Acts 5 took place there was no Christian church in Rome. Your whole argument falls apart. You said that it was a cult, can you show that the Churches described in Acts were cults. They don't match your definition.
Marcus the liar for Jesus said..."You are wrong there is no connection between Koresh and Jim Jones of this world to the Bible."
Ohh no of course not,absolutely no connection at all.Because David Koresh wouldnt have done huge ammounts of reading from the book of Revelation if there was any connection between him and that holy bible.As this man happened to do .So we know he especially read Revelation heaps and heaps,this of course then tells us, there was absolutely no connection between David Koresh and this holy book the bible.Its that plain and simple,he read this book,=there was no connection at all
David Koresh could quote entire chapters, especially from the Old Testament prophecies. He would quote entire chapters of Isaiah just right off the top of his head.
By this, it so easy to see....There was absolutely NO connection between David Koresh and this book known as the holy bible.None what so ever!.Nada,Zilch,Zero,Naught
Its really that simple see.
Problem totally denied... in the Name of Jesus ....Hallelujah !!...thank you Jesus ! for keeping us christians so extremely honest
Jesus loves me this i know,for the bible tells me so ...la la la tweedle dee dee ....Im not going to let myself listen to those nasty atheists, who try telling me there was some connection between people like David Koresh and my holy bible ..ohhh nooo..I cant hear you ..la la la ...not listening ..not thinking either ...so there
A good Christianly liars lifes just like a silly merry-go-round ....la la la
PS ...ohhh and by the way those that freely followed David Koresh,did so not because there was any connection with the bible either ..They never read the bible noo...they musta just thought ohh look theres David Koresh ...oh i know hey lets go follow him! tee hee....See the holy bible is so straight forward and simple...it just dont ever fool anyone ....Never ever has in all history .All those donimations and cults and sects ..came about some other way ...mmmmmm?? ..maybe they was reading to much Alice in wonderland?? ..or something??.
I dont know ..tweedle dee dee ...But we COGNIC Cwwistians knows there is absolutely no connection between any of those nasty cults and sects wtc and our lovely holy bible.
Ohh nooo ..because the bible is only ever been connected to the good things ..The ones we COGNICs like ta call "traditional"
@Gandalf - the moron
Quoting the Bible out of context and twisting to serve an agenda like David Koresh did and Jim Jones did is not the problem with the Bible. Just people like you twisting it. You have yet to show a single connection. How did they quote and apply the Bible correctly so that they were only doing what the Bible says? I sure would like to see that instead of the just seeing silly and closed minded you are. Evidence works better to prove a point. Sorry you have none: no evidence or point.
Marcus; "Your whole argument falls apart."
You wish, the church in Jerusalem absolutely matches the definition in every way. Just replace "pagan" with "jewish" and everything else is the same.
You are really reaching. You are always reaching though.
Marcus; You don't get it. David Koresh and Paul were cut from the same cloth. If David Koresh had been walking to Damascus in the 1st centry, you very well could be here today defending him and not Paul.
Marcus said..."You are still missing my point. I did not say ever that it was tenable to blame all atheists for Stalin or Mao. I think you are afraid that it could be and that is why it makes you so angry you can't even read what I am writing. The stories you keep harping on in the Bible only shows how flawed your understanding truly is. For example, the story of Lot's daughters is a description not a prescription for appropriate and righteous behavior."
No im not afraid at all... what tends to make me angry, is if there is one thing i really cant stand in life,its faithful folk, who cant "atleast" try to be a little straight up! and honest!.They feel some need to twist and turn and try to bullshit and weasel their way through discussions.
(I grew up with these types of faithful).They still bullshit their way through life even today, (they dont seem to mind who else might need to pay for this bullshit).All they care about is upholding the ministry.Upholding their faith.
And they will do it,no matter what it takes.
And so yes i very much didlike the fact you call yourself christian...suggest you are honest ....Yet put forward such blatant utter propagandarish worn out tired old crap as suggesting ...Stalin - Mao has any realistic connections to atheism
And you do it along with a number of other christian, who also like suggesting themselves as being completely honest....As a knee jeck reaction ...simply because you happen to find yourself arguing with the fact the holy bible very likely IS CONNECTED to much seperation, excommunication,heartbreak, pain, suffering, and even witch killings and deaths that also includes suicides.Along with much else
You are little better than a pope tryn to suggest the church never tried covering up any priests who sexually abused.
I dont like blatant bullshitters .I cant stand scum who only seem to mostly care about themselves and their faith.
I grew up with these types.And along with a number of others, (we continue to pay the price) for arrogant ignorant faithful who cant even be decent enough to try and keep it a little straight up and honest.They got to try twisting and turning and weaseling their way onwards,with tellin half truths or what ever else it takes
So that is my real reason Marcus.You anger me because i see you are very much like those who i grew up with.Instead of simply admitting the bible must have "atleast some connection" to splits and devides and all manner other nasty things,you try throwing in the bullshit that ohhh then atheism is connected to Stalin and Mao.As a way to defer and derail the heat
(Besides the fact two wrongs never tend to suffice to actually then make anything ok.anyway)
Its very obvious there actually is "some" (direct connection) between this bible and all the "lots" of problems that have arisen from people reading and trying there best to follow it..
But there is no (direct connection) between mere lack of faith leading to "lots" people becoming mentally disturbed tyrant dictators.
Which is why you just couldnt come up with the goods,when asked to.
You can try saying oh but i asked you to point me to any scripture that you might say led people the wrong way..In effect saying us COGNIC have the true way to translate (another Breckmin).Let me show you how they translated this scripture wrong.
But the point you miss is having Marcus and Breckmin,doesnt change the fact a supreme being who supposedly even created the universe,it seems still let a right cock-up of a book cause much harm.Suggesting its much more likely its just thoughts of men.
And no its you missing the point.That you say Lot's daughters is a description not a prescription ,dont change the "fact" some folks maybe translated it as a type of prescription instead.
Bad typo of mine "And so yes i very much didlike the fact you call yourself christian...suggest you are honest ....Yet put forward such blatant utter propagandarish worn out tired old crap as suggesting ...Stalin - Mao has any realistic connections to atheism "
Should read: And so yes i very much dislike the fact you call yourself christian.
Didlike ? ...ohh noo!nooo! ..cant stand blatantly deceitful faithful folk
Marcus McElhaney said..."@Gandalf - the moron
Quoting the Bible out of context and twisting to serve an agenda like David Koresh did and Jim Jones did is not the problem with the Bible. Just people like you twisting it. You have yet to show a single connection. How did they quote and apply the Bible correctly so that they were only doing what the Bible says? I sure would like to see that instead of the just seeing silly and closed minded you are. Evidence works better to prove a point. Sorry you have none: no evidence or point."
If the police force in the U.S.A put up poorly written rode signs (bible),and Marcus McUtrustworthy`s little daughter or son ended up killing somebody! in which case they might end up going to jail (hell),for causing somebodies death(witch killing)
Marcus would quickly learn some decency and honesty....He would be into the courts in a flash ...Claiming it very wrong! and terribly unjust!....That his son or daughter should be sent to jail for killing somebody...When the "poorly written road sign"(bible) was the actual real cause of the problem.He would quickly step up and say..but but why blame my kids??...when your sign might be very misleading to some people ...Whaaa ..boo hoo ...not fair not fair!
And yet this supposedly "honest" "christian",has the gall to call me "silly and closed minded"
Hallelujah Jesus ...Praise god that atleast these COGIC faithful folk can be a little straight up, for reason of progressing the ministry and keeping the coins plunking in collection plates each sunday
@Ryan, How does the church in Jerusalem fit the definition you gave a cult? If you can't answer this one...it's strike three.
Koresh and Paul have nothing in common. Koresh may have been able to quote Galatians 5 but he sure didn't live by it. Sex orgies just don't fit in with WHAT the Bible says. Koresh claimed to be the Messiah and that would be totally against the Bible. How can you say they are connect while Koresh completely contradicted the Bible. Can you show how he didn't?
@Gandalf the Moron
Koresh and Jim Jones were not Christians but Stalin and Mao were atheists, They said that they were atheists. I didn't misrepresent anyone. And my point was that just because someone claims to be an atheists other atheists are not culpable. It's the same way for other people who claim to be "Christian". Why should I be held accountable for evil people who claim to Christian and don't follow it. You have no leg to stand on to blame the Bible for anything Jim Jones or David Koresh did. Are you really prepared to argue that Stalin and Mao were not atheists? I hope not. Are you willing to argue that being atheists has nothing to do with what they did? I agree it did not. What I said was if tyou are going to blame all of Christians for David Koresh or Jim Jones than you are committing the same fallacy you are erroneously angry with me about. Erroneous because I never suggested that atheists should be accountable for Stalin or Mao. You are not thinking straight. I've come to expect that. I'm hoping that one day you will surprise me by making sense and stop being so emotional.
@Gandalf the moron
Your analogy is mistaken. Not surprised given your track record. The Bible is not poorly written. It's clear. The fault is not with the Bible but with us people.
Marcus McElhaney said... "@Gandalf the moron
Your analogy is mistaken. Not surprised given your track record. The Bible is not poorly written. It's clear. The fault is not with the Bible but with us people"
Ohh yes Marcus the bibles very clear..So clear infact,we have now ended up with hundreds and thousands of different schisms and sects and dominations splits and devides and what not. Most everyone of these groups all claiming they are the ones! who have actually read the bible "clearly".
The fault was all only with the people of course.It stands to REASON,after all holy books can never be wrong....ummmm?? opps! unless so happens its Islamic or Hindu or something like that
Funny thing though, no other book ever written seems to have attracted quite so many people at "fault".The holy bible such an amazing phenomenon!!,the worlds most prolific "faulty human" magnet.Woo hoo
Seems it "attracts" folks that just cant seem to agree on what they read....No fault of the holy bible of course!.
Shit no...Kowabunga! Mutant ninja cogic ministers ...Spare the thought we would ever dare think something like that.
Marcus is standing in line for his COGIC ministers licence ..Maybe they get handed out in the breakfast weety packet?
Im just glad he`s not about to receive a licence to become a judge or doctor or something like that.He might write some extremely excellent medical book, with the strange phenomenon for some strange unknown reason, of seeming to be the worlds greatest "faulty doctor" magnet.
Marcus dumbly said "Koresh and Jim Jones were not Christians but Stalin and Mao were atheists, They said that they were atheists"
Yeah, Koresh and Jim Jones said they were Christians.
I don't mind taking responsiblity for Stalin and Mao (but you get Hitler).
Are you brave enough to take responsibility for your bad christians? Or do you take the cowardly "false convert" route.
Also, Marcus, were you aware Stalin attended seminary? I totally accept that he was an atheist, but you could certainly make the "religion poisons everything" argument with him
@Gandalf the moron
All Holy Books can't be right simultaneously that means only one is correct. That is if you are going to be logical and consistent. You are living proof that it's possible to twist and misunderstand the Bible but that does not mean it doesn't have a clear message. You have yet to answer my Challenge. Find a passage that has given rise to a denomination or sect that I disagree with and show that their interpretation is true and mine is wrong. Pick one. Go ahead. And let's look at it and really see if you are being honest about the text. We could keep going on back and forth or you can prove you are right if you can. I already have my license to preach by the way. Again you can't understand.
@Ryan
I gave well-defined definition as to what Christians believe. If you disagree with this definition, neither you or Gandalf have given an alternate one and why you use that one. Saying "I'm a Christian" doesn't mean you are. If you are a Christian you hold the positions I delineated and live according to that. According to that definition neither Stalin, Mao, Hitler, David Koresh, or Jim Jones are Christians and they were not living up to Jesus' commandments and were not trying to. And Ryan, I'm not holding you responsible for Mao or Stalin just because they were atheists. Some Christians do bad things and sin there is no denying that. But If a person is consistently disregarding Jesus' commandments they are not Christians. Why do you think David Koresh or Jim Jones were Christians? Do you think the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was also Christian? I don't think so. Instead of blaming Christianity for Stalin is stupid. Stalin turned his back on Christianity and embraced communism and with it atheism. It was atheism that poisoned him not Christianity. In addition, Hitler could not be considered a Christian. Hitler was what ever he need to be to get what he wanted. Just because a church does not excommunicate you doesn't mean you are still a part of it. Mariano has written a great deal on this subject you should read his blog to really get in this discussion. http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/search/label/hitler
Marcus said "I gave well-defined definition as to what Christians believe."
It's not your place to speak for 2 billion people.
@Ryan...so as a Christian it's wrong for me to define what a Christian is in a historical sense? But it's okay for you to claim that anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian? Do you think that anyone who claims to be a medical doctor should be regarded as such? I don't. I'm not speaking for 2 Billion people at all. I'm talking for all those who have held the common and essential ear-marks of being a Christian since Day one. Any one outside of these were regarded as non-Christians. What is your definition of being a Christian? How would you know a Christian when you met one? What explicitly makes a Christian different from everyone else? I answered that question. What is yours?
Marcus; you can say what you think a christian is, but you don't get to tell someone they are or are no a christian.
As an atheist, if a christian says they're a christian, I take their word for it.
Coward. Your belief system produces people like Koresh and Jim Jones (and Hitler, maybe even Stalin) and you don't have the guts to face it.
The coward is you, Ryan. You can't face that everyone claiming to be a Christian is a Christian. It has a meaning. It can't mean anything with Jesus attached to it. Intelligent atheists grant that Jesus existed as a living breathing historical person does that mean they are Christians? No. Koresh and Jim Jones are all examples of what happens when you do things your own way and ignore God. They have that in common with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. And you. And everyone who disobeys God.
I meant that everyone who calls themselves a Christian is not necessarily a Christian. You would not just believe a guy who claims to be a doctor operate on your heart
Marcus; are all Muslims Muslims? All Hindu Hindu?
Or is it just Christianity that gets to pick and choose the best and the brightest from amongst it's ranks to show off as True Christians™?
Marcus said..." You have yet to answer my Challenge. Find a passage that has given rise to a denomination or sect that I disagree with and show that their interpretation is true and mine is wrong. Pick one. Go ahead. And let's look at it and really see if you are being honest about the text. We could keep going on back and forth or you can prove you are right if you can."
No Marcus im not accepting your stupid challenge,because its bullsh*t.Its totally beside! the point!.That you cant understand that, is not my problem.Its not my problem you are ignorant.
Your stupid ignorant challenge, is like as if(for instance) you were some doctor, who had written a confusing manual on how to do operations in hospital theatre,which then had obviously confused! many other doctors!, into preforming bad deathly operations that ended up total balls-ups ..Harming people.(How do we know it had confused many people?,because of all the evidence of bad operations we could blatantly see around us of course)Simple observation.
And you would be this stupid ignorant arrogant doctor ...whos silly argument is like this: ...look point me to a passage in my operations manual i wrote, that you tell me has led people to preform operations that ended up right balls-ups ..Harming MANY folks along the way.
(And ill show you there is nothing wrong with my operation manual...its just ...its just .Well its just...MANY PEOPLE are reading it wrong.)
And you the arrogant ignorant doctor would still be missing the actual point.
Do you not get it Marcus you ignorant twat ..The OBVIOUS problem still remains ...(It dont matter if your operation manual reads correct to you )....What matters!!!!!! is just so happens MANY PEOPLE STILL HAPPEN TO BE READING THE F**KEN THING WRONG.(Unless you only wrote the book for you and your own use)....it still dont change! the fact! its not so helpful to many others!!...It confuses them ...Makes them end up causing harm!
You are a right utter dick head!, if you cant see this "simple problem" that has always existed with the holy bible Marcus.
Humans (cant) rely on (always having Marcus around) to translate the bible book properly for them,anymore than doctors can rely on always having Marcus the arrogant ignorant doctor around to translate his freakin confusing operations manual properly.
Get that Marcus? ..See the simple problem? ...Comprehende??
Sheeeze.
All you prove Marcus ...Is obviously!, one doesnt need to be very bright to gain his COGIC minister licience.Thats all you are proving here.
Now go stick! your freakin stupid worthless challenge! that gets us no where.Im not here to waste time.
Take on the big challenge seems to be what you have!!, learning some more simple "common sense".
I cannot believe how thick you have proved you are Marcus.How the hell did you think you Marcus the great translating a few passages correctly,was gonna likely be some real cure for all the confusion and harm this supposed holy book has caused?.You must be mad
You must really live in some,faithful laa laa land.
It dont matter if scripture read absolutely correctly by some special trained up bible guru,maybe dont suggest witch killings.....What actually matters! is far to many folks ended up reading that it does.
There witch killing is connected to this holy bible ...For f**k sake Marcus ...they wasnt just standing there one day and thought ..oh hey i know ..lets go kill some witches.
This idea they got was talked about within the covers, and directly connected to this holy book the bible.Its connected because thats where the idea came from.
Same with mess ups Koresh made ...That he went over the top and thought himself god is beside the point......He aint the first to end up that way!,after much bible study and worship ...Its not like his attitude is some strange phenomenon ..that is totally alien to all types of christians who read this book.
MANY OTHER christian bible readers throughout history..ended up with some of the same type attitudes also as these abusive folks did.
That they were actually wrong according to correct translation like you most likely rightly suggest,is totally beside the point of what actually still accured MANY TIMES.
You would need to be a utter twit to try and suggest it had absolutely no direct connections to this holy book.You would need to rewrite so much history Marcus.
I having nothing "personal" against any! faithful folks...What i do dislike, is ignorant arrogant ones who cant atleast try to be a little honest and straight up.
Ryan, Hinduism is so broad and contains such a variety, I haven't studied enough about it to talk about heresy in Hinduisim. I can say however the claims of Hinduism are not compatible with Christianity. They both can't be true.
As for Islam, not all people who call themselves Muslims are really Muaslims. There are very different ideas and opinions in them. But there are core ideas and concepts that all Muslims must adhere to to be Muslims. As an example of a group that calls itself Muslim but is unrecognized by most Muslims is the Nation of Islam founded by Elijah Muhammad. It's a cult. You don't really know very much about other religions do you? Maybe you should read the Autobiography of Malcolm X. Had you, you wouldn't have asked this question.
Marcus ...And this book is not just considdered any old book written by mere humans we should expect to make mistakes.
It was supposed to be devine and directly passed down from god to prophets.And if that cant be relied on then what is there that we should have faith.
If god can pass down prophecys, surely he can make it known when his bibles written wrong.
@Gandalf the Moron
You continue to write some of the most stupid analogies and arguments I have ever read. The doctor and manual example is stupid because I didn't write the manual. You won't accept the challenge because you don't want to expose your ignorance about what Christians believe and what the Bible says or your stupidity. But it's too late. I see it.
I invite you to prove there is a connection between the teaching and theology of David Koresh and Jim Jones. How would you go about showing that the Bible says what they taught their people?
Gandalf - the Moron, It's is extremely easy to find out when you have a Bible translation with mistakes in it.You have no excuse for not knowing what the text says. There is a whole field of study for this: textual criticism.
Marcus; I consider members of the Nation of Islam to be Muslim. Why? Because they think they are Muslim.
Marcus; unless you make you wife sleep in the yard when she's menstrating, your christianity is as loosly based on the core as Koresh's, just in different ways.
Ok Marcus McUntrustworthy ...Explain how it is you suggest? it comes to pass we see MUCH evidence,that says just so happens to be mostly bible readers who we see living in the groups with multiple wives? ...Explain how come its christians and faithful folks killing witches?
How come its not groups of athiests involved in this stuff?
Absolutely nothing to do with these devine teachings hmmm?.
No i dont take your challenge ..Because its simply stupid Marcus ..And no infact my analogy still stands to prove how stupid it is to even bother to take this challenge you offer.It dont change nothing about the actual problems that are connected to this supposedly devine book.
Marcus McUntrustworthy suggests.."It's is extremely easy to find out when you have a Bible translation with mistakes in it.You have no excuse for not knowing what the text says. There is a whole field of study for this: textual criticism."
Ohh yes extremely easy....Which of course is why SO MANY (bible reading faithful folks) ...(All) freely wander off after people like David Koresh .They ALL read this easy to understand bible.....But up jumps magic evil ...and walla ..tweedle dee dee ...they simply ALL forget all the (easy stuff) in this holy book they read ....and ALL simply choose to go follow evil instead.
Everything is just so jolly easy to read and understand ..L.o.L
You sure are one lost foolish gullable cookie Marcus.
McUntrustworthy says.."There is a whole field of study for this: textual criticism."
Oh yeah fields and fields of it laying around all over the place.Even years ago,fields and fields of the stuff everywhere.Why some simple country Asian christians, can just as easily dig the stuff up in their families rice paddy fields.This textual criticism was/is always available everywhere
This is such a wonderful faithful "excuse" to try to excuse! "reason" why this so called devine holy bible might not have atleast just displayed word of God in a little more easy way? , so less people! could likely become confused ...or even worse!,be less likely to be led astray by those leaders who were also confused themselves.
Such Weak unlikely excuses you try puting forward Marcus .Utter bullsh*t excuses!
Didnt you realize? on this blog, you are now no longer dealing with "gullable faithful folk" .Such silly excuses just will not do.
@Ryan - Other Muslims who follow and Believe the Koran do not consider the Nation of Islam to be Muslims. They don't meet the core requirements - the 5 pillars of Islam.
David Koresh's church had nothing to do with what women should do when they are menstruating and if you think that is a defining feature for what makes a person Christian it explains your confusion. You don't understand the context for why women were made to go outside the camp when they were menstruating and why it's not applicable to us in today's context. Funny how you want to harp on such things yet ignore what really is a part of our responsibilities today.
@Gandalf - the Moron
Most Bible readers don't have multiple wives and most who claim to be orthodox Christians don't kill witches. Provide some numbers. I don't know anyone does what you are saying and I know a lot of Christians.
There are atheists involved in these things. The Bible says that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. You rebel against God that makes you no different than a witch. I'm not trying to kill you, just point out a better way.
You analogy is stupid. The best way to fix these problems is to show the truth about what the Bible does say. Maybe I'm just smarter than you. Maybe that is why you can't understand. You won't even try to understand. Sad really. And I hope the crack about the field being like a rice paddy is just poor joke showing how stupid you are or maybe you really don't know what textual criticism is. My bet is you don't know because you had no meaningful rebuttal. Not all Faithful people are guallable. People who are led astray by poor leadership are led astray because they don't know what the Bible says for themselves. They are Like you. I have not made any silly excuses but you have. Does it really make sense that the problem is the Bible when it is demonstrable that evil people twist it and use it to say things that it does not say. And then you do the same thing to disprove it. Pathetic.
Marcus; maybe I'm not clear or maybe you have comprhension problems. I think it's the later.
Marcus said,
"...All Holy Books can't be right simultaneously that means only one is correct."
ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!
You left out the very real possibility that NONE of them are correct.
Marcus said,
"Find a passage that has given rise to a denomination or sect that I disagree with and show that their interpretation is true and mine is wrong..."
OK, I'll get this one.
Pentecostalism is based largely on the call to evangelize given in Acts 2, along with the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues".
The "speakers" in Acts were allegedly speaking REAL lANGUAGES, but modern Pentecostals just roll around on the floor mumbling in glossolalia (gibberish).
And the other faithful point and say, "The Holy Spirit is on them, look!"
What a crock of shit.
Hitler had backing from the Vatican, was a practicing Catholic at least in his earlier years, and was following God's Old Testament example to "sweep the enemies from the land".
History is written by the winning side, and if Hitler had won, he'd be universally worshipped as a demigod, except by the people who were on the wrong side of his philosophy (Oops, forgot. They'd all be dead).
And don't try to twist this into saying that I worship the "EEVUL Hitler". I don't.
Marcus said,
"...I'm not saying the existence of a soul makes an after-life necessary. No wonder you can't read and understand the Bible because you are saying a lot of things I didn't say or even believe about the implications of a soul..."
This has been bugging me. Because the stuff I want to refer back to is on a different page, NOT because you have me wondering whether I really do have a soul after all. I'm not wondering, and I still believe "soul" was postulated to allow the religious to have some hope that there isn't a finality to death, or for other reasons such as punishing or rewarding people in an invented afterlife for deeds that were not addressed in this life, or being reunited with loved ones who have died previously.
I'm going back to find your quote(s): stand by...
Ed; I have to disagree; I think primative man couldn't help but invent a soul because of his limited understanding of biology, death, dreams (especially dreams), etc...
I don't think there was any motive to it.
Certainly, the idea was hijacked later and made "properaly basic", for the reasons you list.
Marcus:
(To Gandolf): "When I say that false Christians don't matter it's because they will be in hell right next to you if you don't repent."
May 21, 2010 6:51 PM
But you try to weasel out of any responsibility for that statement by saying right after that,
"Not my words."
But those ARE your words. Stand up and take responsibility for the drivel you spout. For them to "be in hell", there MUST be an afterlife in which the "soul" part continues, because no one can deny that the body is dead at that point. So while you didn't say it directly, you DID say it, and then denied ownership of the statement.
You're a weasel, Marcus. You have no credibility.
Shall I dig up some more?
Ryan,
OK. Stipulated that my assessment is probably off in that there were more primitive reasons for the origin of the concept.
@Ryan, You can't just claim that I don't understand what you are saying ans insult my intelligence without offering a reason why my comments should be ignored. You have offered nothing because you have nothing.
@GearHedEd If I left out the possibility that all holy books are wrong then by definition, I am only PARTIALLY wrong and only according to you. If you want give any weight to your assertion you have to prove that the Bible is wrong with evidence.
As always you are too blind to fully comprehend what I challenged. I said you have to take a sect that claims to be Christian and prove that they are correctly intrepreting the Bible and I'm not. I'm Church of God in Christ that means I'm Pentecostal and I agree that events like those that happened in Acts 2 happens today. And I agree that then they talked real languages but Pentecostals don't use Acts 2 to explain the speaking in unknown tongues that you think are gibberish. If you want know more, because you obviously didn't understand the point to the challenge, I can go into more detail. But you need a better example because I know Pentecostals are not interpreting the text incorrectly. And I would not throw out Denominations that disagree because you can agree and disagree and still fit the definition of Christian I gave earlier. Try again. Thanks for playing. But this was a pitiful attempt.
Hitler didn't have in mind that He was doing the will of God trying to "sweep the enemies from the land" given the Old Testament. Are you serious? That's taking the Bible completely out of context. We are never told anywhere in the Bible to persecute Jews. If anything we are told to to look at Jews as the blood children while the rest of us are adopted. Read Romans 9, 10, and 11, because Hitler did not get it...unless of course he didn't think of himself as a Christian and not under the authority of what was written in the Bible. Trust...it says the same thing in German as it does in English. I know you don't worship Hitler. Just making an erroneous and silly point.
I stand by what I said about a soul not making an after-life necessary because other religions that have no concept of heaven or hell - like Hinduism - believe in the existence of a soul. I never said that I deny souls. Of course I believe. But yet again you say I implied something that I never intended to deny. Look at the context for which
I said that I said that a soul does not have to imply an after-life. I find myself pleasantly surprised that you can admit to being wrong even if its not to me. But that does not matter. There is hope for you.
"...There is hope for you."
You, too.
All I've ever said is that there are other explanations than what's in the Bible. When you can honestly admit that there's a great deal of confirmation bias in the apologetics you favor and less "history" in the Bible, then you'll have made some progress.
One can only hope...
But you shouldn't think that you've convinced me of anything. I still read the Bible, and other scholarly works on BOTH sides of the issue.
That you're hanging out in an atheist's blog arguing with atheists speaks to the notion that you want to see what we're saying, if for no other reason than to try to "save" one or two of us.
I don't need to be saved, and neither does my non-existent soul.
Ryan, I find your explanations extremely biased. For example you are willing to claim that the early Christians killed people with no evidence at all rather than look at what the text says really consider it. That's called being biased against any thought of God actively participating in History. Oh and what about the other extreme accepting something at face value. Some one claiming to be a muslim does not mean they are really following Islam. Just because someone says that they are a Christian does not mean they are really following what a Christian life means
Marcus McUntrustworthy said..."You analogy is stupid. The best way to fix these problems is to show the truth about what the Bible does say. Maybe I'm just smarter than you. Maybe that is why you can't understand. You won't even try to understand. Sad really. And I hope the crack about the field being like a rice paddy is just poor joke showing how stupid you are or maybe you really don't know what textual criticism is"
Marcus McUntrustworthy said... "@Ryan, You can't just claim that I don't understand what you are saying ans insult my intelligence without offering a reason why my comments should be ignored. You have offered nothing because you have nothing."
Marcus McUntrustworthy said.."@GearHedEd If I left out the possibility that all holy books are wrong then by definition, I am only PARTIALLY wrong and only according to you. If you want give any weight to your assertion you have to prove that the Bible is wrong with evidence."
Its so obvious you are a fraud Marcus.You cant even live by the same kinda rules you try imposing on others.Whats actually really sad around here, is you call yourself christian claim to be honest,rattle on about christian orthodoxy, in effect in utter bigotry! try to deny others who read the bible and believe in Jesus as being christians .Simply because they dont happen to completely agree with your bigoted COGIC opinion.
Your bigoted Cogic opinion aside Marcus ....http://communities.canada.com/
vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/06/04/
what-is-quot-orthodox-quot-christianity.aspx
This quote puts the matter of whats "orthodox" about right ..."when Regent College professor John Stackhouse, an evangelical theologian called as an expert witness by the conservatives, was asked what he believed was the definition of “orthodox.”
One definition of “orthodox,” said Stackhouse, who is not without a sense of wit, is:
“The Christianity I like.”
Any honest claim to orthodox christianity realistically finished many many moons ago Marcus .Sure i agree, this world is still full of an assortment of bigoted pillocks like you,all trying to claim to be or know what "the" orthodox christian is like ...But there is no longer any such a thing as the "one" orthodox church you silly dick-head,that finished years ago ....And if you want to argue that point further, please be my guest ...But first go sort it out with all the professors such as people like John Stackhouse.Because for now you are only preaching to the choir,because there is no such thing as "the" orthodox christian that is agreed upon.And your own biggoted opinion is difinatly not any official proof.Neither is it proof even if a number of other biggots like you try to also claim that it is.That is not how things are honestly proved Marcus.You cannot say we translate this like that,so then this means that.
Waffling on about your biggoted COGIG view here at DC,just doesnt do anything much to prove you are correct.It only suffices to prove to everyone what a jolly great biggot you are.Because the courts are still out on judgment of who can actually claim to be orthodox.
Now being the COGIC pig headed biggot that you be, you naturally go and totally disown Mormons as being christians.Atleast Mormons however are not such biggots,they include most everyone who believes in Jesus as all being part of christianity.
Which brings me back to this.
Marcus McUntrustworthy said..."You analogy is stupid. The best way to fix these problems is to show the truth about what the Bible does say. Maybe I'm just smarter than you. Maybe that is why you can't understand. You won't even try to understand. Sad really. And I hope the crack about the field being like a rice paddy is just poor joke showing how stupid you are or maybe you really don't know what textual criticism is"
Marcus you utter ignorant arrogant biggoted fool ..If what you say is correct ...Its so unlikely such a split would have ever likely accured in the first place. Where were you Marcus ?? to... quote Marcus :.."show the truth about what the Bible does say"
Hmmmm?? ...Not possible you wasnt there was ya!?...Others there tried no doubt, but obviously its not as simple as you TRY sggesting it might have been ...Now you can be a idiot and try and say (heaps of folks) are very likely to have headed off on some tangent/shism, with (full knowledge) they were following devilish teachings and headed to hell ....Or try to learn some honesty and admit the bible is obviously a little confusing because its obviously quite hard for your average Joe Blogs christian, to be sure he is actually following the truth and so headed to this suggested heaven instead of following some lost church leaders and folk to this suggested hell.
See Marcus this idea of yours of always being able to have folks "available" to explain it all properly with "texual criticism" etc, is bull..Because its obvious some leaders must have also used this so called "texual criticism" to go and explain it all wrong!...Hence the shisms accured ....So you see how very important it actually was that the so called holy bible could also be read and fully understood by your average Joe Blogs ..It had to be that way so your average person would also know when he/she was possibly being led the wrong way.
So we have this situation
1,It cannot be "promised" that in (every single situation) there will "always" be somebody around thats qualified to do such a thing.Which is what/why i was joking about the stupidity of your suggestion,and laughing as i joked about the "field being like a rice paddy" because thats what we would need it to be,for your suggestion of "There is a whole field of study for this: textual criticism" to honestly actually be able to work. Country folk would literally really need to be able to dig this "texual criticism" up in their feilds/paddocks....These country folk cant always move into towns and citys etc where these qualified priests or library's might exist.
2,Its actually very important the bible be easy to understand by absolutely EVERYONE without any help...Otherwise the wolves are easily able to lead the flock into hell by the very same use of some of this so called "texual criticism".
No Marcus you biggoted fool it is actually -> "You won't even try to understand" .It is you here,actually proving how stupid! YOU are.
For starters in the traditional way of being a COGIC biggot ,i see you go (demand) Ryan and GearHedEd and any others provide "reason why my comments should be ignored" or "If you want give any weight to your assertion you have to prove that the Bible is wrong with evidence" in effect demanding they provide proof and dont just simply claim it wrong.
And yet you Marcus being a biggot seem to feel its right for you to just simply say to me "You analogy is stupid" ...Offering no reasons or proof why that might actually be.
And yet you say shit like "Maybe I'm just smarter than you. Maybe that is why you can't understand."
Marcus you are a utter fraud.I suggest you are also a disgrace to the whole christian ranks.You are completely two faced and to be quite honest so deceitful and boggoted ,its become quite obvious its really is quite pointless even bothering to discuss these matters with somebody like you.
You simply denounce any christians involved in any sex issues or witches .Yet your bible also seems to say in Matthew 5:17-20 many things should remain the same.
I have spent time trying to explain my argument doesnt need to involve arguing with you whether they actually got it right or wrong.
Because whats a unarguable fact that still matters and remains, as history! itself alone has proved ! time and time again.Is its very obvious whether biggots like you really like to admit it or not ...That this bible IS OBVIOUSLY CONFUSING...Its a unarguable FACT many folks HAVE actually found it CONFUSING and not at all easy to understand.
And if that wasnt the honest truth...Marcus McUntrustworty... why you wouldnt really even have good "reason" to suggest this idea of this need of "texual criticism" now would ya.A book easy to read and understand ...should not need this texual criticisms ...The easy to understand truths held within ...Being simple and easy ..should be able to stand simply to be easily seen by all as being obviously true...all on their own
Marcus said .."Maybe I'm just smarter than you"
This coming from a man,who`s arguing that the holy bible is honestly actually very easy for absolutely everyone to understand ,while also arguing for need of "texual criticism"
L.o.L ...Thats real smart all right ...Shows a COGIC pastor licences must take a university degree.
The bibles obviously so simple and easy for absolutely everyone to understand ....It takes use of this "textual criticism " to be sure you understand it.
Oh yeah Marcus, thats real smart hmmm
You Wally.
Marcus; OK.
@Gandalf - the Moron. If a people could read Hebrew and Greek then we wouldn't need textual criticism. But since we don't textual criticism is a great help if you have questions about the text. Mormons have a history of bigotry. Black people used to not be allowed to be Mormons. And they said we have tails. They stopped doing that stuff in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. They aren't Christians because they believe that people can become gods and that there is an infinitude of gods. They believe that god was once a man. This is not what the standard missionary will tell you but if you look at the history of their doctrine that is what you will find. This is why I question your knowledge and intelligence. I'm not confused why are you? You quoted John Stackhouse and I disagree with him. Why don't you ask Hank Hanagraaf or James White or Dan Wallace or other experts who disagree. William Lane Craig wouldn't agree with him. Try again.
I didn't just say why your argument is stupid but you haven't said why u disagreed with me. Which is all you have. Your ideas are a joke.
Marcus McUntrustworthy said..."@Gandalf - the Moron. If a people could read Hebrew and Greek then we wouldn't need textual criticism. But since we don't textual criticism is a great help if you have questions about the text.
Thats not even a good excuse at all,at best its only another weaseling sidestep.Its sad.
It still dont even change the fact its obviously! not any matter of being easy at all.By your very own words of admittance you agree its no easy matter,by the very fact you admit for it to be easy people really need to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek.
Lets cut through the shit about what might be "great help" shall we ,my argument has nothing to do with needing to address what might be "great help" ...My argument simply is... its obviously never been easy! ,and that fact remains! and has also had many situtions in history! that also blantantly prove! my argument! is obviously very correct!.
Its not good argument at all to cray ...whaaa but but ...boo hoo ..not fair because so happens the bible was only written in Hebrew and Greek.
How the hell does that change the FACT that its STILL OBVIOUSLY never been so very easy for everyone to understand??.
What could your God create a whole universe yet only spoke Hebrew and Greek? ....Pffffttt what type of omnipotent all knowing supreme being is that?.
What your sad arse excuse is, supposedly the omnipotent God could only supply the bible to the Hebrews and Greeks?.
Feeble excuse ..Very poor...Very very unlikely also!.
Fail again! Marcus.
Marcus McUntrustworthy said..."Mormons have a history of bigotry."
Ohh i see. so then you feel that gives you some right to become a biggot yourself and start casting stones?.
Like i have already tried to explaim Marcus the holy bible just aint so holy ...infact its full of holes ! ..For one thing it confused folks about many things ...(Mormons aint the only folks who got some racialist ideas from their bible readings) ....And no IM NOT HERE TO DEBATE WHETHER THEY GOT THAT READING RIGHT OR WRONG .Thats totally beside the point.The fact still remains! the bible still did happen to confuse quite a number folks.
Fail again Marcus!.
Marcus McUntrustworthy said...."You quoted John Stackhouse and I disagree with him. Why don't you ask Hank Hanagraaf or James White or Dan Wallace or other experts who disagree. William Lane Craig wouldn't agree with him."
Oh big deal ...i dont really give a damm if so happens you disagree with John Stackhouse.I dont even give a damm if happened father christmas also happens to agree with you either.
It sill dont prove there is actually any proven general consensus on what might actually be known as being orthodox christian.The final judgement is still non existed ..You and William and anyone else,just dont get to simply claim to being the big boss.If i felt like being bothered im sure i can find plenty of others who disagree with you lot also,but im not bothered you see.
Because the fact remains when the split first happened many years back ,along with it went the claim of supposedly being Christian Orthodox. The claim to being the "one" and only Christian church .
Fail again Marcus !.
Marcus McElhaney said..."@Gandalf - the Moron. If a people could read Hebrew and Greek then we wouldn't need textual criticism"
"If"
Whaaa "if" boo hoo
Marcus didnt folks tell you ..often "if"s dont really happen to change much.
Whaaaa ...boo hoo"if" only they did
"William Lane Craig wouldn't agree with him (John Stackhouse)."
William Lane Craig also believes humans and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time, or else his position as a fellow of the Discovery Institute is misplaced...
Oh and by the way...
Isn't this the SAME William Lane Craig who in 1979, authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument?
This keeps getting better and better.
Why does anyone with half a brain listen to ANYTHING this chump says?
William Lane Craig
Discovery Institute
The original post of this thread is "How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong".
If nothing else, William Lane Craig is wrong.
@Gandalf - the Moron
Textual criticism is not an excuse it's a tool. You are so silly. Of course God can speak more than Hebrew and Greek. The point is that it was chosen for the scriptures to be encoded in Hebrew and Greek at the times they were written and where they are written. You may not like or agree with how the scriptures have been preserved for us but the truth is that your opinion matters to God as much as your opinion matters to me: It doesn't. When I said it was easy to understand Scripture I guess I should have qualified the statement. I should have said that it's easy if you actually want to know what Scriptture says and you don't. That is why you miss it. Today it's easier than ever before. I don't even remember trying to say that it's always been easy, I'm saying that today we have no excuse. Sorry to have confused you. I'll try to use smaller words. It's obvious that you don't really wanna know the truth or look at what anyone's opinion is other than yourself. Why do you think that Stackhouse is right? Do you have a reason other than "the Bible could not possibly be right"?. Who says anything about being a "biggot". Whty does pointing out that Mormons mean totally different things than I do make me biggot? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
@GearHedED
I have a link of my own that you have got to see!
What Just Happened?
My argument got destroyed by a picture of William Lane Craig?
Or was it the guy who commented on the tie he was wearing in the picture?
@GearHedEd
William Lane Craig's arguments, prestige, scholarship, academic work, debates,peer-reviewed journal articles and books so far outweigh you and yours it seems laughable that you would even try to say his research, credibility, and integrity are in question without much evidence to back up such assertions. Besides that, what about the other esteemed scholars I mentioned? I realize that you have a special dislike for Dr. Craig but you've got to he ain't the only educated individual who disagrees with you.
Say whatever you want, Marcus.
Anyone who truly believes dinosaurs and human beings shared the planet at some point in the past is either
a) a fucking idiot, or
b) lying to promote an agenda.
Which one is DOCTOR Craig?
And I'm not the only one who has kicked the legs out from under the KCA, either.
@GearHedEd
It'll take more than you got to totally discount the KCA
All you have to do to discount the KCA is recognize that 1) we've never observed anything "beginning to exist and 2) we don't know what happened "before" the big bang and up to roughly 300,000 years after it.
Done!
Ryan we see things begin to exist all the time. Did you always exist? No. At some point you began to exist. Does not matter if you think it was at your birth or conception because before these points you didn't exist.
Marcus; the matter I am made of has always existed, well at least for 14 billion years, who knows if it was longer.
I understand that you need to move the goal posts though...
Ryan, no one is moving the goal post. You said that we don't observe things coming into existence. If you are applying the laws of thermodynamics - the laws of conservation of energy and matter - that's one thing. However you and what you are made of are not the same thing. If the matter you are made of didn't come into existence then either you don't exist or the matter has always existed. Are you arguing for an eternal universe?
Marcus said "Are you arguing for an eternal universe?"
I'm not arguing anything. An eternal universe is as much a possibliliy as anything else given the availble information.
Marcus said,
"The apostles returned to Jerusalem were preaching the resurrection about 40 days after the crucifixion and the authorities could not produce a body..."
Um, no. I looked it up (and a guy who claims to be a Pentecostal should KNOW this).
The ascension was 40 days after the resurrection. The apostles didn't proclaim "He is risen until Pentecost, which was 50 days after the ascension, letting another 10 days go by during which Jesus' body would have further deteriorated or could have been moved around several times.
And don't bring up the Levitical prohibitions about handling corpses. When it suits the Christian agenda, y'all say that Leviticus was still in effect, and when it suits the current argument, you say that Jesus came to create a "New Deal:" for humanity that doesn't require the Law.
I've heard both arguments from Christians.
Shifting goalposts, indeed.
@GearHedEd
I'm not moving any goalpost but you are on the wrong field. I agree that I'm mistaken that Pentecost is indeed 50 not 40. However, it doesn't change my point. Had the opponents of Christianity had a body they would have presented it that the Christians were lying. Even if they were going to lie and could have just got any body and claimed that it was Jesus, why didn't they? Simple. They did not have it. Everyone who was in Jerusalem during passover and the [Pentecost celebrations knew about Jesus being crucified, where He was buried, and the fact that three days after the crucifixion the tomb was empty. Notice in Acts 2, Peter did not have to talk in much detail because they all knew those facts. You said that the disciples ran to Galilee and tried to argue in such a way to ignore that they were preaching in the same city where Jesus was crucified in front of eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and crucifixion. One of the things that made it so persuasive is that they were also witnesses to the resurrection. This is important to remember. If you wanna argue that Peter and the boys took the body to Galilee, that's pretty stupid. How did they get past the guards? You really want argue that a few fishermen, a tax collector, and peasants were able to overwhelm trained solders? I don't think so.
Marcus, you are missing the point, the "opponents of christianity" didn't even know that they had anything to oppose until the body had been rotting for 50 days.
Marcus said "Everyone who was in Jerusalem during passover and the [Pentecost celebrations knew about Jesus being crucified, where He was buried..."
again, do you really think that someone who was executed next to two annoynomous theives really garnered the notarity that you and his later biographers are ascribing to him?
Ryan,
1. If Jesus' corpse had been rotting for 50 days why didn't his opponents just show the body?
2.Caiaphas and the other Religious leader knew Jesus had promised to rise again and they put guards around the tomb to make sure the disciples did not steal the body. And like I said Jesus entered Jerusalem as a king and welcomed as the Messiah on Palm Sunday. He was dead on Friday. Do you really think that the Jews in the city missed it? That they didn't know about it or the fact that the tomb was empty on Sunday? I agree with you to most Gentiles especially the Romans in town at the time, didn't notice anything out of the ordinary or cared at the time. But that's not my argument.
Marcus said,
"...Notice in Acts 2, Peter did not have to talk in much detail because they all knew those facts."
From wikipedia:
"The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the first century. Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62. Donald Guthrie, who dates the book between 62-54 (this may be a misprint, as dates in the common era are usually given earlier to later-Ed.), notes that the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 would be unlikely if the book were written afterward. He also suggested that since the book does not mention the death of Paul, a central character in the final chapters, it was likely penned before his death. Guthrie also saw traces of Acts in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (written between 110-140) and one letter by Ignatius (before 117) and thought that Acts probably was current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than circa 115, and perhaps in Rome as early as circa 96.
A small indicator about the earliest possible date may be in Acts 6:9 which mentions the Province of Cilicia. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.
Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued. Several scholars have argued that Acts used material of both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later. Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1)."
Acts wiki
Again, in the first two verses of Luke, he says without a doubt that he's not an eyewitness; and modern scholarship places the EARLIEST date for the ACTS text at about 60 A.D., or about 30 years after the alleged events they describe.
Try again, Marcus. The evidence is extremely weak.
Marcus said:
"...Caiaphas and the other Religious leader knew Jesus had promised to rise again and they put guards around the tomb to make sure the disciples did not steal the body. And like I said Jesus entered Jerusalem as a king and welcomed as the Messiah on Palm Sunday. He was dead on Friday. Do you really think that the Jews in the city missed it? That they didn't know about it or the fact that the tomb was empty on Sunday?"
First, Caiaphas didn't command the Roman legion, so Caiaphas DIDN'T post a guard.
Second, I spent ten years on active duty in the army and I KNOW that privates assigned guard duty fall asleep occasionally, whether or not they have fear of punishment. ESPECIALLY if the duty is for three days.
Third, none of the Gospel accounts can be definitively dated to within 20 years of the alleged events. My memory is excellent, but it's not THAT good. And twenty years is MORE than enough time to embellish a story that's designed to achieve real political ends, because that was the aim, NOT religion: "like I said Jesus entered Jerusalem as a king and welcomed as the Messiah on Palm Sunday. He was dead on Friday."
It was the "king" part that most interested Jesus' followers. But a dead king can't oppose the Romans.
and Marcus said,
"...I agree with you to most Gentiles especially the Romans in town at the time, didn't notice anything out of the ordinary or cared at the time..."
And if the Romans didn't care, they would have assigned the lowliest private to guard the tomb. And they would NOT have given two ounces of last year's bird shit whether Caiaphas believed Jesus would rise again. After all, he was just another superstitious Jew who didn't believe in Almighty Zeus.
Therefore, the Romans (who didn't care, as Marcus agreed) would NOT have tried to produce a body during the 50 days before the outrageous claim of a risen Jesus was allegedly made by the apostles, nor would the Romans have had an excuse at that time (before Pentecost) to hunt them down and kill them.
Your story fails on ALL accounts, Marcus.
I said:
"It was the "king" part that most interested Jesus' followers. But a dead king can't oppose the Romans."
And no one who reads the Gospels can be unaware that one of the primary reasons the Jews turned on Jesus was because he WOULDN'T fight as their earthly king, and spoke about Heaven instead.
The Jews wanted ACTION, not some nebulous afterlife.
@GearHedEd
One more time: I never said that Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus' life. I 'm not even arguing that he was an eyewitness to a lot of the Book of Acts. But do you have to be an eyewitness to be a good historian? No. He was however an eyewitness and companion to Paul during some of his journeys. That is why the book shifts to being 2nd person. And most of his information in Acts can either be corroborated by Josephus and Roman sources. How can you call my arguments weak when you aren't making any. You have no point.
@GearHedEd
One more time: I never said that Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus' life. I 'm not even arguing that he was an eyewitness to a lot of the Book of Acts. But do you have to be an eyewitness to be a good historian? No. He was however an eyewitness and companion to Paul during some of his journeys. That is why the book shifts to being 2nd person. And most of his information in Acts can either be corroborated by Josephus and Roman sources. How can you call my arguments weak when you aren't making any. You have no point.
@GearHedEd
I'm confused are you arguing that there was no guard or are arguing that there was a guard but they fell asleep? Make up your mind.
The American military does not excute soldiers for falling asleep on duty...the Romans did. You also forget that i never made the point that the Romans cared about disproving the Resurrection that early. I was referring to the Jewish leaders. Considering how well you butcher Bible passages, I doubt your memory is all that great. There wasn't enough time for the Gospels to be embellished. Haven't you ever read the research for how long it takes for historical events to be embellished into legend? Guess not.
You are wrong about what the Jews cared about. Some of them did believe in Resurrection and some didn't. But they did expect a political Messiah to destroy the Romans and return Israel to it's own state. As for who posted the Guard. The text explicitly says that Caiaphas gave the order. Why would the Romans go along? To keep the Jewish leaders happy and Jerusalem from blowing up into a riot. During that time of year a riot was what the Romans were most concerned with avoiding and relied on the religious leaders to keep the rest of the people in check. You need help
Marcus said "1. If Jesus' corpse had been rotting for 50 days why didn't his opponents just show the body?"
You are aware that there were no refrigerators in 1st century Judea, right?
Marcus:
When you continue to cite Bible verses as established FACT, you're talking out your fourth point of contact.
"Haven't you ever read the research for how long it takes for historical events to be embellished into legend?"
Which research? The studies done by Christian scholars whose purpose is to give support to the idea that these things actually happened as written?
How much credibility does a modern witness to an event have even a WEEK after the event? How much LESS credibility if we asked the witness' best friend about what the witness saw TWENTY YEARS after the event?
There is exactly ZERO chance that they got it right, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.
Also,
You were the one who argues (backed by your non-historical text) that there WAS a guard. And that said guard would have been EVERYTHING the high priest could want in terms of vigilance. Additionally, you cannot be unaware that the ONLY gospel account that even mentions a guard AT ALL is in Matthew.
Finally, as I said before, I know army procedure. If a squad of sixteen soldiers was sent to guard the tomb, NOT ALL OF THOSE GUARDS WOULD BE GUARDING ALL AT THE SAME TIME. They would have been guarding in pairs for shorter periods and rotating through. This, however still does not guarantee that they could not have fallen asleep. And Matthew is still highly suspect as "history".
Furthermore...
"...Caiaphas and the other Religious leader knew Jesus had promised to rise again..."
Everyone in the story including the Roman soldiers tasked with guarding the tomb knew this but the apostles DIDN'T?
Shenanigans!
the Apostle John wrote,
"...Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead…" (John 20:8-9).
But let's be honest.
We're debating points on the presumption that the scripture is infallible history, or at a minimum, YOU are, Marcus.
The gospels are NOT history.
"Also, apologists see the records of the stolen body claim, including Matthew 28:11-15, as an acknoledgement that the tomb was empty, with an attempt to explain it away. Matthew 28:12-13 states that the chief priests, upon hearing the testimony of the soldiers guarding the tomb, 'gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'"'. This clearly states that the stolen body claim was purposely circulated to prevent the soldiers from getting in trouble and to satisfy the governor with a reasonable solution. Once again, Matthew's ability to make a claim should not be viewed as evidence for the truth of the claim. Keep in mind that neither the author of the gospel of Matthew, nor any other Christian would have been present at this “conversation” between the priests and the guards, yet amazingly Matthew knows word for word what was said. Beyond Matthew's reference to this conversation, there is no reason to believe that it even took place.
Again, for emphasis:
"Keep in mind that neither the author of the gospel of Matthew, nor any other Christian would have been present at this “conversation” between the priests and the guards, yet amazingly Matthew knows word for word what was said."
Stolen Body Hypothesis
This is sheer INVENTION in Matthew, no matter how you look at it.
Also,
This is written in my copy of the NIV Bible, between Mark 16: 8 and 9:
[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20.]
Can you say,
The Resurrection Story was INSERTED into Mark at a later date?
"The first canonical gospel written is thought by most scholars to be either Mark or Matthew, with a majority believing in Markan priority. The two-source hypothesis says that Mark was written first by an anonymous author, and then other anonymous authors used Mark (and other sources) to write Matthew and Luke."
wiki entry on Gospels
MORE invention!
Where does it end?
@Ryan...who said anything about the need of refrigeration? What is this CSI or NCIS? After 50 days there would have been enough of a corpse to prove that the disciples were lying. They all knew where the tomb was. They could have unsealed it, and produced a dead corpse of a human being from out of the tomb in public and the apostles would have been proven liars. Nothing less than this would have stopped the message. Just producing any dead body would not have worked because it was public knowledge that the tomb was empty neither the Jewish religious leaders and the disciples did not have the body. On top of all that when Jame, Peter, John and the rest were arrested, why didn't they torture them to reveal the location of Jesus' body? Instead they ordered them to stop preaching about Jesus. Sounds like a coverup to me.
You Christians keep asking what would it take to convince us atheists.
For me, I think that Jesus should have spent his forty days between the resurrection and the ascension writing the "Gospel according to Jesus".
THAT would have prevented all the misunderstanding, no?
@GearHedEd
1. I get that you don't see the Bible as a reliable religious source. Yet it is the best record of any historical person from that time period. If you want to throw out the Gospels as history...fine...as long as you are willing to apply your flawed logic to ever single historical source and personage. Using your logic we can't be sure Alexander the Great existed. How do you know that Julius Ceasar really went to Great Britian?
2. Do you have any proof of any historical fact in a largely oral community being twisted into a legend within 30 years of the event? I'm waiting for you citation.
3. If eyewitnesses are not credible at all why is guilt and innocence today judged using it?
4. Who said anything about a legend of Guards being assigned to Jesus' tomb? I didn't.
5. Of course Matthew is the only one to mention the Guards. So? They all contain details that the other's don't have. Earmarks of eyewitness testimony. Otherwise you would accusing the Gospel writers of colusion. No, they have different details (no contradiction) and are writing to different audiences.
6. Do you have any historical proof that Romans posted guards used the same tactics the American military does today? Citation please.
7. The Religious leaders did not believe Jesus was going to rise from the dead. They posted the guards because they thought the disciples were going to steal the body.
8. You don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead either, why should you blame all the first disciples for being skeptical? But if you wait to wait too long to see the truth, it's going to be too late. And, brother, standing in front of him on Judgement day is going to be too late.
"After 50 days there would have been enough of a corpse to prove that the disciples were lying."
No!
After 50 days, you'd need DNA technology or dental records to positively identify someone.
Body of 12 year old found about two months after disappearance
Marcus said "After 50 days there would have been enough of a corpse to prove that the disciples were lying."
No, there wouldn't have been. Not an identifiable one. The disciples would have rightly claimed that any 50 day old corpse that was produced was unrecognizable and couldn't be proven to be Jesus (which is probably why they waited for Pentacost, sneaky bunch).
Also, assuming there actually were guards and there actually was a tomb (unlikely in my opinion), do you think the guards were on station for 50 days? Assuming they were (hahahah!), you've never heard of soliders taking bribes or going native?
In all likelyhood, the corpse had already been eaten by dogs in Gehenna by the time Pentacost rolled around and it occured to anyone that they would even need to produce a body.
For me, the Pentacost proclimation is one of the most damning peices of historical data for the fantastic claims made by the gospels.
You couldn't just produce ANY rotting corpse; it HAD to be Jesus to refute the claim, and there was NO WAY in ancient Palestine to determine that it WAS indeed Jesus.
THAT'S why the apostles waited 50 days to proclaimthe resurrection, because they KNEW that the pharisees could not at that point refute their claim.
Some points...
1. Wrong. No, we have Julius Caesar own writings as well as biographies written during his lifetime by well known Roman Historians. What we have about Jesus is from, at a minimum, 30 years after his death and from anonymous sources. But your point is taken and what makes you think we aren't skeptical about most history? I know I’m skeptical about Julius Caesar being the Son of God even though "really reliable" historical documents emphatically state he was.
2. I’d love for you to attend a Dickes/Anderson Family reunion so you can see this occur first hand. How long did it take the crappie your uncle caught to turn into a 12 pound bass? This happens every day.
5. Why would someone who was executed next to two anonymous thieves warrant guards? Assuming there were guards, do you think they were on station until Pentecost? See my previous post.
6. Romans encouraged provincial legionnaires to marry local women and start families. It was in an effort to Romanize the provinces. The down side to this was that certainly a guard with a Jewish family would be subject to conflicting loyalties. Read Tacitus or Josephus for more information on the provincial legions. But you are holding Ed to an unrealistic standard with your demand for citation. Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a citation proving Romans soldiers were NEVER corrupt? Good luck with that.
7. Again with the guards... Sigh...
"Do you have any historical proof that Romans posted guards used the same tactics the American military does today? Citation please."
You're being dense here. This isn't even worthy of a reply.
"7. The Religious leaders did not believe Jesus was going to rise from the dead. They posted the guards because they thought the disciples were going to steal the body."
Here's an interesting point. While the religious leaders didn't THINK Jesus would rise from the dead, they DID consider it a real possibility, or there would be no NEED for guards. Those superstious folks BELIEVED such things as resurrection were possible, even ultimately inevitable in the case of final judgement.
Jesus may have been a real person, but the story is pure fantasy.
"You don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead either, why should you blame all the first disciples for being skeptical?"
You're right- I don't believe it. And the Apostles would have been right to believe that, too.
What I have a problem with is the cultural belief espoused by ALL the Jews; Pharisee, Apostle, Jesus, that resurrection was POSSIBLE to begin with.
They had a biased mindset!
When something is considered at least POSSIBLE, whether right or wrong, sooner or later someone makes the claim that it is TRUE, and no one questions it.
@Ryan and @GearHedEd
Look, the Religious leaders sealed the tomb. If they had unsealed the tomb and brought out the body in the tomb it would have been logical to conclude that it was the same body that have been put in it. Therefore they could not do that because Jesus's tomb was empty and everyone knew that.
The text clearly states that there was no reason for the tomb to be guarded for 50 days because by Pentecost the tomb was known to be empty.
The text also tells us that the guards were bribed by the religious leaders to say that the body was stolen. I don't buy Caiaphas' story...why should you. Jews have been using that lie for years.
Can either you provide any historian's record contemporaneous to Julius Ceasar? How many textual variants exist for Julius Ceasar's journals. I guarantee that there are fewer copies of copies of Ceasar's journal than for the new testament and the old testament.
As for how easy it is for legends to grow, I was referring to historical events that people care about in an oral culture where information needs to be passed accurately. No one but your uncle really cares about how big a fish he caught was.
I already answered why guards were placed on the tomb. Go back and read the comment.
Who argues that the soldiers were honest and uncorruptible?! The Text says they took bribes
Ryan you said But you are holding Ed to an unrealistic standard with your demand for citation. Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a citation proving Romans soldiers were NEVER corrupt? Good luck with that. Ed shouldn't have made a guess as to how the Romans did guard duty if he can't prove it. I don't need to offer proof of soldiers being incorruptible because again, I never said that they were.
GearHedEd continually shows he knows nothing about Judaism in the first century. Not all Jews believed in Resurrection. The Sadducees did not and only counted the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible as binding on them. Your point about what Jews Believed is completely too broad. I thought you studied this?
OK Marcus, I get it, you believe everything in the book, even where it deviates with what is likely given history, geology, physics, etc...
I don't.
The bible was NEVER intended to serve as a history book.
Why do you insist that it IS one, Marcus?
Marcus said,
"...I don't buy Caiaphas' story...why should you?"
You SHOULD believe Caiaphas' story, because it's in the scripture.
Otherwise, we have just been given primafacie evidence that you, Marcus, PICK WHICH PASSAGES YOU CONSIDER CORRECT.
You have a choice, now.
Either EVERYTHING in the Bible is true because it's all scripture, or NOT EVERYTHING in the Bble is true, and we're all free to decide which passages (or none) we choose to believe.
You're a fraud, Marcus. You lie even to yourself if you deny this.
You (and your Bible) have ZERO credibility.
I through discussing any of this with you Marcus.
You lose.
Marcus,
If Christianity worked, we would see that it worked, but because Christianity does not work, we see that instead.
From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism], we find,
Pentecostalism is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of different theological and organizational perspectives. As a result, there is no single central organization or church that directs the movement. Furthermore, Pentecostals are theologically diverse with some groups being Trinitarian and others Nontrinitarian.[3] Within North American Classical Pentecostalism, there are three major orientations/origins: Wesleyan-holiness, Reformed-Higher Life, and Oneness denominations.[4] Examples of Wesleyan holiness denominations include the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC). The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel is an example of the Higher Life branch, while the Assemblies of God (AG) was influenced by both groups.[4][5] Some Oneness churches include the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), and Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ (ALJC). Many Pentecostal groups are affiliated with the Pentecostal World Conference.
If you are COGIC, you are Pentecostalist. No less esteemed a COGIC leader than the Elder Harvey Burnett, on this blog, has talked about exorcisms, but Harvey likes doing them so much that he says he does them for free.
Do you perform exorcisms, Marcus? Do you perform them on infants? toddlers? How much do you charge? Or do you just do them as a public service? Why don't most mainstream Christian sects do them? I have lots of family members in the Christian clergy who think churches where exorcisms are performed are completely stupid. I agree.
You keep quoting the Bible as theology. I think Robert A. Heinlein had a wonderful characterization of theology: Theology ... is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."
That's you, Marcus. You can convince yourself of anything. Of course, your Bible would only be useful if it told us useful things and told us of events in advance of their occurrence which we could observe. Your Bible doesn't do that or anything else useful. The Bible has about 780,000 words, depending on whose version, and most of those words are useless to any of us. The few verses in it which reflect good human values are not unique to it, to the savior you willingly enslave yourself to, or to the gods mentioned in it. Humanity has had mostly good people in it throughout its history. It's not surprising that some of those thoughts were in writing in Middle Eastern myths which were subsequently included in the canonical Bibles since those same good human values had been in writing in the Far East long before the New Testament was imagined and scribbled down. Most people who have ever lived have been good people and they have been so without the hocus pocus of the Christianities.
Marcus,
From [http://tv.sky.com/saving-africas-witch-children] we learn:
"Parents or siblings of children torture them in an attempt to kill them or force confessions from them to admit that they are witches. Mary (14) who was burnt with acid before her mother attempted to bury her alive and Uma Eke (17) who has been left brain-damaged after having a three-inch nail driven into her skull, are just two of the countless children who display the hallmarks of witch-branding. The film also features extraordinary access to preachers who exploit desperate parents by charging exorbitant amounts of money in return for exorcising their children's spirits. One preacher calls himself 'The Bishop' who admits to having killed 110 people in the past and claims he has made a fortune by carrying out 'deliverances' on children."
and
"Shocking and tragic, Dispatches reveals the plight of the thousands of innocent children who suffer intolerable cruelty at the hands of so-called Christian pastors."
Evil shits like you, Marcus, keep promoting this by sending your money to them.
And, Marcus, listen to those of us telling you that the Bible is not reliable. Hell, it's not even factual.
We know the exodus never happened. That is a fact. That's a perfect example of absence of evidence being evidence of absence.
We know that Genesis is wrong. Flat out, irrefutably and unequivocably wrong. Man is an evolved species along with all other organisms on this planet. There exists no evidence for species popping instantaneously into existence. We know the mechanisms of planet and star accretion from interstellar clouds. There was no invasion by Joshua's mass murdering hoards. The Israelites were a settled people long before the time of the imagined conquest of Canaan. Every refrain of "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho" is a lie, since Jericho is known to have been destroyed by earthquake centuries removed from an Old Testament timeline. Your Jesus might have been a cult leader, but nothing more. The notion of a barbaric human sacrifice gratified the similarly barbaric, but also ignorant and superstitious, NT inventors, but human sacrifices have no affect beyond snuffing out a person's life and the associated ripples through their circle of influence.
We know your god is imaginary. Your god never created anything, commanded anything, destroyed anything or loved anything. Those are facts, Marcus. You imagine these things. They are not real.
Your Bible is fiction. Your god is imaginary. Your prayers and miracles are superstitions.
If Christianity worked, we would see that it worked, but because Christianity does not work, we see that instead.
Thanks, Russ.
I was running out of breath...
Marcu said,
"GearHedEd continually shows he knows nothing about Judaism in the first century. Not all Jews believed in Resurrection. The Sadducees did not and only counted the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible as binding on them. Your point about what Jews Believed is completely too broad. I thought you studied this?"
Let's attack this incredibly dumb statement with a very large hammer:
Pharisees. Sadducees. Zealots. Essenes. The average Joseph in the street.
Who believed what?
They were all Jews, but they couldn't agree on the truth? There was difference of opinion even in the face of their Temple and the Holy Scriptures?
Along comes Christianity. There's the Gnostics, the Corinthians, the Romans, Constantine. The Roman Catholic Juggernaut that dominated Europe for a thousand years and killed you if you challenged their ecclesiastical authority.
There's Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Henry VIII, Joseph Smith.
I'm sure Iv'e neglected hundreds, not the least of which are Mohammed and HIS followers who split ito the Shi'ites and the Sunnis, because THEY can't agree either, although they DO claim the god of Abraham.
And you and your fellows at the COGIC are the only ones who got it 100% right.
Yeaaaahhhhh... That's the ticket...
I look at the BIG picture, Marcus, and you cite obscure technical points from scripture and alleged history (when you quote the Bible and call it authoritative).
Look at the big picture and you'll see waht the rest of us see.
Or don't.
Keep your head buried in the sand of your little religion, but DON'T presume to instruct me.
You knew as well as I do that faith in the resurrection of the body was widely accepted among the Jews, and that the most notable dissenters in this belief were the Sadducees.
And the Sadducees were mostly aristocratic priests who claimed descent from Zadok, the high priest from the first Temple.
The point is that MOST of the Jews believed in resurrection, and plurality is an argument you've tried on me in previous arguments when it was advantageous for you to do so.
Back off with the double standards, Marcus.
Marcus said,
"I get that you don't see the Bible as a reliable religious source. Yet it is the best record of any historical person from that time period. If you want to throw out the Gospels as history... fine...as long as you are willing to apply your flawed logic to ever single historical source and personage. Using your logic we can't be sure Alexander the Great existed. How do you know that Julius Ceasar really went to Great Britian?"
The point is that there are REASONS people write things down, in ancient times as well as today.
A HISTORY of the Roman Empire, or a portion of it that details Julius Caesar should be accepted if it has merit, because the INTENT was to write HISTORY.
The Gospels were written to support religious claims, NOT as history.
It is YOUR pretensions here that are flawed.
Apply historical standards to history; religious standards to scripture. They are equal neither in content nor veracity.
You want to compare apples to orangutans, and claim that to do so is reasonable.
@Russ
Christianity is true. You are proof of it. You personify all the same characteristics and thought processes the Bible ascribes to fools who say in their heart there is no God. People who are so blinded by their own sin that they miss the forest for all the shrubs.
I never claimed that COGIC denies the existences of demons nor the need for exorcisms. Elder Burnett is more that correct. This is something you should not charge for and if you do you are truly everything you are trying to ascribe to us. But we don't do that. Elder Burnett has been preaching far longer than I have and I am sure that he has run into situation where he had to cast out demons in person. So far the worst I've had to deal with are closed minds and stone hearts like yours. In America we think that we too sophisticated for supernatural occurrence to be true. That is why we don't have the power miracles we used to have. We don't think God does those things anymore. Therefore the devil works differently here. He doesn't need to possess you because you already don't care or respect God. He's got you already. The Bible does tell use verifiable and completed prophecies. If you want to discuss how that is true or challenge me on that I'd be more than happy to. COGIC does not cast demons out of children by hurt or torture....that doesn't work. That is not how Jesus did it. He told us to fast and pray. Therefore I reject the way they are allegedly doing it in Africa and as you did paste from Wikipedia not all Pentecostals believe the same things. For example the Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity. Now that breaks the definition of what I pointed out is the core to Christianity that Christians agree are essentail. If you don't like my list then Use CS Lewis' criteria he called "Mere Christianity". I'm willing to use that definition. And according to that neither Oneness Pentecostalism, Mormons, or Jehovah Witness practice historic Christianity. So let's be consistent. When I write "Christianity", I'm referring to people who accept the criteria CS Lewis enumerated.
@Russ
BTW, that's a very interesting quote from Heinlein. I like your taste in literature. I really enjoyed reading Starship Troopers (much better than the movie). However I think he is wrong about "theology". It is a characature and not a characterization. And I would not base my life on his philosophy.
Russ, can you prove that COGIC has given any money to such activities in Nigeria? If so where is your evidence. I can't let you just go on emotional tirades without offering proof. Where is it? I don't know if you have been following this thread but I gave evidence for the EXodus and the ten plagues of Egypt outside the Bible. Why do you think they don't count? As for human evolution, a lot of folks play fast and loose with such things as transitional fossils. And I saw the Loftus posts about the fish with hands (I'd be more impressed if those fish had opposable thumbs) but what do you really have in terms of proof that every living thing on earth is descended from the same one-celled organism? Not much I'm afraid. I never hear you guy mention the Cambrian explosion. I wonder why?
Jericho was destroyed and rebuilt several times....not just once, by the way.
There is no single case of human sacrifice condoned in the Bible by God except when the Son gave himself up as a ransom for our sins. He gave up His own life for us. It was not taken from Him but given by Him. That is a huge difference. When you say that god didn't create, command, destroy, or love anything you asre talking about the god you think you know. And in that case I agree with you. You don't know the God I know. Nor can you because of your hard heart and closed mind. If you opened it and really looked at what you wrote you can see the foolishness in it. The fact is that you are the one inventing things that the Bible says. You don't even know who Jesus is. If you want to know who Jesus is I'd be more than happy to introduce Him to you. The Bible tells you everything you need to know about God and begin to answer the questions that you are too lost to even realize that you have.
Marcus said "Christianity is true. You are proof of it. You personify all the same characteristics and thought processes the Bible ascribes to fools who say in their heart there is no God."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Wow... so dumb...
One accurate observation does not validate another truth claim. Islam makes similar observations. Just FYI.
@GearHedEd
Boo hoo, Ed, I'm just getting started.
Let talk about stupid:
Pharisees. Sadducees. Zealots. Essenes. The average Joseph in the street.
Who believed what?
They were all Jews, but they couldn't agree on the truth? There was difference of opinion even in the face of their Temple and the Holy Scriptures?
Of course they disagreed! As I pointed out the Sadducees only accepted the Torah and rejected miracles and the resurrection. The Essenes thought the Sanhedrin/temp were corrupt. The Zealots were concerned with politics more than religion. Of course the disagreed.
And average Jews took sides and had their own ideas.
More stupidity
Along comes Christianity. There's the Gnostics, the Corinthians, the Romans, Constantine. The Roman Catholic Juggernaut that dominated Europe for a thousand years and killed you if you challenged their ecclesiastical authority.
The gnostics were not Christians...they had a completely different concept of God
The Corinthians and The Romans churches were under the same authority and the letters in the Bible match one another in theology
Constantine was 300 years later! What point are you trying to make?
As for the Roman Catholic Church - historically the core Gospel - grace of God leading to salvation through Christ is there...plus a bunch of other stuff that came from paganism. They are still Christians.
Just when I thought that this couldn't get any more stupid...it did.
There's Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Henry VIII, Joseph Smith.
None of these people were contemporaneous of eah other. Henry VIII just wanted Catholicism that allowed divorce so he could get rid of wives (very little theology). Joseph Smith was not a Christian. Have you ever read anything Joseph Smith wrote or said? Guess not.
And to the most stupid...
And you and your fellows at the COGIC are the only ones who got it 100% right.
How many times have I said that COGIC is not the one true Church? You really are thick. And my reading comprehension has been called into question on this thread? This is sad. I've defined what Christians have historically believed since day one and you keep raising this red herring. Many, many denominations fit the core values I have delineated over and over. Including Catholics. Please get a new argument. I'm tired of knocking this one down.
Let me show you how bad your reading comprehension is. You say that none of the new testament was written for history but that means you have not read Luke 1 or Acts 1 in which Luke writes that he wanted to set up an orderly account of what happened. And in John 21 John wrote he wrote his Gospel to make an account of what happened so people would read it and believe. Why would you think any less of the rest of the New Testament. Let's face it. all 27 books of the New Testament is History and an Apologetic aimed at equipping Christians to lead this life of service to the one who purchased His People with His own blood. That is the point.
I'm not imploring a double standard you made a generalization that is not true. It was hotly contested.
Just admit it and apologize.
@Ryan
The Bible make more than one accurate observation describing people like you, Russ, and Ed. There is lot more. Ever Read Romans 1? The page might as well be a mirror.
"Just admit it and apologize."
Suck my dick.
Marcus said (and the giant question mark floating over his head is visible from here),
"The gnostics were not Christians...they had a completely different concept of God
The Corinthians and The Romans churches were under the same authority and the letters in the Bible match one another in theology
Constantine was 300 years later! What point are you trying to make?"
I said it was a big hammer. It's your inability to see the big picture that prevents your understanding. I wasn't talking about the epistles! I was referring to the fact that Paul found it necessary to address points of theology in his epistles to the VARIOUS CHURCHES that had differences of opinion, and the origins of those opinions.
The point was that despite the scriptures being "inspired", no two groups agree on what it means.
And they go to war over stupid arguments like the one we've been having.
everyone has an aenda, e.g. Henry VIII wanting a dispensation from the Pope.
I'm closing this off.
It's degenerated into name calling.
Marcus, you're an idiot.
Post a Comment