Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Bennett.]

I am conveniently stating the facts.

your 'facts' are not correct though.

 

[Bennett.]

Spartwana, since you're a religious fellow whose bullshit radar has obviously failed, it's a little peculiar to accuse someone of not thinking critically...

Insightful post regarding the topic I see.
Try playing the ball and not the man

 

[skilts]

If you had any ability to think critically, you could see this.

Try playing the ball and not the man

Were it not so pathetic, your hypocrisy would be astounding. You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you?

 

[Bennett.]

Were it not so pathetic, your hypocrisy would be astounding. You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you?

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. If a person is able to think critically they would be able to see the folly in what is being said.

i.e - ACTUALLY research yourself.

 

[skilts]

"Man made God. That's why there are so many gods".
Yes , God said something similar to that. He's no atheist.

How do you know this?

 

[Pie eyed]

your 'facts' are not correct though.

The roman government did not adopt Christianity as the state religion?

Please state which fact is not accurate.

 

[skilts]

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. If a person is able to think critically they would be able to see the folly in what is being said.

i.e - ACTUALLY research yourself.

Good grief, you're so dumb. Yes, I'm attacking you.
Edit: Your last sentence in this post is completely devoid of meaning. No surprise there.

 

[Bennett.]

The roman government did not adopt Christianity as the state religion?

Please state which fact is not accurate.

The fact that it only grew because of the Roman involvement otherwise it would have died out.
It was already booming by then, so yes, it was inaccurate.

 

[Bennett.]

Good grief, you're so dumb. Yes, I'm attacking you.
Edit: Your last sentence in this post is completely devoid of meaning. No surprise there.

Yeah, I guess encouraging people to think for themselves and to do research themselves
rather than just dribble pad answers and quips is a difficult concept for you to understand?

 

[skilts]

It's in your Bible (just over there on the shelf, no down a bit).
Isaiah 44:14-20 says a man cuts wood for his fire and uses some to make an image of a god which he bows down to, without understanding or knowledge.
The apostle Paul said some men make their belly a god, meaning self interest, themself.

You read it in a book?

 

[skilts]

Yeah, I guess encouraging people to think for themselves and to do research themselves
rather than just dribble pad answers and quips is a difficult concept for you to understand?

WTF does this mean? In English, please.

 

[Bennett.]

WTF does this mean? In English, please.

terribly sorry I got a letter wrong!
You know - paT answers? the usual 'intelligent' responses or statements that are generally not at all intelligent

 

[Pie eyed]

The fact that it only grew because of the Roman involvement otherwise it would have died out.
It was already booming by then, so yes, it was inaccurate.

I don't agree.
You're entitled to your opinion. In mine Rome made/made up Christianity for simple, politically expedient reasons.There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bennett.]

you mean the fact that even Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome?
Persecution of Christians including the martyrdom of the apostles?
The writings of Josephus and Tacitus? Written after 313AD were they?

 

[skilts]

terribly sorry I got a letter wrong!
You know - paT answers? the usual 'intelligent' responses or statements that are generally not at all intelligent

What does "dribble pat" mean?

 

[Bennett.]

What does "dribble pat" mean?

are you being obtuse on purpose?

to dribble pat answers...

not dribbling crap, just dribbling pat?

dribbling?

 

[skilts]

are you being obtuse on purpose?

to dribble pat answers...

not dribbling crap, just dribbling pat?

dribbling?

In what way are the words 'dribbling' and 'pat' interconnected? You still make no sense. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'dribbling'?

 

[skilts]

It was a comment about this signature on Tassieboy:
["God did not make man. Precisely the contrary. Man made God. That's why there are so many gods. Always have been - always will be." - Christopher Hitchens.]
That's from the book of Hitchens. We can argue did Hitchens write it, is the text the same as his draft, is the book real, does skilts exist and so on. In a discussion about the nature of belief then I'm stating what the Biblical deity represents.
When Christians were being destroyed by Rome in 1-2nd century, people of Horus in Egypt were not. So the nature of the 2 groups had to be different.

You read it in a book?

 

[Partridge]

How do you separate one man's fallacy from another man's fallacy when the only logical difference between the two is a generational gap in when these fallacy were both equally "believed" and adhered to?

I liked how mentions of Jesus were under "Truth". Gave me a giggle.

Must go out and tie up the unicorns now.

 

[Partridge]

Oh, come on, all that revisionist tripe. Actually do some research and you'll find that the story of Jesus does not mirror any of the other legends of gods.

It does in one way. They're all works of fiction.

 

[Bennett.]

In what way are the words 'dribbling' and 'pat' interconnected? You still make no sense. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'dribbling'?

so I can see that you are being difficult for the sake of it. No problem.
You know exactly what I mean though.

 

[Bennett.]

It does in one way. They're all works of fiction.

Ok then. Well, I'm glad you've cleared all that up for us.

You do realise that there is an abundance of proof for the historicity of Jesus don't you?

 

[Partridge]

Ok then. Well, I'm glad you've cleared all that up for us.

You do realise that there is an abundance of proof for the historicity of Jesus don't you?

You do realise that repeating something is true over and over again doesn't actually make it factual.

Even if you accept that Jesus existed, it doesn't get you any closer to proving he was divine.

 

[Bennett.]

You do realise that repeating something is true over and over again doesn't actually make it factual.

Even if you accept that Jesus existed, it doesn't get you any closer to proving he was divine.

They are 2 very different things though.

Firstly showing that he did in fact exist provides a foundation to build on.

 

[skilts]

so I can see that you are being difficult for the sake of it. No problem.
You know exactly what I mean though.

And you misuse words, the meanings of which you have no idea, and then accuse those who have to endure your disconnected twaddle of being deliberately difficult. Your writing amounts to nothing but gibberish. Gibberish even you are unable to explain. Yet, you expect your opinions to be respected.