Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Total Power]

Very good.

Hope alls well VD, i have missed you!

 

[Total Power]

What should they quote from in talking about God's words and commands? The Bible is the one and only source they should use.

Bible is not God's words, unlike Islam. Bible is not written by Jesus, not even close. Even if i accept eyewitness' let Mark to his Gospel (which wasn't the case), Mark's manuscripts were destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem. Only 2% of it remained. It's a series of stories written and re-written over and over again centuries after Jesus. I mean even if i accept that a bloke called Jesus existed, who claimed to be God, it still of no use. How the **** would an author know what Jesus did/thought in silence and being alone for 2 days in Damascus???? The whole thing was written by the church many years after the original Gospel was cannonised. I have posted evidence here.

The commandments you are talking about were written 900 years after the death of Moses. Yes 900 years.You are trying to say people were not people 2,000 years ago, no politics, personal interest and greed got into the narrative and not influenced by the existing paganism? If yes, i am not surprised actually that this is what you think.

And i really mean what i wrote about being literal/methaphorical. Theres a reason why EVERY Xtian shorten the 2nd commandment.It says do not worship other Gods... or else he'll punish your children for it! For some reasons Christians seem to skip over that part. We all know why.

Religious beliefs are a product of the material conditions of the times people are living in. So interpretation of a single religion changes widley as material conditions change.

God's words, don't make me laugh.

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

The whole thing was written by the church many years after the original Gospel was cannonised. I have posted evidence here.

Let's start with Books of the Jews which we Christians call the Old Testament, I'm not sure what the Jews call them, but they still have them. Are their writings made up also?

Psalms 117:22
The stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner.

Now the Jews, they're still waiting for that "stone" that the "builders rejected," who the builders are, and of what corner will this "stone" become the head, they know not.

Psalms 44:8
Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Isaias 9:6
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Isaias 53:5
But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

Isaias 53:12
Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.


Now for some New Testament

John 3:13-15
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

Why was the serpent lifted up in the desert?


So my question to you is, why should the Christian not believe that Jesus was the Christ and that he has the new name? (Isaias 62:1-2)

What is your faith?

The Jews know that Jesus existed even if you don't. The Annals of Tacitus may be of interest to you also, if you believe he existed of course lol!

You made me laugh I'll give you that, not as much as watching the Tigers toy with Port on Thursday, but close.

 

[Gethelred]

Abortions are a very minor part of that speciality for starters. The years of training they go through is relevant- highly skilled people fulfilling a vocation.
There is a role for conscientious objection, along with education and empathy. Finding another job- you can't be serious. And from previous posts of yours, who knows?!
As far as pay cuts etc. they actually lose that patient and the fee for service. That'll do.
This was an interesting article from many years ago from UK, but still has some good points.

Abortion and Conscientious Objection​

During a quiet tea-break as a surgical house officer, I was summoned to the medical superintendent's office. My O&G colleague was busy. Would I please admit some patients for elective termination of pregnancy?
In accepting my appointment I had signed a form saying that I would be willing to take on extra duties from time to time at the medical superintendent's discretion. However, on this occasion, I politely refused and he accepted my right to conscientious objection.
Throughout Europe, the opportunity for such action may soon be over. The legal situation in several Western European countries has recently been reviewed in the Journal of CMF's Swedish counterpart, Kristna Lakare Och Medicinare i Sverige, and makes disturbing reading.[1]
Swedish law provides no right of conscientious objection to doctors and both doctors and other health personnel have contractual obligations to assist in the termination of pregnancy. In France, Norway and Italy, doctors are not legally required to perform abortions, but are obliged to participate in pre-operative care. In Denmark and the Netherlands one can conscientiously object to being involved in pre-operative care, but there is nonetheless a legal obligation to refer the woman seeking an abortion to another colleague.

The law in Britain​

The situation in the UK is less clear and has been the subject of recent debate in the British Medical Journal.[2,3,4,5,6] The Abortion Act 1967 carries a conscientious objection clause which allows doctors to refuse to participate in terminations but which obliges them to provide necessary treatment in an emergency when the woman's life may be jeopardised. The British Medical Association (BMA), which is frequently asked for an opinion on the matter bases its advice[7] on two legal precedents.
The first of these was a Parliamentary answer on the matter[8] which made clear that conscientious objection was only intended to be applied to 'participation in treatment'.
The second was the Janaway case[9], concerning a doctor's secretary (Janaway) who refused to type the referral letter for an abortion and claimed the protection of the conscience clause. Lord Keith in his summing up of the case said that 'the regulations do not appear to contemplate that the signing of the certificate would form part of the treatment for the termination of pregnancy'.
The BMA document observes that 'it would seem that GPs cannot claim exemption from giving advice or performing the preparatory steps to arrange an abortion if the request for abortion meets the legal requirements'. At the same time it admits that 'the full legal position is not entirely clear, since it requires interpretation of case law, GP terms of service, good practice and the NHS Act 1977'.
What then should a doctor do? The BMA concludes that 'completing the statutory form'(HSA1) for abortion falls morally within the scope of the conscience clause, but that doctors who feel unable to sign still have an ethical duty to refer the patient expeditiously to another practitioner, and that unnecessary delay in referral is contrary to good practice. However it adds that 'other preliminary procedures such as clerking in the patient or assessing the patient's fitness for anaesthetic' are 'incidental to the termination' and are considered outside the scope of the conscience clause.
In other words, although specific cases have not yet been brought to court, (and there is disagreement over what will happen when they are[5,6]), the BMA regards the situation in the UK as similar to that in France, Italy and Norway. Doctors are not legally required to authorise or perform abortions, but are obliged to be involved in pre-operative care and referral.
Had my own case been brought to court in this present climate, I may well have been found guilty.
In my work among medical students, I am frequently asked about the practicalities of conscientious objection. The vast majority of students are not asking whether abortion is right and wrong. Rather they are asking: 'Given that abortion is wrong, how should I handle the situations where pressure is being put upon me to participate?' Let us consider the biblical principles relevant to the discussion and their practical implications.

Conscientious objection - Biblical principles​

The Bible teaches us in both Old and New Testaments that it is God himself who institutes human authorities:
'..the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.' (Dan 4:25)
'The authorities that exist have been established by God.' (Rom 13:1)
Furthermore he expects us to obey them, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13-14)
This raises the issue of what we should do in circumstances where obeying the authority involves disobeying some other command of God. It seems in Scripture that there is a place for godly civil disobedience. Let us consider some examples.
The Hebrew midwives when ordered by the king of Egypt to kill all male Hebrew children refused to do so and as a result we are told that God commended and rewarded them (Ex 1:15-22). Rahab the harlot similarly refused to co-operate with the king of Jericho in handing over the innocent Israelite spies (Jos 2:1-14). She is later praised for her faith in so doing (Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). The prospect of death as a consequence of disobedience to state law did not stop Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow down to the image (Dan 4:6-8), or Daniel persisting with public prayer (Dan 6:1-10). They were defiant and their obedience was rewarded when God intervened miraculously on both occasions to save them.
In the New Testament when Peter and John were commanded by the Jewish authorities not to preach the Gospel they replied 'We must obey God rather than men' and went right on doing it (Acts 5:29). Many of the prophets and apostles and of course Jesus himself were killed precisely because they chose to obey God in what they said and did, in situations where his commands and those of human authorities conflicted.
In John's vision described in Revelation 13 the beast which is given (by God) authority over every tribe, people, language and nation is clearly not to be obeyed in the matter of receiving a mark to enable buying and selling (Rev 13:15-16). To the contrary, those who take the mark ultimately share the fate of the devil himself (Rev 14:9-12).
So while recognising that we have an obligation to obey the governing authorities God has instituted, our obedience to God himself takes precedence when rulings conflict.
If we decide that as Christians we should not be shedding innocent blood (and personally I believe Scripture leaves us no other option; as previously argued[10]) it must follow that in spite of what governments and medical associations may decree, we must obey God first. Any suffering that may follow simply has to be accepted as part of the cost of following Christ in an increasingly godless world. To disobey God for fear of losing career, reputation or respect is surely to make idols of these things. We cannot say that in our hearts we worship God if our actions betray that we don't. Can we imagine Daniel, Shadrach or Jesus himself bottling out at the last moment on the grounds that the cost was too high?
What then of our involvement at other levels? If we decide that as Christian doctors we should not participate in the shedding of innocent blood, then surely this must have implications for other levels of involvement. If we fill out forms authorising abortions, prepare patients for the procedure or refer to others whom we know will do the same aren't we giving tacit approval to the whole process? Shouldn't we rather observe the apostolic directive:
'Do not be partners with them' (Eph 5:7)?
Hasn't the time come to:
'Come out of her my people, so that you will not share in her sins' (Rev 18:4)?
Taking innocent human life is contrary to the whole strategy of medicine. It runs not only counter to Christian ethics but to the Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva, which the BMA not so long ago embraced. It is not we who are advocating change, but rather the legal and the medical establishment who have betrayed their own ethics. Why should we allow them to squeeze us into the same mould?

Practical implications​

On the basis of the above, my own personal advice to medical students and junior doctors is as follows. Do what you can to persuade women not to choose abortion and be aware of all the excellent facilities that now exist in this country (such as those provided by LIFE and CARE for Life) to provide counselling, practical help, advice and support to those with crisis pregnancies. However, don't participate in the abortion process itself, by signing forms, admitting patients, helping in theatre or arranging for someone else to 'do the deed'. Whatever the cost to your career, conscientiously object. If, on the other hand, you have been asked to be involved in the care of patients with post-abortion complications, oblige willingly. I should add that it is wise (if possible) to make your position known to colleagues, before the event arises.
I am well aware that such advice, even if followed with tact and sensitivity, will bring some into conflict with medical, NHS and legal authorities. Many may find, as I and others have, that threats of reprisal often come to nothing. Authorities, be they persons or parties, frequently back off, fearing confrontation even more than we do.
However it is inevitable, given the slide in morals in society generally and the move towards medical care being yet another market commodity, that some of us will face discrimination, dismissal and even criminal conviction.
I am aware of a Christian general practice recently being denied certification for training purposes because the partners were not prepared to provide 'the full range of services' (see below) including abortion referral and contraceptive prescription for unmarried couples. Another CMF member was recently denied the Diploma of the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on the basis that he had refused to fit IUCDs.
When an enquiry was made on behalf of CMF the Chairman of the College Faculty concerned informed us that there was
'a considerable onus on the Faculty to ensure that its qualifications should be recognisable by service purchasers and patients alike as distinguishing doctors who were able to ensure that their patients had access to a full range of contraceptive services'. (Italics mine.)
Regardless of what personal convictions we may hold on the morality of IUCDs, or even for that matter abortion, there is a most worrying precedent here. Rather than being subject to an independent code of ethics and gaining qualifications purely on the basis of medical competence, doctors are being barred from practice in certain fields of medicine because they are unwilling to provide, for ethical reasons, what the market-place is demanding. The irony is that in the two cases cited doctors were discriminated against for insisting on abiding by the Declaration of Geneva[11] which enjoins 'the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception'. Just twelve years ago[12] they would have had the BMA and indeed the World Medical Association (WMA) on their side.

What of the future?​

When further NHS trusts are under the control of non-medical interests, and market forces hold even more sway in an environment of diminishing health resources, one wonders whether 'the full range' of geriatric, psychiatric, intensive care or even general medical services might include euthanasia. Why not? What then?
One thing is certain. Junior doctors who hold Christian convictions are finding it more and more difficult to enter careers in certain specialties and the phenomenon is spreading. Convictions and disciplinary proceedings are inevitable if current trends continue and presently they show no sign of abating. The days of the Christian doctor with strong moral convictions may well be numbered. If the tide is to turn at all (it may already be too late) it will not happen unless those of us in positions of responsibility within the Royal Colleges, NHS Trusts and the BMA speak out. If such members of CMF remain silent, Christian witness in medicine, at least in the form it is practised in this country, may well come to an end. Mordecai's words to Esther, who occupied a position of privilege and responsibility at a similar time of national crisis, are a sober challenge to us:
'Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?' (Es 4:13-14)
References

1. Ars Medicina 1:18. 1994.
2. Dooley D. Conscientious refusal to assist with abortion. BMJ 1994;309:622-3. (10 September)
3. Simpson CGB. Doctors' right to refuse to perform abortions.(letter) BMJ 1994;309:1090 (22 October)
4. Cox D. Doctors' right to refuse to perform abortions. (letter) BMJ 1994;309:1582. (10 December)
5. McCallum RW. Doctors' right to refuse to perform abortions. (letter) BMJ 1994;309:1582. (10 December)
6. Jarvis G. Doctors' and Nurses' right to refuse to participate in abortions. (letter) BMJ 1995;310:669. (11 March)
7. Medical Ethics Today. Its practice and philosophy. BMA's Ethics, Science and Information Division.1993. BMA. pp107-109.
8. Official Report, vol 201; No 37, Part II, 20 December 1991, col 355.
9. Janaway v Salford Health Authority [1989] AC, [1988] 3 All ER 1079 (HL).
10. Saunders P. Abortion- Time to Reconsider. JCMF, October 1994, 40:4, 160:12-17
11. Declaration of Geneva adopted by General Assembly of World Medical Association, Geneva, Switzerland, 1948.
12. The WMA, with the BMA's consent, in 1983 amended the words 'from the time of conception' to 'from its beginning'.

Could you please link the page/article you sourced that from?

 

[Vdubs]

Could you please link the page/article you sourced that from?

not sure, sorry.

 

[Gethelred]

not sure, sorry.

Abortion and Conscientious Objection

During a quiet tea-break as a surgical house officer, I was summoned to the medical superintendent's office. My O&G colleague was busy. Would I please admit some patients for elective termination of pregnancy? In accepting my appointment I had signed...

www.cmf.org.uk

I've had a crack at you before, for using other's words as yours. At least in this case, you didn't seem to do so.

When you copy/paste, please include a link to where you've copy/pasted from. It's the least you can do to ensure that an author gets their provenance.

 

[Vdubs]

Abortion and Conscientious Objection

During a quiet tea-break as a surgical house officer, I was summoned to the medical superintendent's office. My O&G colleague was busy. Would I please admit some patients for elective termination of pregnancy? In accepting my appointment I had signed...

www.cmf.org.uk

I've had a crack at you before, for using other's words as yours. At least in this case, you didn't seem to do so.

When you copy/paste, please include a link to where you've copy/pasted from. It's the least you can do to ensure that an author gets their provenance.

I think it was 1996, very outdated maybe.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Let's start with Books of the Jews which we Christians call the Old Testament, I'm not sure what the Jews call them, but they still have them. Are their writings made up also?

Psalms 117:22
The stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner.

Now the Jews, they're still waiting for that "stone" that the "builders rejected," who the builders are, and of what corner will this "stone" become the head, they know not.

Psalms 44:8
Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Isaias 9:6
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Isaias 53:5
But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

Isaias 53:12
Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.


Now for some New Testament

John 3:13-15
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

Why was the serpent lifted up in the desert?


So my question to you is, why should the Christian not believe that Jesus was the Christ and that he has the new name? (Isaias 62:1-2)

What is your faith?

The Jews know that Jesus existed even if you don't. The Annals of Tacitus may be of interest to you also, if you believe he existed of course lol!

You made me laugh I'll give you that, not as much as watching the Tigers toy with Port on Thursday, but close.

You write as if any of that actually still means anything of value since the Enlightenment.

 

[Roylion]

The Jews know that Jesus existed even if you don't. The Annals of Tacitus may be of interest to you also, if you believe he existed of course lol!]

Tell me about the Annals of Tacitus. What do they demonstrate?

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

You write as if any of that actually still means anything of value since the Enlightenment.

Ask Mikey127 if I'm free to believe what I want?

Was it Voltaire the supporter of free speech that said: "to find out who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticise"? So who rules over you?

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

Tell me about the Annals of Tacitus. What do they demonstrate?

If you couldn't figure it out from the comment I was replying to maybe ask Mikey127, for I'm not here to answer questions. I asked Mikey127 a question but he hasn't responded yet, hopefully he's not dead.

 

[Total Power]

Isaias 9:6
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

All your points been discussed here, Isiah make no reference to Jesus , never did never will. Christians are desperate for this but this is simply not true. Christians often quote Isiah hoping it refers to Jesus, not even close. Love it how Christians quote 53:12 like a dumb Canute, without understanding whom Isiah is referring to here.

Isaiah DIDN'T speak to the Gentiles. It states that whoever authored these Servant Songs believed that God had commissioned them to be the light to the Gentiles. Like personification of Israel, as below. BECAUSE Israel suffered so long in the hands of so many, The Messiah is supposed to come and FREE the Jews from oppressors.

"But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me...and to whom I shall say: 'You are my servant' - I have chosen you and not rejected you." (Isaiah 41:8-9)
"But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!" (Isaiah 44:1)
"Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!" (Isaiah 44:21)
"..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name..." (Isaiah 45:4)
"...say, 'Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)
"...You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory." (Isaiah 49:3)

Going back to your 9:6, basically "but wait, don't despair though all seems lost, trust in Yahweh instead"; this is exactly what Hezekiah (according to 2 Kgs 19) does. Look at Is 9:9 even refers specifically to the fall of the northern kingdom (with its capital Samaria), which is juxtaposed pretty explicitly against the survival of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs.
Going further in Is 10:5, we have the famous "rod of my anger" verse, setting up Assyria as a just punisher of ungodly Israelites. Hezekiah is the perfect foil to this.

In short: The names given to the children are prophetic signs. (Isaiah 8:18) Through Hezekiah's leadership during the Assyrian Crisis, YHWH will prove himself the most powerful god and the everlasting father of His people.

What does it mention above? Jesus? Not even close.

 

[Vdubs]

You write as if any of that actually still means anything of value since the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment is still not mutually exclusive with faith in God

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

All your points been discussed here, Isiah make no reference to Jesus , never did never will. Christians are desperate for this but this is simply not true. Christians often quote Isiah hoping it refers to Jesus, not even close. Love it how Christians quote 53:12 like a dumb Canute, without understanding whom Isiah is referring to here.

Isaiah DIDN'T speak to the Gentiles. It states that whoever authored these Servant Songs believed that God had commissioned them to be the light to the Gentiles. Like personification of Israel, as below. BECAUSE Israel suffered so long in the hands of so many, The Messiah is supposed to come and FREE the Jews from oppressors.

"But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me...and to whom I shall say: 'You are my servant' - I have chosen you and not rejected you." (Isaiah 41:8-9)
"But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!" (Isaiah 44:1)
"Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!" (Isaiah 44:21)
"..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name..." (Isaiah 45:4)
"...say, 'Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)
"...You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory." (Isaiah 49:3)

Going back to your 9:6, basically "but wait, don't despair though all seems lost, trust in Yahweh instead"; this is exactly what Hezekiah (according to 2 Kgs 19) does. Look at Is 9:9 even refers specifically to the fall of the northern kingdom (with its capital Samaria), which is juxtaposed pretty explicitly against the survival of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs.
Going further in Is 10:5, we have the famous "rod of my anger" verse, setting up Assyria as a just punisher of ungodly Israelites. Hezekiah is the perfect foil to this.



What does it mention above? Jesus?

2 Corinthians 3:14-16
But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

Sorry buddy but I don't care for what you believe, the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul persecutor of Christ) teaches me.

 

[Roylion]

If you couldn't figure it out from the comment I was replying to maybe ask Mikey127,

You brought Tacitus into the conversation. I've commented extensively on Tacitus previously. What was the point of you mentioning Tacitus? Surely that isn't a difficult question? Or is it one you just don't want to (or can't) answer.

for I'm not here to answer questions.

What are you here for? To quote Scripture and proselytize your beliefs?

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

What are you here for? To quote Scripture and proselytize your beliefs?

To ask Mikey127 a question, which is what I did, what are you here for?

 

[Kralj Tomislav]

What are you here for? To quote Scripture and proselytize your beliefs?

That question could've been asked of Total Power on this thread called "Ask a Christian" also lol! But you've decided to ask it of me, I wonder why, maybe because you find me more interesting.

 

[Vdubs]

That question could've been asked of Total Power on this thread called "Ask a Christian" also lol! But you've decided to ask it of me, I wonder why, maybe because you find me more interesting.

You nailed that. This has not been Ask A Christian for some years.
But while these guys are still here year after year, seeking the truth, some of us Christians pop in from time to time to try and help.

 

[Roylion]

To ask Mikey127 a question, which is what I did, what are you here for?

To challenge and dissect claims to truth on a public discussion forum. Especially those claims to truth that do not have robust supporting evidence.

 

[Roylion]

That question could've been asked of Total Power on this thread called "Ask a Christian"

But I asked you. You mentioned it. Can't you answer it? Or do you, like many others, now start with the obfuscation and evasiveness?

maybe because you find me more interesting.

Not really. You appear just to be the latest in a long line of proselytizers on here. I just want an answer.

 

[Roylion]

But while these guys are still here year after year, seeking the truth, some of us Christians pop in from time to time to try and help.

Your efforts have been very disappointing so far.

 

[Vdubs]

To challenge and dissect claims to truth on a public discussion forum. Especially those claims to truth that do not have robust supporting evidence.

Your knowledge of history and your apparent Enlightenment seem to be trumped by those who are also enlightened yet have faith. You may need to examine the source of the truth, Jesus Himself, instead of people who have found the truth. No person is ever going to convince a person like you. You will always win every debate on here, yet there is still something missing - really why else would you bother coming here?

 

[Vdubs]

Your efforts have been very disappointing so far.

No efforts at all. See my last post/

 

[Roylion]

Your knowledge of history and your apparent Enlightenment seem to be trumped by those who are also enlightened yet have faith.

No, I don't think so. Faith is not some higher plane of knowledge. Nor is it 'truth'.

You may need to examine the source of the truth, Jesus Himself, instead of people who have found the truth.

The Jesus of the Gospels is essentially a myth.

really why else would you bother coming here?

I've explained this before to you many times, yet you still ask the same question.

This is a public discussion forum, not a proselytizing forum.

Claims to truth on a public discussion forum without robust supporting evidence are entitled to be challenged, dissected and queried.

 

[Roylion]

No efforts at all. See my last post/

Your attempts to 'help' are disappointing and unconvincing.