Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Vdubs]

What you presented Vdubs is an opinion piece by S. Joshua Swamidass from the The Veritas Forum. This is the same scientist that attempts to argue that "A de novo-created Adam and Eve could very well be universal human ancestors who lived in the Middle East in the last 6,000-10,000 years’, despite providing limited evidence in support and couching his theory in a way where it is unfalsifiable.

Still at least he acknowledges the “undeniable scientific truth” that the human population evolved from ancestor ape species and shares common descent with all living things.

Natalie Angier, an American nonfiction writer and a science journalist for The New York Times, once wrote somewhat incredulously.

"I admit I'm surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph.D, who might in an afternoon deftly puree a colleague's PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like "Resurrection from the Dead," and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn't the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?”



Recorded history? Where is the resurrection mentioned in anything other than Gospels, which are written not as history but as theological works?



The Gospels were clearly written to show how Jesus was the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. Jesus' followers were expecting him to be the messiah, and part of that role involved surviving long enough to be the messiah! As most devout religious sects do when their expectations fail, the disciples sought an explanation, and they found one in the idea of resurrection. If anything, it looks more like they would've had every predisposition not to face reality, if their messiah died.

In an essay titled, "When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists" social psychologist Lorne L. Dawson explained the various ways in which religious groups deal with prophetic failure. If the group is large enough and willing to retain a sense of community, there is a great chance of stemming off disappointment. If the leaders act quickly to provide some rationalization or explanation of the failure, labeling it as a "test of faith", elaborating that the event really did happen on a spiritual and unseen level, or chalking it up to human error, there is an even stronger chance that the group will survive. Quoting two other social psychologists, Dawson writes that, "Beliefs may withstand the pressure of disconfirming events not because of the effectiveness of dissonance-reducing strategies, but because disconfirming evidence may simply go unacknowledged".

In other words, deeply invested believers may be known to count the hits and just ignore the misses.



What happened in a cave on Mount Hira near Mecca so many years ago that reframed all human history? Muhammad also had an enormous influence on world history, as his followers later spread Islam through much of the world through their conquests



No they don’t. Which “prophecies”? The Gospels and Acts were manufactured so that the followers of Jesus could claim him to be the messiah, to grow their following because he supposedly fulfilled prophecy.

If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient ‘prophecy’ should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right.



No they didn’t, Crucifixion was known to the Persians, Carthaginians, Greeks and Macedonians before the Romans used it as a common form of punishment.



That is disputed by many Biblical scholars as well as Jewish scholars who suggest that Isaiah's "servant" rather represents the nation of Israel, not Jesus as the messiah.



Certainly by the time the Gospels came to be written, the writers of the Gospels took pains to interpret Jesus through the Jewish scriptures: indeed they presented Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish scriptures. In the opening verse, Mark wrote: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it in written in the prophets."



That is not confirmed. The only report of “blood and water” comes from the Gospel of John. The other Synoptic Gospels do not mention it.



An examination of the Gospels themselves indicate that the “Resurrection” story was embellished over a very short time in history. Even between them there are contradictions. For example in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus' followers wait far from the cross and Jesus never talks to them. In John, they wait right by the cross, and Jesus talks to both a disciple and his mother.



There are only four resurrection accounts and their reliability is in question. None were eyewitness accounts. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. Biblical scholars W.D. Davies and E.P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus' early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”



See above.



None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven. And then he sees Jesus - yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.

The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for.

In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.

That is the last record of any Christian martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D. but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection or any of their other beliefs. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed - after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It's not what they died for.

We therefore have to look outside the bible for the familiar stories of the early Christian martyrs, which come primarily from the 2nd and 3rd century authors Hippolytus and Eusebius. Written over a hundred years after the disciples supposedly met their various ends, these accounts can only be chalked up to tradition, and the authors did not disclose their sources. However, Hippolytus reports natural deaths for four of the twelve disciples (John, Matthew, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot), which means that, along with Judas/Matthias, nearly half of the disciples were not martyred under any tradition.

When we turn to the gospels we also see that their traditional authors Matthew and John died of natural causes, and Mark and Luke were not among the twelve disciples or among those who witnessed the resurrection. Mark and Luke, even if they had died for their faith, were not present at the tomb or the ascension and so would not likely have known their beliefs to be misplaced. Paul, who purportedly authored almost half the New Testament, was also not present during the resurrection, only seeing Jesus in a vision sometime later.

Traditions of martyrdom for figures like Thomas and Philip don't come until approximately 100-150 years after their deaths. This should be enough to raise suspicion as to the authenticity of such martyrdom legends, and it is also worth noting that people have been made into martyrs after the fact by their followers, when they may have been killed without any chance to recant their faith.



No. Why should it be?



There’s little indication that this refers to Jesus, irrespective of when it was written.



Especially as the miracle of the physical resurrection of Jesus never happened.

Here’s some more naturalistic explanations that fit the so-called “historical facts” far more plausibly than the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Jesus is hastily buried in a tomb because of the Sabbath. Two of Jesus’ family members are upset that an unknown Jewish leader has buried the body. In the dead of night, these two family members raid the tomb, taking the body off to bury it for themselves. But Roman soldiers on the lookout see them carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets, they confront them, and they kill them on the spot. They throw all three bodies into a common burial plot, where within three days these bodies are decomposed beyond recognition. The tomb then is empty. People go to the tomb, they find it empty, they come to think that Jesus was raised from the dead, and they start thinking they’ve seen him because they know he’s been raised because his tomb is empty.

This may be an unlikely scenario not supported by specific evidence, but you can’t object that it’s impossible to have happened because it’s not impossible at all. People did raid tombs. Soldiers did kill civilians on the least pretext. People were buried in common graves, left to rot. It’s not likely and we have no real evidence that it ever happened, but it’s FAR more likely than the miracle of bodily resurrection, which is so unlikely, that you have to appeal to supernatural intervention to make it work. The alternative explanation above is at least plausible, and it’s historical, as opposed to the idea that Jesus physically rose from the dead, which is not historical. In fact, bodily resurrection from being literally dead, is the LEAST likely explanation for the “facts”.

You are thorough, meticulous and likely brilliant.
Every explanation you deliver seems to point to your pov.
But the highlighted can not be absolutely vindicated either.
It is up to you now to prove that.
We believe it did , by faith, and by what has been said, but you are utterly stating it never happened.

 

[Total Power]

The gospel of John was written around AD 90–110, 50-70 years after the events it purports to describe. It's a highly symbolic account of the ministry of Jesus and I agree it is significantly different to the other Synoptic Gospels, being even more theological than the earlier three..

By the time of the composition of John, the legend of Jesus as told in the earlier Synoptic Gospels has now grown considerably. Instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. John now has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes considerable license to make up quite a few details. To reinforce that notion the story of the raising of Lazarus was added, a totally new 'miracle.'

The number 7 features also prominently. Seven signs. Seven "I am" discourses. Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" which unveil his divine identity. John also contains metaphorical stories or allegories rather than parables. As history or the recording of an actual event its is virtually worthless. What it does show is how Christians of the early 2nd century were beginning to view Jesus.

Even Clement of Alexandria implied that the Gospel of John should not be taken as a literal biography.

By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified the author of the Gospel with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship, are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".

So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” he/they lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and had a completely different level of education. It certainlu cannot have been the apostle John and was thus certainly not an eyewitness to any of the purported miracles including the resurrection.

The 'Gospel according to John' also appears to have been composed in two or three stages. The earliest surviving New Testament manuscript with parts of what appear to be from the Gospel according to John is a Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Egypt in 1920. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland list the probable date for this manuscript as c. AD. 125, indicating that at least one stage of John was in existence at this time.

Thanks for confirming this.

John is usually considered the least reliable because it's thought to be the latest, the furthest removed from teh source. It's also very different than the other three, especially in how Jesus speaks. The others have their own problems.

Matthew and Luke have very different birth narratives (impossible for them both to be true) and the gospels have events that don't match history as we know it. No one would be called back to the city their family came from for a census, and wives would not be required to go with husbands. There is no other attestation of a tradition of a prisoner being freed on Passover. The trial of Jesus as depicted in the gospels does not match what we know of how things worked at the time. Mark has geographical errors, indicating whoever wrote it wasn't familiar with the area. And so on, and so on.

And, of course, Luke and Matthew have a large amount that is the same (word-for-word the same) as Mark, indicating they used Mark as a source rather than independently recording what happened of what happened.

 

[Roylion]

But the highlighted can not be absolutely vindicated either.
It is up to you now to prove that.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not making the claim that something supernatural occurred.

We believe it did , by faith, and by what has been said, but you are utterly stating it never happened.

There is absolutely no supporting evidence that such an extraordinary event ever actually happened.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity. Accepting something as truth by blind faith backed up by little to no actual evidence is no doubt a far easier and less intellectually demanding task. Works in every and any situation. "Faith" doesn't really need logical, coherent reasons for belief. With faith any imagined phenomena can be claimed as "true"

Benjamin Franklin once said "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." When you leave reasoning and start believing than nothing is reasonable and everything is believable.

Thomas Huxley said much the same. "Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

American philosopher, educator, and popular author Mortimer Adler: "I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought."

Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli-American psychologist and economist notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making: "We know that people can maintain an unshakable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded believers".

Sociologist DaShanne Stokes said, "If you truly have faith in your convictions, then your convictions should be able to stand criticism and testing."

 

[chelseacarlton]

Possibly the most complimentary thing you've said to me on this thread.
Our 3 adult kids sadly still have not seen our light- they are in our prayers at times.
But where do your stars come from?
Your third line- could you please explain?

That’s good to hear.
3: Your entire belief system, along with Judaism, from which is was born and Islam, has as it’s very core, that this world must end, the apocalypse, the end of days etc.
Many on this planet spend vast amounts of money to ensure that this occurs, myself, amongst many that now outnumber you folks, will not allow this to happen.
In order for your Jesus to come back, your belief system requires that the end of time is always near, approaching etc, much like Donald Trumps ‘health care policy’ which never seems to eventuate.
You may see me as crass, derogatory, arrogant, whatever name or label you wish to apply to me, but one thing I can assure you and your middle eastern mythological brethren of, is that I am the child of the enlightenment and we are here to destroy your evidenceless nonsense, in order that our species fulfils its potential, without archaic interference.
And you wonder why there are no Jews, Christians or Muslims on Star Trek!
Because you are on the wrong side of the ledger, your lot are geelong in the 2020 grand final, Patrick Dangerfield is not the messiah!

Jeez I hope Higgins and 3 first rounders Jez don’t come back to bite me on the arse, shall we bookmark this post?

 

[Total Power]

That’s good to hear.
3: Your entire belief system, along with Judaism, from which is was born and Islam, has as it’s very core, that this world must end, the apocalypse, the end of days etc.
Many on this planet spend vast amounts of money to ensure that this occurs, myself, amongst many that now outnumber you folks, will not allow this to happen.
In order for your Jesus to come back, your belief system requires that the end of time is always near, approaching etc, much like Donald Trumps ‘health care policy’ which never seems to eventuate.
You may see me as crass, derogatory, arrogant, whatever name or label you wish to apply to me, but one thing I can assure you and your middle eastern mythological brethren of, is that I am the child of the enlightenment and we are here to destroy your evidenceless nonsense, in order that our species fulfils its potential, without archaic interference.
And you wonder why there are no Jews, Christians or Muslims on Star Trek!
Because you are on the wrong side of the ledger, your lot are geelong in the 2020 grand final, Patrick Dangerfield is not the messiah!

Jeez I hope Higgins and 3 first rounders Jez don’t come back to bite me on the arse, shall we bookmark this post?

Make sure you send the email and invite Jesus into your life! instant benefits specially if you are white and from a first world country! don't choose Allah or any other fake gods out there.

 

[Gethelred]

You did not have faith. Never. Nothing to be at issue with.

****ing what?

You know this how? You've never met him. You've only conversed with him post his deconversion. Now - this is not the first time you've done this, either - you're presuming to make sweeping judgements of other people and their faith based on nothing.

Do yourself a favour, and pull your head in a bit.

 

[Vdubs]

******* what?

You know this how? You've never met him. You've only conversed with him post his deconversion. Now - this is not the first time you've done this, either - you're presuming to make sweeping judgements of other people and their faith based on nothing.

Do yourself a favour, and pull your head in a bit.

By definition.
One does not understand the Trinity without faith.
It's not an insult.
It's a fact.
To be a Christian means accepting that the Trinity is what it is, that God, the Son, and The Spirit are one.

 

[Gethelred]

By definition.
One does not understand the Trinity without faith.
It's not an insult.
It's a fact.
To be a Christian means accepting that the Trinity is what it is, that God, the Son, and The Spirit are one.

You continue to arbitrarily decide for other people what being Christian means for them on their terms. This is hubris of the highest order, and is a sin. Perhaps you could reconsider your position, so as to avoid joining the rest of us sinners in the pit at the end of it all, hmm?

Or, take my advice, admit you don't know, and pull your head in as recommended.

 

[Vdubs]

You continue to arbitrarily decide for other people what being Christian means for them on their terms. This is hubris of the highest order, and is a sin. Perhaps you could reconsider your position, so as to avoid joining the rest of us sinners in the pit at the end of it all, hmm?

Or, take my advice, admit you don't know, and pull your head in as recommended.

You and your cohorts have no issue laughing at snide remarks about what it means to have faith.
Why are you so upset about this issue with the Trinity.
It is purely a faith issue.
It is not based on anything else.
I have been communicating with some of you for most of this year, particularly the person in question, and am therefore entitled to offer an opinion regarding faith.
So unless directed at yourself, why not pull your own head in. Not your issue.

 

[Gethelred]

You and your cohorts have no issue laughing at snide remarks about what it means to have faith.
Why are you so upset about this issue with the Trinity.

I take issue with the presumption you have made that allows you to declare another person without faith for any reason. How is their interpretation of their religion any better or worse than yours is?

This is the same thinking that leads to religious war and conflicts, which is why I am 'upset'. So - for the third time - pull your head in.

It is purely a faith issue.
It is not based on anything else.
I have been communicating with some of you for most of this year, particularly the person in question, and am therefore entitled to offer an opinion regarding faith.
So unless directed at yourself, why not pull your own head in. Not your issue.

...

I'm making it my issue, hence my posting on it. You're starting to come across as a fundamentalist in manner, in which you can decide who is worthy of faith and who is not. I have zero issue with what you believe; I have maximum issue with you mistreating people based on it.

You are not the Pope, nor are you any kind of spiritual authority on this earth; if you are, feel free to share your credentials with us. But until you do, whenever you make a statement so total and complete, expect to be pulled up on it. Don't get pissy because you don't like being examined.

 

[Vdubs]

I take issue with the presumption you have made that allows you to declare another person without faith for any reason. How is their interpretation of their religion any better or worse than yours is?

This is the same thinking that leads to religious war and conflicts, which is why I am 'upset'. So - for the third time - pull your head in.

...

I'm making it my issue, hence my posting on it. You're starting to come across as a fundamentalist in manner, in which you can decide who is worthy of faith and who is not. I have zero issue with what you believe; I have maximum issue with you mistreating people based on it.

You are not the Pope, nor are you any kind of spiritual authority on this earth; if you are, feel free to share your credentials with us. But until you do, whenever you make a statement so total and complete, expect to be pulled up on it. Don't get pissy because you don't like being examined.

It's not a better or worse situation.
It's not me deciding who is worthy of faith.
Faith is the only way a person can believe in the Trinity.
It is not academic.
The Pope or any spiritual authority is irrelevant in this discussion, but for the sake of peace, I will cease this discussion with you.

 

[Gethelred]

It's not a better or worse situation.
It's not me deciding who is worthy of faith.
Faith is the only way a person can believe in the Trinity.
It is not academic.
The Pope or any spiritual authority is irrelevant in this discussion, but for the sake of peace, I will cease this discussion with you.

You decided that Evolved1 was not a christian - ever - based on not understanding something. You completely and wholly decided the substance of his faith in the past was not up to your standards.

Feel free to run away. This argument is an ugly look for you.

 

[chelseacarlton]

You decided that Evolved1 was not a christian - ever - based on not understanding something. You completely and wholly decided the substance of his faith in the past was not up to your standards.

Feel free to run away. This argument is an ugly look for you.

Ahh, he ‘No True Scotsmanned’ Evolved?
Well I never......

 

[Vdubs]

You decided that Evolved1 was not a christian - ever - based on not understanding something. You completely and wholly decided the substance of his faith in the past was not up to your standards.

Feel free to run away. This argument is an ugly look for you.

Doesn't matter what I think of his faith. If he was ever a Christian, so be it, but Christians accept the Trinity. We accept that Jesus is God, and that God uses His Holy Spirit to empower Christians in their walk with life once they have accepted Jesus into their lives.
I thought you wanted this discussion to stop, but feel free to continue with your pseudo-indignation.

 

[Vdubs]

You decided that Evolved1 was not a christian - ever - based on not understanding something. You completely and wholly decided the substance of his faith in the past was not up to your standards.

Feel free to run away. This argument is an ugly look for you.

And if that was true, you call this mistreating do you?

 

[Gethelred]

Doesn't matter what I think of his faith. If he was ever a Christian, so be it, but Christians accept the Trinity. We accept that Jesus is God, and that God uses His Holy Spirit to empower Christians in their walk with life once they have accepted Jesus into their lives.
I thought you wanted this discussion to stop, but feel free to continue with your pseudo-indignation.

Who are you to declare my indignation fake, either?

You accept what you have been told to accept, and because you refuse to look at it with anything nearing thought. Putting to one side the egregious notion that you alone can decide unequivocally that another is not faithful and that's it, perhaps you could - instead - instead of blaming the student who learned poorly or seeks clarification blame the teacher or the teaching? Is it always the fault of a student?

What I want is for you to realise that your attitude here is medieval, in the worst possible way. You are coming wholly to conclusions based on doctrine, and the only thing separating you from an Inquisitor or a Crusader is time.

And if that was true, you call this mistreating do you?

I do. We question your belief, but never your right to hold it.

You denied completely the entire idea of his faith. Fortunate for him that he deconverted since. Imagine if someone within your church did that to you, on the basis of what you've penned in here, and they all collectively shunned you for not being 'christian' enough.

This isn't even about atheism vs theism, or christians vs atheism. This is about liberalism, and about avoiding criminalizing thought, making distinctions between thought and making arbitrary hierarchies denoting value. That is not a road I want to travel.

 

[Boston tiger]

No amount of logic and evidence can challenge strong faith. If any religion had sufficient evidence to justify acceptance of its tenents, there would be no need for faith.

Christianity goes close ...Multiple witnesses of someone’s actions that no one disputes until much much later ...takes a fair bit of unpicking.
( witness v faith )

Koran .. God told me to write it .. no witnesses it is pure faith based.

 

[Vdubs]

Who are you to declare my indignation fake, either?

You accept what you have been told to accept, and because you refuse to look at it with anything nearing thought. Putting to one side the egregious notion that you alone can decide unequivocally that another is not faithful and that's it, perhaps you could - instead - instead of blaming the student who learned poorly or seeks clarification blame the teacher or the teaching? Is it always the fault of a student?

What I want is for you to realise that your attitude here is medieval, in the worst possible way. You are coming wholly to conclusions based on doctrine, and the only thing separating you from an Inquisitor or a Crusader is time.

I do. We question your belief, but never your right to hold it.

You denied completely the entire idea of his faith. Fortunate for him that he deconverted since. Imagine if someone within your church did that to you, on the basis of what you've penned in here, and they all collectively shunned you for not being 'christian' enough.

This isn't even about atheism vs theism, or christians vs atheism. This is about liberalism, and about avoiding criminalizing thought, making distinctions between thought and making arbitrary hierarchies denoting value. That is not a road I want to travel.

over the top

 

[Gethelred]

over the top

Again, who are you to decide what is over the top?

 

[chelseacarlton]

Christianity goes close ...Multiple witnesses of someone’s actions that no one disputes until much much later ...takes a fair bit of unpicking.
( witness v faith )

Koran .. God told me to write it .. no witnesses it is pure faith based.

There were no witnesses.
You pretend there were “because it’s says so right here in my book”.
Muslims use it, Jews use it, Mormon’s use it etc.
No verified historical witnesses.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Who are you to declare my indignation fake, either?

You accept what you have been told to accept, and because you refuse to look at it with anything nearing thought. Putting to one side the egregious notion that you alone can decide unequivocally that another is not faithful and that's it, perhaps you could - instead - instead of blaming the student who learned poorly or seeks clarification blame the teacher or the teaching? Is it always the fault of a student?

What I want is for you to realise that your attitude here is medieval, in the worst possible way. You are coming wholly to conclusions based on doctrine, and the only thing separating you from an Inquisitor or a Crusader is time.

I do. We question your belief, but never your right to hold it.

You denied completely the entire idea of his faith. Fortunate for him that he deconverted since. Imagine if someone within your church did that to you, on the basis of what you've penned in here, and they all collectively shunned you for not being 'christian' enough.

This isn't even about atheism vs theism, or christians vs atheism. This is about liberalism, and about avoiding criminalizing thought, making distinctions between thought and making arbitrary hierarchies denoting value. That is not a road I want to travel.

It’s the classic christian █████ card.
“You were never a real Christian if you’ve left”.
It’s as pathetic as it is dangerous, no different to extreme islamists, if they could rewrite the bible to include apostasy laws, they would do so without hesitation.
Many Muslims scholars have said that with the apostasy laws, Islam would have failed hundreds of years ago.
The Abrahamic cults are built on fear and fear alone, despicable entities.

 

[Boston tiger]

There were no witnesses.
You pretend there were “because it’s says so right here in my book”.
Muslims use it, Jews use it, Mormon’s use it etc.
No verified historical witnesses.

There were no witnesses ? Christianity is based on a man who walked this earth. He had followers who witnessed his ministry.Main stream academia strongly supports this. You can call his followers liars if you wish. ( Book 300 years later)

Christianity happened .. it’s not a story. It didn’t come from a book. A book came from Christianity.
As I said there is a lot of unpicking to be done regarding Christianity.

Islam I am guessing is a prophet /book based religion.

 

[chelseacarlton]

There were no witnesses ? Christianity is based on a man who walked this earth. He had followers who witnessed his ministry.Main stream academia strongly supports this. You can call his followers liars if you wish. ( Book 300 years later)

Christianity happened .. it’s not a story. It didn’t come from a book. A book came from Christianity.
As I said there is a lot of unpicking to be done regarding Christianity.

Islam I am guessing is a prophet /book based religion.

Jesus is just a prophet in Islam.
They believe he was never crucified, never came back to life and wasn’t the “son of god”, I only differ with them in that he wasn’t a prophet of a non existent creator.
There was probably a guy claiming all the things written in the bible, but he wasn’t born of a virgin, perform miracles and was just a rabble rouser and antagnost against an oppressive regime, people dug him for it and created a myth.

 

[Vdubs]

Again, who are you to decide what is over the top?

 

[Gethelred]

Trite.