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.

 

[Markfs]

The claims by Christians is that three out of the four traditional Gospel writers were eyewitnesses (the exception being Luke). The evidence for that is extremely flimsy.

i must admit that i did write my last post thinking the gospel writers were from later years....which meant that I forgot that some people attribute the names to similar named apostles, which is an interesting theory that uneducated fishermen wrote flowery narratives....but the holy ghost does great things..... and i also remember some stuff that i read years ago on this that made the gospels at least a friend of a friend documents.

At any rate, I would still say that being or not being eyewitness accounts, is not definitive on accuracy, although I personally would find something guaranteed to be written by eyewitnesses to be far more persuasive than something from anonymous writers.

 

[Markfs]

.

the fact is that he’s already been accepted as god through time and custom and AU, in all its independence, is legally vested in the Queen through her Gov General; and our Queen is the head of her Christian church. Roy and his wonderfully interesting theories are merely that. Even TP’s objection that custom may have itself been influenced by the church is interesting but means little. It is what it is.

you forgot to call me names..

and as far as our parliament praying to god, i cannot believe that we still maintain something like that.. it is beyond rational thinking that members of parliament voted for and paid for by the populace pray to a christian god.....

 

[Roylion]

the fact is that he’s already been accepted as god through time and custom and AU, in all its independence, is legally vested in the Queen through her Gov General; and our Queen is the head of her Christian church.

That is completely irrelevant to determining the actual historicity of the events described in the Gospels.

 

[Opine]

That is completely irrelevant to determining the actual historicity of the events described in the Gospels.

He applied a legal example, I expanded on it. It’s relevant to his post and to the burden in this whole argument. See, I don’t think others are asking you to accept anything. Rather, it’s you that’s camped out in a Christian thread insisting that they need to prove to you why they should believe the veracity of what’s already been accepted.

 

[Roylion]

rather it’s you that’s camped out in a Christian thread insisting that they to prove to you why they should believe the veracity of what’s already been accepted.

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.

 

[Opine]

you forgot to call me names..

and as far as our parliament praying to god, i cannot believe that we still maintain something like that.. it is beyond rational thinking that members of parliament voted for and paid for by the populace pray to a christian god.....

You refrained from referring to my Catholic mother and daughter as 2nd class citizens and incapable of deciding if/when to have children so there was no need to call you names. As for our nation being vested in the queen as head of the church it is what it is.

 

[Opine]

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.

I understand that.

 

[Opine]

you forgot to call me names..

and as far as our parliament praying to god, i cannot believe that we still maintain something like that.. it is beyond rational thinking that members of parliament voted for and paid for by the populace pray to a christian god.....

To be clear, I didn’t say our parliament prays to god. Rather, I said that our nation is vested in the Queen through her Governor General, the former of which is head of the Christian Church.

 

[Markfs]

You refrained from referring to my Catholic mother and daughter as 2nd class citizens and incapable of deciding if/when to have children so there was no need to call you names. As for our nation being vested in the queen as head of the church it is what it is.

christian logic eh...and i accept the people will want to retain old stuff after its useby date. Just look at how the constitution has assisted in handling the covid situation or even the djoker fiasco. But people will continue to listen to a former radio presenters who flashed in hung around london toilets, or their queen loving mates, just as they hold firmly on to old books with old stories that catered to the uneducated millenia ago..

 

[Markfs]

To be clear, I didn’t say our parliament prays to god. Rather, I said that our nation is vested in the Queen through her Governor General, the former of which is head of the Christian Church.

To be clear, I didnt say anything about your family but lets not let a little fact get in the way.... I understand christian logic... it is what it is

 

[Roylion]

To be clear, I didn’t say our parliament prays to god. Rather, I said that our nation is vested in the Queen through her Governor General, the former of which is head of the Christian Church.

We are a secular state.

Anglicanism was never established as a state religion in Australia, as it was in England. While the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the "Church of England in Australia" has its own head. The "Church of England in Australia" has, since August 1981, been known as the "Anglican Church of Australia". Since 1 January 1962 the Australian church has been autocephalous (which means its primate does not report to any higher ranking official such as the Queen) and as such is headed by its own primate.

The monarch of Australia has no religious role in Australia. The primate of the Anglican Church of Australia is Geoffrey Smith the Archbishop of Adelaide.

 

[Opine]

christian logic eh...and i accept the people will want to retain old stuff after its useby date. Just look at how the constitution has assisted in handling the covid situation or even the djoker fiasco. But people will continue to listen to a former radio presenters who flashed in hung around london toilets, or their queen loving mates, just as they hold firmly on to old books with old stories that catered to the uneducated millenia ago..

I really don’t understand what you’re on about with your toilet comment. But, it might surprise you to learn that, despite being raised as Catholic, I’m furiously in favour of a republic. It might also surprise you to learn that the appointed head of the republican movement here in Australia during our last serious debate and referendum was also a Catholic; he went on to be an AU Prime Minister. Things aren’t as divisively black and white as you seem to suggest.

 

[Opine]

We are a secular state.

Anglicanism was never established as a state religion in Australia, as it was in England. While the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the "Church of England in Australia" has its own head. The "Church of England in Australia" has, since August 1981, been known as the "Anglican Church of Australia". Since 1 January 1962 the Australian church has been autocephalous (which means its primate does not report to any higher ranking official such as the Queen) and as such is headed by its own primate.

The monarch of Australia has no religious role in Australia. The primate of the Anglican Church of Australia is Geoffrey Smith the Archbishop of Adelaide.

Australia’s sovereignty and all its resultant independence is vested in the Queen. We chose to be independent and secular and enshrined that in our constitution. But only after our Queen, who is also head of the church, agreed to permit us to do so; by amongst other things signing the Australia Act. Our nation remains vested in her and she is still head of the Christian church; we’re born of her and her church. No Wiki here..

 

[Markfs]

at some stage, a royal might want some nookie with someone who isnt his wife, and he can start another christian sect and we can make that the official religion of australia...

 

[Roylion]

Australia’s sovereignty and all its resultant independence is vested in the Queen.

It is. She is the Queen of Australia.

But only after our Queen, who is also head of the church,

Head of the Church of England. In 1901 the Church was England was not made the state religion of Australia, as it is in England.

Our nation remains vested in her and she is still head of the Christian church;

She is head of a Christian church, NOT the Christian chiurch. Moreover that Christian church she is head of, is not the state religion of this country.

we’re born of her and her church.

So what. European settlement in this country has been predominately by Christians. So?

 

[Opine]

It is. She is the Queen of Australia.



Head of the Church of England. In 1901 the Church was England was not made the state religion of Australia, as it is in England.



She is head of a Christian church, NOT the Christian chiurch. Moreover that Christian church she is head of, is not the state religion of this country.



So what. European settlement in this country has been predominately by Christians. So?

If you compound your points I’ll pick one or none, I’ve told you this before, it’s a poor way to converse. Also you focus on a typo? You argue like a spoilt brat.

Preamble to our CURRENT Australian Constitution states that the people of the six self-governing colonies agree to federate into a Commonwealth while 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God

Section 2 goes on to continue to proclaim the Queen as AU monarch.

Any burden falls on you as you’re claiming otherwise; insofar as there being no god,

 

[Roylion]

If you compound your points I’ll pick one or none, I’ve told you this before, it’s a poor way to converse. Also you focus on a typo? You argue like a spoilt brat.

The Christian church is different to a Christian church. The use of "The" implies that the Queen is head of Christianity in Australia. She's not.

Preamble to our CURRENT Australian Constitution states that the people of the six self-governing colonies agree to federate into a Commonwealth while 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God

Section 2 goes on to continue to proclaim the Queen as AU monarch.

Yes? So?

Any burden falls on you as you’re claiming otherwise,

Burden of what. I'm not claiming anything.

All I've said is Australia is a secular country and whether or not Australia has a Christian background is irrelevant to determining the actual historicity of the events described in the Gospels.

 

[Opine]

The Christian church is different to a Christian church. The use of "The" implies that the Queen is head of Christianity in Australia. She's not.



Yes? So?



Burden of what. I'm not claiming anything.

All I've said is Australia is a secular country and whether or not Australia has a Christian background is irrelevant to determining the actual historicity of the events described in the Gospels.

Pick one point which one?

 

[Opine]

Pick one point which one?

Roylion , it doesn’t matter, they all go to one thing. the burden falls on YOU to prove otherwise than has already been clearly accepted. You’ve presented some interesting arguments and theories, not proof as you keep implying

 

[Roylion]

Roylion , it doesn’t matter, they all go to one thing. the burden falls on YOU to prove otherwise than has already been clearly accepted.

Well of course it has been accepted by believers. That still doesn't make the events believed in - such as the Resurrection - historically true.

You’ve presented some interesting arguments and theories, not proof as you keep implying

Proof of what? Jesus was very likely / almost certainly executed by the Romans as a criminal most likely on a charge of sedition. Whether you or anyone else thinks he was really innocent is immaterial. It's not the point I am making.

 

[Opine]

Well of course it has been accepted by believers. That still doesn't make the events believed in - such as the Resurrection - historically true.



Proof of what. Jesus was very likely / almost certainly executed by the Romans as a criminal most likely on a charge of sedition. Whether you or anyone else thinks he was really innocent is immaterial. It's not the point I am making.

I’m particularly interested in your last point, it seems to be a major sticking point in your discussion with Rosscoe. Why does it really matter whether JC was technically convicted of a lawful crime? I can only presume the point you’re trying to make is that he was of bad character?

 

[Markfs]

we should get prince andrew in to head the catholic church in australia....horses for courses

 

[Roylion]

I’m particularly interested in your last point, it seems to be a major sticking point in your discussion with Rosscoe. Why does it really matter whether JC was technically convicted of a lawful crime?

It doesn't. I'm answering his question from a historical point of view.

I can only presume the point you’re trying to make is that he was of bad character?

Not at all. Whether he was or wasn't is irrelevant.

 

[Opine]

It doesn't. I'm answering his question from a historical point of view.



Not at all. Whether he was or wasn't is irrelevant.

If I’m not mistaken, you seem to be asserting that he was nonetheless a convicted criminal, and that it is what it is regardless of the morality of the underlying process or charge; or lack thereof. In response Rosscoe seems to pushing the moral point that it was a false crime. Am I wrong in my inference?

I’m not setting you up for any point other than to perhaps explain that you both may be right or wrong, and that it’s a common ethical dilemma in these sorts of questions.

 

[Roylion]

If I’m not mistaken, you seem to be asserting that he was nonetheless a convicted criminal, and that it is what it is regardless of the morality of the underlying process or charge; or lack thereof.

I've made that clear from the start.

But correct. Historcially why did Pontius Pilate have Jesus executed by the Roman punishment of crucifixion? Stoning by blasphemy was a Jewish punishment. Beheading by the sword or axe was reserved for Roman citizens.