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.

 

[Opine]

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.

Although you’re looking at the question through a technicaly historical process, you’re still only a step from your underlying bias on this question; that’s clear from some of your other arguments. I’m also somewhat bias due to my upbringing. Rosscoe is entirely bias because of his solid faith and belief. None of us is objective enough or close enough to what really happened. Only science is truely objective and that’s where the real answer lies.

 

[Opine]

But it still makes for good discussion

 

[Roylion]

Although you’re looking at the question through a technicaly historical process, you’re still only a step from your underlying bias on this question; that’s clear from some of your other arguments.

I've made it very clear that I do not accept scripture as inerrant, nor as the word of god. I see no reason to accept the contents of the Old Testament or the New Testament as the 'word of god'. You can add the Quran to that as well

Only science is truely objective and that’s where the real answer lies.

We look at the context of the events described (which are argued as historical) the agenda of the Gospel writers, engage in textual analysis (structure of sentences, use of verbs in the original language that the Gospel was writtten to determined the background of the possible writer) as well as look for corroborating external evidence such as archaeological artifacts and other contemporary writings to confirm the probability of a described event being historical. Even other contemporous Gospels that weren't included in the canon are examined closely by experts in various fields.

I've said all this previously.

 

[carltonchelsea]

People could not even spell their own names, during those times.

Yet they were convinced apparently, that they were witnessing the creator of the universe hanging on a cross?
Yes, they weren’t real bright were they?
Not much has changed for a cupla billion people!

 

[carltonchelsea]

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.

And the military, yoiks!

 

[carltonchelsea]

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.

In the eyes of the Catholic Church hierarchy, that is exactly what they are, neither could ever hope to become deacons, bishops nor Papa.
Women are not worthy, that’s your family’s problem mate, not ours!
Sucks to be a hopeful Catholic woman!
You should consider pulling your kids from any association with that cult!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

View attachment 1309372

These are figures for the US, of course. The numbers here would be far lower. The question is generic. Interesting that 87% believe in god but only 64% are convinced. That means that a quarter of people say they BELIEVE but arent convinced.... one in 4.

I have no evidence but I have a sneaky suspicion that the real figures are a lot lower....I think the steady decline in a fairly short time frame has got a lot to do with greater honesty and probably less fear for a person admiting that they dont believe in god. Its a fascinating subject eh

Yes, I was just reading something the other day. Surprised it hasn't been more widely reported. The number of believers in the most overtly Christian country in the world has been dropping dramatically in the last two decades.

Of course it won't make a difference to how fukced the place is because the evangelical Christian white males and their political party of choice are working flat out to make sure no-one else can vote.

 

[Opine]

I've made it very clear that I do not accept scripture as inerrant, nor as the word of god. I see no reason to accept the contents of the Old Testament or the New Testament as the 'word of god'. You can add the Quran to that as well



We look at the context of the events described (which are argued as historical) the agenda of the Gospel writers, engage in textual analysis (structurre of sentences, use of verbs in the original language that the Gospel was writtten to determined the background of the possible writer) as well as look for corroborating external evidence such as archaeological artifacts and other contemporary writings to confirm the probability of a described event being historical. Even other contemporous Gospels that weren't included in the canon are examined closely by experts in various fields.

I've said all this previously.

I don’t dispute that you may have said it previously, and I haven’t read it.

 

[Markfs]

In the eyes of the Catholic Church hierarchy, that is exactly what they are, neither could ever hope to become deacons, bishops nor Papa.
Women are not worthy, that’s your family’s problem mate, not ours!
Sucks to be a hopeful Catholic woman!
You should consider pulling your kids from any association with that cult!

which is peculiar really because jesus seemed to be all for equal rights for the women, although you wouldnt have guessed it with the 12 apostles thing. From the little I've read on it, he was supported by women who fed him and his tribe and they were the ones that were trying to pick up the pieces after his cross thing....and then the early church had a strong focus on women in leadership positions...

but it seems that got cleaned up when the church got its real estate and donations collecting businesses.

It's interesting how these religions get written to put women into roles where they're under the thumb. I suppose that's why these religions seem so attractive to the men that are running them.

 

[Rosscoe]

Although you’re looking at the question through a technicaly historical process, you’re still only a step from your underlying bias on this question; that’s clear from some of your other arguments. I’m also somewhat bias due to my upbringing. Rosscoe is entirely bias because of his solid faith and belief. None of us is objective enough or close enough to what really happened. Only science is truely objective and that’s where the real answer lies.

That the messiah was to be the “the king of the Jews”, the earthly king, is a fallacy by what is written in the Bible, and Tanakh. It was part of the plan, some of the chief priests created, and Jesus was executed as an innocent man. I am done.

 

[Rosscoe]

Yet they were convinced apparently, that they were witnessing the creator of the universe hanging on a cross?
Yes, they weren’t real bright were they?
Not much has changed for a cupla billion people!

Poor Athiests, all they talk about is the dude in the cross.

 

[Opine]

Good morning Rosscoe

I just saw yiur post. I hope you are ok.

 

[Rosscoe]

Good morning Rosscoe

I just saw yiur post. I hope you are ok.

Why would I not be?

 

[Rosscoe]

Roylion are you ok? I thought we were engaging in discussion, and got upset when I found that article. I did not mean to embarrass you, I hope all is well.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion are you ok? I thought we were engaging in discussion, and got upset when I found that article. I did not mean to embarrass you, I hope all is well.

What article would that be? A description of the 'Messiah' provided for you? It was a good summary wasn't it! I just took the important points to answer your question. "Where is the scripture in the old testament to support this claim [that the Messiah was regarded as the King of Israel (the King of the Jews], or is this another assumption."

So I answered it. You got a nice ordered list of where the Messiah is mentioned in the Old Testament. Do you think I have time to go through an actual copy of the Bible and look up every Old Testament reference to the Messiah myself? I do have three different versions of the Bible, including a very nice and large KJV version, but really that's still a time consuming task. I knew from my previous readings of the Bible there were plenty of mentions of the Messiah in the Old Testament (a fact apparently you were unaware of, given your question) so I went to a list I knew existed and posted it for your benefit. I just picked the important parts because if I just made a link to the article, you and others of your ilk wouldn't even bother reading it. You know.... a bit like how you accused me of not watching your video on coral in the Gulf of Aqaba.

The relevant bits posted here keeps it short (because I know some have trouble coping with longer posts) and you can also directly comment on the important parts and keep it on topic.

And so?

Not sure why you're getting upset. I'm certainly not.

Do you want to comment on any of what I posted? Or don't you have a comment and are now trying to deflect by claiming some sort of 'win' because I knew where a handy list of mentions of the Messiah in the Old Testament was? And posted that information here for you to consider. You asked the question. I answered it.

Seeing that you actually did some reading outside the Bible I suggest you read the rest of the article on the Messiah though. Most of it wasn't relevant to your question but it worth a read anyway. The footnotes would also be worth investigating.

It's good to see you're finally doing some research of your own, outside the Scriptures you keep quoting. Keep it up.

 

[Roylion]

DO NOT ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION WITH ME IN THIS FORUM EVER AGAIN.

But you say this and subsequently engage in 'conversation' with me anyway.

And just for your information on a public discussion forum I’ll continue to respond to you or anyone else where and when when I feel the inclination to, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

 

[Rosscoe]

But you say this and subsequently engage in discussion with me anyway.

And just for your information on a public discussion forum I’ll continue to respond to you or anyone else where and when when I feel the inclination to, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

I did this to confirm you are ok; which you have.

WHAT YOU DID IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE COMMANDMENTS Of BIG FOOTY, AND SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Specific BigFooty.com Rules
Updated May 2019 by Chief.

The Commandments of BigFooty
Breaking these rules can lead to anything from a warning with no other consequences, a ban from a single thread, a single board, or a temporary or permanent suspension of your account.

If you are not sure of a rule, please ask.

4. No illegal content; respect copyright owners.

Articles from other sites should be limited to a relevant paragraph or two and a link to the source.


Because you did not link the source you are in clear violation of copyright law.

This is the reason i do not wish to engage in conversation with you anymore.

 

[Roylion]

I did this to confirm you are ok; which you have.

Yeah sure.

Because you did not link the source you are in clear violation of copyright law.

Report it then.

This is the reason i do not wish to engage in conversation with you anymore.

But you're continuing to engage in conversation at your initative. If you truly don't want to engage in conversation place me on 'ignore'. It won't worry me in the slightest. It's easy to do.

You're deflecting now. I think the real reason you dont want to 'engage in conversation' (if you could call your continuing quoting Scripture a 'conversation') is that you really don't have any rebuttal. It's clear that the Messiah in the Old Testament was seen as the King of Israel (King of the Jews)

And by the way have you acknowledged which site you cut and pasted your extensive Bible quotes from?

 

[Total Power]

Yeah sure.



Report it then.



But you're continuing to engage in conversation. If you truly don't want to engage in conversation place me on 'ignore'. It won't worry me in the slightest. It's easy to do.

You're deflecting now. I think the real reason you dont want to 'engage in conversation' (if you could call your continuing quoting Scripture a 'conversation') is that you really don't have any rebuttal. It's clear that the Messiah in the Old Testament was seen as the King of Israel (King of the Jews)

And by the way have you acknowledged which site you cut and pasted your extensive Bible quotes from?

I put the Muppet on ignore long time ago. One less moron to deal with. VD copy pastes stuff without links but that's fine, you do it and it's a big deal. Amazing no one can argue on the subject and points you raise and it's about attacking your posting style. Sums them up in a nutshell.

 

[Rosscoe]

Report it then.

To Big Footy or Rational wiki?

 

[Roylion]

To Big Footy or Rational wiki?

Whoever you like. Go for it.

 

[Roylion]

I put the Muppet on ignore long time ago. One less moron to deal with. VD copy pastes stuff without links but that's fine, you do it and it's a big deal. Amazing no one can argue on the subject and points you raise and it's about attacking your posting style. Sums them up in a nutshell.

Rosscoe is deflecting now. I tried to answer his questions in good faith and he comes out in reply with this garbage. No argument...change the subject. The old ad hominem angle.

None of what I posted (as I said a short simple list) he has actually addressed. The bottom line he has no rebuttal that the Messiah in the Old Testament was regarded as the King of Israel (King of the Jews). The very fact the Messiah has to be from the House of David and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke takes pains to present royal Israelite ancestry for Jesus indicates this alone. You need royal ancestry to have a claim on the Kingdom of Israel. Jesus is clearly made a descendant from the Judean royal family who were King of the Jews (Judeans). The gospels (certainly Matthew and to a lesser extent) are trying to portray Jesus as the 'King of the Jews'. Even when they write the story of Pilate questioning Jesus about being King of the Jews, they can't bear to write him denying it, but neither can he explicity admit it because that defeinitely opens him up to a charge of sedition and they need to portray Jesus as totally innocent. Incidentally only Matthew has the story of Pilate washing his hands. The earliest Gospel Mark, so the one that is closest to the actual events they are describing, merely descibes Pilate as 'astonished' or 'marvelling' depending on the version. (Mark 15:5)

 

[Total Power]

Rosscoe is deflecting now. I tried to answer his questions in good faith and he comes out in reply with this garbage. No argument...change the subject.

None of what I posted (as I said a short simple list) he has actually addressed. The bottom line he has no rebuttal that the Messiah in the Old Testament was regarded as the King of Israel (King of the Jews). The very fact the Messiah has to be from the House of David and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke takes pains to present royal Israelite ancestry for Jesus indicates this alone. You need royal ancestry to have a claim on the Kingdom of Israel. Jesus is clearly made a descendant from the Judean royal family who were King of the Jews (Judeans)

They never do, they cannot do and this is why it boils down to 'i have faith'. I have gathered that much from all the conversations here, zero substance and they will call us keyboard warriors, Muslims will call us infedels etc.Religion never seem to amuse me, they all operate in the same way!

 

[Roylion]

They never do, they cannot do and this is why it boils down to 'i have faith'.

And the next tactic is to engage in the usual ad hominem which is exactly the pattern Rosscoe has followed...the latest in a long line.

Muslims will call us infidels etc.

I've never regarded 'infidel' as an insult.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Poor Athiests, all they talk about is the dude in the cross.

Ackchually, he only gets a run for me on here, he is non existent everywhere else in my life, just like in realty