Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2
- Status
Not sure who Joel is but you need to be embellishing his deeds now if you want a Christ equivalent.
200 years later won’t cut it.
How am I “unreasonable”?
Who says I don’t like other people with differing beliefs or a different way of life?
You’re entirely making assumptions that only suit your narrative or agenda.
Pathetic!
“Too detailed”, lol, yeh ok!
All Lennox has is arguments from ignorance and special pleasing fallacies, a bit like every other apologist I’ve witnessed.
No, the loony bins are full of people claiming to be your beloved Christ.
Not the way you exclaim at all.
That's true. You'll never find a looney in the bin claiming to be Richard Dawkins.
Why would they?
Evolutionary Biologists of his standing don’t particularly grow on trees, people claiming to be a fictional character from 2000 years ago do though!
No idea. However, biologists growing on trees, now I bet they see a lot of that in the loony bins.
Edited for accuracy.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Probably misled by your own admission
: to-wit "Can I just enquire as to the claim made in bold, speaking as an anti-theist and also someone whom is militantly anti religious?"I guess "anti-theist" and "militantly anti-religious" fits the definition fairly comfortably.
Hoisted with one's own petard.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Ignoring the historical evidence that Jesus, indeed, existed? Certainly the man, but imho, he was not divine: not the son of god: nor possessive of super powers - just a very important mystic.
No, you said I was a bigot toward people of differing beliefs or lifestyles.Probably misled by your own admission
I guess "anti-theist" and "militantly anti-religious" fits the definition fairly comfortably.
Hoisted with one's own petard.
Now, you have no ******* idea who I am or what me or my partner do in our downtime or whom we have relationships with.
Your pathetic asinine baseless assumptions are completely in accordance to someone claiming to believe in the life of christ though.
It is you that is the bigot and a rather glaringly malignant self assured one at that.
Religion or Theism does not have a physical nature, it is merely an ideology or thought process and yes I despise it.
Now do proceed in educating me how I am bigoted again?
Evidence please?
Cool, I see our newest premiership captain having a little chat to yours.
Yes, they have both gone off to have a little quiet time.Cool, I see our newest premiership captain having a little chat to yours.
Nah, mine has a bung knee and the other a bung lack of ability to currently break a tag, yours has some damned s**t luck of the titanic kind, poor bloke.
Although he is a massive campaigner and probably deserves it, Mrs. Murphy might just be having a quiet little chuckle to herself I reckon
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Ummmm....
Historians of the time (not Christians) who recorded in some detail about the man Jesus and his actions. You can choose to dismiss the historicity of the guy to accommodate your own agenda, but historians Josephus (Jew) and Tacitus (Roman) both gave relatively objective accounts of his activities. The New Testament does present a glowing myth-like account. Also, ancient Jewish scripts in Jesus time, such as the Mishnah and the Talmud, described him in some detail, recording his death and seeking to discredit him.
Why would they try to discredit a contemporary figure if he didn't exist?
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Hmmm.
Can we stick to the arguments instead of playing the man?
I am atheist. I believe the evidence that Jesus existed because it is compelling. He was just an influential bloke with some mystic ideas like many before and since, so I reject the mythology of him as a miracle worker or god.
I can't help but feel that your rejection of religion doesn't allow you to concede that the guy even existed. It doesn't compromise your atheism to acknowledge his existence, yet reject all the other mythical guff.
Friendly reminder about getting too personal in the thread. Argue and disagree but hurling insults does, nor proves, anything.
The evidence for the Nazarene is as compelling as the pink and purple polka dotted, rainbow glitter farting unicorn locked up in my garage.
My atheism is something entirely different to the lack of historical and archaeological evidence for the one they call christ.
Do you believe that Buddha was born from a slit in his mother’s torso?
She was a virgin too, he was also born on the 25th of December, ring any bells?
Josepheus and Tacitus have been debunked and are not claimed as actual evidence anymore.
Forgeries and “added much later on”, is the historical truth to those two.
Mishnah and the Talmud likewise.
The Nazarene is never mentioned, you could likely throw any mystic from that era in there if you’d like, how do you know it wasn’t the Baptist?
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #2,797
Academia by and large, except for Christian apologists, while accepting that Jesus was probably a historical figure still at the same time reject the historicity resurrection and argue that the empty tomb is a fiction and the Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magadelene. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable and that includes the resurrection.
To believe that this supernatural event occurred, one must suspend belief in the laws of nature and in the rules of evidence. The Resurrection appears to be based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay, superstitions, and giant leaps of faith.
Last edited:
He started it.
No dessert for either of you.
What evidence do they have that the tomb wasn’t empty ?
What evidence do they have that the 500 people that Paul states witnessed a resurrected Christ were all experiencing visions ?
What evidence do you they have that the resurrection is based the visionary experience of Peter and Mary ( no idea why they have thrown in Paul as his experience was post ascension.)
How do they go from Paul 30AD to second century hearsay.
As I said before ( obviously don’t read ) it’s not the evidence that’s the problem it’s the fact that it’s a miracle and a pretty big one.
The resurrection is a supernatural event so therefore all evidence of it is false ( stated before)
But if you believe in miracles then it’s great evidence.
Thank you very much. Multi quote away.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
