Smart people don't believe in god...

[Child of Flame]

Every Christian that I have personally met have been jerks, yelling at me to repent, forcing New Testament Bibles at me, and constantly say I am wrong in my beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

4. Geez.

 

I HATE those, and I'm a follower of the same religion.

[FaramirK]

There is nothing about jesus until 100 years after his death.

 

Jesus died c29-35 A.D. One hundred years later was 129-35 A.D, 30 years after the death of Josephus (c100 A.D.), who recorded his existence.

 

any of the chrsitians here beleive this was a sign from god?Veirgin Marry in Highway Underpass, Or Just A Salt Stain?

 

Virgin Mary Chicago Underpass, looks like a bum went pee...

 

Heres the grilled cheese one from awhile back  :D  YUM!

 

I agree with your hypothesis...probably a "bum".

[random evil guy]

now, you might say "infidels.org" are biased and maybe they are. that is not the point. the thing is, it is still uncertain whether the historc jesus really did live...

No, it's not a matter of bias. We're all biased one way or the other, aren't we?

 

It's a matter of "infidels.org" not being worth jack as a reputed source of historical research.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged.

 

the article is just a summary of all the different arguments that might show that jesus never lived.

 

edit:

however the most compelling "evidence" is for me, the sheer number of forgeries the early christians produced. why did they have to lie if jesus really lived and was such a great man?

[FaramirK]

well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged.

 

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion...

 

There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy?

 

Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity...

[random evil guy]

well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged.

 

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion...

 

There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy?

 

Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree.

[FaramirK]

well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged.

 

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion...

 

There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy?

 

Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Josephus does not call him Christ. He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity. I call him Christ out of respect.

 

Saying "It's a fact" and "It is forged" in response to my saying it is not forged is not a valid argument form. I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ. A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Still, you're quite persistant in claiming that Christianity is a violent faith.  I continue to disagree. Inasmuchas you're deriding Christian principles, which seems apparent to me, I submit that you are attacking Christians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My claim isn't that Christianity is a violent faith, my claim is that there is violence in the Bible, certain violence by Christians can be excused by the Bible, and that Christianity has a violent history. I have shown the first two through quotes from the Bible, so I really don't understand how those can be disputed, and I think we're all familiar with the violent history of the religion. That's not to say that it's a violent religion overall today (though there have been areas where violence based on religion have been active and there are signs it's going to start growing in other areas) because most believers like to concentrate on the nice things, the love and forgiveness while ignoring the nastier parts of the Bible.

 

You asked in your post about my beliefs, so here they are... I am an atheist. I can't prove that God doesn't exist because a negative can't be proven, but a complete lack of evidence of a deity so allegedly awesome and powerful to me makes it logical that such a being doesn't exist. I base my morality on the fact that humanity is basically a social animal. We need to be able to get along to properly function, and that includes not hurting each other. I don't want to be robbed, raped, or murdered, and I won't do that to anyone else. We should help the weak and unfortunate in society because at any time it could be any of us in that position. It's a basic social contract. Because my morality consists of not hurting others, I believe that an open marriage is just fine if both parties agree, but cheating on an unsuspecting spouse is wrong. I believe that a one-night stand is fine if both parties are looking for that, but not if one of the parties is being promised something longer lasting.

Because I don't believe in an afterlife, once someone is born I believe it is reprehensible to end their one and only life before it naturally ends except in self-defense, so the death penalty is wrong because life imprisonment also protects innocent people and war is only acceptable if you are under attack or are protecting a weaker nation that is under attack.

So there you go, a moral compass and belief system in two paragraphs.

[Drakron]

Well this might shead some light.

 

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtab...phus-jesus.html

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Clicky

Clicky

Clicky

As opposed to the tons of evidence leading to Caesar and Alexander having been real people. If there was "abundant evidence" showing an historical Jesus, there wouldn't be a controversy. I believe based on evidence, and while I would still doubt his divinity without adequate proof, I'd still believe in an historical Jesus if the evidence really was there.

Um, are those supposedly reliable sources?

 

Providing a link to "nobeliefs.com" or "infidels.org" hardly strengthens your discourse. I can provide some delightfully informative link (more!) to one of the most underrated sciences ever!

 

And the controversy about it is easy to explain. There is no real point in trying to refute the existance of Julius Caesar, since if he was proven a hoax, it would hardly change anything today. But proving that Jesus Christ didn't really exist would be a serious blow to many churches. Something very appealing to many people. Occam's Razor.

 

 

(oh, I could spend all day pointing out the misogyny)

While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic.

 

About the quotes, the boards have a limit of quotations per post. If you exceed the limit, the quotations will be all messed up. If that happens, simply make two posts instead of fitting it all into one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's possible to be an atheist and still believe in an historical Jesus, because there are atheists who have accepted his existance as a given because so many people do, until they do some further digging.

What's curious though was apparently there was a man who went around curing all diseases, raising the dead, and performing all other sorts of miracles, and we're not awash in contemporary accounts? There have been other arguments against Josephus and such in this thread, so I'll go on to the misogyny...

 

Misogyny and homophobia all in one here...

Romans 1:26

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed.

Now here's a goody...

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

So it's good for a man to not touch a woman, but hey, better to be married and not fornicate. At least the polygamy of the OT is thrown out here.

Here's another fine portion from 1 Corinthians...

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 

11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Here, while not misogynistic, are words that make me hope that your hair is short and the women you know have long hair...

11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

And now I'll skip down to my favourites...

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 

5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 

 

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 

2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

"While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic."

Christianity may not be, but the Bible certainly is and yes, the misogyny does stem from it.

[213374U]

I can't prove that God doesn't exist because a negative can't be proven

HA!

 

Of course it can.

 

The problem is that religion itself is based on postulates that are not necessarily subject to logic. They are a matter of faith. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because, for starters, God may indeed exist.

 

You are just an adherent to another doctrine. The modern doctrine that states that any problem can be solved by means of logic.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

What is your tons of evidence?  You do know that the NT is the most supported 1st Century source in history, right?  As for your three sources, they are hardly reliable.  You also realise, I assume, that the vast majority of Buddist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic Historians/Theologians/Philosophers would laugh you to scorn for actually believing one of the best evidenced people in history didn't exist.  Your beliefs are not opposed to Christianity, they are full on anti-christian.

 

 

The "gleefully" was me editorializing. Do you really need me to go back to the Bible to show the countless thousands slaughtered, including innocent children? "Gleeful" is editorializing, "blood-thirsty" isn't.

 

I didn't know you had the qualification to edit the divinely conceived sola scriptura.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The most supported..."? Really? The one example you bring up is Jospehus, who has already been disputed in this thread, and is hardly a contemporary. I keep hearing things like the NT is so well supported by history, that Jesus was the most historically documented human, but everyone when asked for support just mentions Josephus. Surely there would be more contemporary reports of such a revolutionary. I made the claim that he didn't exist then provided three links. You make the claim that he's the most supported historical figure, so it's up to you to provide the sources.

 

editorialize

 

v : insert personal opinions into an objective statement

I'm not editing anything, but 1) who's to say I don't have the qualifications to edit text and 2) I obviously disagree with you about the Bible being divinely conceived, especially with so much wrong in it.

 

Edit (ha!): I didn't quote the "completed law" stuff, but I'm still not getting how Jesus made eating pork okay to God. I'm not being obtuse here, I just don't understand how something is so horribly wrong one day but hunky dory the next.

[213374U]

Misogyny and homophobia all in one here...

Romans 1:26

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed.

Now here's a goody...

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

So it's good for a man to not touch a woman, but hey, better to be married and not fornicate. At least the polygamy of the OT is thrown out here.

Here's another fine portion from 1 Corinthians...

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 

11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Here, while not misogynistic, are words that make me hope that your hair is short and the women you know have long hair...

11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

And now I'll skip down to my favourites...

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 

5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 

 

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 

2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Thanks, but without your rather biased comments, those aren't really misogynistic quotes. Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are, at worst. Using today's standards to judge the past is not a very good way of analyzing history.

[Drakron]

....

Thanks, but without your rather biased comments, those aren't really misogynistic comments. Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are, at worst. Using today's standards to judge the past is not a very good way of analyzing history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah but that just shows something, its was human creation since it was based on the sociaty standarts and values of the time of the writting.

 

And that leads to question if such can be taken as "word of god" or simply "stuff we made up".

[Atomic Space Vixen]

And "Lust=Adultury/rape [sic]" seems reasonable to you? "Hate=Murder" seems reasonable? A thought or emotion is equal to an action is reasonable to you? If so, I'm committing assault and battery right now.

 

Yes, you are. A thought/emotion IS the same as an action, because God judges mens hearts, not just they're actions. That should make it easier to forgive someone who physically hurt you, knowing your no better.

But a thought is not the same as an action. I hate George W. Bush, but shouldn't be thrown in prison for that. However, you're arguing that Thought Crimes are the equal of actual crimes. Ever read 1984?

 

Why do we deserve hell? I've never killed anyone, raped anyone, and the only theft I've committed was as a teenage and I regret that.

 

Because you are a sinner, like the rest of us, in rebellion against God.

I disagree, I'm not a sinner and I'm not in rebellion against anyone. Tell me what I have done that deserves eternal torture.

 

I'm bisexual and have had sex with consenting adult men and women (but not in the same way with each, and I'm not a man, so I'm not sure if that's an abomination or not).

 

Stop mis-using "abomination". All sin is an abomination. You are no more or less deserving of hell than a person who lies or steals something. We're all equally bad.

By that logic, a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer. I'm not being facetious here, because that is exactly what you're saying. Remind me to never jaywalk in Texas.

 

Let's pretend God is real. That would mean that not only did he create the universe, he created heaven and hell. He then set the rules that would determine who goes where then gave us all sorts of flaws that would lead us to break those rules while all the while successfully hiding any and all evidence of his existance.

 

You have to have faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. And whether or not you believe it, he gave you the capacity to trust him, and the freedom to reject him.

That is just messed up. "I won't show myself, but believe in me or I'll beat you up!"

 

At some point, he decides to send his son

 

Did you know that the first prophesy of the coming of Christ is in Genesis, right after Adam and Eve sinned for the first time? He's been preparing to die for your sins for a long time.

Hmmm. The fictional sequal to a work of fiction shows that a prophesy in the first came true? Colour me unimpressed.

 

(was Joseph gay and Mary his beard?)

 

No, Jospeh and Mary had several children after Christ was born, including Jude, who wrote the Book of Jude.

I'm still impressed that they went so long after being married before consumating the marriage. Mary wasn't living up to her natural use for a while there!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Thanks, but without your rather biased comments, those aren't really misogynistic quotes. Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are, at worst. Using today's standards to judge the past is not a very good way of analyzing history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm... Submit to men, suffer not a woman to teach, never usurp a man's authority? Sounds like woman hating to me. But then, silly me, I don't have a male sex organ (edited: this forum doesn't like the P word) so I guess I'm not in a position to judge.

"Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are..." In the Divinely Inspired Word of God? I was unaware God was in business of appeasing cultural sensibilities. Either the Bible is the Word of God and is as relevant today as it was when it was written or it's full of archaic conceptions written by flawed human beings and much of it can be disregarded in today's world. Which is it?

[WITHTEETH]

Intresting too see people useing the bible as proof that Jesus Christ was.

 

"Do not believe everything you read"

[213374U]

Ah but that just shows something, its was human creation since it was based on the sociaty standarts and values of the time of the writting.

 

And that leads to question if such can be taken as "word of god" or simply "stuff we made up".

Hmmm... Submit to men, suffer not a woman to teach, never usurp a man's authority? Sounds like woman hating to me. But then, silly me, I don't have a **** so I guess I'm not in a position to judge.

"Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are..." In the Divinely Inspired Word of God? I was unaware God was in business of appeasing cultural sensibilities. Either the Bible is the Word of God and is as relevant today as it was when it was written or it's full of archaic conceptions written by flawed human beings and much of it can be disregarded in today's world. Which is it?

LOL

Did you both expect the Bible to feature 21st century moral and social values, as well as a completely PC writing style?

Don't make me freaking laugh.

 

And Drakron, yes. The Bible was written by regular people alright. It wasn't written or inspired by God. But that is not a valid argument to sustain that its value as a historical document is nil.

[random evil guy]

well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged.

 

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion...

 

There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy?

 

Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Josephus does not call him Christ. He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity. I call him Christ out of respect.

 

Saying "It's a fact" and "It is forged" in response to my saying it is not forged is not a valid argument form. I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ. A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Though mention is made of a Jesus in the complete works of Josephus (in a passage considered by most scholars to be at least partially forged), and possibly as Yeshu in the Talmud (although most scholars do not view the relevant passages as historically accurate, and many doubt they refer to Jesus at all), there may exist no other textual references outside of the canonical Christian texts and several non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas.

 

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

-this is the usual translation of the passage in question.

 

http://www.josephus-1.com/

http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html

http://www.biblehistory.com/203.htm

 

there is no way a jew would refer to jesus as christ. deal with it. the paragraph is, at least to some degree, a forgery.

[213374U]

For the Nth time. Wikipedia is not a reputed source on ANYTHING.

[random evil guy]

it isn't? says who. i've used wikipedia quite often and have never experienced any problems...

[Darth Flatus]

wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there is no quality contol on how the info is presented. In effect its the same as getting your info froma guy down the pub.

[random evil guy]

i've only used it for my master thesis(a few historical facts) and at least they all turned out to be true...

[Drakron]

Just because some information in there is correct does not mean all information is correct.

[random evil guy]

even the catholic encyclopedia admits that the passage might be a forgery.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

 

a very different source:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

 

the point being, everyone is in agreement that the passage is very questionable. some say it is a flat out lie, while others just find it peculiar. this is the only mentioning of the historical jesus that is of any worth. 1! isn't that suspecious...?

[random evil guy]

Just because some information in there is correct does not mean all information is correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

noooooo!?!? it does...? (w00t) (w00t)