I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism. Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hi
> Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
I would challenge that. It may be true if you buy into the religion blindly which, of course, many do. But a number of intellectuals, by applying critical thinking, have come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really does exist. CS Lewis is an obvious example.
I believe that is the case for me. I like to think, and my thinking has led me to the conclusion that there must be someth
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There
Yeah, good point. To our atheist colleagues here, who pride themselves in their thinking prowess, preaching Christ is indeed foolishness. It goes against everything they assume and believe to be true, and against common sense. How *could* it possibly be true?
Yet if it *is* true, then evidence, logic, and reason will ultimately reveal that if you dig deep enough. And I think that is precisely the case with Christ. There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every ser
There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every serious scholar will admit that)
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it round
If Jesus was not really historical, why is it that every major religion acknowledges his existence, in spite of the fact they believe the others to be heresy? I would think Muslims would be champing at the bit to deny Christ and hence, Christianity, but they don't. Instead, they argue the finer points of the Crucifixion, etc... If Jesus never existed, why can't the billion+ Muslims figure this out? They'd love more than anyone else to discredit all of Christianity, yet do not deny Christ's
I personally have no doubts that there was a Jewish middle eastern dude named Jesus of Nazareth that went around and taught some good things. It's all over history. Where the GP gets off thinking there was no "Jesus the man," I don't know.
HOWEVER....I just have a hard time believing all the myths, such as that he was the son of a God, even though I was raised on them. If you don't think the Koran is fiction, what are your thoughts on the Bhagavad Gita? Egyptian Old Kingdom pyramid texts or other books? Th
It's all over history. Where the GP gets off thinking there was no "Jesus the man," I don't know.
No, in fact, it isn't all over history. You're just parroting what you've been told. As it turns out, there is no evidence backing up the existence of Jesus himself. There are two kinds of secondary evidence: (1) The bible, and (2) the existence of Christians as a cult well after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Jesus only got "all over history" as the religion took hold. The same pattern, by the way, th
The writings of Josephus, for one. I trust scholars when they say it's for realsies. And I mean real scholars, not bible scholars who believe in magic.
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)
In any problem, if you find yourself doing an infinite amount of work,
the answer may be obtained by inspection.
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
I would challenge that. It may be true if you buy into the religion blindly which, of course, many do. But a number of intellectuals, by applying critical thinking, have come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really does exist. CS Lewis is an obvious example.
I believe that is the case for me. I like to think, and my thinking has led me to the conclusion that there must be someth
Re: (Score:1)
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. To our atheist colleagues here, who pride themselves in their thinking prowess, preaching Christ is indeed foolishness. It goes against everything they assume and believe to be true, and against common sense. How *could* it possibly be true?
Yet if it *is* true, then evidence, logic, and reason will ultimately reveal that if you dig deep enough. And I think that is precisely the case with Christ. There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every ser
Bogus claim (Score:2)
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it round
Re: (Score:2)
Two points:
Re: (Score:1)
HOWEVER....I just have a hard time believing all the myths, such as that he was the son of a God, even though I was raised on them. If you don't think the Koran is fiction, what are your thoughts on the Bhagavad Gita? Egyptian Old Kingdom pyramid texts or other books? Th
Re: (Score:2)
No, in fact, it isn't all over history. You're just parroting what you've been told. As it turns out, there is no evidence backing up the existence of Jesus himself. There are two kinds of secondary evidence: (1) The bible, and (2) the existence of Christians as a cult well after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Jesus only got "all over history" as the religion took hold. The same pattern, by the way, th
Re: (Score:1)
Jopsephus (Score:2)
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write
Re:Jopsephus (Score:1)
Re:Josephus (Score:2)
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)