Christians, What Would Make You Leave Your Faith.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Thank you! Now I'm sure enough that you're a Christian. Only a Christian puts their faith in Bible Scholars. If you don't quit talking like a Christian, everyone will have you on ignore.

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

[quinntar]

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Paul did mention Jesus, but which Jesus? The New testament writer's never reproduced enough of the gospels in their letters. In fact they said things the gospel Jesus didn't tell them to say.

[ironhorse]

 

 

Ironhorse, May I ask you a question please? If your two year old child was snagged by an alligator right before your eyes and drawn into the water to get eaten alive or drown, where would you say god is in this? This incident happened last night at the happiest place on earth with young parents who tried to grasp the child from the beast's jaws. They watched.

 

Or this incident in May.....http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/wreck-survivors-continue-to-recover-in-local-hospi/nrFwp/

 

How do you justify god in this? Have you had to go through any horrific incidences? And how do you explain this?  I'd love to know. 

 

 

I am very aware of the tragedy in Orlando. My wife and I have been discussing this all morning. It is a horrific tragedy. We cannot even begin to imagine what the parents are going thru today.

 

God did not do this. God did not ordain this tragedy.

 

I mentioned once in a post here about how we lost our twin daughters. It was like being hit by a freight train. I’ve watched friends at a very young age die of cancer. I’ve had two friends who committed suicide. My parents both suffered and died from cancer. Two of my cousins died in a car accident. 

 

Five years ago I was diagnosed with a rare chronic disease called Bronchiectasis. The disease keeps the bronchial passages inflamed thus severely restricting breathing. My doctor says it may have been activated as the result of me working in a classroom for over ten years that was latter found to be infected with black mold. I

 

I’m just like every other person. None of us are immune from sickness, suffering or tragedies.

We all have experienced these unhappy things.

 

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

 

Thanks for answering this question IH and I am so, so sorry for all that you have had to endure. I wasn't asking you that to be cruel. I genuinely wanted to hear your answer. I am amazed, as I said many times on this site, how some people can hold on to their faith in god and obviously, you are one of them. I will always say this...faith is a wonderful thing to have to help one get through the trials and tribulations in this life. Unfortunately, my died....

 

((hug))

 

 

 

Margee, thank you for your understanding and reply.

 

I did not take your question as being cruel. It was a sincere question. 

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Thank you! Now I'm sure enough that you're a Christian. Only a Christian puts their faith in Bible Scholars. If you don't quit talking like a Christian, everyone will have you on ignore.

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

Christians can treat people worse TrueScotsman, in fact it would be nice if Christians would air out their feelings sometime.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Paul did mention Jesus, but which Jesus? The New testament writer's never reproduced enough of the gospels in their letters. In fact they said things the gospel Jesus didn't tell them to say.

The Jesus who supposedly died on a cross and allegedly rose from the dead. The fact that the disciples are specifically referenced ties up the connection rather well.

 

There are MANY theological inconsistencies though between the authors.

[Margee]

 

The rain fall's on the just and unjust.

 

It amazes me how many scriptures, we used to be able to cheery pick out of the bible to justify god, eh?

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Thank you! Now I'm sure enough that you're a Christian. Only a Christian puts their faith in Bible Scholars. If you don't quit talking like a Christian, everyone will have you on ignore.

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

Christians can treat people worse TrueScotsman, in fact it would be nice if Christians would air out their feelings sometime.

So can Ex-Christians apparently, if one examines qadeshets disgraceful tactics here and elsewhere.

 

The silence from the rest of the forum is deafening. I guess it's acceptable to accuse Ex-Christians who have been here for years that they're close Christian apologists.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

Ironhorse, May I ask you a question please? If your two year old child was snagged by an alligator right before your eyes and drawn into the water to get eaten alive or drown, where would you say god is in this? This incident happened last night at the happiest place on earth with young parents who tried to grasp the child from the beast's jaws. They watched.

 

Or this incident in May.....http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/wreck-survivors-continue-to-recover-in-local-hospi/nrFwp/

 

How do you justify god in this? Have you had to go through any horrific incidences? And how do you explain this? I'd love to know.

 

I am very aware of the tragedy in Orlando. My wife and I have been discussing this all morning. It is a horrific tragedy. We cannot even begin to imagine what the parents are going thru today.

 

God did not do this. God did not ordain this tragedy.

 

I mentioned once in a post here about how we lost our twin daughters. It was like being hit by a freight train. I’ve watched friends at a very young age die of cancer. I’ve had two friends who committed suicide. My parents both suffered and died from cancer. Two of my cousins died in a car accident.

 

Five years ago I was diagnosed with a rare chronic disease called Bronchiectasis. The disease keeps the bronchial passages inflamed thus severely restricting breathing. My doctor says it may have been activated as the result of me working in a classroom for over ten years that was latter found to be infected with black mold. I

 

I’m just like every other person. None of us are immune from sickness, suffering or tragedies.

We all have experienced these unhappy things.

 

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

Thanks for answering this question IH and I am so, so sorry for all that you have had to endure. I wasn't asking you that to be cruel. I genuinely wanted to hear your answer. I am amazed, as I said many times on this site, how some people can hold on to their faith in god and obviously, you are one of them. I will always say this...faith is a wonderful thing to have to help one get through the trials and tribulations in this life. Unfortunately, my died....

 

((hug))

 

Margee, thank you for your understanding and reply.

 

I did not take your question as being cruel. It was a sincere question.

When you loose someone so dear it can make your faith stronger due to the promise that theres a place prepared to meet with them again.

 

Leaving Jesus would mean loosing such a promise.

[LongWayAround]

 

Ironhorse, May I ask you a question please? If your two year old child was snagged by an alligator right before your eyes and drawn into the water to get eaten alive or drown, where would you say god is in this? This incident happened last night at the happiest place on earth with young parents who tried to grasp the child from the beast's jaws. They watched.

 

Or this incident in May.....http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/wreck-survivors-continue-to-recover-in-local-hospi/nrFwp/

 

How do you justify god in this? Have you had to go through any horrific incidences? And how do you explain this?  I'd love to know. 

 

 

I am very aware of the tragedy in Orlando. My wife and I have been discussing this all morning. It is a horrific tragedy. We cannot even begin to imagine what the parents are going thru today.

 

God did not do this. God did not ordain this tragedy.

 

I mentioned once in a post here about how we lost our twin daughters. It was like being hit by a freight train. I’ve watched friends at a very young age die of cancer. I’ve had two friends who committed suicide. My parents both suffered and died from cancer. Two of my cousins died in a car accident. 

 

Five years ago I was diagnosed with a rare chronic disease called Bronchiectasis. The disease keeps the bronchial passages inflamed thus severely restricting breathing. My doctor says it may have been activated as the result of me working in a classroom for over ten years that was latter found to be infected with black mold. I

 

I’m just like every other person. None of us are immune from sickness, suffering or tragedies.

We all have experienced these unhappy things.

 

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

 

 

I understand that you don't blame god for any of this but doesn't it seem like there would be a discernible difference between the amount of good and bad things that happen in a christian's life verses that of a non-believer?  In my decades of experience, I have not seen any difference.  It seems blatantly obvious that praying is completely ineffective and that god is imaginary.

[Margee]

 

 

 

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

 

I would curse like this every now and again, even as a christian but most of the time it was under my breath. Then down to the alter for forgiveness I would go........

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Thank you! Now I'm sure enough that you're a Christian. Only a Christian puts their faith in Bible Scholars. If you don't quit talking like a Christian, everyone will have you on ignore.

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

Christians can treat people worse TrueScotsman, in fact it would be nice if Christians would air out their feelings sometime.

So can Ex-Christians apparently, if one examines qadeshets disgraceful tactics here and elsewhere.

 

The silence from the rest of the forum is deafening. I guess it's acceptable to accuse Ex-Christians who have been here for years that they're close Christian apologists.

Just let it go, not easy but you'll feel better. Then we can get back to ghost busting spooky Jesus.

[Guest]

 

 

 

Go fuck yourself qadeshet, and your "Christian apologist," accusations.

 

How fucking Christian does that sound, you dumb prick?

I would curse like this every now and again, even as a christian but most of the time it was under my breath. Then down to the alter for forgiveness I would go........

Hi Margee,

 

What are your thoughts about the practice of accusing Ex-Christians as being secretly Christian apologists.

 

Would you appreciate that if someone did that to you?

 

Look forward to hearing your input.

 

Best Regards,

TS

[bornagainathiest]

 

nothing

 

Can we take this as a formal and official declaration from you that your eyes, ears and mind are totally closed to any evidence that should cause you to renounce your Christian faith?

 

 

(Bump!)

[quinntar]

 

The rain fall's on the just and unjust.

 

It amazes me how many scriptures, we used to be able to cheery pick out of the bible to justify god, eh?

Yeah, I still cherry pick stuff but from everywhere.

[rjn]

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

[Margee]

 

 

 

Hi Margee,

 

What are your thoughts about the practice of accusing Ex-Christians as being secretly Christian apologists.

 

Would you appreciate that if someone did that to you?

 

Look forward to hearing your input.

 

Best Regards,

TS

 

 

Well, I'm not accusing you of anything myself.... but I have to be honest with you dear, if you are siding with christian apologists in any way, I personally couldn't listen to that. I just don't trust their sources because they are trying to prove christianity and I don't believe in christianity at all. I'm not a good apologist at all TS so I have to let the bible scholars who have really studied the falsehood of christianity fight the christians that come on this site. My loss of faith was really so simply. When the book of Genesis fell apart for me and I seen the silliness of it all, the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Paul did mention Jesus, but which Jesus? The New testament writer's never reproduced enough of the gospels in their letters. In fact they said things the gospel Jesus didn't tell them to say.

The Jesus who supposedly died on a cross and allegedly rose from the dead. The fact that the disciples are specifically referenced ties up the connection rather well.

 

There are MANY theological inconsistencies though between the authors.

Yeah, so can you trust it's veracity.

[Guest]

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

Extremely tiresome, I just want to talk about the facts.

 

Seems impossible on this site.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Paul did mention Jesus, but which Jesus? The New testament writer's never reproduced enough of the gospels in their letters. In fact they said things the gospel Jesus didn't tell them to say.

The Jesus who supposedly died on a cross and allegedly rose from the dead. The fact that the disciples are specifically referenced ties up the connection rather well.

 

There are MANY theological inconsistencies though between the authors.

Yeah, so can you trust it's veracity.

That's why secular scholars use the historical critical method.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, we love you, but you must be the worst apologist ever. Sometimes I think you don't really believe, but are simply having fun playing Devil's Advocate. TrueScotsman is a better apologist.

I'm an apologist because I agree with the majority of modern scholarship which admits that Jesus at least existed?

 

You give an inch here, and people look at it like a m an apologist because you continuously employ arguments used by Christian apologists. For exam

An apologist is someone who uses apologetics. You inform us that we sould read the Gospels first and then Paul. When you do that you read the Gospels into Paul, which is the Christian method. You tell us that Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, not possibly existed, and that is something Christians do. The only place that Jesus of Nazareth appears, anywhere in the 1st Century, is in the Gospels. Not even the Epistles mention Jesus of Nazareth. I have to debate you like I do any other apologist. You are not here to learn, or to help de-converting or recenty de-converted Christians, but to show us why we're wrong, and that Christianity is realy not that all that bad. You say that I must respect, not just the Christian's right to believe, but that I should respect the Christian beliefs. No Atheist here respects the Christian beliefs, myself included. If any do, then I stand to be corrected. You tell me that you are an Atheist but talk more like a Christian.

No, apologetics comes from a Greek word, which means to "make a defense of."

 

I am not DEFENDING Christianity, I am simply stating the facts as experts in that particular field have been able to deduce using the Historical Critical Method.

 

Where did I say read the gospel's first, link please. Paul was written first, and you shouldn't read the gospels into Paul. Stop with the dishonest representations please.

 

Secular scholars also say that Jesus existed, though that is disputed among the mythicist group which is a minority.

 

Wrong about Jesus only being mentioned in the gospels. Paul mentions not only Jesus and particular events that happened in Israel, but he mentions his relationships with the very disciples in the gospel narrative. You're also leaving out Josephus, but the case can be made even without him.

 

I'm hear to bring some balance to this wonky discussion where people without proper training and knowledge confidently state "facts" that are filled with misinformation and anachronisms. But I guess you think that'll help people deconvert? I think people need substantial answers, not fluff and bullshit.

 

I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

 

If you think I'm a Christian apologist, then frankly you're a moron. I'm not into mysticism or metaphysics either. Work on your reading comprehension, and stop accusing me of being apologist.

Paul did mention Jesus, but which Jesus? The New testament writer's never reproduced enough of the gospels in their letters. In fact they said things the gospel Jesus didn't tell them to say.

The Jesus who supposedly died on a cross and allegedly rose from the dead. The fact that the disciples are specifically referenced ties up the connection rather well.

 

There are MANY theological inconsistencies though between the authors.

Yeah, so can you trust it's veracity.

That's why secular scholars use the historical critical method.

I mean the bible itself, how the books relate and if they are telling us the truth.

[qadeshet]

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

 

I'm not bickering, I've just read his posts. If someone suspected me of being a closet Christian, I would simply laugh. Unless you agree with his opinions, he gets angry and defensive. I'm almost ready to put him on ignore. Show me one post where I called him a "moron".

[rjn]

 

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

 

I'm not bickering, I've just read his posts. If someone suspected me of being a closet Christian, I would simply laugh. Unless you agree with his opinions, he gets angry and defensive. I'm almost ready to put him on ignore. Show me one post where I called him a "moron".

 

 

With "you guys" I wasn't only referring to you and TS, but to a whole slew of users who've repeatedly been accusing him of being an apologist and closet-Christian. Sorry for not making that clear. I'd also like to clarify that my "grow the fuck up" was addressed to TS as well, even though I've defended him on several occasions the last few days, since he has in fact acted quite aggressively himself.

 

My point is simply this: I think it's pretty damn sad that several threads these last few days have derailed into flamewars rife with ad hominems and accusations. We should be able able to rise above such petty ways. Just my 2 cents of course.

[ironhorse]

Can we take this as a formal and official declaration from you that your eyes, ears and mind are totally closed to any evidence that should cause you to renounce your Christian faith?

(Bump!)

 

~BAA

 

 

 

My answer to this thread's question is nothing.

 

That does not mean I am not open to reading or studying "evidence" that attempts to debunk the Christian faith.  

[Guest]

 

 

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

I'm not bickering, I've just read his posts. If someone suspected me of being a closet Christian, I would simply laugh. Unless you agree with his opinions, he gets angry and defensive. I'm almost ready to put him on ignore. Show me one post where I called him a "moron".

With "you guys" I wasn't only referring to you and TS, but to a whole slew of users who've repeatedly been accusing him of being an apologist and closet-Christian. Sorry for not making that clear. I'd also like to clarify that my "grow the fuck up" was addressed to TS as well, even though I've defended him on several occasions the last few days, since he has in fact acted quite aggressively himself.

 

My point is simply this: I think it's pretty damn sad that several threads these last few days have derailed into flamewars rife with ad hominems and accusations. We should be able able to rise above such petty ways. Just my 2 cents of course.

Respectfully rjn, I will call people out for shit like this when they pull it.

 

If people want respectful and substantial discussions, I am MORE than happy to do that as is my desire for coming here. That's simply not possible when every other post someone is either trying to silence me or accuse me of being an apologist.

 

"Grow up," is not an appropriate response to me when there is an impasse on the way nearly everyone here chooses to communicate with me. And you bet I'm aggressive right back, I don't stand for that kind of bullshit.

[Guest]

 

qadeshet, I for sure do not suspect TS to be a crypto-Christian and can't really see why anyone else would either. Yet again: are we left with nothing but two options? Either total rejection or total acceptance of Christianity? I do not think so, and believe such a dualistic black-and-white view is reminiscent of religious fundamentalism.

 

This bickering between you guys is getting out of hand, doesn't contribute anything and is quite frankly quite tiresome, so, without further ado: grow the fuck up.

I'm not bickering, I've just read his posts. If someone suspected me of being a closet Christian, I would simply laugh. Unless you agree with his opinions, he gets angry and defensive. I'm almost ready to put him on ignore. Show me one post where I called him a "moron".

I don't give a fuck if you agree with my opinions, drop the accusations.

 

You're the one who paints people as closet apologists when they disagree with YOU. Was that simple enough to understand?