Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Good

About bleedblue22

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    learning, reading, and just chilling with friends
  • More About Me
    College age. Previously a Methodist

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
  1. How about 1) let me demonstrate why you're beliefs are irrational and why you're deluded. 2 You don't have to agree with me, but I think you should consider what I have to say. This is because if what I say is the truth, you will be happier than believing a lie.
  2. Most atheists I know tend to think that they don't care what people believe if they keep it to themselves. I think differently. When I was seriously doubting Christianity, I was pretty scared I might go to hell. I had read quite of bit of apologetics, and while I could see some cracks in their logic, I didn't have the resources myself to counter them. I was at the point where I was a theist who hated what I believed. My religion made me miserable. It wasn't until I found the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman and other counterapologetics resources that I was able to shed my fear o
  3. Yes there are forms of Islam stuck in the 7th century. But there are also forms of it that show it can adapt to the modern world. That's progress of a sort, and those growing up in the west and not brainwashed by Islamists will either leave their religion or be attracted to this more private understanding of their faith
  4. Also I'd say look at the Protestant-Catholic split. There was so much church tradition in terms of an authoritative interpretation of the Bible, until the Protestant reformation. The vast literature that composes the sunnah, describing the life of Muhammad, is being shown to be spurious by historians. I think many people will come to reject either altogether or interpret it as not literally true. This is where so much of the barbarity of Islam comes from (eg stoning adulterers, marrying underage girls). If the understanding of that literature is changed similar to how loads of Catholic Church
  5. Do you really think that though? Do you really think there would be gay friendly imams back in the 600s? Ask pretty much any average western Muslim, and there understanding of their faith will probably be vastly different from how it was understood during the medieval period. Religions are continuously evolving. Islam is no different
  6. Look at Judaism. There are hardly any hardline Jews pushing to implement the laws proscribed in the Torah. Not even in Israel is it seriously being proposed they should stone gays to death, reinstitute slavery, and sacrifice animals for sin. Reform Jews consider their religion to be a personal and private thing that does not need to encroach into the political sphere. I think the same can happen for Islam.
  7. Most muslims are great people. The texts of the religion can be seen as calling for violence though, as well as some contradicting parts that call for peace. Similar to the Bible, but a little different because the commands are more in the present/continuing sense than in the old testament when the violence was specified for a certain time period. I do think Islam can be reformed though. The idea of political Islam needs to be stamped out and shown as less attractive than living in a secular society where beliefs can't be imposed on others. Historians are questioning the historical accurac
  8. I guess I should've been more specific. I was thinking of those who accept the Bible as gods complete inspired word and yet insist that it is just all about love and doesn't ever condone slavery, anti-homosexual bigotry, and contradict modern science
  9. In some ways it's a great thing to have Christians that are so open minded. But isn't there something so cringeworthy and intellectually dishonest as someone who accepts the bible as the inspired word of God and then says that homosexuality is a perfectly fine in "the eyes of the lord?" In some ways I want to support these benign understandings of the faith, but the cherry picking and intellectual gymnastics used are cringeworthy. But I guess for some people where questioning the existence of God is off the table, having them accept liberal theology is the best we can hope for
  10. Should we support faith groups who think that the bible is completely consistent with lgbt rights, modern science, and humanistic values? Oftentimes, they rely on a dishonest reading of the Bible, but do they do more good than harm? In other words, is liberal theology a "good lie" for those who would rather do intellectual gymnastics than give up their faith?
  11. We obviously don't have the original texts of Josephus (nor of pretty much any ancient historical text). Technically, there could be all sorts of changes mangling the text into something that bares little resemblance to the original. However, that happens to be very unlikely, as scribes, while not perfect, would probably find it difficult to change the text so much and still fly under the radar. I think we shouldn't just declare something to be an interpolation unless there is strong reason to suspect it is. Take the text as innocent in its textual integrity until there is reason to think othe
  12. I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.
  13. I understand Carrier is a legit historian with a PHD. He is also an intelligent guy, but the way he explains away the evidence for the historical Jesus can seem somewhat ad hoc and contrived. There's no hard evidence the second passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus, "called the Christ" is an interpolation. While the other passage can definitely be counted up as a forgery due to it not appearing in manuscripts until Christians got their hands on them, this is not the case with this second mention of Jesus (called the Christ), a holy man who has a brother James who got on the wrong side of the
  14. I haven't read carriers book on the subject, although I intend to as I saw a vid of him lecturing on it and it sounded surprisingly interesting. As it stands I would side pretty heavily with the historical Jesus camp. I'm sure this has been covered but scholars pretty much have a consensus view that Jesus was a historical figure. This does not guarantee truth of course, but it is not to be taken lightly. It seems to me there are some striking parallels between Jesus mythicism and creationism. The consensus of the experts is hand waved away by claims that the scholars are driven by age
  15. Well one interesting question is to ask, how would you test such a hypothesis?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.