Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[mymistake]

Jesus, listen to you people. If I stated only the facts, then one, you couldn't handle it, and two, you continually complain it's unjust.

 

Actually I would find that refreshing. The trouble is that you are not stating facts.

 

Regardless of my actions, the fact is A is guilty of rude behavior.....and none of you can live with it.

 

Pardon? Show me where I claimed that A has never been rude. You can't because you made this up. Again the trouble is that you are not stating facts.

 

I stated it, and bam, it's offensive.

 

No, what was offensive was when you pretended that you had knowledge about her personal life and you shared this insight with us. That was not factual as well. If you started stating only facts then I would find that very refreshing indeed.

 

Now listen closely. As Legion has made mention to numerous times.....entaliment. I don't know shit about entailment, but the facts themselves don't seem to adaquately define who we are or what we need. YA RECON?????

 

So stop the whining yourselves, and TRAPPED, aren't you going to tell MM that he got handed his ass?

 

Not by you. Virgile clobbered me in our debate about US drug policy but that was some time ago. Why is it you think you handed me my ass?

 

And y'all say I'm insane. Jesus.

 

I factually apologized but the only one that knew I was being sincere was Antlerman. Why you ask.

 

I didn't ask. The reason nobody could tell your apology was sincere was because you worded it like it was insincere. You did a lot of complaining and then stated that your apology was given because this was asked of you. Do you really think a sincere apology means giving an apology when people ask if of you?

 

Because he KNOWS me from a past RELATIONSHIP. Might I take this opportunity to witness. That Jesus' goal that was we have GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. And if you boneheads would take tjhe blessed time to look at how nature works........it's the same GD thing.

 

And you claim SUCH righteous intellligence because you can spell and write well....because you know the facts.

 

YOU LACK WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Actually I can't spell or write well. And my typing sucks. That is why I have to go back and edit my posts to fix my errors. You won't see me making fun of your spelling because I don't mind when others have the same trouble I have.

[Guest end3]

Someone refute Tacitus. or are we just going to beat on End some more.

[Guest end3]

Jesus, listen to you people. If I stated only the facts, then one, you couldn't handle it, and two, you continually complain it's unjust.

 

Actually I would find that refreshing. The trouble is that you are not stating facts.

 

Regardless of my actions, the fact is A is guilty of rude behavior.....and none of you can live with it.

 

Pardon? Show me where I claimed that A has never been rude. You can't because you made this up. Again the trouble is that you are not stating facts.

 

I stated it, and bam, it's offensive.

 

No, what was offensive was when you pretended that you had knowledge about her personal life and you shared this insight with us. That was not factual as well. If you started stating only facts then I would find that very refreshing indeed.

 

Now listen closely. As Legion has made mention to numerous times.....entaliment. I don't know shit about entailment, but the facts themselves don't seem to adaquately define who we are or what we need. YA RECON?????

 

So stop the whining yourselves, and TRAPPED, aren't you going to tell MM that he got handed his ass?

 

Not by you. Virgile clobbered me in our debate about US drug policy but that was some time ago. Why is it you think you handed me my ass?

 

And y'all say I'm insane. Jesus.

 

I factually apologized but the only one that knew I was being sincere was Antlerman. Why you ask.

 

I didn't ask. The reason nobody could tell your apology was sincere was because you worded it like it was insincere. You did a lot of complaining and then stated that your apology was given because this was asked of you. Do you really think a sincere apology means giving an apology when people ask if of you?

 

Because he KNOWS me from a past RELATIONSHIP. Might I take this opportunity to witness. That Jesus' goal that was we have GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. And if you boneheads would take tjhe blessed time to look at how nature works........it's the same GD thing.

 

And you claim SUCH righteous intellligence because you can spell and write well....because you know the facts.

 

YOU LACK WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Actually I can't spell or write well. And my typing sucks. That is why I have to go back and edit my posts to fix my errors. You won't see me making fun of your spelling because I don't mind when others have the same trouble I have.

 

It's Vigile.....not Virgile.....

[mymistake]

It's Vigile.....not Virgile.....

 

Like I said, I can't spell. I don't know if he got his screen name from another culture another language or what but it's especially difficult for me as an already bad speller.

 

Now were you implying that you handed me my ass? If so then please tell me regarding which point. If not then I am happy to admit that Vigile did hand me my ass regarding drugs and I'm not getting his name wrong intentionally. I'm going to have to figure out how to add his name to the spell checker or write it out on a post it. I just suck at spelling.

 

 

Edit: I googled it and it looks like it's Italian or French. I can barely handle English so bear with me for being ignorant of other languages.

[mymistake]

Someone refute Tacitus. or are we just going to beat on End some more.

 

We were talking about the deficiencies of Christianity and the falsehood of absolute Biblical morality. We could go back to that by you admitting that A was right in her conclusion or by countering her arguments, if you can.

[mymistake]

No, the fact is that the majority of women don't use their vaginas to get what they want.

 

Wow. That went right over my head. I had no idea that is what you meant. Thanks translating it. Wow.

[Akheia]

Might I take this opportunity to witness. That Jesus' goal that was we have GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. And if you boneheads would take tjhe blessed time to look at how nature works........it's the same GD thing.

 

You are without a doubt one of the most spectacular failures at being a Christian that I have ever seen, and that's after being married to a pathological liar of a preacher. Hopefully you'll be convicted in the Spirit about that soon so your transforming Savior can reach in and fix that nastiness for you. And you don't know a lot about nature if you seriously think that nature's goal is fostering relationships.

 

So why don't we start over here? You insist you were sincere. So let's play pretend that your segue into personal attacks didn't happen:

 

I've shown that your religion--like every other religion--is purely subjectively based and that it has no objectively verified tenets. I've listed in detail why its tenets are not only unverified but also morally reprehensible and an outrage to any civilized society. (This is not going to be a place I'm going to let you wiggle around, because frankly, you don't know jack shit about history, science or critical thinking. I'd say the onus is on YOU to prove your religion has objective validity, but I know you can't--at best all you can assert is that the evidence is lacking for some points, but on so many others, evidence directly refutes the Bible. Regarding the Bible's numerous moral failures, your best defense appears to be a punt to mystery--"God knows best and we just don't understand his higher ways," which has been thoroughly refuted by several posters here. So we'll move to the next point.)

 

You've tried to claim that faith shouldn't rely on objectivity alone and that subjectivity should have merit in assessing a religion's veracity. I've asserted in turn that one could say the precise same thing about every religion on earth. So that's a wash.

 

Then you went off about how you're just super-duper sure that yours is right. Well, I know a lot of non-Christians who are equally sure that their religion is right. So that's a wash.

 

If everybody's religion is unverified and purely a subjective experience, then what makes one religion "more correct" than another? Why are my warm fuzzies inferior to your warm fuzzies? Why is my "super-duper sure" inferior to Christianity's? How would you go about proving Christianity false?

 

And how do you assess a religion that makes extraordinary claims (such as threats of hell, demands that adherents deny all other faiths' validity, etc) if you have NOTHING objective to go by in judging it? How do you, for example, dismiss Norse paganism if it has: a moral framework, plenty of unverified source material, tons of warm fuzzies among its followers, and reported miracles? What makes that religion false, but your religion true?

 

I assert that eventually, one must turn to two things in assessing a religion's superiority. First, there must be direct evidence to assess extraordinary claims, and second, the religion itself must be clearly superior morally to other religions. However, the Bible has no direct evidence, and is morally inferior to other faiths.

 

I guess the problem for you is that once I see it all laid out, I realize there's no real way you can win. No wonder you had to start personally attacking me and trying to draw attention away from your argument's many flaws! You really were utterly cornered. Your response, a wheedling, whining "But but but I'm just SO SURE" doesn't really fly, and even you had to know that deep down.

 

I'm not your "dear," by the way; I'd never be stupid enough to even be in the same room as you alone, let alone be your "dear." Nice attempt to infantilize a woman, by the way--like I needed another example of your misogyny. Managing to not get yourself banned by barely skirting the edges of acceptable behavior isn't an achievement, and a high post count doesn't grant you some kind of special authority. You got your ass kicked. Take it gracefully and I'll happily remove my foot from your anus.

 

The only thing I'd think appropriate to post, if you actually want to finish this debate up, is why you feel that your religion should get a special pass that no other religion gets in assessing its validity.

[florduh]

end3, I really like you for some reason. I'd do you - not in a gay way, but like a Viking, hanging onto the horns.....

[mymistake]

I've shown that your religion--like every other religion--is purely subjectively based and that it has no objectively verified tenets.

 

Since you do not have an adequate opponent let me play Jesus advocate. End3's vague comment in post 302 is an attempt to point out that one Christian tenant is verified by an outside source. In the year 116 AD Tacitus wrote about events during his childhood (62 AD) and events that happened before he was born (before 38 AD). This is generally considered by scholars to be authentic Tacitus. It states that one Christus was executed in Jerusalem by Pilate some time before 38 AD and that this was the origin for the "Chrestians" movement.

 

I personally don't have a problem with that. If a Jewish rabbi named Yeshewa, Joshua, Jesus or Christus were executed by Romans in Jerusalem some time in the 30's AD it's not Earth shattering. It's also not unrealistic because the Romans executed a lot of people. There is the problem of how good Tacitus was at researching the events of the 30's AD. However he is not making any extraordinary claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ

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

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

[London]

apology example:

 

"I'm sorry I ______ . I apologize for treating you that way. It won't happen again."

 

sorry means you regret what you did

[asanerman]

And y'all say I'm insane. Jesus.

 

I factually apologized but the only one that knew I was being sincere was Antlerman. Why you ask. Because he KNOWS me from a past RELATIONSHIP. Might I take this opportunity to witness. That Jesus' goal that was we have GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. And if you boneheads would take tjhe blessed time to look at how nature works........it's the same GD thing.

 

 

End,

 

Your breaking my heart, man!

 

What we speak is our witness!

 

The Christian Way you represent does not allow me to drop out of my old patterns and start a new way of living, a natural way ("how nature works"), a non-repressive way of life, a life not of renunciation but of rejoicing.

 

"Too many a priori assumptions and your intelligence starts losing its sharpness, its beauty, its intensity. It becomes dull." OSHO

 

Dull intelligence is not wisdom.

 

What I'm looking for is understanding that dies every moment to the past and is "reborn again" to the future. A presents which is always a transformation, a rebirth, a "resurrection."

 

Not after I'm dead but while I still have breath!

 

A walk and talk that is my witness!

 

No defenses, no excuses necessary!

 

(For what it's worth I second florduh's sentiment.)

 

Why you submit yourself to so much unnecessary grief is amazing! Why keep falling on the "witness" grenade when it's not called for!

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Since you do not have an adequate opponent let me play Jesus advocate. End3's vague comment in post 302 is an attempt to point out that one Christian tenant is verified by an outside source. In the year 116 AD Tacitus wrote about events during his childhood (62 AD) and events that happened before he was born (before 38 AD). This is generally considered by scholars to be authentic Tacitus. It states that one Christus was executed in Jerusalem by Pilate some time before 38 AD and that this was the origin for the "Chrestians" movement.

 

I personally don't have a problem with that. If a Jewish rabbi named Yeshewa, Joshua, Jesus or Christus were executed by Romans in Jerusalem some time in the 30's AD it's not Earth shattering. It's also not unrealistic because the Romans executed a lot of people. There is the problem of how good Tacitus was at researching the events of the 30's AD. However he is not making any extraordinary claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia....citus_on_Christ

http://en.wikipedia....citus_on_Christ

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

 

There are some problems with the Tacitus passage. He was writing in c. A.D. 115 about a persecution in 62 and, as the text goes, about events in Palestine in the 30s. It's suspicious that Tacitus' account of the supposed years of Jesus' ministry does not survive in the manuscripts. Since copyists of Latin manuscripts were Christians, one skeptical hypothesis is that monks did not copy those parts because Tacitus made no mention of Jesus. Second, he mentions Pontius Pilate as though well known, but his audience is Romans living 80 years later, who would have no reason to remember Pilate or "Christus." There are very similar passages in other Latin chronicles. So another skeptical hypothesis is that this mention of "Christus" is a later interpolation, even if Tacitus did say that Nero persecuted Christians. Then there's always the question of Tacitus' sources. Tacitus was friends with Pliny, who as governor in Asia Minor was struggling over how to handle Christians in his province. Richard Carrier maintains that if Tacitus did mention Pilate's execution of "Christus," he probably got his info from Pliny, who in turn had gotten it from Christians. But in 115 the Christians would only know from hearsay, tradition, gospels--which, if Carrier is right, would mean that Tacitus is not an independent witness, since his info would go back ultimately to the Bible and similar Christian sources.

 

Here's a discussion from the skeptical POV:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/tacitus_lucian_and_josephus

[Akheia]

Love me some Tacitus! But Tacitus isn't contemporary---the man was born decades after Christ supposedly died. There is even dispute about whether that passage is even real, given that it didn't come into prominence until the mid-Dark Ages when several other fake documents/artifacts "proving" this or that aspect of Christianity arose, or if key words got garbled or changed to drastically alter the meaning of the passage. Even if Tacitus wrote it, though, it doesn't prove much: just that *a* guy nicknamed Christ was executed at around that time and his followers took his title as their Jewish sect's name.

 

The problem is, according to contemporary accounts like Josephus, there were so many god-men running around at the time claiming to be messiahs that they all really blended together. Tacitus, tellingly, says nothing about Christ's supposed resurrection, nor his miracles, not even by hearsay. I also don't remember Tacitus saying much about St. Paul, who should have been very active around that time--and if not Paul, then at least churches he supposedly ministered to.

 

Also tellingly, not a word came out of Judea contemporaneously with Jesus discussing what Jesus did. I genuinely do not think based upon the evidence that a single man named Jesus Christ experienced and did the things the Gospels relate. Tacitus' brief mention is no more proof that the Bible's Jesus is who it says he is than Batman having a character named Alfred in it proves Batman is real (as in, are there British butlers named Alfred? WELL THERE YOU GO). This is pretty thin broth to base a soup upon. Do I think based upon the evidence that *one* of the god-men running around Judea got his butt executed? Yes. But the Bible reads a lot more like a slurry of details from many people who were all motivated to make their little corner of the sandbox "fit" their agendas. And if it's a Dark Ages fake, then it fits very well with how Christians at the time viewed their faith: if it seemed like it should have been true, then by golly it was. It seems doubtful, this far removed, that we'll ever find out just which of those miracle-workers the Bible really meant to make its Messiah. I think that's tantalizing and sad at the same time--I don't know if I've mentioned, but I'm a history writer, and it's just frustrating as hell to realize there's some fact out there that you just can't claw out of the sands of time.

 

What do you think?

 

(Jesus advocate. That was awesome. )

[mymistake]

Since you do not have an adequate opponent let me play Jesus advocate. End3's vague comment in post 302 is an attempt to point out that one Christian tenant is verified by an outside source. In the year 116 AD Tacitus wrote about events during his childhood (62 AD) and events that happened before he was born (before 38 AD). This is generally considered by scholars to be authentic Tacitus. It states that one Christus was executed in Jerusalem by Pilate some time before 38 AD and that this was the origin for the "Chrestians" movement. I personally don't have a problem with that. If a Jewish rabbi named Yeshewa, Joshua, Jesus or Christus were executed by Romans in Jerusalem some time in the 30's AD it's not Earth shattering. It's also not unrealistic because the Romans executed a lot of people. There is the problem of how good Tacitus was at researching the events of the 30's AD. However he is not making any extraordinary claims. http://en.wikipedia....citus_on_Christ http://en.wikipedia....citus_on_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

There are some problems with the Tacitus passage. He was writing in c. A.D. 115 about a persecution in 62 and, as the text goes, about events in Palestine in the 30s. It's suspicious that Tacitus' account of the supposed years of Jesus' ministry does not survive in the manuscripts. Since copyists of Latin manuscripts were Christians, one skeptical hypothesis is that monks did not copy those parts because Tacitus made no mention of Jesus. Second, he mentions Pontius Pilate as though well known, but his audience is Romans living 80 years later, who would have no reason to remember Pilate or "Christus." There are very similar passages in other Latin chronicles. So another skeptical hypothesis is that this mention of "Christus" is a later interpolation, even if Tacitus did say that Nero persecuted Christians. Then there's always the question of Tacitus' sources. Tacitus was friends with Pliny, who as governor in Asia Minor was struggling over how to handle Christians in his province. Richard Carrier maintains that if Tacitus did mention Pilate's execution of "Christus," he probably got his info from Pliny, who in turn had gotten it from Christians. But in 115 the Christians would only know from hearsay, tradition, gospels--which, if Carrier is right, would mean that Tacitus is not an independent witness, since his info would go back ultimately to the Bible and similar Christian sources. Here's a discussion from the skeptical POV: http://www.rationalresponders.com/tacitus_lucian_and_josephus

 

Yes it's questionable. It leaves the existence and execution of a Jewish rabbi up in the air. However I find that there is too much there to rule it out. When we take this in conjunction with Paul capitalizing on somebody else's reputation I find it reasonable that a human existed. That is not an extraordinary claim. It still leave the remaining Christian tenants empty.

[Antlerman]

I'm glad we're past the personal crap. Let's everyone drop it and keep moving on. The one thing about End, unlike your typical delusional Christian, he knows he's an ass sometimes. What you see is what you get. I'm just going to ask one thing End, next time you feel like attacking on a personal level, don't! You clearly have anger issues, but we're all pretty much fed up with this eye for an eye juvenile bullshit going on in these threads. Who gives a shit if you think someone else started it, for Christ's sake! Take the higher road, and voluntarily give yourself a break to find your calm before any more of this shit happens here. We don't need this, and it's unnecessary. Please don't make me get involved in putting an end to this.

 

BTW, I do recognize your sincerity. Again, just step away rather than go these damned paths. Please. Now, carry on you sexy Viking, as Florduh so described you.

[MrsRoper]

So...what are we talking about again?

[mymistake]

Tacitus' brief mention is no more proof that the Bible's Jesus is who it says he is . . .

 

Hold on there. I just said a Jewish rabbi was executed by Rome. I find this to be a rather mundane claim that I am willing to accept based on the thinest of evidence. Yeshua was a very common name. Christ is what they called their kings.

 

Here is what I believe happened. Around 450 BC Ezra writes the Old Testament based on older sources. Ezra re-creates the Jerusalem cult. Around 175 BC Jesus ben Sira is a popular Jewish rabbi. This guy is the original Jesus teacher. Then when Rome moves into Jerusalem Jesus has become a very popular name. Everybody has a cousin named Jesus. There are lots of con men wizards named Jesus. The Nazarene sect of Judaism also has a rabbi named Jesus. That guy is often called Jesus the Nazarene. At some point in the 30's AD Rome crucifies somebody named Jesus. The guy was not popular at the time. But once he gets martyred his memory becomes popular. Enter Paul of Tarsus. Paul says "Yeah I saw that Jesus guy in a vission and Jesus turned me into his apostle so do what I say". Lots of other sects jumped on the idea and they wanted Jesus to be their patriarch too. I believe that is how Jesus the Nazarene became Jesus of Nazareth. Somebody didn't want the rival Nazarene sect to get legitimacy so they made up a story about Jesus coming from a town that didn't exist back in the time of Jesus.

 

Then the Roman-Jewish war wrecks everything. Christians become anti-Jew. Jews become anti-Christian. The temple is destroyed in 70 AD. Then Christians start writing their Gospels. Mark is written late in the First Century. Matthew, Luke are written early in the Second Century.

 

Edit: If you read the end of Matthew you see that Matthew supports a sect in Galilee. But if you read the beginning of Acts you see that the author of Acts/Luke supports a sect based in Jerusalem. "See we have the real Jesus! Jesus told the Real True Disciples to wait in/go to OUR city/region."

 

John is written even later. Christianity evolves and develops into many different flavors. Hundreds of years later Rome notices that Christianity is gaining popularity and could be very useful. So the emperor of Rome gathers all the Christians together and tells them to agree or die. The Christians who work out a compromise become Catholic. The Christians who won't compromise become the heretics and get exterminated.

 

That is my take in a nutshell.

[Realist]

end3, I really like you for some reason. I'd do you - not in a gay way, but like a Viking, hanging onto the horns.....

 

... I agree with that in some weird way Florduh! He has held on here for over 4000 posts! He certainly is not a troll!

 

 

.... edit .... and Amen to Antlerman's pearls of wisdom too!

[Ouroboros]

Someone refute Tacitus. or are we just going to beat on End some more.

The Tacitus quote is most likely accurate, however, he doesn't reveal his source. Since he is calling Pilatus a procurator instead of prefect, we must conclude that he didn't get his information first-hand from any Roman records, but from hearsay.

[Akheia]

MM, I think that's roughly how it went. And I think that the Jesus ben Sira/Sirach story is probably the major inspiration for the general outlines of Jesus' character. But it's different enough that it couldn't be much more than an inspiration, and the timeframe's so off that I'm just not feeling him being 100% Jesus. The Bible makes many claims about Jesus' biographical details, and every single one of them can pretty much be dismissed out of hand except the barest bones of the myth: long ago there was a rabbi who was executed. But there're enough holes in the myth's specifics that I can safely rule out that the center of the myth is long, long gone, along with anything specific about him. There are also enough additions to the myth to make "Jesus" into a worthy competitor for the god-men myths of his day that I can definitely see his story being largely an amalgam of many different myths and stories circulating at the time. For all we know the rabbi who was executed wasn't a Jesus at all, or maybe he wasn't actually the main progenitor of his particular messianic cult. All we have is Tacitus' word that the executed man was the progenitor of the sect, and as Ouroboros said, that might not be totally trustworthy. I think (as I suspect you do) that the Christians took the concepts they needed and plugged them onto an almost-forgotten dude who'd been executed years ago. I'm not sure that counts as a historical Jesus.

 

Let me ask this: if you want to know about someone in history, how do you go about finding him/her? And when we speak of a historical Jesus, what are we actually saying? I'm happy to concede that *a* Jesus inspired a bunch of folks around that time and maybe even was executed, purely because there were so many con-men named Jesus floating around preaching endtimes and fooling the gullible. But without records of even a single one of the specifics of the Jesus myth beyond that kernel I mentioned, I find it really hard to think that the story is anything more than a very heavy cloak draped upon skeletal shoulders.

[Guest end3]

And y'all say I'm insane. Jesus.

 

I factually apologized but the only one that knew I was being sincere was Antlerman. Why you ask. Because he KNOWS me from a past RELATIONSHIP. Might I take this opportunity to witness. That Jesus' goal that was we have GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. And if you boneheads would take tjhe blessed time to look at how nature works........it's the same GD thing.

 

 

End,

 

Your breaking my heart, man!

 

What we speak is our witness!

 

The Christian Way you represent does not allow me to drop out of my old patterns and start a new way of living, a natural way ("how nature works"), a non-repressive way of life, a life not of renunciation but of rejoicing.

 

"Too many a priori assumptions and your intelligence starts losing its sharpness, its beauty, its intensity. It becomes dull." OSHO

 

Dull intelligence is not wisdom.

 

What I'm looking for is understanding that dies every moment to the past and is "reborn again" to the future. A presents which is always a transformation, a rebirth, a "resurrection."

 

Not after I'm dead but while I still have breath!

 

A walk and talk that is my witness!

 

No defenses, no excuses necessary!

 

(For what it's worth I second florduh's sentiment.)

 

Why you submit yourself to so much unnecessary grief is amazing! Why keep falling on the "witness" grenade when it's not called for!

 

Well, you are about as close to a hero in my book as I can find. I dont know what else to say but I'm trying. These people are not too difficult. You ought to see what I have to do for my wife. I stay figuratively dead for her, but that's what the book says and it works....lol. Thank you again.

[mymistake]

And when we speak of a historical Jesus, what are we actually saying?

 

That there were very many but none of them was important during his lifetime. If you are going to pick one to be "the historical Jesus" then I would have to go with whatever Jesus died just before Paul invented Christianity. Paul was using somebody's reputation. But even then Jesus Christ is a fiction invented by Paul. The Christ Paul writes about is not the guy who lived and died. This is very much a fish story that grew with each telling. And the original "historical" fish was a little one that was too small to keep.

[Guest end3]

You are without a doubt one of the most spectacular failures at being a Christian that I have ever seen, and that's after being married to a pathological liar of a preacher. Hopefully you'll be convicted in the Spirit about that soon so your transforming Savior can reach in and fix that nastiness for you. And you don't know a lot about nature if you seriously think that nature's goal is fostering relationships.

 

I'll gleen spectacular out of what you said. It's enough for me today. Ma'am, everything is in a relationship....right down to sub-atomic particles. Please consider in your spare time how they "get along" with each other and apply that to humanity. Really neat.

 

So why don't we start over here? You insist you were sincere. So let's play pretend that your segue into personal attacks didn't happen:

 

 

I've shown that your religion--like every other religion--is purely subjectively based and that it has no objectively verified tenets. I've listed in detail why its tenets are not only unverified but also morally reprehensible and an outrage to any civilized society. (This is not going to be a place I'm going to let you wiggle around, because frankly, you don't know jack shit about history, science or critical thinking. I'd say the onus is on YOU to prove your religion has objective validity, but I know you can't--at best all you can assert is that the evidence is lacking for some points, but on so many others, evidence directly refutes the Bible. Regarding the Bible's numerous moral failures, your best defense appears to be a punt to mystery--"God knows best and we just don't understand his higher ways," which has been thoroughly refuted by several posters here. So we'll move to the next point.)

 

I don't know how to accurately say this but let me try. Somehow we get emotions via objective reality. Let's again call them entailment. As we don't have the mechanism yet we still have emotions, I believe spirituality deserves the same assessment......love being God and love being an emotion. The Bible, in my humble opinion, is full of true entailments in the fact that if you look at the types or entailments, that you see pretty much an exact match for the human condition. I realize you don't care for the OT God, but again, in my opinion, the story fits similarly with building a physical foundations, yet he is building a moral foundation from raw materials, i.e. raw humanity. Again, I realize you do not like this kind of thinking in the least, but we can't prove how physiology produces emotions, yet they are a reality. Why is it so incorrect to at least hold on to faith until these answers come to light.

 

 

You've tried to claim that faith shouldn't rely on objectivity alone and that subjectivity should have merit in assessing a religion's veracity. I've asserted in turn that one could say the precise same thing about every religion on earth. So that's a wash.

 

Now that's a damn good question. What comes to mind is Jesus rebuking the men around him for repeatedly not recognizing the Spirit. Antlerman and I have discussed several times this subject. I honestly question my own judgement when it comes to that question.

 

 

Then you went off about how you're just super-duper sure that yours is right. Well, I know a lot of non-Christians who are equally sure that their religion is right. So that's a wash.

I haven't even told you why I believe, so I don't know where your getting this idea.

 

 

If everybody's religion is unverified and purely a subjective experience, then what makes one religion "more correct" than another? Why are my warm fuzzies inferior to your warm fuzzies? Why is my "super-duper sure" inferior to Christianity's? How would you go about proving Christianity false?

On a theme level answer.....because it fit's so well with the human condition. Marriage, nature, I could go on.

 

 

And how do you assess a religion that makes extraordinary claims (such as threats of hell, demands that adherents deny all other faiths' validity, etc) if you have NOTHING objective to go by in judging it? How do you, for example, dismiss Norse paganism if it has: a moral framework, plenty of unverified source material, tons of warm fuzzies among its followers, and reported miracles? What makes that religion false, but your religion true?

Let me please check on Norse paganism.....I have no clue the tenets. But let's say this. If it fits and works and gives security along with peak personal experiences.....it sure give you a tendency to say it's true. Essentially, I have never not had an "answer" from God.....even when I should have been left in a hole. I'm not the nicest person if you haven't yet noticed.

 

 

I assert that eventually, one must turn to two things in assessing a religion's superiority. First, there must be direct evidence to assess extraordinary claims, and second, the religion itself must be clearly superior morally to other religions. However, the Bible has no direct evidence, and is morally inferior to other faiths.

I'm faithfully waiting on revelation myself, but since the Bible theme is I AM God and you're not along with the examples of men taking the rudder themselves, I wait.

 

I guess the problem for you is that once I see it all laid out, I realize there's no real way you can win. No wonder you had to start personally attacking me and trying to draw attention away from your argument's many flaws! You really were utterly cornered. Your response, a wheedling, whining "But but but I'm just SO SURE" doesn't really fly, and even you had to know that deep down.

Yes, if you haven't noticed, I did win, not on my accord.

 

I'm not your "dear," by the way; I'd never be stupid enough to even be in the same room as you alone, let alone be your "dear." Nice attempt to infantilize a woman, by the way--like I needed another example of your misogyny. Managing to not get yourself banned by barely skirting the edges of acceptable behavior isn't an achievement, and a high post count doesn't grant you some kind of special authority. You got your ass kicked. Take it gracefully and I'll happily remove my foot from your anus.

Think what you wish ma'am, you're excellent at it.

The only thing I'd think appropriate to post, if you actually want to finish this debate up, is why you feel that your religion should get a special pass that no other religion gets in assessing its validity.

I just did. Peace.

[midniterider]

I'll gleen spectacular out of what you said. It's enough for me today. Ma'am, everything is in a relationship....right down to sub-atomic particles. Please consider in your spare time how they "get along" with each other and apply that to humanity. Really neat.

 

 

Electrons don't relate to each other. They repel.

[Akheia]

Thank you for finally sitting down and answering. Didn't take too long, either, I don't reckon.

 

If I get you correctly, you think that Christianity is more valid than other religions because it echoes what marriage is like? What sort of marriage? The kind with multiple wives and concubines that God apparently condoned to start with, or the sex-slave teenaged-war-bride version the Hebrews practiced at his command, or one man/one woman fundies like to say that it's "always been," or "any two consenting adults" that progressives assert? The idea of marriage has always been fluid in human society. One thing that I can say for utter certainty is that Christian marriage is likely the worst thing to happen to women since clitoral mutilation. Divorce is way more common among evangelical couples than among non-evangelical ones, and it's not hard for me to see why given my own history and knowing as many women as I did: I knew wayyyy too many Christian men who were weak, controlling bullies who fell back on "as Christ heads the church" as some sort of magic bullet to force their wives to submit to their decisions. I would seriously put the percentage so high you wouldn't believe me. I don't know any way that the "separate but equal" mindset can produce anything but contempt on both sides. What's funny is that you find marriage to intuitively lead one to the Bible's God, but I found it led me away from him. The more I read the Bible, the more God seemed like an abusive husband. He does not deserve my love, nor my obedience, nor my allegiance, nor my loyalty. So I divorced his ass

 

Kinda FYIish: The non-Christians I've known who were married seemed way way way happier than any Christians I ever knew, and their relationships didn't even come close to resembling the tyrannical and bullying form of marriage Christians endure. Hell, I just celebrated my 9th anniversary to a flaming pagan whom I respect and adore, and it occurred to us that we haven't ever had a real argument--not because either of us is scared to fight, but because he's so fair and rational that it just never gets that far. This is the most non-Christian, anti-Biblical relationship I've ever seen, but 9 years later here I am still completely besotted with the man. If you think that your Christian marriage reminds you of God, then I'm not sure what to say--"I sympathize" seems unkind, but it's what I'd have wanted to hear had I said the same thing.

 

As to nature--it is beautiful, but absolutely brutal to everybody, without concern or care who gets killed or hurt, from microbes to humans. It can be awe-inspiring, but so much of it is merciless and unforgiving. How in the world can you reconcile nature with the Christian faith's message of redemption? The only god I get out of that is not a very nice one, nor one who loves humanity, nor one who wants humanity reconciled to him.

 

So: how can you seriously look at marriage and nature and think they immediately lead to the validity of a Christian god? I'd say that those two things are far more harmonious with a pagan mindset, or a deist one, if one wishes to have a faith at all. Maybe this, too, is your subjective opinion. I can respect that, but I also ask that you respect, in turn, that I do not think either one leads me intuitively to the Abrahamic religion. In fact they turn me away from the Bible's god. I do not feel that God can possibly exist with the attributes Christians typically give him in conjunction with the brutality and utter mercilessness of nature, and I certainly don't think that the modern evangelical Christian form of marriage is immutable, eternal, or desirable.

 

You're also trying to claim that emotions can come from objective stimuli. I'd argue that just about all of them do--but the stimuli can just as easily be inside your head than outside it. I take it you don't know much about bio-psychology? We actually know exactly where many of these emotions come from in the brain; it's not hard to produce feelings by electrically stimulating parts of the brain. So we actually do have biological mechanisms that produce emotions. With that in mind, we may be far more responsible for our own flights of awe and fancy than we ever thought possible.

 

So...

 

All that means that we get to this point: Your religion is subjective. Mine is subjective. We both lack any external proof or evidence for our beliefs. We're both utterly positive that the natural world reflects the faith we've decided to follow. We both find that our ideal concepts of marriage echo the divine. We both have the warm fuzzies that come from feeling like we've contacted the divine. We both find moral lessons within our respective faith systems. But for some reason you're sure that your religion is superior to mine. Why? You're waiting for revelation, but don't you suppose God's had enough time in the last couple thousand years to make himself clear if he wanted to be understood? If he's that unwilling to share, then he's going to have to understand if I'm unwilling to risk my immortal soul gambling on him when there are way more sensible, humane, and logical ways to live.