Debate challenge

[Kryten]

Hello everyone. I come to you with the love of Jesus. But sometimes that love can come in the form of a swift kick in the rear!

 

I have a debate challenge for you all, and I chose to come to the lions den because my position is iron clad and with it, I can make the fiercest lion that is in here scurry away like a scared little kitten.

 

I know most of you have heard of JP holding. Most skeptics shudder at the name.

I don't "shudder", but I have no respect for him because he is a complete jerk and treats his opponents (and even some fellow believers who question him) with contempt, slinging insults and attacks in nearly every sentence. He never admits he could be wrong about anything, even when the evidence is CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN TERMS A CHILD COULD UNDERSTAND. His points are refuted one by one, but then, of course, he always CLAIMS VICTORY!!

The only people who buy his crap are those who ALREADY BELIEVE. He only presents his side on his web site, without including the opposing evidence or refutation-- but why would he? He needs to look like the winner in order to prop up the faith, and keep the suckers sending in their money.

 

As for your challenge, try reading this article by Richard Carrier, who, unlike Turkel, has read thousands of ancient articles in their original language and has a great understanding of the people and societies of the times in question.

 

Here's an sample:

James Holding asks "Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?" Well, the Sumerians perhaps. One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, goddess of Love and "Queen of Heaven"), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ.[1] The corresponding religion, which we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna, is mentioned by Ezekiel as having achieved some popularity within Jerusalem itself by the 6th century B.C. The "women weeping for Tammuz" at the north gate of the Jewish Temple (Ezekiel 8:14) we now know were weeping because Inanna had condemned him to hell, after herself being crucified and resurrected. So the influence of this religious story and its potent, apparently compelling allure, upon pre-Christian Judaism is in evidence.[2]

 

Notes:

[1] Samuel Noah Kramer, "The First Tale of Resurrection," History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History, 3rd ed. (1981): pp. 154-67. For more on Inanna, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis: G. Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis (1997); Diane Wolkstein, Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer (1983); Eugene Lane, Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren (1996) and M. J. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult (1977); Betty De Shong Meador, Lady of Largest Heart: Poems of the Sumerian High Priestess Enheduanna (2001).

 

[2] Some Christians knew of the cult, too. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 250 A.D.) mentions the cult of Tammuz and Astarte (a common transliteration of Ishtar, i.e. Inanna) as among the heresies of the early Jews (5.12). Origen and Hippolytus give important testimonies around the same time (c. 225 A.D.). Origen discusses Tammuz (whom he associates with Adonis) in his "Comments on Ezekiel" (Selecta in Ezechielem), noting that "they say that for a long time certain rites of initiation are conducted: first, that they weep for him, since he has died; second, that they rejoice for him because he has risen from the dead (apo nekrôn anastanti)" (cf. J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca 13:800). Although the Sumerian records are incomplete, and thus do not preserve an account of the resurrection of Tammuz, we do know his death followed the resurrection of Inanna.

 

The listed example of a crucified saviour has NOT been refuted, so you are wrong on that count as well.

Peace and love brother FU.

[Asuryan]

In the west, we live in what is called a guilt/pride culture, as opposed to the biblical roman empire, which was an honor/shame culture.

 

...as opposed to the real roman empire, which was a culture that had absolutely nothing to do with our concept of honor.

Read the De Bello Gallico, and read how Caesar pridefully tells us about how he betrayed and destroyed a peaceful, friendly gallic tribe, by instigating with false rumors some bigger, more aggressive tribe against it. If you read something about Cicero, you'll find how in the ancient Rome, there wasn't any real debate: people who knew Ars Oratoria used mainly rhetoric, to instigate powerful emotions inside the audience. When oratorii were included, people were judged on the basis of how much the more skilled orator managed to enrage the audience and the judges. Not on facts. Cicero's sermon against Catilina is one of the best examples. The women were savagely beaten and they had no rights (even less rights than women in the greek and babylonian empire) - they were property, as children were property of their father. When Rome was still just a little kingdom made of some Italic-only tribes, and there were too few women for reproduction, the roman males went and stealed away the Sabine women, wives, daughters, of the neighboring tribes, to forcefully marry (and rape) them and have the children they needed to make their people strong. Wife stealing, huh? Honorable.

Sure, the romans also were great strategists, good architects (they built a lot of aqueducts and sewer systems in the bigger cities they conquered), and had a very disciplined and well trained army (that is why The Passion is such a ludicrous movie... a roman soldier would've never acted so savagely, showing such blatant signs of drunkenness and rebellion against orders), but a disciplined army and a good grasp of architecture doesn't make the Roman Empire a society based on honor.

[non conformist]

You want us to find you "valid sources" for our lack belief....you go as far as making it a "hypathetical" challenge. Your only source for your claim is the bible; stories attributed to four supposed disciples who wrote down the supposed crucifixion of a supposed man named Jesus; stories with anonnimous authors.

 

Who cares if the Romans thought crucifixions was shameful? What kind of an impact would the story of Jesus make if he had simply been hung, or devoured by some beast? Not as much as the worse possible torture at the hands of some big empire I suppose. Why has this religion "thrived"? Well, if you made a fortune on holy land crusades and burned everyone who didn't believe in this Jesus for centuries, then cleaned it up and became tolerant....well let's just say that people will at least talk about it for a long time.

 

I swear these people feel so fucking superior; "My God's kool...he knows kung fu; your God sucks cause he died in a society where honor was kool, and he died in an unkool way and still lives"

[crazy-tiger]

You're begging the question here. Unless you are actually an ancient Roman, back from the dead and typing on his mommies Mac, how can you claim to know what an ancient Roman would and would not condescend to worship? You can't. You can only guess.

Oh boot skoot boogey! Can you provide me one instance in the Roman empire where crucifixion was not shameful? Betcha can't!

Can you prove that ALL crucifixions were shameful...? (by the way, why are you asking for proof of a negative?)

[Bodhi-in-Training]

This is not an argument about the historocity of Jesus. This is about a religion that grew in spite of the social stigma of degrading shame associated with it.

 

Religious ideas and especially the god-idea have their origins in fear. And hey...this was just some great fiction writing. Here we have our hero "Jesus" who died on the cross for US...how sweet Nifty way to kill the "social stigma"...

 

 

 

Also, I'm beginning to smell a rat. Can you say 'spoofer'?

 

I was wondering what that smell was.

[Guest Jesus knows Kung Fu]

Also, I'm beginning to smell a rat. Can you say 'spoofer'?

 

Spoofer.

 

You're the second person who thinks i'm spoof. What do you detect about me that makes you think I'm not being serious? My frollicking is due to the fact that I am confident that I have a position that is irrefutable. When one has that type of armour on, it makes for a comfortable atmosphere to dance among those who have a sense of hopelessness in the face of facts.

 

Besides, have you ever read a dry scholarly debate? They're quite scholarly...and dry. I like to dance around a bit to liven up the place, and show everyone that they can still have fun and be a christian. Being all stern and "proper" is a poor witness for Christ.

[crazy-tiger]

Go rant eslewhere, or join the discussion with some solid referenced facts.

We're waiting for you to do this yourself...

 

My frollicking is due to the fact that I am confident that I have a position that is irrefutable.

[Guest Jesus knows Kung Fu]

I have to log off the internet for a while and attend to some chores. But I will be back! Please have your facts straight before we resume. Also, if I am offending anyone, I apologize and i'll tone it down a notch.

[crazy-tiger]

Please have your facts straight before we resume.

[greasemonkey]

*yawn*

 

I wish I had a little longer to spend with this, but alas, life intrudes.

okay JKKF, I humored you and read the essay, but since you are asking us to suspend our disbelief, I'll ask the same thing of you. I'd like you to humor me and read a few secular rebuttals of Holding's essay.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bri...ble_faith.shtml

 

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_holding.htm

 

You see, I'm sure you can come up with a number of rebuttals to the rebuttal, but the fact is, your mind is already made up. Most of us on this site got to the place we are by becoming open to new ideas, so this entire thread is pretty much an exercise in futility.

 

I humored you by reading the essay all the way through. Now humor me and do the same with mine.

[Cerise]

It's kind of hard for us to straighten up your facts for you when you haven't given us any.

[Ssel]

Great, another caged pigeon shoot.

 

I can already see the gossamer cloud of feather dust surrounding the fading memory of the name “Jesus knows Kung Fu”

 

JkKF,

you have come here making 2 boastful claims. I normally sit back and watch the feathers fly as the crew here enjoy their too frequent snack. You obviously had no clue of what you step into when you came here. I can understand that. I came here under a false impression as well, although for totally different reasons. But I decided that it was my mistake, to take my ass whipping, and stick around for a while anyway. For some time now I have watched with squinted eyes as Christians come in and get absolutely no where with their confident boasts but instead merely feed the flames of anti-Christian passion.

 

I would like, at some time, to show this gathering the difference between surgery and butchery, but before I do that, I would like to see that I have a worthy adversary.

 

Your first boast;

I have a debate challenge for you all, and I chose to come to the lions den because my position is iron clad and with it, I can make the fiercest lion that is in here scurry away like a scared little kitten.

 

I have no particular taste for pigeon meat and feathers so I seldom participate in these slaughters. I prefer the flesh and blood of gods and I mean that in a more serious way than you probably think. So I offer you a counter-proposal to your very poorly presented debate proposition. My offer is simply this;

 

You are no doubt aware that despite any definitions of gods, the significant concept is that a god is actually capable of DOING something. And more importantly that a god can do something significant. You have come here representing your Lord and God in a boastful manner thus implying that you have their backing. Thus I offer that if you can sincerely change the heart of a single ex-Christian here, whether one of the wily kittens, the numerous hyenas, few ferocious lions, or even one of the noted dragons, then I will step up to bat and take you on. Do this minor miracle in the name of your God or Lord and I will accept your challenge with my left hand (the devil’s) behind my back and allow you every honorable opportunity to change my mind or heart.

 

Your second boast;

I love you

 

Now I’m familiar with your Lord’s teachings and I know that when a true Christian makes this statement, it has a little different meaning than most. So as my alternative counter challenge to you, I offer that if you sincerely prove this boastful claim of true Christian love (and you had better be certain you understand its true Christian meaning before you accept), then I again offer to take you on in the same manner as stated above regardless of the alteration of anyone else’s mind or heart.

 

Now in the event that you win the challenge with ME, then I offer to honorably support your cause and your Lord with whatever abilities He deems fitting (assuming that I can discern such).

 

But on the other hand, if you lose in your boastful representation of your Lord, then in your God’s name, I require that you offer in like that you will adjoin ME to struggle in MY cause in whatever manner I deem fitting.

 

I strongly suggest that you “pray” on this proposal before you agree to it. I already know that you will misunderstand the word pray and you will most probably not even pray to the right God (yours). But still it would not be fitting if you did not at least try.

 

How saith thou? A soul for a soul?

Please consider this before you go much further.

[highvoltage]

...

Thus I offer that if you can sincerely change the heart of a single ex-Christian here, whether one of the wily kittens, the numerous hyenas, few ferocious lions, or even one of the noted dragons, then I will step up to bat and take you on. Do this minor miracle in the name of your God or Lord and I will accept your challenge with my left hand (the devil’s) behind my back and allow you every honorable opportunity to change my mind or heart.

 

 

::licks his chops::

[NotBlinded]

Ssel...can you pass the wine?

[Ssel]

Ssel...can you pass the wine?

emm.. did you perhaps mispell that?

[Kryten]

Excellent post Ssel-- I don't want to detract from it. But despite that. . .

 

I find it interesting that Christians usually focus on THE WRONG ARGUMENTS! They ask about whether a "crucified saviour" would be acceptable, despite the fact the Christianity gives people everything they want in a religion with no strict jewish laws (like Judaism), no castration (Attis followers), no works or anything hard in order to be saved. All people had to do was BELIEVE and they get free eternal life in paradise, forgiveness of all wrong-doing, and ETERNAL TORTURE of their enemies (including all who don't agree)!!

 

They focus on why the resurrection must be true because the tomb was empty, disregarding the fact that it's all a story and there was no tomb (they cannot locate the actual tomb), and that even if there WAS an empty tomb, it proves nothing. If I went to my garage one morning and found my car was gone, would that prove it drove away on its own??

 

Did people convert because of miracles? Hell no. Neither does anyone today. PEOPLE CONVERT BECAUSE SOMEONE CONVINCES THEM THEIR STORY IS TRUE. If the storyteller is sincere, seems believable, and offers something people want, then they will have success!

 

The real questions are-- who wrote the bible; how error-free is it (the more errors the less likely a diety could have composed it); how logical and consistant are the messages therein; where is the non-biblical evidence that any of the main events happened or that Jesus himself actually existed; and where are the miracles today-- any miracle???

There is no evidence, and what we DO have is a strong indication that it is a fabrication. The fact that millions believe means nothing. Millions believe in other religions. Many people of other faiths are willing to DIE for their beliefs. The sad fact is that if you want to believe in a god, you are extremely likely to believe the one you are raised with or the dominant one of your society.

[Poonis]

I have a debate challenge for you all, and I chose to come to the lions den because my position is iron clad...

 

...

 

What I would like to do is to take on a few of you lions with the question "who would buy one crucified?"...

 

I would accept, under one condition; please explain your question in a coherent and understandable fashion so that even a lay-man, or a non-christian, will comprehend.

[white_raven23]

I challenge any of you to find me evidence that another God was crucified.

WTF?

Hasn't anyone told this idiot that the majority of us here DON'T believe in "god"? Most of us don't believe in "Jesus". We don't believe that ANY "god-man" was crucified. They are ALL myths! THAT is the source of our UNBELIEF!

 

Why the FUCK would you be so STUPID as to expect ME to provide PROOF of shit that I DON'T believe in?

 

*sigh* Dude, go fuck yourself. Go back to your church friends and masturbate with the Holy Spook. Stop trying to sell us shit that we've already rejected. Hebrews 6:4-6, baby. Go read it.

 

 

(Is it me, or are we still receiving visits from idiotic Christians who seek to validate THEIR faith by challenging US to "debates"? I haven't sought out ONE Christian to fight with, and yet they constantly enter here with "challenges". I never have attempted to PROVE my unbelief to anyone, and yet these "Christians" seem desperate to validate THEIR "faith" to us. Even though we don't care. Interesting. Very Freudian.)

 

Please don't post anymore. Your ranting has nothing to do with the topic. There seems to be some that have already responded in this thread with at least some sense of civility, and had the cognitive ability to stay on topic. Go rant eslewhere, or join the discussion with some solid referenced facts.

 

 

If you wanted a solid debate, you should have taken this to the Colliseum, NOT the Lion's Den....where we gleefully crack the bones of authoritative shits like you for the tasty marrow. As for telling people not to rant....the only authority you have here is purely imaginary....on your part.

 

As for your topic.....I think you need to increase your meds. Can't decide if you are ADD or just hyperactive.

[Amethyst]

Hasn't anyone told this idiot that the majority of us here DON'T believe in "god"? Most of us don't believe in "Jesus". We don't believe that ANY "god-man" was crucified. They are ALL myths! THAT is the source of our UNBELIEF!

 

Good point.

[Poonis]

(Is it me, or are we still receiving visits from idiotic Christians who seek to validate THEIR faith by challenging US to "debates"? I haven't sought out ONE Christian to fight with, and yet they constantly enter here with "challenges". I never have attempted to PROVE my unbelief to anyone, and yet these "Christians" seem desperate to validate THEIR "faith" to us. Even though we don't care. Interesting. Very Freudian.)

 

Grinch, somehow you typed what I was thinking. Isn't it interesting that for the christers to feel better about their ideology, they seek approval from us?

[NotBlinded]

So i'll start with the question " who would buy one crucified?" I will also start with the premise that :

 

Crucifixion in the Roman empire shamed the victim in all cases, regardless of the circumstances, and with absolute no exception, period!

As Cerise (and others) have already pointed out JKKFu, Jesus wasn't unique to the crucifixtion message. It's one that has built up around the concept of self crucifixtion (not to be taken literally). It is a notion that one must die to what the ego holds dear in order to be born into a new, and higher, consciousness. But, have fun proving it really occured.

[Amethyst]

*Gets a bag of popcorn and heats it up in the microwave.*

 

Hey, we need a popcorn-munching smiley.

 

...

Thus I offer that if you can sincerely change the heart of a single ex-Christian here, whether one of the wily kittens, the numerous hyenas, few ferocious lions, or even one of the noted dragons, then I will step up to bat and take you on. Do this minor miracle in the name of your God or Lord and I will accept your challenge with my left hand (the devil’s) behind my back and allow you every honorable opportunity to change my mind or heart.

 

 

::licks his chops::

[Ssel]

.. one must die to what the ego holds dear in order to be born into a new, and higher, consciousness..

..and yet another step up the mountain.

[NotBlinded]

Ssel...can you pass the wine?

emm.. did you perhaps mispell that?

Ha! No, but I wish I had have been that clever! Actually I thought it would taste good when the feathers fly. Is white or red that I want?

[Checkmate]

Please don't post anymore. Your ranting has nothing to do with the topic. There seems to be some that have already responded in this thread with at least some sense of civility, and had the cognitive ability to stay on topic. Go rant eslewhere, or join the discussion with some solid referenced facts.

Who the FUCK died and made YOU god? I will rant and rave to my fucking heart's content UNTIL a moderator or the webmaster orders me to shut the fuck up. YOU don't get to tell ME shit, assmunch. You can't deal with my words? Then go the fuck away. Put me on ignore. Do something with balls. But don't try to tell me what I can do around here.

 

You want "civil debate"? Take your sorry ass over into the Colosseum or the Arena. The LION'S DEN was created for mean fuckers LIKE ME. My job is to chew on the jugular veins of jackasses LIKE YOU. Get used to it.

 

This isn't your world. This isn't your site. Get over your self-important self.

 

Jackass.