Christians, What Would Make You Leave Your Faith.

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You act like I called you a dirty name. Is your skin really that thin? My girlfriend calls me worse than that every day. And voicing an opinion doesn't comes anywhere close to an accusation. Go ahead and call me a closet Christian, or anything else you like. Sticks and stones...

 

Now my theory is that you might be a Liberal Bible Scholar, like Stephanie Fisher. An Atheist, yes, but someone who will destroy anyone who dares to doubt the Historical Jesus.

[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.

You act like I called you a dirty name. Is your skin really that thin? My girlfriend calls me worse than that every day. And voicing an opinion doesn't comes anywhere close to an accusation. Go ahead and call me a closet Christian, or anything else you like. Sticks and stones...

 

Now my theory is that you might be a Liberal Bible Scholar, like Stephanie Fisher. An Atheist, yes, but someone who will destroy anyone who dares to doubt the Historical Jesus.

I just said I'm not a liberal scholar. Can you rub that group of neurons you got in there to comprehend simple written English.

 

Jesus Christ

[sdelsolray]

...

You act like I called you a dirty name. Is your skin really that thin? My girlfriend calls me worse than that every day. And voicing an opinion doesn't comes anywhere close to an accusation. Go ahead and call me a closet Christian, or anything else you like. Sticks and stones...

 

Now my theory is that you might be a Liberal Bible Scholar, like Stephanie Fisher. An Atheist, yes, but someone who will destroy anyone who dares to doubt the Historical Jesus.

 

 

 

...

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

You act like I called you a dirty name. Is your skin really that thin? My girlfriend calls me worse than that every day. And voicing an opinion doesn't comes anywhere close to an accusation. Go ahead and call me a closet Christian, or anything else you like. Sticks and stones...

 

Now my theory is that you might be a Liberal Bible Scholar, like Stephanie Fisher. An Atheist, yes, but someone who will destroy anyone who dares to doubt the Historical Jesus.

I just said I'm not a liberal scholar. Can you rub that group of neurons you got in there to comprehend simple written English.

 

Jesus Christ

 

 

I posted this one first. You really do have a thin skin.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

You act like I called you a dirty name. Is your skin really that thin? My girlfriend calls me worse than that every day. And voicing an opinion doesn't comes anywhere close to an accusation. Go ahead and call me a closet Christian, or anything else you like. Sticks and stones...

 

Now my theory is that you might be a Liberal Bible Scholar, like Stephanie Fisher. An Atheist, yes, but someone who will destroy anyone who dares to doubt the Historical Jesus.

I just said I'm not a liberal scholar. Can you rub that group of neurons you got in there to comprehend simple written English.

 

Jesus Christ

 

 

I posted this one first. You really do have a thin skin.

 

Better thin skin, than a dense skull.    

[rjn]

[Jeff]

Could you all snip some of the reply when it gets into these long pissing matches?

Scroll for days on a phone

[midniterider]

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

[ironhorse]

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

[Guest]

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

[Guest]

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Qadeshet looked it up, and then refuted himself while simultaneously denying any of its validity.

[quinntar]

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Of course for Christian's Jesus had to exist physically, otherwise he wouldn't exist spiritually.

 

It's just that simple.

[quinntar]

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

[Guest]

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.

[quinntar]

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Qadeshet looked it up, and then refuted himself while simultaneously denying any of its validity.

Itching ears and all.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.

I guess not, but what are you left with.

[Burny]

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

 

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

So? Muhammad and Joseph Smith also existed. Do you subscribe to Islam and Mormonism because their founders were real? Not to mention, Jesus by definition didn't start Christianity. Paul did. This is obvious. Everyone agrees that Jesus lived and died as a Jew.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.

I guess not, but what are you left with.

Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.

I guess not, but what are you left with.

Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.

Who's remarks (The writer's of the bibles remarks.) and why are they so important?

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

 

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

 

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"

It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.

I guess not, but what are you left with.

Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.

Who's remarks (The writer's of the bibles remarks.) and why are they so important?

The writers of the Bible along with the figures who their work is based upon, primarily Jesus himself.

 

This is important simply because of the context in which we exist. Christianity became the dominant ethical, intellectual, cultural and of course religious system in the West. Is it necessary knowledge, no. Would it be that important independent of its influence? No.

 

Get out of apologist refutation mode and realize that I am in no way promoting or validating the theological and metaphysical claims of the Bible, nor am I saying that they are a reliable guide to history and ethics.

 

It is only partially effective for history, and useless for ethics, as the helpful conclusions can be arrived at independently.

[midniterider]

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

 

 

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more. 

But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though. 

[Guest]

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more.

But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though.

You don't think it is important to learn about the ACTUAL history behind the origin of religion? This is important for understanding the world today, as well as seeing that there is ultimately no validity to religious claims.

 

If the entire thing is a human enterprise, then you're not wasting your time getting hung up on the religious metaphysics.

[bornagainathiest]

By the way Iron horse, I do appreciate you making more of an effort lately to honestly interact with people here. It's a refreshing change.

 

Now answer BAA's questions!

 

Ironhorse,

 

Perhaps you'll answer my question to you from post # 54 if The Prof asks you...?

 

Oh wait... he did that yesterday.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

TS: 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.

 

...

 

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

 

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

 

I think I'm applying logic here.

 

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

 

Why not look up the facts yourself?

 

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more.

But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though.

You don't think it is important to learn about the ACTUAL history behind the origin of religion? This is important for understanding the world today, as well as seeing that there is ultimately no validity to religious claims.

 

If the entire thing is a human enterprise, then you're not wasting your time getting hung up on the religious metaphysics.

 

 

Well, I've been muddling through life without much historical knowledge of Christianity for a half century. Maybe I could muddle better with some historical knowledge but history is not really my thing. I wish it was. I have a couple history books I've tried to get through. Not much luck though. History probably is helpful for those with the interest and temperament for it. 

[bornagainathiest]

Fyi Ironhorse...

 

...that was the seventh time I've asked you this question in this thread.

 

When I last reached the seventh time of asking you (in another thread) I then switched to PMing you for an answer.

 

Please do the right thing and give a truthful answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.