The Bible

The same could easily be said about you, given your dogmatism and lack of any argument behind it.
Lack of any argument? I have been debating this stuff here for about five years...you have some catching up to do. The main points in all of it is that there exists not a jot of tangible evidence to support any man made religion. It is all invention based upon ignorance.
 
Lack of any argument? I have been debating this stuff here for about five years...you have some catching up to do. The main points in all of it is that there exists not a jot of tangible evidence to support any man made religion. It is all invention based upon ignorance.
An argument consists of more than condescending remarks about people who happen to believe something different.

There's more than a jot of evidence. Like I pointed out, the first Christians obviously had a compelling enough reason to believe Jesus was alive and well after He was executed - I don't know how or why, but they were convinced that's what happened, and they were convinced enough to continue testifying to that belief under torture and threat of execution. There was a developed theology and multiple churches across a large geographical area by AD 50, and a mass movement in Rome by 60 AD. We know most the literature in the New Testament was authored by people who personally knew the Apostles, because the information came from persons living in Jerusalem before 70AD, and we can be even more specific of when each Gospel was authored.
A reasonable person would conclude that something very noticeable happened in Israel around AD 30, even if there's disagreement over what that something is. That Christianity is based on pure fabrication is among the least plausible explanations.

Maybe you'd like to share your opinion on what you think happened, and why you think that?

I'm trying to help you out here.
 
An argument consists of more than condescending remarks about people who happen to believe something different.

There's more than a jot of evidence. Like I pointed out, the first Christians obviously had a compelling enough reason to believe Jesus was alive and well after He was executed - I don't know how or why, but they were convinced that's what happened, and they were convinced enough to continue testifying to that belief under torture and threat of execution. There was a developed theology and multiple churches across a large geographical area by AD 50, and a mass movement in Rome by 60 AD. We know most the literature in the New Testament was authored by people who personally knew the Apostles, because the information came from persons living in Jerusalem before 70AD, and we can be even more specific of when each Gospel was authored.
A reasonable person would conclude that something very noticeable happened in Israel around AD 30, even if there's disagreement over what that something is. That Christianity is based on pure fabrication is among the least plausible explanations.

Maybe you'd like to share your opinion on what you think happened, and why you think that?

I'm trying to help you out here.
Part of the argument is that there were witnesses who had seen Jesus dead, and later seen him alive and preaching. Paul himself talks of the fact there were still plenty of genuine witnesses around when he wrote his epistles. Which is why I’ve often told HB and others I hold no special brief to argue for most of Jesus miracles, but I’m fully prepared to believe in the resurrection.
 
Part of the argument is that there were witnesses who had seen Jesus dead, and later seen him alive and preaching. Paul himself talks of the fact there were still plenty of genuine witnesses around when he wrote his epistles. Which is why I’ve often told HB and others I hold no special brief to argue for most of Jesus miracles, but I’m fully prepared to believe in the resurrection.
That does rather leave it open to the interpretation of a symbolic or sham crucifixion as claimed by Mani, and other equally original branches of early Christianity.

Paul is the source of the miraculous Jesus, and it was in his interests to blow up the story in order to compete with existing Greaco-Romanic mythology.
 
That does rather leave it open to the interpretation of a symbolic or sham crucifixion as claimed by Mani, and other equally original branches of early Christianity.

Paul is the source of the miraculous Jesus, and it was in his interests to blow up the story in order to compete with existing Greaco-Romanic mythology.
That's fair comment, but there are writings by other disciples, both inside and outside the NT, which also describe witnessing the resurrection. To be fair, I've never even heard of Mani (I'll Google), but in quite a lot of reading over the years I've never seen much to cause me to deeply question the resurrection narrative, nor doubt the veracity of the crucifixion.
 
That does rather leave it open to the interpretation of a symbolic or sham crucifixion as claimed by Mani, and other equally original branches of early Christianity.

Paul is the source of the miraculous Jesus, and it was in his interests to blow up the story in order to compete with existing Greaco-Romanic mythology.
If you consider the quality and value of teachings of Jesus or the ethical content of the old testament who needs miracles anyway? Who needs to invest their faith in patently fantastic (not to speak of spurious) claims?
The first rainbow was a sign from god to Noah - yeah right. Jesus's mother was a virgin - yeah right. the angel of death killed all the Egyptian first born - yeah of course, Samson tied firebrands to 300 fox's tails yeah.....do us a favour!

Just as "believers" shamelessly denigrate the source of the universe, of all that was and is, into a market force, into some kind of service provider "give us this" "protect us from that" "punish them" etc etc, there are believers who expect party tricks "miracles" to strengthen their faith. The inherent blasphemy in all of this is that to acknowledge the infinite wonder one doesn't need miracles at all, just a measure of humility.
 
If you consider the quality and value of teachings of Jesus or the ethical content of the old testament who needs miracles anyway? Who needs to invest their faith in patently fantastic (not to speak of spurious) claims?
The first rainbow was a sign from god to Noah - yeah right. Jesus's mother was a virgin - yeah right. the angel of death killed all the Egyptian first born - yeah of course, Samson tied firebrands to 300 fox's tails yeah.....do us a favour!

Just as "believers" shamelessly denigrate the source of the universe, of all that was and is, into a market force, into some kind of service provider "give us this" "protect us from that" "punish them" etc etc, there are believers who expect party tricks "miracles" to strengthen their faith. The inherent blasphemy in all of this is that to acknowledge the infinite wonder one doesn't need miracles at all, just a measure of humility.
Most Wednesday's the local ministers in my town gather in one of the local cafe's for sausage sandwiches, coffee and a chat. As you might expect, we normally have a prayer time too. Never a mention of smiting, or a request for party tricks. And this morning, we spent a lot of time reflecting on Reading FC, and the fact God must be getting a lot of prayer from both Reading and Rotherham fans, both seeking different answers! We decided there are probably lots of things he's not overly interested in.
 
Part of the argument is that there were witnesses who had seen Jesus dead, and later seen him alive and preaching. Paul himself talks of the fact there were still plenty of genuine witnesses around when he wrote his epistles. Which is why I’ve often told HB and others I hold no special brief to argue for most of Jesus miracles, but I’m fully prepared to believe in the resurrection.
Indeed, and how such a thing was possible is still a complete mystery to me.

That does rather leave it open to the interpretation of a symbolic or sham crucifixion as claimed by Mani, and other equally original branches of early Christianity.

Paul is the source of the miraculous Jesus, and it was in his interests to blow up the story in order to compete with existing Greaco-Romanic mythology.
Yes, it's entirely possible the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and Jesus' appearance to Paul, were ingenious works of trickery, but I struggle to figure out how that might have been achieved in the context of what's known.
The earliest known written sources were authored by Paul, but he was writing letters to a movement that had already established multiple churches in various locations, had a common theology, and were evidently already familiar with what was being referred to in the letters.

If you consider the quality and value of teachings of Jesus or the ethical content of the old testament who needs miracles anyway? Who needs to invest their faith in patently fantastic (not to speak of spurious) claims?
The first rainbow was a sign from god to Noah - yeah right. Jesus's mother was a virgin - yeah right. the angel of death killed all the Egyptian first born - yeah of course, Samson tied firebrands to 300 fox's tails yeah.....do us a favour!
We don't. For us Catholics, everything rests on the Resurrection, pretty much, and more central to our faith is the belief that God became incarnate in order to make an intimate relationship between Himself and humanity possible imagine humanity made contact with some alien civilisation, and you'd get an idea of how profound that is for us.
We understand much (probably most) of the Old Testament as mythology that conveys truth, and those truths aren't always obvious. For us, the Old Testament is merely there to provide the context in which Christianity was born, and what people believed when Christ arrived on the scene.
 
Last edited:
An argument consists of more than condescending remarks about people who happen to believe something different.

There's more than a jot of evidence. Like I pointed out, the first Christians obviously had a compelling enough reason to believe Jesus was alive and well after He was executed - I don't know how or why, but they were convinced that's what happened, and they were convinced enough to continue testifying to that belief under torture and threat of execution. There was a developed theology and multiple churches across a large geographical area by AD 50, and a mass movement in Rome by 60 AD. We know most the literature in the New Testament was authored by people who personally knew the Apostles, because the information came from persons living in Jerusalem before 70AD, and we can be even more specific of when each Gospel was authored.
A reasonable person would conclude that something very noticeable happened in Israel around AD 30, even if there's disagreement over what that something is. That Christianity is based on pure fabrication is among the least plausible explanations.

Maybe you'd like to share your opinion on what you think happened, and why you think that?

I'm trying to help you out here.
Help with hearsay, fabrication and myths about magic by unknown writers from thousands of years ago, I can do without. The probability is that the story is just complete bollocks. Your thinking is irrational and without a factual basis. Clearly your definitions of evidence and facts are incorrect. Each of the 10,000 plus religions from history are supported by the same level of reasoning.
 
In short, we don't need mainstream religion, but we sure as hell need mainstream mythology.
s
once upon a time there was a mighty empire called EUROLAND. Which promised all kinds of things from a glassy sepulchre in a place called Brussels.......
Pick theme, Emperors new clothes, Star Wars or Wizard of Oz, Pour into bucket and mix well.
But your'e right in that respect. Science is the new Religion. According to this religion, the end is nigh, has been last century but now something radical has to be done because
(1) We are all apparently maladjusted hics who need to fund mental health for the saving of our souls
(2) Somehow, just leaping up and down shouting climate change will change our habits and there will be no more pollutants in any manufacturing process.
Higgs cleft stick for me is that ever necessary condiment to life money- don't pay it to the church-pay it to the scientific monasteries, cos that God Mammon is ever present. No one will do anything for free. So we've transferred from Eternal life for ever to the concept of eternal life at a cost irrespective of the fact that death is preordained. Whatever he believes in one thing is certain, it contains money and therein lies his own hypocrisy........not that it's a problem for him. The difference is that the spirit-whatever that is, if it exists at all is supposed to be free from shackles and not driven by purely monetary gain. But then the dead are dead and unencumbered so the point is to say the least moot.
 
more central to our faith is the belief that God became incarnate in order to make an intimate relationship between Himself and humanity possible imagine humanity made contact with some alien civilisation, and you'd get an idea of how profound that is for us.
We understand much (probably most) of the Old Testament as mythology that conveys truth, and those truths aren't always obvious. For us, the Old Testament is merely there to provide the context in which Christianity was born, and what people believed when Christ arrived on the scene.
What you say seems to me (and I promise you I am not trying to be disrespectful) a straightforward description of transference and projection - the Deity is “abstract”, incorporeal and has no image? No problem - transfer all one’s need for something more tangible onto an individual human being and project all one’s ideas and expectations in regard to deity onto said individual. Of course, you can’t just put all that on an individual so now you have to turn him into the “incarnation of god”.

The thing is, if you are really serious and uncompromising about the concept of a monotheistic god - all there ever has been, is and can ever be is “incarnation of god” - the things you explained here can only serve to detract from that.
 
Last edited:
Credulous fools who adhere to christianity lack the determination to falsify the erroneous blather that rules their lives. Seeking only to build upon their cognitive bias. Religion is a sickness sustained by infecting the minds of young and innocent children.

Debunking Christianity: Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences
I wouldn't argue with any of those things. And none of them impact upon my faith. Once again, you seem to believe a fundamentalist Christian is the basic model of Christian, yet I have hardly ever met one, let alone knowing them to be "the main thing".
 
What you say seems to me (and I promise you I am not trying to be disrespectful) a straightforward description of transference and projection - the Deity is “abstract”, incorporeal and has no image? No problem - transfer all one’s need for something more tangible onto an individual human being and project all one’s ideas and expectations in regard to deity onto said individual. Of course, you can’t just put all that on an individual so now you have to turn him into the “incarnation of god”.

The thing is, if you are really serious and uncompromising about the concept of a monotheistic god - all there ever has been, is and can ever be is “incarnation of god” - the things you explained here can only serve to detract from that.

That's a very good point, and yes, the incarnation does indeed detract from our conception of God. It's intentional and goes much further - at birth He was weak, vulnerable and dependent on His parents. At the time of death He was mocked and executed in an humiliating way. These things were necessary.
Before the incarnation, those who believed in the same God resorted to idolatory, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distanced themselves from God.
 
That's a very good point, and yes, the incarnation does indeed detract from our conception of God. It's intentional and goes much further - at birth He was weak, vulnerable and dependent on His parents. At the time of death He was mocked and executed in an humiliating way. These things were necessary.
Before the incarnation, those who believed in the same God resorted to idolatory, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distanced themselves from God.
Thanks for clarifying the context. Are you inferring that since then there hasn't been idolatry, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distance themselves, including within Christianity?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying the context. Are you inferring that since then there hasn't been idolatry, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distance themselves, including within Christianity?
Not at all. We see examples of all that in the modern world. The difference is that the society Jesus lived in was more fixated on rituals and laws than the commandment to love each other and God, and the sick and poor were judged as unworthy. Jesus calls us to love each other as He loved us.
 
Not at all. We see examples of all that in the modern world. The difference is that the society Jesus lived in was more fixated on rituals and laws than the commandment to love each other and God, and the sick and poor were judged as unworthy. Jesus calls us to love each other as He loved us.
Complete bollocks. The rules of society in order to live together in reasonable harmony are based upon natural feelings of empathy and emotions that come from evolution, not from a mythical sky spook mentioned in a book of man made babble.
 
That's a very good point, and yes, the incarnation does indeed detract from our conception of God. It's intentional and goes much further - at birth He was weak, vulnerable and dependent on His parents. At the time of death He was mocked and executed in an humiliating way. These things were necessary.
Before the incarnation, those who believed in the same God resorted to idolatory, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distanced themselves from God.

loofkar said:
Thanks for clarifying the context. Are you inferring that since then there hasn't been idolatry, fixation with laws and traditions and other practices that distance themselves, including within Christianity?

Not at all. We see examples of all that in the modern world. The difference is that the society Jesus lived in was more fixated on rituals and laws than the commandment to love each other and God, and the sick and poor were judged as unworthy. Jesus calls us to love each other as He loved us.
So if, as you stated, the incarnation does indeed detract from our conception of God but it was due to the state of human society at the time he was born, what is the context for you, who not only lives over two thousand years after that time but clearly has the consciousness, awareness and developed thought faculty (and developed conscience, if you'll permit me to say), what is the context for you continuing to follow that incarnation when you say it detracts from God?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top