RE: What's not to love?
April 27, 2012 at 12:55 am
(This post was last modified: April 27, 2012 at 1:09 am by radorth.)
(April 26, 2012 at 11:41 am)Rhythm Wrote: Rad doesn't understand the concepts of "historical fiction", "divine geneologies", "legendary exaggerations", and "mythicized tradition". To him, myths and legends are facts and procedurals (except, of course, everyone else's).
John Locke believed in pink unicorns too?
Speaking of myths, "John Locke was a deist" takes the prize.
Unbelievable
(April 26, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Anyse Wrote: So, in this one area, it would behoove all atheists to accept the "historical" Jesus.
Most atheists (not all) prefer to live in denial and claim they are facing reality.
Quote:It is the devil in the details per the NT that is really the rough part to swallow, which I, of course, as an atheist, do not.
Of course it is hard to swallow. The Sermon on the Mount and some of Jesus' parables would wreck more lifesyles and worldviews than anything ever said or written. So even the atheist H.G. Wells admitted, but he was an intellectually honest person with a grip on reality. The details themselves prove the truth of the NT. Mere inventors would have left them out, i.e. Jesus' lack of omniscience, changing his mind on at least one occasion, etc.
Disbelief has nothing to do with evidence, as I have proved over and over. Most atheists would not serve Jesus if he came down healed their mother of stage 12 cancer.
"Thanks, what took ya, and why did you kill all those babies in the flood?", yada yada. God knows that, so he doesn't bother.
