(January 4, 2017 at 4:10 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Astonished Wrote: Has there been any attempt to explain why anyone should respect that?

Astonished,

Are you saying that one is not to respect logic, reason, written historicity and the lack thereof, revealing biblical axioms, and the like?

Don't make this notion of Jesus' alleged existence harder than it needs to be.


m

My bad, I knew I should have bolded which part I was referring to specifically. No, I was saying that if someone believes something on nothing more than a deep-seated need to believe it (especially in the face of directly contradictory proof), why then do they get to say "That's my belief, you have to respect it." I mean, this is the worst thing about religion, teaching that respect must be given, not earned, and that love is conditional.

(January 4, 2017 at 4:15 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 4:10 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote: Astonished,

Are you saying that one is not to respect logic, reason, written historicity and the lack thereof, revealing biblical axioms, and the like?

Don't make this notion of Jesus' alleged existence harder than it needs to be.


m

My bad, I knew I should have bolded which part I was referring to specifically. No, I was saying that if someone believes something on nothing more than a deep-seated need to believe it (especially in the face of directly contradictory proof), why then do they get to say "That's my belief, you have to respect it." I mean, this is the worst thing about religion, teaching that respect must be given, not earned, and that love is conditional.

Astonished,

Christianity deserves absolutely NO RESPECT whatsoever!  Only the inept pseudo-christian mind set demands this erroneous notion.

Subjectively, no Atheist could ever respect the primitive Bronze and Iron Age faith of Christianity, or its followers that have their 
Yahweh god as being greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent!

The descriptions shown above regarding their primitive god concept are without question within their primitive bibles, and as one example 
of many, how is the rational thinking mind of the Atheist suppose to show respect to their faith that explicitly shows their Yahweh god brutally
killing innocent zygotes, fetus.' and babies as in the following passage? I don't think so!

"As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth even from the womb and from the conception.Though they bring up their sons, 
yet I will bereave them, that there shall not be a man left; yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a 
pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his sons to the murderer. Give them, O LORD, that which thou must give them; give them
 a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness was in Gilgal, for there I took a dislike to them; for the wickedness of their doings
 I will drive them out of my house, I will never love them again: all their princes are disloyal. Ephraim was smitten, their root is dried up;
 they shall bear no more fruit; even though they bring forth, yet I will slay even the desirable fruit of their womb.” (Hosea 9: 11-16)

Relative to the above disgusting biblical passage, don't forget, hypocritical pseudo-christian fools state that abortion is wrong.  Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S?

Christianity is a damaging and disgusting faith that is unfortunately still with us in the 21st century because of inept and weak minds that can still swallow the 
deplorable doctrine of its Bronze and Iron Age cultist belief.  







b

(January 4, 2017 at 4:49 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 4:15 pm)Astonished Wrote: My bad, I knew I should have bolded which part I was referring to specifically. No, I was saying that if someone believes something on nothing more than a deep-seated need to believe it (especially in the face of directly contradictory proof), why then do they get to say "That's my belief, you have to respect it." I mean, this is the worst thing about religion, teaching that respect must be given, not earned, and that love is conditional.

Astonished,

Christianity deserves absolutely NO RESPECT whatsoever!  Only the inept pseudo-christian mind set demands this erroneous notion.

Subjectively, no Atheist could ever respect the primitive Bronze and Iron Age faith of Christianity, or its followers that have their 
Yahweh god as being greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent!

The descriptions shown above regarding their primitive god concept are without question within their primitive bibles, and as one example 
of many, how is the rational thinking mind of the Atheist suppose to show respect to their faith that explicitly shows their Yahweh god brutally
killing innocent zygotes, fetus.' and babies as in the following passage? I don't think so!

"As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth even from the womb and from the conception.Though they bring up their sons, 
yet I will bereave them, that there shall not be a man left; yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a 
pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his sons to the murderer. Give them, O LORD, that which thou must give them; give them
 a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness was in Gilgal, for there I took a dislike to them; for the wickedness of their doings
 I will drive them out of my house, I will never love them again: all their princes are disloyal. Ephraim was smitten, their root is dried up;
 they shall bear no more fruit; even though they bring forth, yet I will slay even the desirable fruit of their womb.” (Hosea 9: 11-16)

Relative to the above disgusting biblical passage, don't forget, hypocritical pseudo-christian fools state that abortion is wrong.  Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S?

Christianity is a damaging and disgusting faith that is unfortunately still with us in the 21st century because of inept and weak minds that can still swallow the 
deplorable doctrine of its Bronze and Iron Age cultist belief.  







b

Hey, I totally agree with you and always did, I simply failed to point to the specific part of your first post that I quoted that I was saying didn't demand respect, i.e. the part about people who believe just because they like wishful thinking, i.e. theists, i.e. Christians. So we're on the same side, I just failed to highlight the part I was referring to. Chill.

I swear, if I have kids and they have friends who are children of religious parents, I am sorely tempted to read them stories from the bible that would make them shit their pants and cry all the way home, and let their deluded parents try to explain that away. Then when they come banging on my door asking what's wrong with me, I'll just point to their book and say, "It's in the good book. Why, do you have some problem with them learning the lord's truth?"

Quote:why then do they get to say "That's my belief, you have to respect it."

They say it because for centuries they have gotten away with such bullshit.  They can believe it.  I certainly do not respect it.... and I think less of them for being idiots.

Yeah, if you ask me bunch of shit, like Matthew 27:52-54

The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

No wonder second name for Christians is Shitheads.

Hmmm. That's odd. The definition of the word "obnoxious" seems to have changed on dictionary.com since I last looked. I looked it up just now and it said "21stCenturyIconoclas", any idea what this means?

(January 5, 2017 at 10:29 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Hmmm. That's odd. The definition of the word "obnoxious" seems to have changed on dictionary.com since I last looked. I looked it up just now and it said "21stCenturyIconoclas", any idea what this means?

What are we going to do?  I am aghast and I am screaming to the top of my lungs in the fact that we have 
a New Atheist in an Atheist forum that is calling out the dumbfounded and dangerous pseudo-christian faction!  

He is making the pseudo-christians the fools that they are and he takes no prisoners!  He has already had 
3 pseudo-christians run from their primitive Bronze and Iron Age cultist beliefs, even when they tried to insidiously
use every excuse in the Christian apologetic playbook, and more are lined up on his cross hairs, now what?!!!!!

As Alasdair Ham, I know, lets be "sideline nibblers" where we don't add anything to the topic at hand, 
but we're just to make irrelative child like insipid statements, that'll show him, who's with me?  








      Alasdair Ham's reaction to Icon's modus operandi!




b

(January 5, 2017 at 2:04 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:

---

(January 5, 2017 at 10:29 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Hmmm. That's odd. The definition of the word "obnoxious" seems to have changed on dictionary.com since I last looked. I looked it up just now and it said "21stCenturyIconoclas", any idea what this means?

What are we going to do?  I am aghast and I am screaming to the top of my lungs in the fact that we have 
a New Atheist in an Atheist forum that is calling out the dumbfounded and dangerous pseudo-christian faction!  

He is making the pseudo-christians the fools that they are and he takes no prisoners!  He has already had 
3 pseudo-christians run from their primitive Bronze and Iron Age cultist beliefs, even when they tried to insidiously
use every excuse in the Christian apologetic playbook, and more are lined up on his cross hairs, now what?!!!!!

As Alasdair Ham, I know, lets be "sideline nibblers" where we don't add anything to the topic at hand, 
but we're just to make irrelative child like insipid statements, that'll show him, who's with me?  








      Alasdair Ham's reaction to Icon's modus operandi!




b

---

It's entirely possible to be against Christianity and religion in general without being an unmitigated, ceaseless cunt about it 24/7, y'know.  

Try it sometime.

And fuck does your geocities 2002 website formatting make it hard to quote your posts.

(January 5, 2017 at 2:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: 21stCenturyIconoclast

It's entirely possible to be against Christianity and religion in general without being an unmitigated, ceaseless cunt about it 24/7, y'know.  

Try it sometime.

And fuck does your geocities 2002 website formatting make it hard to quote your posts.

FatAndFaithless,

Just another "opinion" presented by you, whereas the New Atheist doesn't cut the pseudo-christian any slack, understand?
If you're more comfortable dealing with the likes of a Yahweh's Child, or a Drich by showing respect to their damaging faith
that kills, causes dissension in society, and where it gains a foothold in government, then again, by all means you take the
wussy trail and let them continue with their vile beliefs without hitting them over their heads with it. Okay?

Besides, what part of my statements to you earlier didn't you understand relative to you being a "Sideline Nibbler?"
Do you ever actually add content to the discussion at hand other than to interact in a nondescript way?!


Jesus H. Christ, your weak modus operandi gets old!



b

(January 2, 2017 at 3:29 pm)Econo-blast Wrote:

DRICH

HELLO, ANYBODY HOME TODAY?!

I SAID THE BIBLE JESUS, REPEAT, BIBLE JESUS, GET IT?!

Like I said still not in the mode to untangle muddle anger and hate toward the church. If you have a charge please spell it out, it will be ignored till you do.

Quote:

A Jesus character may have existed, but like all ignorant and deceiving pseudo-christians like you

Seem you have been wrongly embolden. First you claim there is absolutely no proof for Christ, now you concede there is proof for Christ except...

So which is it sport? is their absolutely no proof outside of what was compiled at the console of Nicaea or not?

Let's start there.

Quote:

that like to purport a "Jesus" existed in this time period is NOT enough, we're looking for the Jesus

character that is Yahweh god incarnate or the son of Yahweh where actual EYE WITNESSES that lived

within the time period wrote about the alleged godly Jesus, with absolutely NO HEARSAY ACCOUNTS!!

Like John, Like Matthew, like Peter's account? which all three confirm the one so called hearsay account? Or do you dismiss them all because they are all apart of a compilation of writing s that not only tell of who Christ was but how to establish and maintain contact with God now?

Quote:

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? 

That said Do you not understand that ANYTHING Written that confirms the deity of Christ was compiled and is labeled 'religious' by nature no matter who wrote it? There were even books written to the opposite purpose of the bible, to prove that Jesus was not God and these books were also absorbed by the church because they mentioned Jesus in greater detail. We no longer have the originals but we do have ancient historians quoting from those books.

Apparently you do not understand That before the consul at Nicaea concluded they put out a call to begin to define and compile all canonical texts? It seem you are totally oblivious to the fact that direct discipleship was not a requirement of what ultimately be known as a canonical text?

What does that mean to all of your fan fare and flag waving you just wrongfully flourished above?? It means outsiders sport (People not apart of the faith/the apostleship)  who wrote of Christ could/would be considered canonical and therefore be adopted as a inspired writing.

Bet you have no idea what I am talking about do ya smart guy?

Yet you, upon me telling you, what I am talking about would identify this work as being religious in nature. Which is the very point I am making. Now pay attention boy, Im'a only going say, I say, I'ma only gonna to write this once!

IF a secular writing was strong enough to identify Christ as lord it was adopted in scripture. therefore disqualified as a secular writing by most douche bags who bring up this old tired argument

The problem being, unless one/historian was told (not being originally apart of the faith) to investigate and record a specific religious movement, one would only make mention of Christ and his religious movement as He impacted to world of that day greatly. As per the 12 or so ancient historical examples I gave in my opening volley.

Which now brings back full circle to your anti-sunday school of thought/objection:

Quote:

that like to purport a "Jesus" existed in this time period is NOT enough, we're looking for the Jesus

and we have that sport, all complied into one book.

Quote:

character that is Yahweh god incarnate or the son of Yahweh where actual EYE WITNESSES that lived

We have that too

Quote:

within the time period wrote about the alleged godly Jesus, with absolutely NO HEARSAY ACCOUNTS!!

First and foremost, your concern about Hearsay History... Are you being serious? or are you so stupid as to not know that the majority who record history then and now do so from a position of "hearsay?"

-Or Again, are you so foolish to believe that one or two people per generation get to personal watch and therefore are responsible to record everything first hand?

So then why the double standard?

There were maybe 11 people after the death of Jesus on the planet who could have written an eye witness account. Of which smart guy how many of them do you think could read and write? I would exclude the fishermen and or laborers simply because it was not a required skill, then means maybe 3.. The tax collectors (Matthew, Judas and John.)
and even then they may have only been able to write in aramaic (like an ancient creole or Ebonics, not a well recognized form of written communication out of certain regions.) which means inorder for a document to be official it must have been written (properly grammar ect) in Koine Greek which means a scribe, and no matter how that gets diced up a douche like you will always say hear say.

But again why the double standard? what historical document written by anyone was view from start to finish by the one author?

Can't come up with anything short of a autobiography? Neither can google.

So let's put that cheap trick back into your bag of intellectual dishonesty and move on shall we?

Quote:

Now, wipe the egg from your face once again pertaining your lack of reading comprehension, because the erroneous proof that

If there is egg on my face, then what is it I smell on yours?

Quote:

you've included should be embarrassing to you, but because of your blatant ignorance upon this topic, it isn't proof whatsoever!

Ahh Victory lap before any attempt at a rebuttal... more intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

have to do to save face, or you defend your position like your biblical doctrine so states, and debate me 

upon this topic where its just you and me, sport!  Understood? The forum's alumni are watching!

I got some 'alumni' for right here...

Quote:

 asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."  (1 Peter 3:15)

The question will soon turn to what kind of Christ I am because of how 'harshly' and quickly you are made to look the fool. Like for instance you unrealistic view of how history gets recorded "no hearsay" when infact it is all hear say if you use the same standard from which you judge the bible. Again how small minded is the person to think that History is only found to be accurate if one with first hand knowledge of an event records said event..

Just look at the BS we get from those who 'witness' police shootings. Some of those people directly contradict body cam footage and Still demand that they are right!!!

It's not about how many people one is removed from the eye witnesses, it is about dedication and investigation of and for the truth that makes one effort more legitimate than another. The fact that we have 4 collaborative (not mirrored) accounts, and a 12 or so peripheral accounts that confirm the frame work all point to one conclusion. That is the gospels more of the bible recordes the truth.

Now before you throw your stanky panties at me in an attempt to distract and threaten me, note I did not say the bible it verified or finds vetting through it's historical documentation. Actually it's documentation is vetted through the promises the bible makes, and the realization of said promises when you simply follow the directions to obtain what is promised.

The bible first and foremost even before it is a historical document is a map to God.

Now how does one vet a map? or if you prefer how does one vet a treasure map?

A moron such as yourself it would seem would blather on about histroicostiy of the map, exhaust countless scholars to prove no ORIGINAL Person who was there Drew up the Map, and all the dingle berry crap you have been victory lapping about, and won't leave me along to morn my dog.

So what does a man with common sense do to vet a map? He follows it. If the treasure is where it is found, then the map and everything it says it vetted..

That is what mind minded b-holes like yourself don't get.

God.
the question will be