I'll give you that.

Quote:So you're going back on your statement now that there aren't any first century references to Jesus, and are now just saying they are unconvincing

WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT?

There are no first century references to your godboy among contemporary Greco-Roman-Jewish writers and the fact that xtians chose to tamper with Josephus' writings in order to create some tells me that they had nothing real to work with. If there were ACTUAL references they would have hardly needed to forge some, would they?

(October 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Tristos "chess with a pigeon" applies.

Actually I did not come up with the phrase some user on youtube used it before me and I am not sure if he came up with it in the first place.

I hereby grant you ownership.

(October 26, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I hereby grant you ownership.

Thank You

(October 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)lucent Wrote:

(October 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: First off, this whole 3=1 thing. I'm really struggling to get my head around the concept, truly I am. The closest I can figure is that Yahweh, Jesus and Holy Ghost are all seperate entities with individual personalities etc, but they are all part of the same global organisation; I imagine it as GodCorp International. When any single one of them speaks or acts in terms of a single entity, in practise it really means that individual is representing the Company. Am I on the right lines? I know I may have some little reputation as a piss-taker, however this is really quite a genuine question and it's the only way I can make "separate, but also the same essence" work for me.

It's not something which lends itself to easy study. I'll tell you how I relate it..

If we think about this in terms of numbers, the basic problem is that the Trinity is both 1 and 3 at the same time. My rosetta stone for this paradox is the number 333

Let's say each digit represents a different member of the Trinity. They are one in that each of them have the same number, which is 3. That is what unifies them in that they are each representing the same number. It's not three different 3's, it is three digits which are all the same 3 at the same time. They are each representing 3 because there are three of them. If you took away one of them you would have 2 left, and their number would be 22. They are each a 3 because their sum is three, and they are one because they are they are all the same 3..

Ultimately their number is just 3 by itself. If 3 = God, it is because 1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Holy Spirit = 3 (God)

I thought it was supposed to be 1+1+1=1; the only way you can make it work is 1+1+1=3? That's what we've been saying all along!

(October 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)lucent Wrote:

(October 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I realise it's all too easy simply to post videos and links to articles in lieu of forming one's own thoughts on the matter - which is precisely why I'm about to do just that.

Again I'm not trying to be facetious; I'd just like to ask by what definition of 'quality' were all these lives improved?

"Because Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of others, they use this belief for their own purposes by “letting Christ suffer while they, the Christians, go on committing sin and crime.” That is why the Christians go on slaughtering the Non-Christians, totally worry-free and with a totally clean conscience, because Christ will take care of their sins and crimes, and because they don’t have to face the laws of Karma and Re-incarnation or the veritable consequences of these laws"

http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com...trocities/

Hebrews 10:26

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

The rest are Christians behaving badly. I fully admit people have done some sick things in the name of Christianity, but in every case it was because they disobeying Christ. Evil often cloaks itself under the guise of something good. However, by comparison, I could find hours upon hours of testimony of people, including my own, that say God changed our lives for the better, and that would only be scratching the surface.

Personal testimony by itself is useless. I'm sure if I bothered to try I could find "hours and hours" of testimony from people who think that faith-healing and psychic surgery is real. No, the only interesting - and revealing - part of your whole response here is your reliance on the "no true Scotsman". I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what these people who disobeyed Christ believed, or claimed to. I'm not even going to raise the spirit of Hitler here, as I don't need to. Pope Ratzinger, for instance, guilty of actively covering up child rape while still a Cardinal (indeed he was in charge of an organisation to do just that). And that's just one of his many crimes against humanity. Or then there's Mother Teresa - how would you rate her; xtian or not? Saint or sinner?

(October 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)lucent Wrote:

(October 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Finally I thought I'd throw in this little titbit of my own personal testimony for those among who may be amenable to such things. All I can say is I swear this is a genuine anecdote. Several nights ago I dreamed that a blazing light beamed down at me through pearlescent clouds, accompanied by choral music, and God appeared before me with a message. He told me he doesn't exist.

If you're actually being serious then that came from Satan..

If you're actually being serious, then I want to thank you for making my point for me. You cannot possibly have any objective way of knowing, or even discovering, whether my testimony is reliable or not; other than my word which, since I represent a diametrically oppoing position, you have to automatically - and correctly treat as suspect. Your very words indicate that you recognise this. Sadly you then veer wildly from the point without even having to begin a fresh sentence, which must be something of a record.

To elucidate: I presented you with what I described as a genuine anecdote. I'll skip the part where the meaning of my careful choice of words flew over your head and go right to the meat. In considering my anecdote, you were left with at least five options: I had a real godly vision; I had a real Satanic vision; I was delusional/hallucinating; I was dreaming; I was lying. I even gave you a clue in my testimony. The point is you cannot know which of these options applies. There is nothing for you to test; you either have to accept it or reject it. You can't accept it because I am a godless atheist and you can't reject it if it's genuine. Thus the only course of action open to you, after a healthy expression of doubt, was to poison the well.

(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I thought it was supposed to be 1+1+1=1; the only way you can make it work is 1+1+1=3? That's what we've been saying all along!

It can work either way. You might try addressing some of the other things I said.

(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Personal testimony by itself is useless. I'm sure if I bothered to try I could find "hours and hours" of testimony from people who think that faith-healing and psychic surgery is real. No, the only interesting - and revealing - part of your whole response here is your reliance on the "no true Scotsman". I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what these people who disobeyed Christ believed, or claimed to. I'm not even going to raise the spirit of Hitler here, as I don't need to. Pope Ratzinger, for instance, guilty of actively covering up child rape while still a Cardinal (indeed he was in charge of an organisation to do just that). And that's just one of his many crimes against humanity. Or then there's Mother Teresa - how would you rate her; xtian or not? Saint or sinner?

There are true scotsman. They were born in scotland and they wear kilts and play bagpipes. Just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are one. Just because you claim to follow Christ doesn't mean you're going to get into Heaven:

Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Atheists will claim that atheism had nothing to do with the brutal actions of atheist dictators, but then condemn Christianity because of the actions of Christians who weren't following Christ.

The catholic church is an apostate church which has strayed far from scripture. It is a corrupt organization and I don't support it in the least. I won't apologize for child rapist hiding catholic priests because they are sick people who I very much doubt are followers of Christ.

(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: If you're actually being serious, then I want to thank you for making my point for me. You cannot possibly have any objective way of knowing, or even discovering, whether my testimony is reliable or not; other than my word which, since I represent a diametrically oppoing position, you have to automatically - and correctly treat as suspect. Your very words indicate that you recognise this. Sadly you then veer wildly from the point without even having to begin a fresh sentence, which must be something of a record.

To elucidate: I presented you with what I described as a genuine anecdote. I'll skip the part where the meaning of my careful choice of words flew over your head and go right to the meat. In considering my anecdote, you were left with at least five options: I had a real godly vision; I had a real Satanic vision; I was delusional/hallucinating; I was dreaming; I was lying. I even gave you a clue in my testimony. The point is you cannot know which of these options applies. There is nothing for you to test; you either have to accept it or reject it. You can't accept it because I am a godless atheist and you can't reject it if it's genuine, since it contradicts your opinion (though it would have been interesting to see your response if I'd claimed to have been converted or someting). Thus the only course of action open to you, after a healthy expression of doubt, was to poison the well.

No, I only had two options, because it can be tested. All truth is spiritually discerned. Either you were lying, or it was a Satanic vision. It wasn't from God because He doesn't lie. It wasn't a halluncination because lies about God always come directly from Satan. I was 99 percent sure you were lying, but I ventured my answer just in case. To someone with no spiritual discernment, it's all the same to you. I know because I used to view all of it the same way. It doesn't mean personal testimony is worthless, it just means you have no idea how to intepret it.

It can't work either way. When an argument or statement gives two contradictory conclusions, it doesn't work. 1+1+1=3 or it equals 1, not both. You might try avoiding explanations you don't want to be called out on.

Every time that I'm sure you've said the most ridiculous thing you could possibly say you blow my mind by doubling down yet again.

(October 27, 2011 at 6:27 pm)lucent Wrote: No, I only had two options, because it can be tested. All truth is spiritually discerned. Either you were lying, or it was a Satanic vision.

False dichotomy, lunacy, false dichotomy. I like the bit about his god claim being testable though, yours must be as well, thusfar it's failed every test conceived.

Quote:lies about God always come directly from Satan.

Ah, but now you need to demonstrate evidence that there is a "satan."

Your fables are not accepted as genuine.

Ok Lucy, I think we'd better just stop this right here. Clearly neither of us is going to be swayed by the other and I'm not in the mood to follow you down the rabbit hole any further. Everyone else feel free to pointy-stick the guy as much as you want.