(December 13, 2014 at 9:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

And this is supposed to be a good thing.

How else would you propose a means to separate the gullible from their hard-earned ducats?

(December 12, 2014 at 10:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: My point is that your contention that people cannot write knowledgably about an historic period unless they've lived through it is idiotic. Well-researched historical writing has a long, well, history. If it didn't, there would BE no historical writing. If what you contend is true, then you cannot possibly know anything about the life of the figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, because you didn't walk round with him, didn't talk to him, didn't hold the bucket while he vommed up that wine he made at Cana.

Boru

Dude, reading comprehension, how about that? I said no one could have gotten those FACTS that I mentioned about 1st Century Palestine unless they had knowledge of the area, or they spoke to someone WITH knowledge of the area, and nothing you said is a defeater of that.

---

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: Everyone else has already answered for me.

Listening to me = safe bet....listening to "everyone else" = big gamble.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: But the big questions remain. Why second hand hearsay is acceptable written decades after the events is acceptable proof;

Because perhaps those second hand sources were still living DECADES after the event. Kinda like how Reverend Jesse Jackson was present during the MLK assassination, and he is still alive almost five "decades" later and can still tell you what he saw.

Kinda the same kinda stuff.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: why we would accept sources that contradict each fundamentally;

Because they don't.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: why there are no first hand contemporary sources for such huge events. Got any real answers?

Because the average Joe couldn't read or write during those times, Jenny. If the average person in the U.S couldn't read or write, I wouldn't expect to see many facebook statuses coming from the U.S of A.

What happened is exactly what you would expect to happen, people could't read or write so they b began to spread.

And since you love asking questions, how about you answer this one: Why do you think Christianity spread so quickly and so far despite no "first hand" contemporary sources for such huge events?

(December 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 10:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: My point is that your contention that people cannot write knowledgably about an historic period unless they've lived through it is idiotic. Well-researched historical writing has a long, well, history. If it didn't, there would BE no historical writing. If what you contend is true, then you cannot possibly know anything about the life of the figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, because you didn't walk round with him, didn't talk to him, didn't hold the bucket while he vommed up that wine he made at Cana.

Boru

Dude, reading comprehension, how about that? I said no one could have gotten those FACTS that I mentioned about 1st Century Palestine unless they had knowledge of the area, or they spoke to someone WITH knowledge of the area, and nothing you said is a defeater of that.

---

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: Everyone else has already answered for me.

Listening to me = safe bet....listening to "everyone else" = big gamble.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: But the big questions remain. Why second hand hearsay is acceptable written decades after the events is acceptable proof;

Because perhaps those second hand sources were still living DECADES after the event. Kinda like how Reverend Jesse Jackson was present during the MLK assassination, and he is still alive almost five "decades" later and can still tell you what he saw.

Kinda the same kinda stuff.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: why we would accept sources that contradict each fundamentally;

Because they don't.

(December 13, 2014 at 12:55 am)Jenny A Wrote: why there are no first hand contemporary sources for such huge events. Got any real answers?

Because the average Joe couldn't read or write during those times, Jenny. If the average person in the U.S couldn't read or write, I wouldn't expect to see many facebook statuses coming from the U.S of A.

What happened is exactly what you would expect to happen, people could't read or write so they b began to spread.

And since you love asking questions, how about you answer this one: Why do you think Christianity spread so quickly and so far despite no "first hand" contemporary sources for such huge events?

Because everybody either became Christians, or became corpses. The Crusades were a bloody plague.

Just because they wouldn't or couldn't produce very good evidence back then, does not mean we have to multiply up its credibility accordingly. That's just stupid. It's not like giving a kid extra time in an exam, this is about determining truth.

(December 13, 2014 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: That's pretty funny, but no, Speedbag, I've encountered these heavenly threats long before I had the misfortune of reading your garbage.

God doesn't make threats, he would rather make promises.

(December 13, 2014 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I stopped reading because you're a dishonest little twat. Even if your god was real, his choice of you as an emissary would impugn his judgement and alleged perfection. It's like sending a turd to a restaurant reviewer -- the shit ain't gonna end up well.

And Satan could of used a more brighter henchmen to frequent his self-made atheist forums to argue on behalf of atheism.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying YOU are Satan, I am just saying you work for him

(December 13, 2014 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Because you stated that something occurred when it didn't occur. 'Twasn't an opinion you proffered; you tried to spin your ignominy into success.

I think it did occur..and of course it comes to no surprise that you don't agree with me.

(December 13, 2014 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: That's pretty funny. It's a shame life isn't a Steven Seagal movie, but don't let me disturb your little fantasy. As an aside, I'm not surprised at all that the cultural referents in your head are from third-rate B-flick actors.

Seagal is the man.

(December 13, 2014 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'll stop in here every so often, when I need a sparring partner to warm me up for a serious discussion.

Groovy

Quote: Why do you think Christianity spread so quickly and so far despite no "first hand" contemporary sources for such huge events?

It did not spread quickly, dummy. That is more of the tale invented by con men to (successfully) fool assholes like you.

Scholars, ( i.e. people who actually something, not to be confused with bemused morons like you) estimate a xtian population of between 5 and 10% by the 4th century and that mainly in the East. Xtianity only grew after a) Constantine de-criminalized it and b) after Theodosius started persecuting pagans in its name.

"History is written by the winners."

(December 13, 2014 at 6:16 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble, but you aren't as persuasive as you think you are.

Jesus wasn't persuasive either, even some of his own disciples deserted him (John 6:60-70).

(December 13, 2014 at 6:16 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: All you have done is re-stated things that I have heard many many times before. I found them unconvincing then, I find them unconvincing now.

Ahhh, you will be convinced eventually, trust me

---

(December 13, 2014 at 8:27 am)Stimbo Wrote: H_M, if you could keep the proselytising out of the case you're trying to make, you might find your audience more receptive. You would also be less likely to attract Staff attention. Thank you.

I am more worried about the Staff attention...I don't want to get banned BEFORE I am actually ready to leave...I would rather get kicked out of the bank AFTER I robbed it

Cool...I will keep the theological implications out of it...for now.

(December 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: And since you love asking questions, how about you answer this one: Why do you think Christianity spread so quickly and so far despite no "first hand" contemporary sources for such huge events?

Here, go learn something. I find it pathetic that a Christian doesn't know the history of his own religion. I even linked a Christian book outlet so no bullshit excuses. In case you want to say you can't afford it, I read it after checking it out from my local library.

http://www.christianbook.com/christianit.../pd/118695

(December 14, 2014 at 1:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Cool...I will keep the theological implications out of it...for now.

Yes, you will. Preaching and proselytising is not only irrelevant to the case you're trying to make, to the point it's actually hurting your case, it's also rude and downright insulting. You don't want to get banned; you stop doing the things that violate the Rules. Especially when called out on such behaviour.