Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?

[GrandizerII]

These key points which are:

Bethlehem (based on a verse in Micah)
Virgin: Based on an unfortunate mistranslation of the verse in Isaiah
Joseph and Mary: common news at the time

But notice about the angel appearance: Matthew says he appeared to Jospeh, but Luke says he appeared to Mary.

And, alpha male, anyone not blinded by the "inerrancy" of the Bible can see that the nativity accounts are drastically different (even considering the few words you mentioned).

And anyone not blinded by anti-theism will conclude, or at least consider as a plausible possibility, that the accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory.

Same with the genealogies - that one is of Mary, or they're both of Joseph due to Levirate marriage, are possibilities that people without an agenda would consider.

Not plausible given the drastic differences which imply they were not meant to complement. And in fact the contradictions are there anyway, but I was just being too generous with you. No more being lenient.

Interesting how the only common key words between those two accounts relate to either Old Testament prophecies or very plausibly common news at the time.

[Heat]

Jenny, that's your emotions talking, not your intelligence.
That statement is so fallacious in itself, it becomes silly.

EG, why don't we all believe in pink unicorns since science can never disprove them.

good point why dont i believe in pink unicorns but do believe in God if im a superstitious person wouldnt i just believe in everything ? you believe in what you have been convinced of if i become convinced that God does not exist then i will disbelieve until then i will believe what i have been convinced of ... your not going to believe until you get proof why should i disbelieve without proof?

Stop with the word salad's it's giving me a shooting pain in the back of my head.

Just because you manipulate a simple rule just enough so that it confuses you enough to make you unsure of the answer doesn't make it logical.


I've been convinced of this thing called reason. I don't know why, it just seemed like the reasonable thing to do(see what I did there).
You know why? Because no matter what, what is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to you, reason must always exist in the conscious mind, you can't purposefully be unreasonable, even if you did somehow, you are still making a decision that you think it's reasonable to be unreasonable. Therefore if we follow that logic, since reason is always a subjective virtue implanted in our minds, if you can't provide a reason for believing something, there's no explanation for believing it. I don't have to provide a reason for your lack of reason, it's a double negative, I can't disprove a reason that doesn't exist in the first place. Whether or not that "reason" is a credible one, can be answered in a debate of objective and subjective truths, where we can attempt to distinguish objective, from subjective. However, to not provide a reason for believing something, and act like my inability to produce a counter to an argument that never existed in the first place is some sort of justification for that belief, and to follow by acting high and mighty because you managed to not only confuse yourself, but the person in opposition enough so that the question becomes murky and in turn shattering a chance to draw a definite conclusion, that's intellectual suicide.

[Sorry for being repetitive, and answering with a word salad. It's a bit hard to argue against an intentionally confusing argument without providing an equally confusing response. I really had to pause a lot while writing this, and had to push my brain in order to not confuse myself in the process.]

[jenny1972]

good point why dont i believe in pink unicorns but do believe in God if im a superstitious person wouldnt i just believe in everything ? you believe in what you have been convinced of if i become convinced that God does not exist then i will disbelieve until then i will believe what i have been convinced of ... your not going to believe until you get proof why should i disbelieve without proof?

Stop with the word salad's it's giving me a shooting pain in the back of my head.

Just because you manipulate a simple rule just enough so that it confuses you enough to make you unsure of the answer doesn't make it logical.


I've been convinced of this thing called reason. I don't know why, it just seemed like the reasonable thing to do(see what I did there).
You know why? Because no matter what, what is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to you, reason must always exist in the conscious mind, you can't purposefully be unreasonable, even if you did somehow, you are still making a decision that you think it's reasonable to be unreasonable. Therefore if we follow that logic, since reason is always a subjective virtue implanted in our minds, if you can't provide a reason for believing something, there's no explanation for believing it. I don't have to provide a reason for your lack of reason, it's a double negative, I can't disprove a reason that doesn't exist in the first place. Whether or not that "reason" is a credible one, can be answered in a debate of objective and subjective truths, where we can attempt to distinguish objective, from subjective. However, to not provide a reason for believing something, and act like my inability to produce a counter to an argument that never existed in the first place is some sort of justification for that belief, and to follow by acting high and mighty because you managed to not only confuse yourself, but the person in opposition enough so that the question becomes murky and in turn shattering a chance to draw a definite conclusion, that's intellectual suicide.

[Sorry for being repetitive, and answering with a word salad. It's a bit hard to argue against an intentionally confusing argument without providing an equally confusing response. I really had to pause a lot while writing this, and had to push my brain in order to not confuse myself in the process.]

yes it is confusing and i have no idea what your saying maybe you can simplify it so that it makes sense to other people ? you said ' you cant counter an argument that doesnt exist in the first place ' what are you referring to ?

[Minimalist]

And anyone not blinded by anti-theism will conclude, or at least consider as a plausible possibility, that the accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory.

No, A/M.  That requires a level of credulity which is reserved to people who desperately wish to believe in this silly fairy tale in the first place.

Trust me.  Much finer minds than yours have compared these two stories and found them contradictory.

[Heat]

[It's a bit hard to argue against an intentionally confusing argument without providing an equally confusing response. I really had to pause a lot while writing this, and had to push my brain in order to not confuse myself in the process.]

Stop with the word salad's it's giving me a shooting pain in the back of my head.

Just because you manipulate a simple rule just enough so that it confuses you enough to make you unsure of the answer doesn't make it logical.


I've been convinced of this thing called reason. I don't know why, it just seemed like the reasonable thing to do(see what I did there).
You know why? Because no matter what, what is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to you, reason must always exist in the conscious mind, you can't purposefully be unreasonable, even if you did somehow, you are still making a decision that you think it's reasonable to be unreasonable. Therefore if we follow that logic, since reason is always a subjective virtue implanted in our minds, if you can't provide a reason for believing something, there's no explanation for believing it. I don't have to provide a reason for your lack of reason, it's a double negative, I can't disprove a reason that doesn't exist in the first place. Whether or not that "reason" is a credible one, can be answered in a debate of objective and subjective truths, where we can attempt to distinguish objective, from subjective. However, to not provide a reason for believing something, and act like my inability to produce a counter to an argument that never existed in the first place is some sort of justification for that belief, and to follow by acting high and mighty because you managed to not only confuse yourself, but the person in opposition enough so that the question becomes murky and in turn shattering a chance to draw a definite conclusion, that's intellectual suicide.

[Sorry for being repetitive, and answering with a word salad. It's a bit hard to argue against an intentionally confusing argument without providing an equally confusing response. I really had to pause a lot while writing this, and had to push my brain in order to not confuse myself in the process.]

yes it is confusing and i have no idea what your saying maybe you can simplify it so that it makes sense to other people ? you said ' you cant counter an argument that doesnt exist in the first place ' what are you referring to ?

You really like to pick and choose what you read don't you, it explains your attraction to the bible.

I had my friend read over it to make sure it wasn't too confusing to understand. Regardless, i'm convinced that you are willingly trying not to understand it, or do, and are responding with something unrelated in attempt to change the subject/prevent me from further countering your point[Which was clearly in what I quoted you] so that I don't simplify, or admit I don't know how to in this circumstance and you can claim you "don't understand".

I'm honestly just done arguing with you on any part of the forums. You continue, and start, arguments regardless of whether or not you can contribute anything useful to them. You never concede any points, at least not in what i've seen, and my suspicion is that anytime you feel you are proven wrong you stop responding/change the subject, never giving anyone any credit for taking time to analyze your point of view and prove it wrong in a civilized manner. One of my friends said you were really nice, true may it be, I can't stand you, it's the most annoying thing in the world to keep trying to take your POV in to consideration when you constantly try purposefully to not understand what someone says, considering the fact that everyone on this forum has to try their very hardest just to understand what you are saying.


Forget it, I could say more but I don't want to. Concede my point, prove it wrong, or move on. Just don't say it's confusing when you skim through it while half-reading. If you were an intellectual you would at the very least say what parts you are confused on, or write down what you think the person said for clarification or correction. Never have I ever seen any respectable, intelligent person, in a response to someone challenge their views say; "I'm confused, explain it better", and act like that deserves a response, or that the argument was even addressed in any way shape or form.


If you aren't going to respect my time, and my views, don't expect me to respect yours. It's quite insulting I spent 20 minutes writing that, rewriting it and correcting in the process, and as well even went back to correct it some more, and you just say "Too confusing, write it simpler". 

Oh and for the;
"What are you referring to?"
Use your brain, do you think I quoted you for no reason, or are you just admitting that your original point shouldn't be considered or taken seriously as it didn't provide any substance worth referring to?

I'll take either one to be honest, they both define the laughable simplicity and self centered-bias your posts behold.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You really like to pick and choose what you read don't you, it explains your attraction to the bible.

I had my friend read over it to make sure it wasn't too confusing to understand. Regardless, i'm convinced that you are willingly trying not to understand it, or do, and are responding with something unrelated in attempt to change the subject/prevent me from further countering your point[Which was clearly in what I quoted you] so that I don't simplify, or admit I don't know how to in this circumstance and you can claim you "don't understand".

I'm honestly just done arguing with you on any part of the forums. You continue, and start, arguments regardless of whether or not you can contribute anything useful to them. You never concede any points, at least not in what i've seen, and my suspicion is that anytime you feel you are proven wrong you stop responding/change the subject, never giving anyone any credit for taking time to analyze your point of view and prove it wrong in a civilized manner. One of my friends said you were really nice, true may it be, I can't stand you, it's the most annoying thing in the world to keep trying to take your POV in to consideration when you constantly try purposefully to not understand what someone says, considering the fact that everyone on this forum has to try their very hardest just to understand what you are saying.


Forget it, I could say more but I don't want to. Concede my point, prove it wrong, or move on. Just don't say it's confusing when you skim through it while half-reading. If you were an intellectual you would at the very least say what parts you are confused on, or write down what you think the person said for clarification or correction. Never have I ever seen any respectable, intelligent person, in a response to someone challenge their views say; "I'm confused, explain it better", and act like that deserves a response, or that the argument was even addressed in any way shape or form.


If you aren't going to respect my time, and my views, don't expect me to respect yours. It's quite insulting I spent 20 minutes writing that, rewriting it and correcting in the process, and as well even went back to correct it some more, and you just say "Too confusing, write it simpler". 

Oh and for the;
"What are you referring to?"
Use your brain, do you think I quoted you for no reason, or are you just admitting that your original point shouldn't be considered or taken seriously as it didn't provide any substance worth referring to?

I'll take either one to be honest, they both define the laughable simplicity and self centered-bias your posts behold.

Um, Jenny's not a Christian, Heat... so maybe you should pause for a bit of personal introspection, eh?

Also, I'm an atheist, and I don't disagree with a word she said, regarding your post. It was poorly formatted word salad (as even you admitted), and just doesn't scan well. I have a 158 IQ and an off-the-chart score in verbal comprehension on every test of the subject I've ever taken, and even I had to do a triple-take to figure out what you were trying to say.

So again, take a chill pill and rephrase or STFU. But by all means, do not continue to abuse Jenny simply because she tried to point out to you that your writing style sucks, no matter what your friend tells you.

Whatever point you had in there is obfuscated by your poor writing, and it's not our job to detangle your poor encoding skills, as the audience to whom you are trying to communicate your intended meaning.

[houseofcantor]

Girl doesn't seem to have a viewpoint outside of Christian theology, yet she ain't Christian? I'm not seeing where she needs a white knight. And I'm not seeing where we need to hear about your IQ again either. 

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Girl doesn't seem to have a viewpoint outside of Christian theology, yet she ain't Christian? I'm not seeing where she needs a white knight. And I'm not seeing where we need to hear about your IQ again either. 

HoC - Most people in our culture don't have a viewpoint outside of Christian theology, because it pervades our society in ways often too subtle to realize until they've been absorbed. It's only obvious "from the outside". 

My IQ became relevant because this guy was implying that it was some fault on our part that caused us to be unable to decipher his writing, rather than owning the "word salad" problem to which he had admitted, initially; citing my intelligence and verbal comprehension scores was relevant to establishing that even the top of the bell-curve (which position Jenny may or may not share) cannot do so, and thus the fault must lie in the encoder. I understood it, but not easily. That is because it is poorly written, and thus Jenny did not earn the contempt with which he attacked her.

As to the "white knight" issue... if you have not noticed, thus far, that is one of my defining characteristics. My own best friend says I need to learn how to not  be a Crusader, on occasion.

Edit to Add: And lately, I have noticed that the tone of the two atheism boards which I frequent have become increasingly hostile and aggressive toward people who are religious, playing into the "angry atheists" mantra of the most aggressive fundies who come here. It is my intention to continue to foster friendship "across the aisle" and not-so-subtly remind people that simply lashing out against the religious makes us no better than the people we despise most, who come here primarily to berate us.

[houseofcantor]

I've been feeling extra special assholey lately myownself. My solution has been to post less.

[jenny1972]

Girl doesn't seem to have a viewpoint outside of Christian theology, yet she ain't Christian? I'm not seeing where she needs a white knight. And I'm not seeing where we need to hear about your IQ again either. 

how is saying that jesus was just a man and was not God in any way and challenging the concept of the trinity and questioning the value and accuracy of almost the entire NT not having a viewpoint outside christian theology ? thats not even within controvercial christian theology ive tried posting these things on a christian website under controvercial theology and it was immediately removed most of my comments have been focused on christians and the bible i think just because im more familiar with christianity than i am with islam or judaism or some other religion but i challenged a muslim mystic knight about value of the hadiths where they came from and how corrupted they were . i think its just as important to make people aware of the corrupt history of all religions .