The Problem with Christians

[Cyberman]

Quick question: how can you have a correct prediction of something that hasn't happened? It's like me talking about that lovely, satisfying shit I'm going to have next Thursday.

The antichrist system has been around for a long time and is growing. The fact that persecution of Christians has grown dramatically in recent years is testament to this. It is interesting that a handful of Jewish Christians would predict that not only would their religion be around in 2000 years but that it would attract such opposition.

You still haven't answered the question. I'll rephrase it. How do you tell the difference between a failed prediction and one that hasn't happened yet?

[Esquilax]

I just want to say thank you to the theist participants in this thread for quite comprehensively demonstrating the rationale set out in the OP. Well done!

How about a challenge? You dig up every illogical argument I've made, and i'll dig up every illogical argument made by atheists, and well tally up who has more...

deal?

You don't see how you've stacked the deck in your favor there? Last time I checked, there were rather a few more atheists than there are Huggies...

[Esquilax]

This comment probably deserves its own thread since it is so far off the mark. Islam denies that Jesus is the son of God. It denies that he is God, which is central to Christian belief. Their messiah is the twelfth imam or the Mahdi, and he is definitely not Jesus, in fact it is likely that the Mahdi is none other than the antichrist himself.

This would by why, of course, the quran refers to Jesus like this:

(Remember) when the angels said, “O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him (God), whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, revered in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God). He will speak to the people from his cradle and as a man, and he is of the righteous.” She said, “My Lord, how can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?” He said, “So (it will be). God creates what He wills. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, ‘Be!’ and it is.”

So, they call Jesus Messiah, treat him as a holy person, and so on. Saying otherwise just makes you ignorant of the actual content of their holy book.

 

Christianity says Jesus is the  only path to eternal life and Islam says that worship of Allah and Mohammed are the only path. I could go on and on about how the beliefs of the two religions contradict each other to the point of being diametrically opposed but this will suffice for now.    

I said from the beginning that islam has a different interpretation of your religion, but your claim that they deny christianity is simply false, regardless. Everything in the new testament happened in the islamic canon, it's just that they go a bit further and differ on the details. Going back and pointing out which details they differ on doesn't change the main point, which is that they accept that the timeline of your religion happened, and worship your god. They just think that your god did more stuff after Jesus. They do not deny your beliefs, or else you're working with some really strange definitions: if your idea of denial is an acceptance of the historicity of everything within your holy book bar a single claim, then I don't know what to tell you.

I deny your religion more than the muslims do, and yet you don't consider me to be the fulfillment of this prophecy. Again, you're just stretching to retrofit vague bible-words into the modern day, which is actually a prophecy working in reverse.

Fair point. It is noteworthy though that there are more than a few researchers stating that Christians are the most persecuted people group in the world, especially in the middle east.

Wow, uncited and completely vague promises of "researchers" agreeing with you?! What more could I want?

Do you have anything more than unsupported assertions, on that score?

Forgive my skepticism but this is hard to believe. If you really value the rights of people to believe whatever they want, why all the antagonism towards believers?

Since when does personal animus equate to a desire to rid people of their rights? Can you not dislike something without wanting to make it illegal?

[Cyberman]

Not only that, but this is a thread about "the problem with christians". And the xtian contingent are fulfilling the topic beautifully. At this point it's pretty clear what is the problem with xtians.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

No, the basis of this thread is the pretension that Atheists don't make illogical arguments.

You really think so? Well fuck, I didn't even know we were that good. In fact, I've never heard any atheists say that! Because if one did, then that would not be a logical statement.

You're really going to have to do better than you have, if you want to argue logic with the big boys.

[Huggy Bear]

How about a challenge? You dig up every illogical argument I've made, and i'll dig up every illogical argument made by atheists, and well tally up who has more...

deal?

You don't see how you've stacked the deck in your favor there? Last time I checked, there were rather a few more atheists than there are Huggies...

Read the OP.

And I quote:

They ignore logic.  Not only that, they ignore it to the detriment of reason so that they can create these silly counter arguments that are not even logical.  

Oh, forgive me, their arguments are logical to them and their perpetually damaging delusion.

Christians only create, as they did their imaginary friend since the beginning of time, apologetics because they know they are on the loosing end, and they think they can somehow cling to something meaningful if more idiots follow their brand of idiocy.

*emphasis mine*
So apparently what Kitan is saying is that Atheists never make illogical arguments, so the deck is stacked in the favor of Atheists according to the OP.

However, if both theists AND atheists are BOTH guilty of making illogical arguments, That makes the OP nonsense.

---

No, the basis of this thread is the pretension that Atheists don't make illogical arguments.

You really think so? Well fuck, I didn't even know we were that good. In fact, I've never heard any atheists say that! Because if one did, then that would not be a logical statement.

You're really going to have to do better than you have, if you want to argue logic with the big boys.

Read the above post carefully.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yes, Huggy, feudalism counts as slavery, if you're a serf and the lord of the land actually owns the people who work on it and can will them as his possession unto his children. However, my ancestors left serfdom and came to the colony of Acadia (in what is now Nova Scotia) to start a new life. It's not the same thing... and you're being very dishonest by pretending it is.

It utterly floors me that your defense of the edited-and-carefully-selected books of the Bible is "it's Canon for a reason". Yes, the REASON is that the priests (and later, the bishops) were careful about their selection and editing process, or as Bob Seger put it, "what to leave in, what to leave out".

Also, please learn a bit more about the actual facts of the African slave trade, too!

1) Appellate acquittal at a slave's trial for rape, in Florida in 1860. (Few other trials went so far up the appellate chain that we have lasting records for them, but this shows that your claim that the trials meant it was SO DIFFERENT for Biblical versus modern slavery is simply not true.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#cite_note-10

2) Your claim "the Atlantic slave trade justified itself with racism" is HILARIOUS, given the fact that it specifically spells out in Leviticus the difference between how to treat fellow Israelites versus how to treat non-Israelites. Our system of race-based slavery was justified based on Biblical interpretation of who may be permanently owned and who must be set free after a period of indentured servitude.



(It's a little bit hard to read the image on a smaller screen, so for those of you with poor eyesight, the pamphlet is titled: Southern Slavery and the Bible: A Scriptural Refutation of the Principle Arguments Upon Which Abolitionists Rely, A Vindication of Southern Slavery From the Old and New Testaments, by Reverend K. W. Warren.)

Since Christians have already refuted your arguments better than I can, I'll refer you to the Patheos blog post that covers the issue of modern apologists who try to pretend it's like Indentured Servitude rather than chattel slavery:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...n-slavery/

Why are you trying to hard to bury your head in the sand?

(Edit to Add: Is it because you have "The Curse of Ham", and don't want to admit it? http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm)

(Second Edit: Found a better image of the Nellie Norton pamphlet, and could finally read the author's name.)

[Cyberman]

Because it's dead?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Because it's dead?

Heh heh heh. Play nice, children! 

[Cyberman]