Plagiarism in the NT

[Astonished]

Or...hear me out...consider changing your mind?

[Minimalist]

"Moschiach" merely means "anointed."  When Greeks translated the bullshit into Greek they used the Greek word "christos."

Just think, had the Greek word for "anointed" been "shithead" they could be worshiping Jesus Shithead in their fucking churches!

[Astonished]

"Moschiach" merely means "anointed."  When Greeks translated the bullshit into Greek they used the Greek word "christos."

Just think, had the Greek word for "anointed" been "shithead" they could be worshiping Jesus Shithead in their fucking churches!

Better yet, he could have been credited with inventing the toilet, then we'd have all sorts of fun euphemisms for that involving his name.

[Amarok]

Did you see roads signature

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin

The irony

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you not understand the very, very simple concept of what actual evidence is?

RoadRunner has a much firmer grasp of it than you apparently because your question was really just a pretext to heap abuse on him. You do not deserve the respect he has afforded you thus far. As for me, I know that your are just acting like a belligerent twat and have no interest in a reasonable discussion. Therefore I am posting this just so that, when you stand before the White Throne of God's Righteous Judgement, you will have no excuse.

Skeptics like you misuse the word evidence all the time. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

Skeptics say all theistic claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are actually like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God.

Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics like you to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. You just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. You don't need to be an asshole about it.

[Brian37]

The words placed into the mouth of your god are prophecies after the fact, coincidentally identical to other narratives, allusions from previous works of fiction....and poetic language that the authors were familiar with?

The only thing they don't seem to be, above...are the words of a god.  How did that happen?

OH OH OH OH PICK ME PICK ME I KNOW I KNOW.........

It cant be that humans made that shit up can it?

[Mister Agenda]

When we bring our grievances with someone across threads, it turns new threads into rehashes of arguments that could have been left behind. This could have been an interesting thread, but it's all about shaming RR shaming instead, and it started before he even made a single post.

[Brian37]

When we bring our grievances with someone across threads, it turns new threads into rehashes of arguments that could have been left behind. This could have been an interesting thread, but it's all about shaming RR shaming instead, and it started before he even made a single post.

Nobody is trying to shame anyone for cutting to the chase. Sure it is blunt, but all it is saying is "That was then, this is now."

They came here, we did not put a gun to their head and nobody is going to stab them to death or have them arrested. I simply personally don't like wading down their Yellow Brick Road. And I am not singling one person or one religion out for that matter. 

Nobody in antiquity anywhere in the world had the modern knowledge the world has today. It was understandable that people made that stuff up and sold that stuff back then when they didn't know any better, but we know better now. I simply cannot take that book, or any mythology seriously beyond simply treating it as mere literature. No holy writing of any religion has any super powers or magic powers. Our species was around long before any written religion in any case. 

At best i certainly am certainly trying to cause some cognitive dissonance but that's it. But and blasphemous sure. But it would be the same if I had a friend or family member repeatedly claiming, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup." I may like or love you outside that claim, but why should the claim itself get a free pass?

[Astonished]

Do you not understand the very, very simple concept of what actual evidence is?

RoadRunner has a much firmer grasp of it than you apparently because your question was really just a pretext to heap abuse on him. You do not deserve the respect he has afforded you thus far. As for me, I know that your are just acting like a belligerent twat and have no interest in a reasonable discussion. Therefore I am posting this just so that, when you stand before the White Throne of God's Righteous Judgement, you will have no excuse.

Skeptics like you misuse the word evidence all the time. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

Skeptics say all theistic claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are actually like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God.

Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics like you to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. You just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. You don't need to be an asshole about it.

Oh, go jump up your own ass, you judgmental piece of fucking shit. Who the goddamn fuck are you, threatening me with eternal hellfire, you bastard? You think you're better than me, motherfucker? Shut the fuck up about being respectful, cocksucker, you're such a dipshit hypocrite you don't even fucking understand what you just did, punk.

Your false equivalencies here (not that I'm surprised you've utterly failed to come up with anything better) just further hammer home your own ignorance and incapability. You've been fed a script and you can't deviate from it because you have no actual good arguments or reasons. You honestly don't think every argument ever presented hasn't been debunked or dismissed for ages? You're done. Go back to the little kids' table.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Oh, go jump up your own ass, you judgmental piece of fucking shit. Who the goddamn fuck are you, threatening me with eternal hellfire, you bastard? You think you're better than me, motherfucker? Shut the fuck up about being respectful, cocksucker, you're such a dipshit hypocrite you don't even fucking understand what you just did, punk.

Your false equivalencies here (not that I'm surprised you've utterly failed to come up with anything better) just further hammer home your own ignorance and incapability. You've been fed a script and you can't deviate from it because you have no actual good arguments or reasons. You honestly don't think every argument ever presented hasn't been debunked or dismissed for ages? You're done. Go back to the little kids' table.

Some theistic demonstrations have been abandoned (Anselm's ontological), some are questionable (design, fine-tuning), some remain valid (Aquinas's 5W), and some newer version have been challenged but remain largely untested (Godel's ontological, Plantinga's modal). You can at least admit that some atheistic objections have been shown fallacious (Problem of Evil), inane (one-less-god, who-created-god) or highly problematic (historical skepticism, scientism).

Your absolute certainty, black and white thinking, abusive tone, and insults do not help your cause. I suggest you talk with a close friend or trusted adviser about why you respond so strongly to ideas with which you disagree.