The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Cyberman]

Godlesspanther is now on Rev777's ignore list for bringing up harmful facts.

I just checked, I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

And you had to check that?

[Godlesspanther]

I hate the PC left, all be they well intended in wanting to get along, who would respond to your cussing and blasphemy and call it "hate". I have gotten to the point of not trying to avoid the word "hate". I think skeptics and blasphemers SHOULD NOT avoid that word because we would be lying to them and ourselves if we said it was ok to believe it.

I would say we should not let them take the word "hate" out of context which they do to throw up a wall to avoid having their claims bruised.

I do "hate" absurd claims that have no evidence. I do "hate" the expectation that claims never deserve to be questioned or blasphemed. I am tired of allowing, either by the liberal theist or PC atheist, define for me what the word "hate" means.

I do hate absurd claims just as if I had a friend who claimed the Yankees won the Superbowl. How should someone expect me to respond to that? It is not true, and far too much of the time with theists is you can't leave it with "it's not true" and even that will offend them. Why should I coddle the idea of an invisible sky parent when our species history shows lots of deity claims we now know were not real, and the ones our species still believe today have never been able to get evidence from a lab, or through a patient or created a universal theory that is undisputed.

I am not sorry that I hate bullshit. I am also not sorry that I hate that this very bullshit infects worldwide politics and throughout history has retarded human discovery and attacked scientific method whenever it conflicts with human concocted fairy tales.

YES I HATE, so don't ask me to be sorry about valuing facts and demanding evidence. This is not about human rights at all so to my well intended friends, don't pull that crap because it doesn't help humanity at all.

What I hate is the "let other people believe what they want to" pile of shit.

The fact of the matter is that I do let people believe what they want to. Your beliefs are inside your skull -- I have no access to them, I have no control over them, I have no choice but to let other people believe what they want to. What these assholes are really saying is that they don't want their beliefs challenged. Fuck that. If something that you believe is stupid -- and I point out that it's stupid -- that does not take away your right to believe it. I have the right to challenge the beliefs.

Blasphemy is beautiful. In the USA we have no blasphemy laws. We have the right to commit blasphemy and we ought to. Loud and proud.

[SteelCurtain]

[Cyberman]

Yeah, there's no blasphemy laws over here either. Blasphemy is just another way of saying "I object to the way you don't take my childish fantasies as seriously as I do".

[Brian37]

Blasphemy laws are not for fictional god/s, they are merely a childish way for those who believe to say "if you pick on me I will beat you up".

[Revelation777]

I'm a nondenominational born again Christian

I've just come across this on a Christian website - looks like people can be born again via the internet these days. Where did you find the information which prompted you to be born again?

What does it mean to be a born again Christian?"

Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the "I have accepted Christ today" button below.

When I looked at their 'About' page there's this -

About Got Questions Org

We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.

This is very helpful because I don't have to go through their website to get a good idea of what they believe.

PS: What were you before you became a born again Christian?

John 3:3

I was a practicing Roman Catholic but left the church after I got saved

---

that is a viable source to me

That's kind of the problem: it shows that you're more interested in sources that confirm what you already believe, than sources that honestly reflect the facts.

The more you post here, the more your actions testify to the fact that you just don't care about truth. You only care about believing what you want to believe.

Have you ever thought that perhaps your sources are bias towards atheism?

---

This is very offensive.

---

Not one good argument from your part Rev. Stop trying. Admit to yourself that you're feeling those tiny little fingers of doubt, because what you're doing now, by trying to refute everyone else's arguments and providing nothing but ignorance on your part, is harmful to your mental health and wellbeing. It's okay to doubt, it's okay to actually READ what others are writing and look at the links they provide. Because honestly, I don't see how ANYONE can be this blind and ignorant. Well, I suppose I can, I was there. But the difference is, I knew about the doubts, I just kept shoving them aside. Which is why I'm saying I suspect you might have had some doubts yourself. It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't.

Let me use your own book:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; (American Standard Version)
Let all things be tested; keep to what is good; (Bible in Basic English)
But examine everything carefully and hang on to what is good. (Common English Bible)

Using that frame of reference, instead of bombarding everyone with what the bible says, and that it's the divinely inspired word of god, TEST IT. Your own book is telling you to. We have, as have millions of other people too, and it's WRONG. That is the "good" part. Hold onto what is right and good and true. Which comes down to this: Religion is a pile of shit. And reality is GOOD. It's the only healthy thing to believe in, this reality.

I've been testing the Word of God for close to 30 years and it hasn't failed me yet.

[The Valkyrie]

You certainly have the right to be offended.

We also have the right to be offended by people who want us to believe in the misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, maniac that is the god of the bible.

I don't hold your religion above mockery.

If that was a picture of Mohammed, would you be offended or amused?

[Revelation777]

Did you know that the book that you are dismissing has over 350 prophesies fulfilled the the life of Christ. That is no coincidence.

Oh? Do tell. Are you quite sure these are prophesies fulfilled or narratives retrofitted to the prophesies (you know, that pesky fact that the component parts of your holy book were written long after the alleged events)? And are you sure your 350 "prophesies" were really that and not passages torn out of their context to make the Christian case?

For your enlightenment and possible self-recognition, Rev, here's Nietzsche on the subject of Christian honesty with regard to scripture, from Daybreak, Book I, section 84:

"The philology of Christianity. How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can be gauged fairly well from the character of its scholars' writings: they present their conjectures as boldly as if they were dogmas and are rarely in any honest perplexity over the interpretation of a passage in the Bible. Again and again they say 'I am right, for it is written ' and then follows an interpretation of such impudent arbitrariness that a philologist who hears it is caught between rage and laughter and asks himself: is it possible? Is this honourable? Is it even decent? How much dishonesty in this matter is still practised in Protestant pulpits, how grossly the preacher exploits the advantage that no one is going to interrupt him here, how the Bible is pummelled and punched and the art of reading badly is in all due form imparted to the people: only he who never goes to church or never goes anywhere else will underestimate that. But after all, what can one expect from the effects of a religion which in the centuries of its foundation perpetrated that unheard-of philological farce concerning the Old Testament: I mean the attempt to pull the Old Testament from under the feet of the Jews with the assertion it contained nothing but Christian teaching and belonged to the Christians as the true people of Israel, the Jews being only usurpers. And then there followed a fury of interpretation and construction that cannot possibly be associated with a good conscience: however much Jewish scholars protested, the Old Testament was supposed to speak of Christ and only of Christ, and especially of his Cross; wherever a piece of wood, a rod, a ladder, a twig, a tree, a willow, a staff is mentioned, it is supposed to be a prophetic allusion to the wood of the Cross; even the erection of the one-horned beast and the brazen serpent, even Moses43 spreading his arms in prayer, even the spits on which the Passover44 lamb45 was roasted all allusions to the Cross and as it were preludes to it! Has anyone who asserted this ever believed it? Consider that the church did not shrink from enriching the text of the Septuagint46 (e.g. in Psalm 96, verse 1047) so as afterwards to employ the smuggled-in passage in the sense of Christian prophecy. For they were conducting a war and paid more heed to their opponents than to the need to stay honest."

It is common knowledge amongst Bible scholars that the text that contain the prophesies of Christ were indeed written hundreds and in many cases, over a thousand years before Christ's birth. To me this is beyond remarkable.

[The Valkyrie]

Oh? Do tell. Are you quite sure these are prophesies fulfilled or narratives retrofitted to the prophesies (you know, that pesky fact that the component parts of your holy book were written long after the alleged events)? And are you sure your 350 "prophesies" were really that and not passages torn out of their context to make the Christian case?

For your enlightenment and possible self-recognition, Rev, here's Nietzsche on the subject of Christian honesty with regard to scripture, from Daybreak, Book I, section 84:

"The philology of Christianity. How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can be gauged fairly well from the character of its scholars' writings: they present their conjectures as boldly as if they were dogmas and are rarely in any honest perplexity over the interpretation of a passage in the Bible. Again and again they say 'I am right, for it is written ' and then follows an interpretation of such impudent arbitrariness that a philologist who hears it is caught between rage and laughter and asks himself: is it possible? Is this honourable? Is it even decent? How much dishonesty in this matter is still practised in Protestant pulpits, how grossly the preacher exploits the advantage that no one is going to interrupt him here, how the Bible is pummelled and punched and the art of reading badly is in all due form imparted to the people: only he who never goes to church or never goes anywhere else will underestimate that. But after all, what can one expect from the effects of a religion which in the centuries of its foundation perpetrated that unheard-of philological farce concerning the Old Testament: I mean the attempt to pull the Old Testament from under the feet of the Jews with the assertion it contained nothing but Christian teaching and belonged to the Christians as the true people of Israel, the Jews being only usurpers. And then there followed a fury of interpretation and construction that cannot possibly be associated with a good conscience: however much Jewish scholars protested, the Old Testament was supposed to speak of Christ and only of Christ, and especially of his Cross; wherever a piece of wood, a rod, a ladder, a twig, a tree, a willow, a staff is mentioned, it is supposed to be a prophetic allusion to the wood of the Cross; even the erection of the one-horned beast and the brazen serpent, even Moses43 spreading his arms in prayer, even the spits on which the Passover44 lamb45 was roasted all allusions to the Cross and as it were preludes to it! Has anyone who asserted this ever believed it? Consider that the church did not shrink from enriching the text of the Septuagint46 (e.g. in Psalm 96, verse 1047) so as afterwards to employ the smuggled-in passage in the sense of Christian prophecy. For they were conducting a war and paid more heed to their opponents than to the need to stay honest."

It is common knowledge amongst Bible scholars that the text that contain the prophesies of Christ were indeed written hundreds and in many cases, over a thousand years before Christ's birth. To me this is beyond remarkable.

But the Jews, whose holy text the OT is, say Jesus didn't fulfill those prophecies.

[Bob Kelso]

This is very offensive.

Aww and I was about to show you the resurrected Last Supper...

Ah fuck it, enjoy!