RE: Damned Catholics
January 28, 2011 at 9:15 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm by dqualk.)
Thor you refuse to confront Christianity on its own terms. I know this would be uncomfortable so I don't blame you for making straw men that you can ridicule. But if you ever want to man up and actually try to get into what Christianity is saying, then you can condemn it. Until I think it is best to accept that you really do not know a lot about it. Becasue what you are saying is Christianity from an atheists point of view. Which is all good and fine, but if you are going to dialouge with a Christian for real, then you should attemp to see Christianity through his shoes. I can make atheism look retarded by not putting on the glasses of an atheist. I have chosen instead to sincerely try to see what it is atheism is saying on its own terms. I encourage you to do the same if you ever find the time for Christianity.
Also, saying there is no evidence that Jesus lived is like saying there is no evidence that Julius Caesar lived. The fact is there are many very ancient historical documents closer to the time of Jesus and there are many other reasons to believe that Jesus was a real person. But you can be delusional all you want. It is one thing to say that Jesus may not have existed at all, its completely different to say that there is no evidence that Jesus lived. As there is certainly evidence, whether or not you think it there is enough to warrant truth is your business, but I will say that most scholars, including non Christian scholars who study Jesus conclude that at least he was probably a real historical person, based on the evidence we have.
Thanks for the address minimalist. However, I doubt I will go there because debating the literalness of the flood is not that exciting for me. It just seems pointless, especially for me, as I do not deny that the flood happened, even though I tend to think that it is an allegory. Its not important for me to deny it outright or accept it outright. Rather I tend to rarely affirm, seldom deny and always distinguish. However, I'm sure this guy gives XP a bad name. Maybe I'll give him some wisdom from St. Thomas Aquinas who says that the truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
Also, saying there is no evidence that Jesus lived is like saying there is no evidence that Julius Caesar lived. The fact is there are many very ancient historical documents closer to the time of Jesus and there are many other reasons to believe that Jesus was a real person. But you can be delusional all you want. It is one thing to say that Jesus may not have existed at all, its completely different to say that there is no evidence that Jesus lived. As there is certainly evidence, whether or not you think it there is enough to warrant truth is your business, but I will say that most scholars, including non Christian scholars who study Jesus conclude that at least he was probably a real historical person, based on the evidence we have.
Thanks for the address minimalist. However, I doubt I will go there because debating the literalness of the flood is not that exciting for me. It just seems pointless, especially for me, as I do not deny that the flood happened, even though I tend to think that it is an allegory. Its not important for me to deny it outright or accept it outright. Rather I tend to rarely affirm, seldom deny and always distinguish. However, I'm sure this guy gives XP a bad name. Maybe I'll give him some wisdom from St. Thomas Aquinas who says that the truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.