Why are you a Theist?

[jstrodel]

Mr Infidel, if you cannot name the top 5 scholars who are working in an area, and you post something controversial, there is absolutely no way that you understand what you are posting. You may know what the words mean, but you have no idea whether it is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you -can- name the top 5 scholars who are working in an area - it wont make whatever you're saying any more or less accurate.

Get a grip.

[jstrodel]

Why is that Rhythm? It doesn't matter whether you have reviewed other positions to see if there are others who may be able to rebut your arguments? Why is that not significant?

In the atheist world, you can call yourself a free thinker because you repeat what some coffee table view of religion says. I think that is incredibly ironic, and even more ironic that you can't catch the error.

The reason is plain as day, none of you are serious thinkers, you are all under 25 and you havn't read more than maybe 5 books about the subject you are talking about, none of them serious scholarly books.

You aren't taking the time to seriously investigate the nature of your objections to Christianity, you are just repeating objections that other people have come up with.

If you weren't lazy people with no character and a lack of an honest spirit, you would read the strongest and most potent defenses of Christianity, you would study online who the authors are (such as NT Wright, Bruce Metzger, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig or more at a popular level Lee Strobel, FF Bruce wrote a popular level book, CS Lewis again at the popular level).

But I bet you will respond back with a crude, naked assertion about how religion is a "delusion", instead of explain why if you are a thinker committed to logic, you should not use logic in everything that you do, not only where it helps you disprove religion but in assessing the validity of the claims defending the Christian religion.

[Joel]

Why are you still blanket-terming atheists?
I've already rejected your assertions about me not wanting to read outside my comfort zone, not thinking for myself, objecting to Christianity, repeating only what others have said.

[jstrodel]

Joel name 5 Christians books you have read in your life pertaining to the truth of Christianity.

[FallentoReason]

Seeing as though you're so read up on everything jstrodel, can you please explain to me why Luke fabricated a census?

[Joel]

The Bible. Bible stories for kids. The Shack. Adrian Plass (whatever the rest of it was called), On Guard.
That's all I remember reading.

Though, why does it matter? I've demonstrated willingness to hear - and even research - the opposite side.

[Silver]

Mr Infidel, if you cannot name the top 5 scholars who are working in an area, and you post something controversial, there is absolutely no way that you understand what you are posting. You may know what the words mean, but you have no idea whether it is true.

In all honesty, it should not matter what a religious theologist deems important according to his mythology. It is deemed mythology for a reason. The only effectual way to properly understand religion in its context of informative living by its skewed sense of virtue and morality is through the logic that the very dogma deems irrelevant. Religion, after all, is considered by the common people to be true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Think on that. Take all the time you need.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is that Rhythm? It doesn't matter whether you have reviewed other positions to see if there are others who may be able to rebut your arguments? Why is that not significant?

In the end, no, it isn't. But why would that matter, as you were just babbling about naming people - nothing more. You aren't any good at this at all.

In the atheist world, you can call yourself a free thinker because you repeat what some coffee table view of religion says. I think that is incredibly ironic, and even more ironic that you can't catch the error.

No...strodel....no, no, no, no, lol. Firstly I don't have a coffee table, or any coffee table books. I rely on -you- strodel. The things -you- say, the things your fellow believers say - that's where my appraisal of your religion comes from. Remember that the next time you open your mouth about a fucking god.

The reason is plain as day, none of you are serious thinkers, you are all under 25 and you havn't read more than maybe 5 books about the subject you are talking about, none of them serious scholarly books.

It would be nice to be under 25 again. Tell you what, call your genie up and see if he can arrange that?

You aren't taking the time to seriously investigate the nature of your objections to Christianity, you are just repeating objections that other people have come up with.

My objections are simple. There is no evidence, and it's a disgusting faith.

If you weren't lazy people with no character and a lack of an honest spirit, you would read the strongest and most potent defenses of Christianity, you would study online who the authors are (such as NT Wright, Bruce Metzger, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig or more at a popular level Lee Strobel, FF Bruce wrote a popular level book, CS Lewis again at the popular level).

When you're done fantasizing about me I'll remind you that naming your favorite authors won't do anything to establish any proposition you may make. CS Lewis has a decent quote though, about "omnipotent moral busybodies", so- credit where it's due.

But I bet you will respond back with a crude, naked assertion about how religion is a "delusion", instead of explain why if you are a thinker committed to logic, you should not use logic in everything that you do, not only where it helps you disprove religion but in assessing the validity of the claims defending the Christian religion.

Typical christian shitwit. Claims that there is a defense of christianity - fails to offer it.

[jstrodel]

Seeing as though you're so read up on everything jstrodel, can you please explain to me why Luke fabricated a census?

I have not studied the issue much, here is one assessment of it:

The solution to the apparent chronological problem was proposed in 1938 by historian F. M. Heichelheim, in his work on the history of Roman Syria. Examining the Greek grammatical structure of Luke 2:2, he argued that the original meaning was properly rendered as: “This census was the first before (=πρώτη) that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.”[2] He observed that the Greek word “protos”, usually translated as “first”, may also mean “before” or “former” when followed by the genitive case. Thus, St. Luke was saying that the census which prompted the Holy Family to go to Bethlehem was before the census conducted by Quirinius. The more famous census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 was simply serving as a marker for the reader of Luke’s Gospel, allowing Luke to point to a census that had occurred previously. Luke intended to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.[3] Heichelheim rightly observed that this translation would resolve “all difficulties”. This proposal has found acceptance as a legitimate resolution to the problem from several other scholars, including Nigel Turner,[4] F. F. Bruce,[5] Brook W. R. Pearson,[6] Ben Witherington III,[7] H. W. Hoehner, [8] and many more.[9]

↑ Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, pp. 23-24.
↑ F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 192.
↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999).
↑ Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? (Aan Francisco: Harper, 2006), p. 101.
↑ H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), p. 21.
↑ The list is too long to mention in totality, some other examples include L. H. Feldman in W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2" in JETS 27 (1984), pp. 48-49; P. W. Barnett, ‘Apographē and apographesthai in Luke 2:1-5’, Expository Times 85 (1973-1974), 337-380;; Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Wheaton, Ill.: Vicor, 1992), p. 185.


FF Bruce and Ben Witherington are good sources, the source I posted it from is questionable.