Debate with a Christian

[discipulus]

It's pretty pointless to debate with someone who does not bother with rational, logical arguments backed by evidence.

I agree.

---

And you too will not debate me....

I am observing a pattern here.....

First one, then two, now three....

Well... you dismissed my debate idea, earlier on...
And then claimed you are in possession of some information about ancient times which you still haven't disclosed on a thread for all to read and try to poke holes on...
Also, I'm waiting for you to understand the argument I was making a 2 or 3 pages back...
So... why should I debate you?
And what about?
I'm not versed in ancient literature.... so that would be a useless venue...

You are not versed in ancient literature yet you assert emphatically that the New Testament which is a compilation of ancient literature, is fiction!?

If you are not versed in ancient literature, then why are making assertions about ancient literature which you no doubt wish me to take as truth?

That is akin to me saying I am not versed in Big Bang cosmology and then with my very next breath state that the Big Bang is a load of rubbish.

Surely you would jump at the opportunity to highlight this inconsistency no?

[pocaracas]

Well... you dismissed my debate idea, earlier on...
And then claimed you are in possession of some information about ancient times which you still haven't disclosed on a thread for all to read and try to poke holes on...
Also, I'm waiting for you to understand the argument I was making a 2 or 3 pages back...
So... why should I debate you?
And what about?
I'm not versed in ancient literature.... so that would be a useless venue...

You are not versed in ancient literature yet you assert emphatically that the New Testament which is a compilation of ancient literature, is fiction!?

If you are not versed in ancient literature, then why are making assertions about ancient literature which you no doubt wish me to take as truth?

That is akin to me saying I am not versed in Big Bang cosmology and then with my very next breath state that the Big Bang is a load of rubbish.

Surely you would jump at the opportunity to highlight this inconsistency no?

Curious...
It jumps.

Of that particular collection of books, I know enough to dismiss it as mostly fiction, yes.
I mean, really...
- bringing dead people back to life?
- Producing multiples of bread and fish without extra flour nor actual fishing?
- Healing an incurable (at the time) disease?
- Walking on water?
- A person lashed, nailed to a pole and stabbed... somehow survives?

Does this belong in the History or fiction aisle?

[discipulus]

You are not versed in ancient literature yet you assert emphatically that the New Testament which is a compilation of ancient literature, is fiction!?

If you are not versed in ancient literature, then why are making assertions about ancient literature which you no doubt wish me to take as truth?

That is akin to me saying I am not versed in Big Bang cosmology and then with my very next breath state that the Big Bang is a load of rubbish.

Surely you would jump at the opportunity to highlight this inconsistency no?

Curious...
It jumps.

Of that particular collection of books, I know enough to dismiss it as mostly fiction, yes.
I mean, really...
- bringing dead people back to life?
- Producing multiples of bread and fish without extra flour nor actual fishing?
- Healing an incurable (at the time) disease?
- Walking on water?
- A person lashed, nailed to a pole and stabbed... somehow survives?

Does this belong in the History or fiction aisle?

Fact is often stranger than fiction.

You know, I marvel at all of you here. I say this because all I hear is show me proof, give me evidence blah blah blah ad nauseaum.....

And then you have accounts of a series of events that could only be done by God and you dismiss it as fiction!!!!!!

What do you want man? Seriously, man to man, all kidding aside, why even ask for evidence if you have already determined in your heart you will not accept it?

Do you think I have not seen this before? People asking for evidence they have already determined a priori cannot exist? Then to later have people speak with me privately about why they really did'nt believe in Christ?

[Mudhammam]

Before we go further, I think you should do more research on what it is you're arguing for. I say this because most of your arguments have been dealt with before and offer nothing interesting in which I would find it worthwhile continuing forward. A good place to start is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa.../luck.html

So you do not want to debate with me?

I see....

Well, maybe one day you will. The invitation is always open.

---

What? refrains from what?
I leave you to debate those things about those people all you want.
I grow weary of all this banter with little substance.... and much conjecture about what is not recorded.
And yet, I wait...

And you too will not debate me....

I am observing a pattern here.....

First one, then two, now three....

You haven't answered any of the points I've made except by equivocating to terms of epistemology. The pattern here is one we see often. A Christian comes along and makes a ridiculous assertion and then offers no justification for it. I'll be happy to debate once you offer whatever it is you think is so convincing about the Gospel fables (and hopefully it's something new).

So far you have: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!

Ask yourself this set of questions:
Do people frequently get visited and abducted by UFOs?
Did the cause of the Universe, which is apparently best identified through anthropomorphic characteristics such as masculinity, send his son, who is also himself, to earth as a human, appear to a few Jews, rise from the dead, and then float away into the clouds?
Do big foots wander the forests of New Hampshire?
Does a man in a red suit live somewhere at the North Pole and make presents year round in his factory run by elves?

If you answer yes to all, sincerely, get your head examined.
If you answer no to all, you probably realize these claims are all extraordinary if not utterly idiotic and lack any empirical basis. This is a reasonable conclusion.
If you answer yes to some and no to others, and then take the time to reflect on your reasoning, thoughtfully and honestly, then hopefully you'll come back and share with us where you discovered you originally went wrong.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You are not versed in ancient literature yet you assert emphatically that the New Testament which is a compilation of ancient literature, is fiction!?

If you are not versed in ancient literature, then why are making assertions about ancient literature which you no doubt wish me to take as truth?

That is akin to me saying I am not versed in Big Bang cosmology and then with my very next breath state that the Big Bang is a load of rubbish.

Surely you would jump at the opportunity to highlight this inconsistency no?

Curious...
It jumps.

Of that particular collection of books, I know enough to dismiss it as mostly fiction, yes.
I mean, really...
- bringing dead people back to life?
- Producing multiples of bread and fish without extra flour nor actual fishing?
- Healing an incurable (at the time) disease?
- Walking on water?
- A person lashed, nailed to a pole and stabbed... somehow survives?

Does this belong in the History or fiction aisle?

When reading the Bible a person should always remember that he's reading an ethnocentric Jewish religious fairy tale that uses a lot of metaphors. If a reader doesn't consider the metaphors he will miss the meaning of the story.

A spiritually dead person can be brought back to life if he repents and gives up his "sinful"habits. Consider the Prodigal Son story in Luke chapter 15. It ends with the father saying (Luke 15:32 CJB) = "We had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead but has come back to life — he was lost but has been found.’”

In Matthew 22:29:32 is Jesus talking about the physically dead or the spiritually dead being resurrected? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...B;CJB;NKJV

The two stories about the bread and fish feeding thousands are stories about hospitality and feeding the hungry. The Bible has countless stories about people throwing out the welcome mat for strangers and feeding and sheltering them. In these particular stories Jesus and his pals are out in the countryside with thousands of people far from the greasy spoons.

So everyone is getting hungry but Jesus and his pals only have enough for themselves. The crowds appear to be running on empty. The rules of hospitality required that you offer your guests food before you ate in their presence. So Jesus told his guys to walk out into the crowds with their lunch in plain sight and offer it to the people. Since there were thousands of people it was obvious that that was not a sustainable plan.

But what happened was that everyone had brought his own lunch, hidden in their dusty robes. Once the crowd saw that it was OK to bring out their own lunches they did and everyone chowed down. People did not go out in the countryside without taking something to eat. They might have been dumb but there was a limit to their stupidity. So in the end each person fed himself and some even had so much that there was a lot left over.

The story about walking on water is interesting because water is a metaphor for "truth". When Jesus walked on water he was being supported by the truth. Peter was able to walk on water for a few steps but then he failed. That ties in to the story about how he refused to acknowledge Jesus after Jesus was betrayed (Matthew chapter 26).

What do you think the stories about the incurable disease and crucifixion mean?

[Whateverist]

I'm not versed in ancient literature.... so that would be a useless venue...

Not to mention .. WHO TO HELL CARES?

(I think even better of you pocadotus now that I know you are not well versed in ancient literature. It says something good about how you choose to use your time on this earth.)

[Mudhammam]

I'm not versed in ancient literature.... so that would be a useless venue...

Not to mention .. WHO TO HELL CARES?

(I think even better of you pocadotus now that I know you are not well versed in ancient literature. It says something good about how you choose to use your time on this earth.)

What's wrong with studying ancient literature? It's history! (At least in the sense that someone wrote it down a very long time ago). I find ancient studies fascinating... well, actually I love history in general.

[Whateverist]

You are not versed in ancient literature yet you assert emphatically that the New Testament which is a compilation of ancient literature, is fiction!?

Not me. I insist that, whatever it may be, no valid conclusion about the status of gods in the universe may be drawn from it. (Having never read it, it may be anime for all I know but what difference does it make?)

---

Not to mention .. WHO TO HELL CARES?

(I think even better of you pocadotus now that I know you are not well versed in ancient literature. It says something good about how you choose to use your time on this earth.)

What's wrong with studying ancient literature? It's history! (At least in the sense that someone wrote it down a very long time ago). I find ancient studies fascinating... well, actually I love history in general.

Nothing wrong with studying history. I enjoy it too. I simply don't see the relevance for any religious claims that have any bearing on anything outside that one mythology. It is the implication that you can get there (to metaphysical claims) by way of studying ancient writings which I object to.

[*Deidre*]

I would like to see the debate be with Pickup...

There's really no debate to be had, at least not one that I can see would be very worthwhile. He believes we can not only determine the probability that a genuine miracle occurred based a few accounts (written by Christian missionaries no less) but more over, that we can interpret these experiences merely on the opinions of the first-century non-skeptical illiterates who had them. Why not just debate if Big foot exists instead?

lol Exactly. That's why I decided it's not worth the effort. I'm pretty open minded but not willing to have a one sided debate, meaning...I'm the only one providing valid objective evidence while the other party relies on his opinions, religious notions, and the Bible.

Yea. Um. No.

But, should you dare...good luck.

---

Curious...
It jumps.

Of that particular collection of books, I know enough to dismiss it as mostly fiction, yes.
I mean, really...
- bringing dead people back to life?
- Producing multiples of bread and fish without extra flour nor actual fishing?
- Healing an incurable (at the time) disease?
- Walking on water?
- A person lashed, nailed to a pole and stabbed... somehow survives?

Does this belong in the History or fiction aisle?

When reading the Bible a person should always remember that he's reading an ethnocentric Jewish religious fairy tale that uses a lot of metaphors. If a reader doesn't consider the metaphors he will miss the meaning of the story.

A spiritually dead person can be brought back to life if he repents and gives up his "sinful"habits. Consider the Prodigal Son story in Luke chapter 15. It ends with the father saying (Luke 15:32 CJB) = "We had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead but has come back to life — he was lost but has been found.’”

In Matthew 22:29:32 is Jesus talking about the physically dead or the spiritually dead being resurrected? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...B;CJB;NKJV

The two stories about the bread and fish feeding thousands are stories about hospitality and feeding the hungry. The Bible has countless stories about people throwing out the welcome mat for strangers and feeding and sheltering them. In these particular stories Jesus and his pals are out in the countryside with thousands of people far from the greasy spoons.

So everyone is getting hungry but Jesus and his pals only have enough for themselves. The crowds appear to be running on empty. The rules of hospitality required that you offer your guests food before you ate in their presence. So Jesus told his guys to walk out into the crowds with their lunch in plain sight and offer it to the people. Since there were thousands of people it was obvious that that was not a sustainable plan.

But what happened was that everyone had brought his own lunch, hidden in their dusty robes. Once the crowd saw that it was OK to bring out their own lunches they did and everyone chowed down. People did not go out in the countryside without taking something to eat. They might have been dumb but there was a limit to their stupidity. So in the end each person fed himself and some even had so much that there was a lot left over.

The story about walking on water is interesting because water is a metaphor for "truth". When Jesus walked on water he was being supported by the truth. Peter was able to walk on water for a few steps but then he failed. That ties in to the story about how he refused to acknowledge Jesus after Jesus was betrayed (Matthew chapter 26).

What do you think the stories about the incurable disease and crucifixion mean?

Metaphor is a kind way of saying nonsense, in religious speak. When it clearly sounds too fucked up to be believable...doh! Must be a metaphor.

[Mudhammam]

There's really no debate to be had, at least not one that I can see would be very worthwhile. He believes we can not only determine the probability that a genuine miracle occurred based a few accounts (written by Christian missionaries no less) but more over, that we can interpret these experiences merely on the opinions of the first-century non-skeptical illiterates who had them. Why not just debate if Big foot exists instead?

lol Exactly. That's why I decided it's not worth the effort. I'm pretty open minded but not willing to have a one sided debate, meaning...I'm the only one providing valid objective evidence while the other party relies on his opinions, religious notions, and the Bible.

Yea. Um. No.

But, should you dare...good luck.

---

When reading the Bible a person should always remember that he's reading an ethnocentric Jewish religious fairy tale that uses a lot of metaphors. If a reader doesn't consider the metaphors he will miss the meaning of the story.

A spiritually dead person can be brought back to life if he repents and gives up his "sinful"habits. Consider the Prodigal Son story in Luke chapter 15. It ends with the father saying (Luke 15:32 CJB) = "We had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead but has come back to life — he was lost but has been found.’”

In Matthew 22:29:32 is Jesus talking about the physically dead or the spiritually dead being resurrected? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...B;CJB;NKJV

The two stories about the bread and fish feeding thousands are stories about hospitality and feeding the hungry. The Bible has countless stories about people throwing out the welcome mat for strangers and feeding and sheltering them. In these particular stories Jesus and his pals are out in the countryside with thousands of people far from the greasy spoons.

So everyone is getting hungry but Jesus and his pals only have enough for themselves. The crowds appear to be running on empty. The rules of hospitality required that you offer your guests food before you ate in their presence. So Jesus told his guys to walk out into the crowds with their lunch in plain sight and offer it to the people. Since there were thousands of people it was obvious that that was not a sustainable plan.

But what happened was that everyone had brought his own lunch, hidden in their dusty robes. Once the crowd saw that it was OK to bring out their own lunches they did and everyone chowed down. People did not go out in the countryside without taking something to eat. They might have been dumb but there was a limit to their stupidity. So in the end each person fed himself and some even had so much that there was a lot left over.

The story about walking on water is interesting because water is a metaphor for "truth". When Jesus walked on water he was being supported by the truth. Peter was able to walk on water for a few steps but then he failed. That ties in to the story about how he refused to acknowledge Jesus after Jesus was betrayed (Matthew chapter 26).

What do you think the stories about the incurable disease and crucifixion mean?

Metaphor is a kind way of saying nonsense, in religious speak. When it clearly sounds too fucked up to be believable...doh! Must be a metaphor.

I think if Christians were to treat the stories as allegories of a greater truth regarding humans, their relationships to one another, and the potential realities we can create in our one lifetime on Earth, I could get down with it. Who knows, that may have been the original intention behind Jesus' actions and words.