Evidence for Jesus outside the Bible?

[Minimalist]

....which goes to show your lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which I would like to reiterate I am nolonger a follower of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

All genuine Christians would willingly die for their faith...now and then.

I guess I need to remind that you that YOU wrote that just one page back, Hannah.

So when you say:

"What's your point? It says here that they gave Christians the choice between denying Jesus was their lord and living...and refusing to deny him and dying. "

I must ask you to make up your mind. Would they or would they not let themselves be killed for their stupid fucking god?

IF you ask me there isn't any myth worth dying for but, then again, I'm not a "believer."

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are lots of people who call themselves Christian but who don't even know the requirements of being a Christian. There are many muslims who do not adhere to the tenants of Islam.

So now you know. It's lucky I'm here isn't it?

Your reference to genuine/true/ real Christians is a common logical fallacy , "the no true Scotsman". This fallacy is beloved of dogmatic believers everywhere, who insist THEIR version of Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) is the ONLY genuine/real/ true version.

Right now the US religious right is having a breakdown trying to distance itself (unsuccessfully) from that nutter in Norway using exactly that fallacy.. I have yet to see a definition of what constitutes a real Christian which is accepted by all those who call themselves Christians. Who has the right to say anyone who asserts "I'm a Christian' is not? You?

My apologies if I expressed myself poorly.Please see below.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.


The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[2]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking

A simpler rendition would be:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Hannah]

....which goes to show your lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which I would like to reiterate I am nolonger a follower of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

All genuine Christians would willingly die for their faith...now and then.

I STAND BY THAT CLAIM.....ALL 'GENUINE' CHRISTIANS WOULD DIE FOR THEIR FAITH

I guess I need to remind that you that YOU wrote that just one page back, Hannah.

YES. I STAND BY IT. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?

So when you say:

"What's your point? It says here that they gave Christians the choice between denying Jesus was their lord and living...and refusing to deny him and dying. "

I must ask you to make up your mind. Would they or would they not let themselves be killed for their stupid fucking god?

SORRY BUT I'M MISSING YOUR POINT. I'VE MADE MY POINT SEVERAL TIMES. MAYBE SOMEONE NEAR YOU COULD ASSIST YOU BY READING MY COMMENTS. THEY ARE PRETTY EASY TO WORK OUT.

IF you ask me there isn't any myth worth dying for but, then again, I'm not a "believer."

THAT LINE IS NONESENSICAL. HAVE A CUP OF TEA.



.....how can you criticise me for using the term 'real/genuine Christians' when you wrote this on my volcano thread...

Quoting you in my volcano thread.....

Interesting; I can't dispute that. I said only that Judaism was not monthotheistic BEFORE Exodus. In his recent book,"The Bible Unearthed" Israel Finkelstein reveals that he and others have yfound THOUSANDS of female deity figures all over Israel,dating to about 700bce. These finds indicate that although monotheism may have been the official religion by that time, many people still worshiped the old gods. (Obviously not true jews)'.

Can you please tell me what is a 'true Jew'? Please....don't...

The difference between a real Christian and a fake one is the real one is a believer and the other isn't. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill! A good way to sort out the real ones from the fake ones is to hold a sword over their necks and say, 'Is Jesus your god, saviour and Lord?' That would be pretty efficient with a very low margin of error.

It's quite easy to tell in the church who's real or not, although it's only really known to the person. One giveaway of a fake Christian was at Easter when the woman next to me whispered in my ear, 'Just have fun Hannah. Don't bother with all this rubbish' while giving Jesus a look of disdain. I think she would have chosen life. My Christian friend Mary said only a month ago that, given the choice, she would give up her life rather than deny her faith....and I believe her.

What is so difficult about this dilema that has caused so many comments? I cannot see what is so hard to work out.

[frankiej]

Basically I see it that they are fucking insane if they would die for their faith and those who follow the religion but isn't serious about it is mildly retarded, as they could be doing far grander things.

So, I just ignore them most of the time, as I couldn't really care about them if they wish to give away their life to a delusion.

[Minimalist]

MAYBE SOMEONE NEAR YOU COULD ASSIST YOU BY READING MY COMMENTS. THEY ARE PRETTY EASY TO WORK OUT.

Actually they are not. You have now progressed from posting fucking bullshit to contradicting yourself. And SHOUTING merely makes you seem more incoherent than usual.

[Hannah]

MAYBE SOMEONE NEAR YOU COULD ASSIST YOU BY READING MY COMMENTS. THEY ARE PRETTY EASY TO WORK OUT.

Actually they are not. You have now progressed from posting fucking bullshit to contradicting yourself. And SHOUTING merely makes you seem more incoherent than usual.

I wasn't shouting. I was making my text stand out against the rest. I'm not familiar with the quote system.

Can you please explain to me as clearly as possible what the problem is with what I've said?

---

Basically I see it that they are fucking insane if they would die for their faith and those who follow the religion but isn't serious about it is mildly retarded, as they could be doing far grander things.

So, I just ignore them most of the time, as I couldn't really care about them if they wish to give away their life to a delusion.

I think Christians are victims of a very old mistake. I think it's very sad they devote their lives to something fake and the sooner their folly can be exposed the better. Christians are not alone in this death wish though. There are plenty of New Age types ready and willing to be raptured up to a 5th dimension, something they anticipate soon just like Christians. I've spoken to a few who are eager to go. How silly is that? Youtube is full of videos advising New Agers on how to hone their chakras enough, become at one with nature enough, become love and light enough to be one of the chosen few. The 5th dimension is a very elite place.

The difference between the two is that, on the most part, Christians fall in love with 'god', whereas New Agers fall in love with themselves. Having said that, they share many traits.

[Minimalist]

Ok, one last time.

You stated that "genuine xtians" would willingly die for their faith and then, when confronted with Pliny's observation that they said "fuck jesus, Hail Caesar" you reply with:

It says here that they gave Christians the choice between denying Jesus was their lord and living...and refusing to deny him and dying. "

Are you asserting, at 1,900 years removed, a No True Scotsman argument? Because, if you are, I can tell you how that is going to work out.

This horseshit about xtian martyrs winning over the Romans by stoically facing death for their godboy is a pile of shit. Xtianity grew slowly and only won out because it backed the right horse in a civil war. When given political power they used it to terrorize non-xtians wherever they could find them.

Hollywood is not a great source for actual history.

[Hannah]

Ok, one last time.

Honest?

You stated that "genuine xtians" would willingly die for their faith and then, when confronted with Pliny's observation that they said "fuck jesus, Hail Caesar" you reply with:

It says here that they gave Christians the choice between denying Jesus was their lord and living...and refusing to deny him and dying. "

Are you asserting, at 1,900 years removed, a No True Scotsman argument? Because, if you are, I can tell you how that is going to work out.

Sorry. I don't know what your point is. Genuine Christians would be willing to die for their faith. They gave Christians the choice between denying Jesus was their lord and living...and refusing to deny him and dying. I've just put the two statements together to see what the problem is. I still cannot see what the problem is. Given the choice between life and death, genuine Christians would choose death rather than deny their faith. Fake ones would choose life. What part of that do you not understand?

This horseshit about xtian martyrs winning over the Romans by stoically facing death for their godboy is a pile of shit. Xtianity grew slowly and only won out because it backed the right horse in a civil war. When given political power they used it to terrorize non-xtians wherever they could find them.

Can you provide historical evidence for your first point in the sentence above?

Hollywood is not a great source for actual history.

So don't watch films then. I haven't watched a film in years.

[Shell B]

Hannah, please refer to the BB Code Guide found here http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html Your quotes are very difficult to follow. Interestingly, your ability to use the quote function has degenerated through this thread, so it appear you only need a refresher.

[Hannah]

Hannah, please refer to the BB Code Guide found here http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html Your quotes are very difficult to follow. Interestingly, your ability to use the quote function has degenerated through this thread, so it appear you only need a refresher.

No....I was not making it up. I am unfamiliar with the quote system. I think that was my attempt to butcher the thing by copying and pasting the end thing in brackets. I just went back to the comment I got the quotes right in to check the way I did it but it's not possible to do an edit now. I'll read this link.