The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't think what is a question for scholars? You think that it is taken without question that chrisitianity is "the truth" or that theologians take it without question that chrisitianity is "the truth?"

Or do historians take it without question that people who followed Christianity viewed it as "the truth?"

Whichever bullshit you've pulled from your ass, I'd like to see the data from which you're inferring that it isn't a question for "historical scholars."

If it's not a question about historical scholarship, than it's not a question of historical scholarship. Just like if it's not a question about biology, it's not a question for biologist.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. [...]

Nope. Only the bible mentions purported "eyewitnesses". It's a nonsense. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:45 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were lying to die for the truth of it.

What??? What the hell does "lying to die for the truth of it" mean???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:39 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. [...]

Nope. Only the bible mentions purported "eyewitnesses". It's a nonsense.

Pretty much all the NT writings, even the apocophya, and writings that didn't make the cannon write of the resurrection.


Quote:You cannot use the bible to prove the bible LOL.

Who says? I'm not sure why you declared some arbitrary rule here, that individuals can't draw inferences from the NT writings, written by multiple different writers of the time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were lying to die for the truth of it.

Actually they weren't :
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-...DDQ6VEYP49

Being willing to die for one's religion does not make anything about it true, (or Muslim suicide bombers would proving the truth of Islam).

The resurrection was not "multiply attested to".
The disciples who said they "saw" him, did not at first recognize him, and even at the end (of Matthew) it says they "they doubted but believed". That's no "attestation". FAITH is not "attestation".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-06-2016, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 11:14 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't think it's a question for historical scholars. Cormac McCarthy is likely better suited for it than a Bart Ehrman, or a Marcus Borg.

It's still your made up opinion, and TOTALLY "unorthodox". You have invented your own religion. That's nice. But don't call it "Christianity". By NO definition is it "Christianity". It's just like all the other New Age woo Christian knock-offs.
Whatever floats your boat.

lol, am I suppose to take an atheist such as yourself opinion on what constitutes as orthodox and unorthodox christian beliefs seriously? I didn't know you spoke on behalf of Christian orthodoxy here. If Christians were leveling that accusations against me perhaps it's worth considering, but you? No.

It's interesting that a group often quick to cite the no true scotsman fallacy when Christians attempt to purge individuals like Hitler from their ranks, have no qualms engaging in a similar practices when convenient for them.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 11:24 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 12:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 11:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 10:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's still your made up opinion, and TOTALLY "unorthodox". You have invented your own religion. That's nice. But don't call it "Christianity". By NO definition is it "Christianity". It's just like all the other New Age woo Christian knock-offs.
Whatever floats your boat.

lol, am I suppose to take an atheists such as yourself opinion on what constitutes as orthodox and unorthodox christian beliefs seriously? I didn't know you spoke on behalf of Christian orthodoxy here. If Christians were leveling that accusations against me perhaps it's worth considering, but you? No.

It's interesting that group often quick to cite the no true scotsman fallacy when Christians attempt to purge individuals like Hitler from their ranks, but have no qualms engaging in a similar practices when convenient for them.

Ah yes. More presumptuous BS stereotyping from the idiot who bashes atheists with his atheist stereotypes, EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. There are people here who know FAR FAR FAR more about religion than you ever will, Tommy Boy. FAR more. We are competent to judge "orthodoxy", and your lame attempt to yet again wiggle out, falls on it's ass. So instead of addressing the POINTS, all you can do is dismiss the POINTS, because they come from a non-believer.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE THEN ????

I NEVER said anything about Hitler. More BS stereotyping. But of course I'm "polluted" and "warped". Facepalm

Listen dear, the Harvard Divinity School is FULL of atheists as are many of the other major schools ... Who could actually study all that BS and take it seriously ? I've had them for teachers. Your presumptuous BS about who knows what about what, is ALL totally false. Maybe some day you'll get out from your little Fundie Bible College environment, and discover the really big world. You have NEVER ONCE written or presented ONE thing here that would be acceptable as a "paper" in and institution of higher learning about religion, or any related topic. So all in all, you FAILED yet again to actually address the POINT. The POINT is you are no Christian. You views are not orthodox, and are in compliance with no known sect of Christianity. You have made up your own cult. You are not a Christian, except by your OWN definition.

Historically, one of the defining hallmarks of Christianity is that it comes only in "communities". .... not in "individual flavors". The faith community is the arbiter of the truth of religious experience. (It's one of the reasons Mormonism went so off the rails ... no community to keep Old Joe on track). Christianity does not come in "individual" packets.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-06-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 05:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
Quote:Why share this ROT on an atheist forum? Even if an atheist did suddenly decide to run back to religion, they would probably go back to the conventional brand of Catholicism/Protestantism, not some one-off cultic ROT.

I thought the problem was that I don’t share my religious views, that I tend to deflect question asking for elaboration. So i’m not sure why you’re suggesting otherwise. I’m just a self-identifying Christian, who just so happens to participate in atheists forums, interested in a short list of topics that I engage in here, who finds questions about my religious beliefs in the unrelated topics I engage in, to be a distraction.

[quote]doesn't depend on Jesus' existence. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case? Tomasia has stated he doesn't believe in atonement. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case?

I believe in atonement, but atonement has a variety of different views, even among christians that are considered a part of the orthodox tradition. If there’s a particular one I’d align myself with, it would be Rene Girard’s Scapegoating view. And Girard is a respected Catholic thinker, I doubt many catholics would want to label him an apostate.

I believe Jesus existed, just like most other Christians. Some christians might say that they would no longer be Christians if Jesus did not exist as a historical person, I wouldn’t, though I think the view that Jesus didn’t exist is absurd. If it worked for the supposed earlier form of Christianity, or Paul, as mythicist suggest, I’m not sure why it couldn’t work for me.

The question in regards to historicity, here wouldn’t really about apostasy because that would be about one’s actual beliefs, where is in this case it would be whether such and such would lead you to no longer believe. If I believed Jesus didn’t exist perhaps the apostate label might be more applicable, but I don’t, I hold that he did, and that I would still hold to Christianity as true even if he didn’t.


I’ll say this, what’s ultimately true for me about Christianity, has always been true, and is not dependent on whether we acknowledge it or not. It just didn’t become true 2000 years ago, anymore so than the Theory of Evolution became true when Darwin penned it, or when we came to acknowledge it’s legitimacy as a species. Perhaps if the Gospels were never penned, if Jesus never appeared, or was never written about, we’d still be in the dark about it, but what’s true, is true regardless if we acknowledge it or not.

I don’t expect you or others to understand this, or what I mean by the truth here exactly, but this is my view.

Quote:Tomasia dismisses accounts in Matthew about zombies walking the streets. But do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? How does this selective dismissal work? What is your criteria for dismissing one and accepting the other?

Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. Even if we want to label it as a “mischievous superstition” that caught on, like Tacitus wrote. Unlike the Zombie bit that only Matthew writes, of, and the other Gospels writers didn’t. Something did happen after Jesus’s humiliating defeat, that led to a different trajectory here than what’s routine for failed messiah claimants, in which their following dies along with them. Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were willing to die for the truth of it. Perhaps it was some sort of mass hallucination, perhaps it was some sort of spiritual epiphany, that they labeled the resurrection, but something did happen, to kindle the fervency that lit that age, that set rome on fire. That breathed life back into his devastated followers upon witnessing his humiliating defeat.

Quote:Why go to the trouble in creating this ROT, when all of the other sects of Christianity will declare you an apostate destined for hell?

I don’t run across many Christians who would label me an apostate. I do run across a bunch of atheists attempting to speak on their behalf.

Do you subscribe to dispensation or covenance theology?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 11:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  lol, am I suppose to take an atheists such as yourself opinion on what constitutes as orthodox and unorthodox christian beliefs seriously? I didn't know you spoke on behalf of Christian orthodoxy here. If Christians were leveling that accusations against me perhaps it's worth considering, but you? No.

It's interesting that group often quick to cite the no true scotsman fallacy when Christians attempt to purge individuals like Hitler from their ranks, but have no qualms engaging in a similar practices when convenient for them.

Ah yes. More presumptuous BS stereotyping from the idiot who bashes atheists with his atheist stereotypes, EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. There are people here who know FAR FAR FAR more about religion than you ever will, Tommy Boy. FAR more. We are competent to judge "orthodoxy", and your lame attempt to yet again wiggle out, falls on it's ass. So instead of addressing the POINTS, all you can do is dismiss the POINTS, because they come from a non-believer.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE THEN ????

I NEVER said anything about Hitler. More BS stereotyping. But of course I'm "polluted" and "warped". Facepalm

Listen dear, the Harvard Divinity School is FULL of atheists as are many of the other major schools ... who could actually study all that BS and take it seriously ? I've had them for teachers. Your presumptuous BS about who knows what about what, is ALL totally false. Maybe some day you'll get out from your little Bible College environment, and discover the real big world. You have NEVER ONCE written or presented ONE thing here
that would be acceptable as a "paper" in and institution of higher learning about religion, or any related topic. So all in all, you FAILED yet again to actually address the POINT. The POINT is you are no Christian. You views are not orthodox, and are in compliance with no known sect of Christianity. You have made up your own cult. You are not a Christian, except by your OWN definition.
That's how you keep the Christian numbers high, swift uniting tactic well established in the late 19th century for Christianity to more unite instead of people calling themselves their dominations.

It's just a extra step away from freestyling about hating religion but loving Jesus.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 11:33 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I thought the problem was that I don’t share my religious views, that I tend to deflect question asking for elaboration. So i’m not sure why you’re suggesting otherwise. I’m just a self-identifying Christian, who just so happens to participate in atheists forums, interested in a short list of topics that I engage in here, who finds questions about my religious beliefs in the unrelated topics I engage in, to be a distraction.


I believe in atonement, but atonement has a variety of different views, even among christians that are considered a part of the orthodox tradition. If there’s a particular one I’d align myself with, it would be Rene Girard’s Scapegoating view. And Girard is a respected Catholic thinker, I doubt many catholics would want to label him an apostate.

I believe Jesus existed, just like most other Christians. Some christians might say that they would no longer be Christians if Jesus did not exist as a historical person, I wouldn’t, though I think the view that Jesus didn’t exist is absurd. If it worked for the supposed earlier form of Christianity, or Paul, as mythicist suggest, I’m not sure why it couldn’t work for me.

The question in regards to historicity, here wouldn’t really about apostasy because that would be about one’s actual beliefs, where is in this case it would be whether such and such would lead you to no longer believe. If I believed Jesus didn’t exist perhaps the apostate label might be more applicable, but I don’t, I hold that he did, and that I would still hold to Christianity as true even if he didn’t.


I’ll say this, what’s ultimately true for me about Christianity, has always been true, and is not dependent on whether we acknowledge it or not. It just didn’t become true 2000 years ago, anymore so than the Theory of Evolution became true when Darwin penned it, or when we came to acknowledge it’s legitimacy as a species. Perhaps if the Gospels were never penned, if Jesus never appeared, or was never written about, we’d still be in the dark about it, but what’s true, is true regardless if we acknowledge it or not.

I don’t expect you or others to understand this, or what I mean by the truth here exactly, but this is my view.


Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. Even if we want to label it as a “mischievous superstition” that caught on, like Tacitus wrote. Unlike the Zombie bit that only Matthew writes, of, and the other Gospels writers didn’t. Something did happen after Jesus’s humiliating defeat, that led to a different trajectory here than what’s routine for failed messiah claimants, in which their following dies along with them. Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were willing to die for the truth of it. Perhaps it was some sort of mass hallucination, perhaps it was some sort of spiritual epiphany, that they labeled the resurrection, but something did happen, to kindle the fervency that lit that age, that set rome on fire. That breathed life back into his devastated followers upon witnessing his humiliating defeat.


I don’t run across many Christians who would label me an apostate. I do run across a bunch of atheists attempting to speak on their behalf.

Do you subscribe to dispensation or covenance theology?

It's known as "Cafeteria Christianity".
They pick and chose whatever they like for their religion salad.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: