Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:40 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  On what evidence do you base that assumption?


I fail to see the irony; there is, insofar as I am aware, circumstantial evidence that a man named Yeshua was crucified.
There is no evidence suggestion he was a deity, or even magical but rather an irritating Arab Jew who was put down; that is all we can confirm as we already know that the NT is not a reliable document for historical purposes given the nature of its construction.
Some think he was an open Nazarene-like rebel attempting to instigate revolt, others think he was just a crazy preacher made myth. My money is on the later.

It would be ironic to say "Yeah, the most plausible explanation of Jewsus is that he dun be gawd/son-there-of." but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. Aside from you that is.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.

So, this evidence you speak of; what is it exactly.

You say that the first sort can be found if one looks but don't say what it is. Kinda reminds me of a UFO conspiracy theorist I chatted to once on Kongregate: "How do you know there are aliens held by the US government?" "Oh, the evidence is out there."
And the second sort cannot be known to you anyway as you specifically state that it is only available to those who know a dead person personally.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 05:11 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.

So, this evidence you speak of; what is it exactly.

You say that the first sort can be found if one looks but don't say what it is. Kinda reminds me of a UFO conspiracy theorist I chatted to once on Kongregate: "How do you know there are aliens held by the US government?" "Oh, the evidence is out there."
And the second sort cannot be known to you anyway as you specifically state that it is only available to those who know a dead person personally.

In the six-thousand plus posts you have made on this website, I find it hard to believe you do not know what evidence I speak of which would fall into the first category i.e. evidence available for all to examine.

Secondly, bear in mind, we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of the Living God, not evidence that water boils at a certain temperature or that the earth spins on its axis at a certain speed.

For you, the latter two subjects have a relatively small impact on you as a person. The former, the greatest impact.

You can maintain that water boils at such and such a temperature after examining the evidence for it and this will not significantly change they way you view life or the way you choose to live your life. You cannot agree that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and not have this affect the way you view life.

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.
De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658

Saying that to say this:

The issue for you will not be primarily one of evidence or the lack thereof. The issue for you that you will have to work out while looking at yourself in the mirror is this:

Am I willing to accept the implications of the evidence, whatever these implications may be?

This must be done FIRST.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are either one of two types of people. You are either one who likes the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God incarnate, or you are one who does not like the idea. The issue by virtue of its nature affords no middle ground.

If you are the latter, then to do as you have asked may indeed be nothing more than me giving you more multiplied reasons for misterpreting what I give you. For George Macdonald once said: "To give truth to him who loves it not is to give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation".

In all of this it is seen that the issue we are discussing is primarily one of the heart, not the mind. That is why scripture states truthfully that the fool has said in his heart: "There is no God."

This takes place in the heart, not the mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 04:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, I can say it is not evidence for you. It does not pass the test for 'evidence'.
It is your experience - you choose to interpret it as evidence, but that does not make it evidence.

You can say it is not evidence for me in that it you have the ability to type the words or speak them. This is true and I do not contest this. In this sense I can say you are a Christian or that you love Jesus.

However, this was not your point. Your point was to imply that the aforementioned evidence I spoke of is not really evidence at all. Your point is that I have used the wrong word and should have instead used a word like "experience".

Aside from the fact that you presumed to know what I was referring to when I mentioned this evidence, you took your assumption i.e. that this evidence was some sort of experience and then implied that because it was of such a nature that I, (the person claiming it as evidence) cannot truthfully make that claim.

Now, I have heard this line of reasoning from many people who think like you but have yet to have one of them explain to me why this is so without arguing in a circle.

Maybe you can?

Evidence is verifiable by others. That's the difference.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-05-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 05:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:11 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  So, this evidence you speak of; what is it exactly.

You say that the first sort can be found if one looks but don't say what it is. Kinda reminds me of a UFO conspiracy theorist I chatted to once on Kongregate: "How do you know there are aliens held by the US government?" "Oh, the evidence is out there."
And the second sort cannot be known to you anyway as you specifically state that it is only available to those who know a dead person personally.

In the six-thousand plus posts you have made on this website, I find it hard to believe you do not know what evidence I speak of which would fall into the first category i.e. evidence available for all to examine.

Secondly, bear in mind, we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of the Living God, not evidence that water boils at a certain temperature or that the earth spins on its axis at a certain speed.

For you, the latter two subjects have a relatively small impact on you as a person. The former, the greatest impact.

You can maintain that water boils at such and such a temperature after examining the evidence for it and this will not significantly change they way you view life or the way you choose to live your life. You cannot agree that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and not have this affect the way you view life.

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.
De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658

Saying that to say this:

The issue for you will not be primarily one of evidence or the lack thereof. The issue for you that you will have to work out while looking at yourself in the mirror is this:

Am I willing to accept the implications of the evidence, whatever these implications may be?

This must be done FIRST.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are either one of two types of people. You are either one who likes the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God incarnate, or you are one who does not like the idea. The issue by virtue of its nature affords no middle ground.

If you are the latter, then to do as you have asked may indeed be nothing more than me giving you more multiplied reasons for misterpreting what I give you. For George Macdonald once said: "To give truth to him who loves it not is to give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation".

In all of this it is seen that the issue we are discussing is primarily one of the heart, not the mind. That is why scripture states truthfully that the fool has said in his heart: "There is no God."

This takes place in the heart, not the mind.

Whether I am either one of your dichotomy should be irrelevant. I think the idea of Yeshua being the son of a deity to be silly at best. If evidence can be provided affirming his godly lineage, than I'd have no alternative but to accept it, regardless of prior disdain for the concept; any other rational evidentialist could do no less.
As such, you could say that I'd be perfectly willing to follow such evidence to its conclusion, but I'm not going to psych myself into the frame of mind to accept anything before I have the capacity to examine the evidence; I am far from the sharpest knife in the kitchen draw but I'm not so foolish as to do that.

And for the record, all thought and consideration occurs in the brain, not heart.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
01-05-2014, 06:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 06:37 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 04:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You can say it is not evidence for me in that it you have the ability to type the words or speak them. This is true and I do not contest this. In this sense I can say you are a Christian or that you love Jesus.

However, this was not your point. Your point was to imply that the aforementioned evidence I spoke of is not really evidence at all. Your point is that I have used the wrong word and should have instead used a word like "experience".

Aside from the fact that you presumed to know what I was referring to when I mentioned this evidence, you took your assumption i.e. that this evidence was some sort of experience and then implied that because it was of such a nature that I, (the person claiming it as evidence) cannot truthfully make that claim.

Now, I have heard this line of reasoning from many people who think like you but have yet to have one of them explain to me why this is so without arguing in a circle.

Maybe you can?

Evidence is verifiable by others. That's the difference.

There is a difference no doubt. The words "evidence" and "experience" are not synonymous. Nor have I stated they were.

But you seem to be implying that a person cannot justifiably say that their experience of being in someone's presence is evidence that certain claims made by said person are true.

This is demonstrably false.

If you and I are taking a walk through a secluded little trail on my 100 acre wooded property admiring the scenery and no one knew we were there except the two of us and we hung out and talked for an hour and then you went home and your spouse asks you what have you been doing and you said hanging out with Jeremy and your spouse says prove it and you start to stutter and stammer and say well, uhh.... I was with him, we talked about this and that and his good nature and gentle demeanor has worn off on me a little can't ya tell?

What would you think of her if she said: Well, that is not evidence that you were with Jeremy. I cannot verify it.

You might rightly agree with your spouse and say indeed, it is not evidence for you, but I KNOW I was with Jeremy despite the fact that I cannot give you evidence that you consider to be verifiable.

You see Chas, your being in my presence is evidence for you that I exist and it is enough for you to be able to truthfully say, I was with Jeremy today for one hour and he is a real person.

You could say to your spouse:

Well if you do not believe me, then go see Jeremy. Go talk to him for yourself. Ask him. But what if your spouse did not want to believe you? What if your spouse had a reason for not wanting you to be right about where you had been? Would your spouse go? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe your spouse would lie and say they had gone to see me but never really went, only to come back and lie and say Aha! I got you Chas you liar! I asked Jeremy and he said you were never here. Or I went to Jeremy's but he was not there.

In fact, to you I would simply say, go see the Man, talk to Him like I have and do. Do not take my word for it, but go, see Him.

Personally, I do not think you want to see Him. I think you are afraid to see Him, to seek Him, to ask for Him to reveal Himself to you. So you will continue to play this little game many play of asking for this and asking for that all the while knowing that you really do not want to know Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 06:56 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 06:22 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In the six-thousand plus posts you have made on this website, I find it hard to believe you do not know what evidence I speak of which would fall into the first category i.e. evidence available for all to examine.

Secondly, bear in mind, we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of the Living God, not evidence that water boils at a certain temperature or that the earth spins on its axis at a certain speed.

For you, the latter two subjects have a relatively small impact on you as a person. The former, the greatest impact.

You can maintain that water boils at such and such a temperature after examining the evidence for it and this will not significantly change they way you view life or the way you choose to live your life. You cannot agree that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and not have this affect the way you view life.

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.
De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658

Saying that to say this:

The issue for you will not be primarily one of evidence or the lack thereof. The issue for you that you will have to work out while looking at yourself in the mirror is this:

Am I willing to accept the implications of the evidence, whatever these implications may be?

This must be done FIRST.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are either one of two types of people. You are either one who likes the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God incarnate, or you are one who does not like the idea. The issue by virtue of its nature affords no middle ground.

If you are the latter, then to do as you have asked may indeed be nothing more than me giving you more multiplied reasons for misterpreting what I give you. For George Macdonald once said: "To give truth to him who loves it not is to give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation".

In all of this it is seen that the issue we are discussing is primarily one of the heart, not the mind. That is why scripture states truthfully that the fool has said in his heart: "There is no God."

This takes place in the heart, not the mind.

Whether I am either one of your dichotomy should be irrelevant. I think the idea of Yeshua being the son of a deity to be silly at best. If evidence can be provided affirming his godly lineage, than I'd have no alternative but to accept it, regardless of prior disdain for the concept; any other rational evidentialist could do no less.
As such, you could say that I'd be perfectly willing to follow such evidence to its conclusion, but I'm not going to psych myself into the frame of mind to accept anything before I have the capacity to examine the evidence; I am far from the sharpest knife in the kitchen draw but I'm not so foolish as to do that.

And for the record, all thought and consideration occurs in the brain, not heart.

Pride is your hindrance.

It hinders you from receiving the light and illumination of God. It is evidenced by phrases and words like: "Free Thought", "I'd have no alternative but to accept it", "rational evidentialist", "before I have the capacity to examine the evidence", "I'm not so foolish"...

You used the word "I" at least eight times in those few sentences.

Incidentally, it was Paul nearly 2,000 years ago who described you and those like you with such succinct clarity. He stated that those like you consider the message of the Cross to be foolish. The idea that God would die for those He loved to you is foolish.

You clearly show that even if given evidence you could not deny that you would accept its implications reluctantly. You would have no other alternative you say.

You do not like what men like myself have to say about you, or myself, or the human race. You despise the message that men are sinful and in need of a Saviour. It strikes at the very root and nerve of the pride that blinds you to your own desperate state and exposes what is hidden, deep down.

Men can fool men. They can dress a certain way, speak a certain way, possess certain things and for the most part, can appear to be something they are not. Pride has fueled vanity and convinced you that you really are what you believe yourself to be.

But you are smart enough to know that God can see through it all and is not fooled by the charade. You are smart enough to know that God is able to see you. Instead of warming your heart and encouraging you, this causes you to hide among the trees as Adam did. You run from His presence, or you run to His presence. As I stated before, by virtue of the nature of the subject in discussion, there is no middle ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 09:14 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 06:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:22 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Whether I am either one of your dichotomy should be irrelevant. I think the idea of Yeshua being the son of a deity to be silly at best. If evidence can be provided affirming his godly lineage, than I'd have no alternative but to accept it, regardless of prior disdain for the concept; any other rational evidentialist could do no less.
As such, you could say that I'd be perfectly willing to follow such evidence to its conclusion, but I'm not going to psych myself into the frame of mind to accept anything before I have the capacity to examine the evidence; I am far from the sharpest knife in the kitchen draw but I'm not so foolish as to do that.

And for the record, all thought and consideration occurs in the brain, not heart.

Pride is your hindrance.

It hinders you from receiving the light and illumination of God. It is evidenced by phrases and words like: "Free Thought", "I'd have no alternative but to accept it", "rational evidentialist", "before I have the capacity to examine the evidence", "I'm not so foolish"...

You used the word "I" at least eight times in those few sentences.

Incidentally, it was Paul nearly 2,000 years ago who described you and those like you with such succinct clarity. He stated that those like you consider the message of the Cross to be foolish. The idea that God would die for those He loved to you is foolish.

You clearly show that even if given evidence you could not deny that you would accept its implications reluctantly. You would have no other alternative you say.

You do not like what men like myself have to say about you, or myself, or the human race. You despise the message that men are sinful and in need of a Saviour. It strikes at the very root and nerve of the pride that blinds you to your own desperate state and exposes what is hidden, deep down.

Men can fool men. They can dress a certain way, speak a certain way, possess certain things and for the most part, can appear to be something they are not. Pride has fueled vanity and convinced you that you really are what you believe yourself to be.

But you are smart enough to know that God can see through it all and is not fooled by the charade. You are smart enough to know that God is able to see you. Instead of warming your heart and encouraging you, this causes you to hide among the trees as Adam did. You run from His presence, or you run to His presence. As I stated before, by virtue of the nature of the subject in discussion, there is no middle ground.

Your argument is nonsense without evidence of the existence of your, or any, god.

We are smart enough to evaluate claims. You are not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-05-2014, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 06:25 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 04:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No because I know Hercules was what is referred to by historians of classical mythology as a "divine hero" and was, according to classical mythology, son of Zeus.

The fact that you liken Hercules, a divine hero in classical mythology, to Jesus of Nazareth who is a historical person is evidence in and of itself that you are at best, mistaken regarding the subject matter which you have decided to speak on.

No because I know Jesus was what is referred to by historians of classical mythology as a "divine hero" and was, according to classical mythology, son of Yahweh.

The fact that you do not liken Hercules, a divine hero in classical mythology, to Jesus of Nazareth who is also not a historical person (as they both lack any evidence for their existence outside of myth) is evidence in and of itself that you are at best, mistaken regarding the subject matter which you have decided to speak on.


I can do this all day fucktard... Drinking Beverage

Because do pray tell share with us what evidence we have for a historical Jesus, remembering that the Gospels don't count (they are the claims, not evidence, and are also self refuting and contradictory besides). Paul's epistles speak only of a 'spiritual' Jesus and say nothing of the specifics of his supposed life and death (and even these took place decades after Jesus' supposed death and Paul never met him); and that we have nothing outside of Christian (read: biased) sources until at least the 3rd or 4th centuries and even then they are just remarking on what the Christians professed belief in, not what they might have had evidence for(and that's not even counting Christian fabrications and insertions, like the two passages in Josephus). You really are that fucking stupid, aren't you?

Jesus was a divine son of god, whose story originated at a time when Divine-Son-Of-God stories where as popular back then as procedural crime dramas are now ('Law & Order' and it's myriad spin-offs and copycats). You had Son of God: The Osiris Chronicles, Son of God: The Rise of Romulus, Son of God: The Adventures of Hercules, Son of God: Bacchus Edition, AND Son of God: JC all reprising the same mythic role and archetype. You fail to show why we should continue to ignore all of the others but take your culturally selected preferred mythical figure as literal and historical truth.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-05-2014, 02:25 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 05:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:11 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  So, this evidence you speak of; what is it exactly.

You say that the first sort can be found if one looks but don't say what it is. Kinda reminds me of a UFO conspiracy theorist I chatted to once on Kongregate: "How do you know there are aliens held by the US government?" "Oh, the evidence is out there."
And the second sort cannot be known to you anyway as you specifically state that it is only available to those who know a dead person personally.

In the six-thousand plus posts you have made on this website, I find it hard to believe you do not know what evidence I speak of which would fall into the first category i.e. evidence available for all to examine.



Secondly, bear in mind, we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of the Living God, not evidence that water boils at a certain temperature or that the earth spins on its axis at a certain speed.

For you, the latter two subjects have a relatively small impact on you as a person. The former, the greatest impact
You can maintain that water boils at such and such a temperature after examining the evidence for it and this will not significantly change they way you view life or the way you choose to live your life. You cannot agree that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and not have this affect the way you view life.

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.
De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658

Saying that to say this:

The issue for you will not be primarily one of evidence or the lack thereof. The issue for you that you will have to work out while looking at yourself in the mirror is this:

Am I willing to accept the implications of the evidence, whatever these implications may be?

This must be done FIRST.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are either one of two types of people. You are either one who likes the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God incarnate, or you are one who does not like the idea. The issue by virtue of its nature affords no middle ground.

If you are the latter, then to do as you have asked may indeed be nothing more than me giving you more multiplied reasons for misterpreting what I give you. For George Macdonald once said: "To give truth to him who loves it not is to give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation".

In all of this it is seen that the issue we are discussing is primarily one of the heart, not the mind. That is why scripture states truthfully that the fool has said in his heart: "There is no God."

This takes place in the heart, not the mind.

"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive."

Ah...NO. You would be referring to yourself and your fellow brainwashed believers.
Most atheists are rationalists. We look at the evidence.

"The simple fact of the matter is that you are either one of two types of people. You are either one who likes the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God incarnate, or you are one who does not like the idea."

Ah...NO. That's what they teach you in babble school. Most people have never heard of, or couldn't give a fuck about your Jeebus.

"For George Macdonald once said: "To give truth to him who loves it not is to give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation"."

Your George (am I supposed to know who he is?) couldn't get his grammar right. I've got no idea what he was trying to say.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-05-2014, 02:43 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 06:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:22 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Whether I am either one of your dichotomy should be irrelevant. I think the idea of Yeshua being the son of a deity to be silly at best. If evidence can be provided affirming his godly lineage, than I'd have no alternative but to accept it, regardless of prior disdain for the concept; any other rational evidentialist could do no less.
As such, you could say that I'd be perfectly willing to follow such evidence to its conclusion, but I'm not going to psych myself into the frame of mind to accept anything before I have the capacity to examine the evidence; I am far from the sharpest knife in the kitchen draw but I'm not so foolish as to do that.

And for the record, all thought and consideration occurs in the brain, not heart.

Pride is your hindrance.

It hinders you from receiving the light and illumination of God. It is evidenced by phrases and words like: "Free Thought", "I'd have no alternative but to accept it", "rational evidentialist", "before I have the capacity to examine the evidence", "I'm not so foolish"...

You used the word "I" at least eight times in those few sentences.

Incidentally, it was Paul nearly 2,000 years ago who described you and those like you with such succinct clarity. He stated that those like you consider the message of the Cross to be foolish. The idea that God would die for those He loved to you is foolish.

You clearly show that even if given evidence you could not deny that you would accept its implications reluctantly. You would have no other alternative you say.

You do not like what men like myself have to say about you, or myself, or the human race. You despise the message that men are sinful and in need of a Saviour. It strikes at the very root and nerve of the pride that blinds you to your own desperate state and exposes what is hidden, deep down.

Men can fool men. They can dress a certain way, speak a certain way, possess certain things and for the most part, can appear to be something they are not. Pride has fueled vanity and convinced you that you really are what you believe yourself to be.

But you are smart enough to know that God can see through it all and is not fooled by the charade. You are smart enough to know that God is able to see you. Instead of warming your heart and encouraging you, this causes you to hide among the trees as Adam did. You run from His presence, or you run to His presence. As I stated before, by virtue of the nature of the subject in discussion, there is no middle ground.

"Pride is your hindrance."

NO. Most atheists have a healthy, yet measured, respect for their own opinions. You don't, because you've been told what to think.

"It hinders you from receiving the light and illumination of God."

Anyone who thinks for himself knows God doesn't exist. Anyone who is gullible swallows the bulshit.

"Incidentally, it was Paul nearly 2,000 years ago who described you and those like you with such succinct clarity."

Paul was a tosser and a control freak. As you think otherwise, you have no understanding of the real history.

"The idea that God would die for those He loved to you is foolish."

The idea a god could die makes no sense. Think about it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: