Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:10 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So why did all the apostles including Paul (with the exception of John), allow themselves to be martyrs for something that did not happen? I mean... Apparently they are the only ones who knew Jesus personally so why would they die for him?

I'm assuming you meant "why wouldn't they die for him." That's easy. They were fucking pussies.





No need 2 worry.
No need 2 cry.
I'm your messiah and you're the reason why.

And apparently Prince takes his copyright very seriously 'cause I can't find the original online anywhere.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:10 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 05:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The only evidence of most of those claims comes from the Gospels, and it is generally agreed by most Biblical scholars that those were written many years after Jesus' death, and probably by people who never met him or knew him -- i.e., they are hearsay. I have very little confidence that Jesus (if he even existed) claimed to be God or predicted his own death. And even if he did, so what? Lots of people have claimed to be God, including the Roman emperors of Jesus' own time.
So why did all the apostles including Paul (with the exception of John), allow themselves to be martyrs for something that did not happen? I mean... Apparently they are the only ones who knew Jesus personally so why would they die for him?

JD, I hear this argument and similar ones to it all the time, in fact I used to use it on myself when I was younger because I so wanted to believe. I remember sitting in a pew in great confusion and angst and telling myself that the stories had to be true because the apostles died for it and it has held up for 2000 years and look at all the people who believe it!

Apparently there is much reason to believe that no one who wrote about Jesus knew him and this throws a monkey wrench into the question “why would they die for him”.
No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him. When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Matthew: generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, many modern scholars reject this view. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 7: (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). 2 of them (Ephesians, Colossians) scholars are divided on their authenticity, and of course 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are pseudepigrapha. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ead?page=4

My own Argumentum ad populum back then kept me in the dark for a few extra years until I came to grips that the many are often wrong (also known as appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy).

I very much empathize with your current thinking.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
12-11-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 03:09 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So the reason why you believe that Jesus dying for your sins was a lie is because you think it's BS? It doesn't seem like a very convincing argument. It's like saying I don't believe in evolution because evolution is BS. Give me a specific example. What specific detail about the death of Jesus do you not believe and why?
1. There was no Jesus. There might have been a Yeshua, but certainly no Jesus.
2. What is a sin? Does a god have to exist or a morality code have to exist in order for people to sin?
3. How does a person die for other people's sins? Is a specific magical ritual performed? Some special magical words spoken? Or does any death count? All people die eventually, what is special about this death?
4. There is no evidence that Yeshua was killed as part of a magical sacrificial ritual.
5. What is the value in a death, how is it seen as a commodity? Why would an all perfect god (i.e. all complete) have a requirement for someone's death? What value does the god get out of it? Psst - There is no value in blood sacrifices, it was a custom invented by superstitious, confused and ignorant people.
Wow! I really don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but have you ever read the bible? I am only asking because you sound like you really don't have a grasp on some very basic christian beliefs. Now I said I am not here to convert anyone but if you want to PM me I can answer a lot of those questions. Perhaps if there is anyone else here who wants to explain?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 06:53 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 07:12 PM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 03:39 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So would you say that your question is "Is it true that Jesus was the embodiment of God who died for your sins or is he a haratic who claimed to be the embodiment of God who died for his claim"?

I ask myself this every morning as I brush my teeth. Except I doubt the Jews are gonna call for my death. ... And how the fuck does your autocorrect come up with "haratic". Near as I can tell it's some sorta character in a game. Your autocorrect really really sucks ass.
Darn autocorrect. It is pathetic. ..or perhaps I am so horrible at spelling that it has no idea what the heck I am trying to spell....yeah that might be it. 😕
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:51 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Wow! I really don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but have you ever read the bible? I am only asking because you sound like you really don't have a grasp on some very basic christian beliefs. Now I said I am not here to convert anyone but if you want to PM me I can answer a lot of those questions. Perhaps if there is anyone else here who wants to explain?
WOW!

But you are asking atheists why we consider Jesus dying for our sins to be a lie.

Do I have to read the bible to tell you:
Why blood sacrifice makes no sense.
Why sin makes no sense.
Why there was no Jesus but perhaps a Yeshua.
Why there was no sacrifice.


Christian beliefs are a twisted and nonsensical, convoluted mess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 07:43 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 07:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 06:51 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Wow! I really don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but have you ever read the bible? I am only asking because you sound like you really don't have a grasp on some very basic christian beliefs. Now I said I am not here to convert anyone but if you want to PM me I can answer a lot of those questions. Perhaps if there is anyone else here who wants to explain?
WOW!

But you are asking atheists why we consider Jesus dying for our sins to be a lie.

Do I have to read the bible to tell you:
Why blood sacrifice makes no sense.
Why sin makes no sense.
Why there was no Jesus but perhaps a Yeshua.
Why there was no sacrifice.


Christian beliefs are a twisted and nonsensical, convoluted mess.
Like I said. I am not going to try to convert anyone here. There are plenty of atheist here who are very knowledgeable about the role of Jesus and how his death was significant according to the bible. But seriously, you are so ignorant on what is taught in the bible that if you really want me to answer those questions for you pleas PM me. All those questions are simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 03:39 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  There is evidence (although some can be debated) that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was a Jewish rabbi, who claimed to be the son of God, who arguably predicted his death, who was executed, and claimed that he was "the way, the truth, and the life". Can I prove that what he taught was true? No. Is there evidence that he existed and claimed to have died for your sins? Yes

So would you say that your question is "Is it true that Jesus was the embodiment of God who died for your sins or is he a haratic who claimed to be the embodiment of God who died for his claim"?

I'll take those one-at-a-time:

1) The evidence of his actual existence is sketchy, to say the least, though I happen to agree there was most likely a Rabbi Yeshu(a) whose teachings inspired a group of followers, possibly following his death.

2) The rabbi never claimed to be THE Son of God, not even in the (edited/added-to) version that we have today as "the Bible". He claimed to be the Son of Man, and he claimed to be A son of god, and he frequently referred to God as his "father", but so will you when you become a chaplain; it hardly makes you God's Son, at least not in the biological sense!

3) A story written 10-20 years, at the earliest, after the death of this teacher, and you're surprised that the version his followers wrote contains a "prediction" of his death!? (In my opinion, as you've read, the whole faith was created by the surviving followers to explain why their great rabbi/leader didn't do what the Hebrew tradition claimed would be true of a Davidic Messiah, but who died instead. "No! No!! He's coming back!!! We weren't just fools following a charlatan for three years!")

4) If you compare the "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" teachings of Jesus to those of Buddha, preaching the principles of how to attain Enlightenment, it appears that his intent was to explain to people that they could reach heaven by following his example of how to be nearer to God and to fulfill the Law. Jesus never says anything about saving people from sin by his death; that was Paul's invention, in 1 Corinthians. The Gospel of John, written much, much later (50+ years later!), was the first to include anything like that concept, or the concept of Jesus BEING God, and even then, that final Gospel doesn't state that Jesus death was a substitutionary atonement.

5) It is, then, a false dichotomy to ask us to pick between "was the embodiment of God who died for your sins" and "claimed to be the embodiment of God who died for his claim". The Romans would not have crucified Jesus for claiming to be God; they would have done it for challenging the power structure of the Romans who had just conquered Judea, in a time when civil war was looming, by claiming to be King of the Jews (as the Messiah would have been). All this stuff about being God Incarnate did not emerge until Paul, and is not mentioned outside of Paul's epistles, except for the verses in John which were written more than 60 years after Jesus' death and 50 years after Paul's letters by 3rd- or 4th-Generation Christians.

So the questions really are: Was Jesus even a real person or an amalgamation of ideas that coalesced into a new cult that became a religion? (Or) If a real person, did he say all, most, some, or none of the things attributed to him by his followers, decades later?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-11-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 06:51 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 06:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. There was no Jesus. There might have been a Yeshua, but certainly no Jesus.
2. What is a sin? Does a god have to exist or a morality code have to exist in order for people to sin?
3. How does a person die for other people's sins? Is a specific magical ritual performed? Some special magical words spoken? Or does any death count? All people die eventually, what is special about this death?
4. There is no evidence that Yeshua was killed as part of a magical sacrificial ritual.
5. What is the value in a death, how is it seen as a commodity? Why would an all perfect god (i.e. all complete) have a requirement for someone's death? What value does the god get out of it? Psst - There is no value in blood sacrifices, it was a custom invented by superstitious, confused and ignorant people.
Wow! I really don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but have you ever read the bible? I am only asking because you sound like you really don't have a grasp on some very basic christian beliefs. Now I said I am not here to convert anyone but if you want to PM me I can answer a lot of those questions. Perhaps if there is anyone else here who wants to explain?

What doers he not understand? Consider

Not accepting those beliefs as true does not mean that they are not understood.

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
12-11-2015, 08:14 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 07:43 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 07:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  WOW!

But you are asking atheists why we consider Jesus dying for our sins to be a lie.

Do I have to read the bible to tell you:
Why blood sacrifice makes no sense.
Why sin makes no sense.
Why there was no Jesus but perhaps a Yeshua.
Why there was no sacrifice.


Christian beliefs are a twisted and nonsensical, convoluted mess.
Like I said. I am not going to try to convert anyone here. There are plenty of atheist here who are very knowledgeable about the role of Jesus and how his death was significant according to the bible. But seriously, you are so ignorant on what is taught in the bible that if you really want me to answer those questions for you pleas PM me. All those questions are simple.

Your Christian answers to those questions are only significant to believers.

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
12-11-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 08:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 06:51 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Wow! I really don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but have you ever read the bible? I am only asking because you sound like you really don't have a grasp on some very basic christian beliefs. Now I said I am not here to convert anyone but if you want to PM me I can answer a lot of those questions. Perhaps if there is anyone else here who wants to explain?

What doers he not understand? Consider

Not accepting those beliefs as true does not mean that they are not understood.
True, I agree that just because someone does not believe something does not mean they don't understand. However in this specific case he really does not understand vary basic christian beliefs. Some of the question he raises can be easily answers by a 4th grader in Sunday school. I am not saying he has to believe any of it but it would be beneficial for anyone to understand the basic beliefs of a religion that they choose to reject. Otherwise it just sounds like ignorant bigotry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: