Official Christianity Thread

I think the point here is that you're willing to accept the historical evidence that is necessary to prove the existence of many figures, and you will completely disregard the lack of primary sources of writings, but when it comes to acknowledging the historicity of Jesus, you're quick to dismiss it wholesale as myth ... which is something that not even Doherty, the most prominent proponent of your position, does.
Click to expand...

Oh, hey Dooby, I see you haven't given up.

First off, you're assuming I 'believe' Alexander the Great existed. While I do, you can't know that. Fact is, from what I've read (which is precious little), I have no reason to doubt that Alexander the Great lived. I DO however have reason to doubt that Jesus existed. That's the difference.

If someone came up to me and said, "Alexander the Great never existed. He was a made up figure. Here's why I think this. These are very good reasons, do you agree?" Then I would weigh the facts and determine if I thought it was a correct statement or not. I've had no one challenge the existence of Alexander the Great. I have however seen many people that challenge the fact that Jesus existed and that have some good fucking arguments. They expose the lie quite effectively. I love seeing Christians back stroke and stutter when they try to explain the 'inconsistencies'.

Still waiting on that 'mountain of evidence'. Anything you can provide has already been disputed and disproved. My job is too easy here. All you can do is argue until you get backed into the 'faith' corner and you know it. You can sputter and poke your holy nose up and pontificate all you like, but in the end you're left looking like an idiot and worshiping an imaginary man because you're scared of the 'Debil'.
 
Sipher77 said:
We post here not because God deserted us, but because by our very nature we are sinful individuals. You are not all that you post on tw, you have a good side that is exhibited, this side is God's good in us. The naughty stuff we post on tw is the sin in us talking.
Click to expand...

I'm just kidding.

I don't believe in God, on account of not being stupid. Don't believe me?

Did I mention fuck you and your so-called beliefs?

Sincerely,
Atheism
 
PotatoBoatCaptain said:
What the fuck, dude. We post here BECAUSE God has deserted us; why else would we subject ourselves to this depravity? Fuck you and your 'God loves me nyah nyah nyah' bullshit.
Click to expand...

Why would you seek to deny God's love when it is evident everywhere? God loves you like your mother and father love you. They love you unconditionally regardless if you screw up or not. Take the love your family has for you and mutiply it by millions, and you still would not even have a glimpse of what God's love is. For it is eternal and unconditional.
 
Dumpy Dooby said:
If you're going to claim that Jesus never existed, then by logical extension of contextual evidence, you must necessarily conclude that Alexander the Great never existed. We don't have writings of him until 100 years after his death, and we don't even have those sources; instead, we have guys copied what was written 100 years after his death 400 years after his death.
Click to expand...
You sure about this?

I was under the impression Egypt kept pretty good records of who was in charge.
 
Wowbagger said:
You sure about this?

I was under the impression Egypt kept pretty good records of who was in charge.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm pretty sure about that (we might have some minor accounts prior to that, but definitely nothing substantial until many centuries after his death ... except, of course, Alexandria, which is quite substantial in and of itself). If there were records, they've since been lost. The Romans weren't exactly friendly to Greek history. The records might have been in the library when it was destroyed.

What we have is an account that was written 400 years after his death. And that account is supposed to be a copy of an account that was supposed to have been written 100 years after his death.
 
I can imagine Sipher getting off while quoting scripture and parables.

I have no problem with religion, most of my family is.
But you have gone from faith to downright masturbation.
 
Ultrakiller said:
I can imagine Sipher getting off while quoting scripture and parables.

I have no problem with religion, most of my family is.
But you have gone from faith to downright masturbation.
Click to expand...

I am simply expressing my beliefs which are from the Bible and ideas I have formulated based upon the Bible that I can only imagine was given to me by the Holy Spirit.

How have I gone from faith to masturbation?
 
Hive_Tyrant said:
Oh, hey Dooby, I see you haven't given up.

First off, you're assuming I 'believe' Alexander the Great existed.
Click to expand...
If you returned to this thread and said that you didn't believe Alexander the Great existed, then I would have interpreted that as an concession.

While I do, you can't know that. Fact is, from what I've read (which is precious little), I have no reason to doubt that Alexander the Great lived. I DO however have reason to doubt that Jesus existed. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
What's your reason to doubt that Jesus existed, and why don't your reasons apply to the existence of Alexander the Great?

If someone came up to me and said, "Alexander the Great never existed. He was a made up figure. Here's why I think this. These are very good reasons, do you agree?" Then I would weigh the facts and determine if I thought it was a correct statement or not. I've had no one challenge the existence of Alexander the Great. I have however seen many people that challenge the fact that Jesus existed and that have some good fucking arguments. They expose the lie quite effectively. I love seeing Christians back stroke and stutter when they try to explain the 'inconsistencies'.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on the inconsistencies, and explain how they're relevant to the historicity of Jesus.

Still waiting on that 'mountain of evidence'.
Click to expand...
Again, you already know what I'm going to post, and I already know that you have some copy/paste bullshit from the Rational Response Squad ready and waiting to be posted as some sort of "clever" rebuttal.

But if you're actually serious, then I would advise you to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Anything you can provide has already been disputed and disproved.
Click to expand...
By who? Some 30yr schmucks with an online radio show that they do in their mom's basement? Or maybe some biologists, physicists, and other members of academia that don't understand the disciplines of ancient historians, and how they differ from modern historians? Find me a credible ancient historian that "disputes and disproves" the evidence.

My job is too easy here. All you can do is argue until you get backed into the 'faith' corner and you know it. You can sputter and poke your holy nose up and pontificate all you like, but in the end you're left looking like an idiot and worshiping an imaginary man because you're scared of the 'Debil'.
Click to expand...
I'm an atheist (I have never expressed otherwise in these forums) and I don't worship Jesus. Let's talk about "assumptions" again, you stupid fuck.
 
Sipher77 said:
I believe that God is eternal and the way we try to conceptualize what eternal really is, is by creating the definition of time and infinity. Infinity being time continues on forever.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. It does seem that infinity is the secular version of eternity -- in a sort of convoluted way. The 'big bang' being an alternative to creationism, existence preceded by a single moment before time, matter, energy, and space.

I'm not attempting to provide an opinion, just an observation.
 
Last edited:
escapedturkey said:
That makes sense. It does seem that infinity is the secular version of eternity -- in a sort of convoluted way. The 'big bang' being an alternative to creationism, existence preceded by a single moment before time, matter, energy, and space.
Click to expand...

You asked alot of interesting questions. Are you a believer or do you seek to become on?
 
n/x said:
Pride, vanity, hubris?
Click to expand...

It is mentioned in the Bible about converting others. I believe Jesus says something along the lines of do not be afraid for, the Holy Spirit will enter in you and give you what is needed for you to teach.

After Jesus ascended the apostles went and tried to convert others and when the Pharisees heard of this they investigated them and noticed that though the apostles seemed "uneducated" they were extremely educated in terms of the Word of God, much like Jesus himself was.
 
I'm an atheist (I have never expressed otherwise in these forums) and I don't worship Jesus. Let's talk about "assumptions" again, you stupid fuck.
Click to expand...
Oooo - Who's angry now!?! *poke*poke*

Fact is, I'm not doing your google work for you. You know exactly what 'inconsistencies' I'm talking about (or you're not as well read as you pretend).

By who? Some 30yr schmucks with an online radio show that they do in their mom's basement?
Click to expand...
Some of them, maybe (much like the guys that wrote the wiki you linked but with colored shirts and no ties). Probably chaps your ass that these same '30yr schmucks' have your fucking number.

If your argument is 'Other historical figures probably existed so Jesus probably did' then you should just stop now.

It's my sons birthday today, so I'll go hang out with him, eat cake, and throw a football with him. I'll be back later and we'll see if we can narrow this down a bit. I'm arguing that Jesus was a myth. You're saying... what? Just that he may have lived? What about the rest of the myth? Are you backing into the corner and saying 'that whole walk on water thing may have been bullshit, but he was a real man dammit, a real man I tell you!'

If you're just asserting that he may have lived and not taking the 'magical messiah' stance then this argument is pointless (though you'd still lose simply due to your inability to prove jack shit).
 
Sipher77 said:
You asked alot of interesting questions. Are you a believer or do you seek to become on?
Click to expand...

I've been surrounded by theists and atheists. I see both sides. I also see they have more in common than they have differences. The differences are always the more dramatic and emotional (hence the most interesting to debate). However, if you step outside and look-in, they are both attempting to resolve the same metaphysical and existential questions. Often the resulting study is driven by linguistics and methodology rather than whether the final outcome is true or false.

I realize it sounds like I'm just rambling a bunch of nonsense, but it's the only way to summarize the conflict between such abstract and axiomatic ideas; typically the base similarities outweigh the differential details.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top