Feed on Posts or Comments 20 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 10 Dec 2010 12:02 am

Watch how a Christian responds to the words of Jesus

An extremely interesting thread over at Reddit, in the Christianity section:

All right r/Christianity, the goal is $10,000 for World Vision’s Clean Water Fund. Let’s do this thing!

Here’s the gist – one of the members of the Christianity sub-reddit is trying to encourage other members to donate to this charity. He says:

The World Vision effort is at $271 out of $10,000. If every single member of r/Christianity gives just $1.11 we can reach the goal of $10,000 in no time! If every member of r/C gives just $1.11 to BOTH campaigns, both Doctors Without Borders and World Vision will EACH have will over $10,000 in their coffers!

A member named rabidmonkey1 responds with this comment:

I would love to give… but I’m poor and out of a job right now. When I get a job, I’ll give, okay? The good news is, I interviewed recently and it went swimmingly, so hopefully that will be soon!

He receives this feedback, straight from the mouth of Jesus:

Luke 12: 32-34: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

What rabidmonkey1 does next is this:

Really? I sense an atheist troll. Why not justify slavery while you’re at it.

Edit: You’re a jackass. I’m not the typical “American Consumer.” I don’t buy things I don’t need. I’ve been selling the stuff I have and living what can only at best be described as a minimalist life. I sleep in a sleeping bag. I’ve been living of rice and potatoes and beans. I’m not starving. I’ve been getting by. Friends and loved ones help me out. I don’t complain. I gave 1 dollar to charity yesterday because that’s what I could afford. And I’m willing to work, but the situation has been terrible where I am. I’ve been to 6 interviews over the past few months but haven’t gotten any offers.

Seriously, you’re an asshat. You speak without having any knowledge of the situation, you hurt real people who are just trying to be kind, and are really just here to troll. Go away you miserable excuse for a human being. I seriously hope a mod bans you for this tripe.

He receives this question in reply:

s/he quoted the bible. thats trolling?

To that rabidmonkey1 says:

It’s the context of the verse here – s/he’s basically saying I’m being a terrible person for not, idk, selling my gym socks. It’s the insensitivity. The utter cruelty in speaking when that person truly has no knowledge of my life circumstances at the moment. I honestly have nothing left to sell.

Moreover, you can use Bible verses to justify nearly anything. It’s a stupid mode of operation, and one Atheists in general like to harp on. You won’t really see Christians on this forum posting that kind of response.

Why does rabidmonkey1 react in this way? It is because ALL Christians react in this way to almost everything Jesus says. They completely ignore the words of Jesus in the Bible. If all the Christians in the Christian sub-reddit actually obeyed Jesus, they would have ALL given everything away to the poor. That is what Jesus tells them to do.

Watch this video and you will see exactly what Jesus tells Christians to do:

Every Christian disobeys Jesus every day.

103 Responses to “Watch how a Christian responds to the words of Jesus”

  1. on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:51 pm 1.A4 said …

    Perhaps the sad point was this: “Moreover, you can use Bible verses to justify nearly anything. It’s a stupid mode of operation, and one Atheists in general like to harp on. You won’t really see Christians on this forum posting that kind of response.”

    Following the complaint that an atheist can use the bible to justify anything, I’m going to have to ask Santa to bring me a new irony meter for Christmas.

  2. on 10 Dec 2010 at 10:59 pm 2.Bastian Fromherz said …

    i completely agree with what A4 said.

  3. on 11 Dec 2010 at 12:45 pm 3.dxt said …

    While sad, you won’t see informed Christians posting such things because the verse quoted was completely ripped out of its context. Along with the faulty application of this verse goes the premise for a legitimate attack. You give from your own heart which is what the individual did, and did more than most would probably do in his situation.

    “They completely ignore the words of Jesus in the Bible. If all the Christians in the Christian sub-reddit actually obeyed Jesus, they would have ALL given everything away to the poor. That is what Jesus tells them to do.”

    This is the most uninformed and irresponsible quote I have seen in some time. THIS, is truly sad.

  4. on 11 Dec 2010 at 4:17 pm 4.Deit said …

    dxt

    You should be used to atheist quoting this out of context. This is one of their favorites and even though it has been explained to them in great detail they keep using to draw a response. Troll is the right word for this guy. I hope he kept his gym socks.

  5. on 11 Dec 2010 at 6:36 pm 5.A4 said …

    Deit and dxt; many atheists share the experience of Christians constantly quoting chapter and verse at them. In fact, at a coffee shop I once frequented there was an individual who was incapable of having a conversation where he didn’t respond with a biblical quote. He did this to any and all conversations, including going over to strangers and opening with a quote from the bible.

    Above it’s implied that “informed” Christians wouldn’t do that. Pray tell, what words should we use to explain to a believer who pulls quotes out thin air that they are not, as you put it, “informed”? What works can we point them to to help them understand these points?

    Finally, with that context. Please expand upon this notion as I would really like to understand the difference.

  6. on 11 Dec 2010 at 6:53 pm 6.Deit said …

    A4
    Why is it a problem for a Christian to respond with Biblical text? It is the measure for life and their free speech. When an atheist quotes Biblical text on a blog (the same ones) it is only to gain a response. They more times than not pull quotes off other blogs and completely out of context (sigh).

    Maybe the problem is with you and not your acquaintance. He is just living out what is important to him/her. If it is only fairytale to you, why do you find it an issue?

    You, an atheist, can point to works by CS Lewis, John Bunyan or George McDonald.

  7. on 11 Dec 2010 at 7:25 pm 7.A4 said …

    I’m trying to understand the point about an informed vs an uninformed Christian.

    There was general offense that an atheist would quote the bible “out of context” and it was said an uniformed Christian would not. I’d appreciate an example of how this would be different.

    In the case of a Christian quoting the bible your response was to ignore the context. What happened to this concept of an informed vs uninformed?

  8. on 11 Dec 2010 at 8:40 pm 8.Deit said …

    “There was general offense that an atheist would quote the bible “out of context” and it was said an uniformed Christian would not”

    Can you provide the quote?

    “In the case of a Christian quoting the bible your response was to ignore the context.”

    I don’t think so. Provide the quote please.

  9. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:02 pm 9.v8 said …

    Deit and dxt; Are you saying that Jesus does not tell his followers to sell everything and give to the poor?

    Luke 14:33 (Phi) “Only the man who says goodbye to all his possessions can be my disciple.”

    Luke 14:33 (TEB) Concluded Jesus, “none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has.”

    Luke 14:33 (RSV) “Whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

    Luke 3:11 (NIV) John answered, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

    Luke 6:30 (Jer) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you.”

    Acts 2:44-45 (Phi) All the believers joined together and shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need.

    Acts 4:32,34-35 (NIV) All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had… There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

    Ps 49:16-19 (NIV) Do not be overawed when a man grows rich, when the splendor of his house increases; for he will take nothing with him when he dies, his splendor will not descend with him. Though while he lived he counted himself blessed–and men praise you when you prosper–he will join the generation of his fathers, who will never see the light of life.

  10. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:48 pm 10.Just a quick note said …

    I just wanted to let you know, that first quote? Attributed to a “He”? I’m female.

    Thanks.

  11. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:49 pm 11.A said …

    Can we show these verse to the gummit? They have the strange idea they are to force us to share with them and trust them to share with the poorest among us.

  12. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:56 pm 12.The Answer Man said …

    I would like to interject here. The passage above is addressed to all Christians, but we know that the early church did not command all Christians to give up private property, money, clothes, etc.

    That is because this refers to something far more radical. It means that to become Jesus’ disciple we must say good-bye to viewing our possessions as our own and forever relinquish control of them to him. The rich young ruler rejected this requirement.

    It means rejecting our identity as an owner and acknowledging our identity as a steward. We agree that God owns all that we have, and we agree to begin to manage it ultimately for the advancement of his kingdom rather than for our own interests. An owner asks, “How much of my money will I give to God?” A steward asks, “How much of God’s money will I keep for myself?”

    If you do this, you will give up your plan to become materially wealthy as an unworthy goal. You may wind up living more simply than you did before or than you could because you will be giving away a significant amount of your money to the poor and to Christian ministry. You may have a smaller retirement account than you would have because you followed Jesus’ concern for those who have nothing.

  13. on 11 Dec 2010 at 11:07 pm 13.dxt said …

    A4,

    This is the implied situation being exploited between these 2 individuals.

    “Why does rabidmonkey1 react in this way? It is because ALL Christians react in this way to almost everything Jesus says. They completely ignore the words of Jesus in the Bible. If all the Christians in the Christian sub-reddit actually obeyed Jesus, they would have ALL given everything away to the poor. That is what Jesus tells them to do.”

    “I’m trying to understand the point about an informed vs an uninformed Christian.”

    I used the word “informed” because the word “Christian” is used so flippantly today. That is not to say that all “uninformed” Christians aren’t Christians, but is to say that they need to study a little more and learn to keep and apply Scripture within there intended meaning.

    If I were in your shoes at the coffee shop and a Christian cared enough to share with me what he believes to be true, then I would politely tell him im not interested and continue to enjoy my cup of coffee. Don’t feel the need that you should confront every Christian you come across. Besides, you’re an atheist and an advocate for this website, which is king to contextual errors and theology in my opinion. So Im not so sure you’re qualified to be telling any Christian, anything, about any given context.

  14. on 11 Dec 2010 at 11:32 pm 14.v8 said …

    I used the word “informed” because the word “Christian” is used so flippantly today. That is not to say that all “uninformed” Christians aren’t Christians, but is to say that they need to study a little more and learn to keep and apply Scripture within there intended meaning.

    dxt, Have you sold everything and given it to the poor? Why or why not?

  15. on 11 Dec 2010 at 11:44 pm 15.dxt said …

    V8,

    Have you read the Scriptures? Have you any theology or understanding of the Scriptures you quoted?

  16. on 12 Dec 2010 at 12:19 am 16.Deit said …

    Answer Man,

    Well done but don’t expect any of the atheist here to read it or understand it. They seem to think the earlier followers went around in their birthday suits.

  17. on 12 Dec 2010 at 1:59 am 17.Anonymous said …

    you did take drugs. your halucinating. that why

  18. on 12 Dec 2010 at 3:05 am 18.Observer said …

    Answer Man- Well done; you are an exemplary Xtian. You manage to take a rather straightforward admonition, invoke the irrationality card GAWD, and then get around whatever makes you uncomfortable and to rationalize doing what you want. This is what you Christian jackasses have been doing since the invention of your Church. Can’t you come up with a slightly more original or at least more ingenious con?

  19. on 12 Dec 2010 at 3:06 am 19.Observer said …

    On second thought, Christianity is the most successful con in the history of man. Why mess with success?

  20. on 12 Dec 2010 at 4:16 am 20.dxt said …

    Observer,

    “On second thought, Christianity is the most successful con in the history of man.”

    I would like to debate this issue with you if you are so sure that Christ didn’t rise from the dead. I mean, lets see who has to be the irrational one in giving an explanation of the historical evidence that virtually all mainstream critical New Testament and historical scholars consider as historical fact. Here is your big chance to strike Christianity at its roots by enlightening us all by your rational explanation. I promise, I will only use data that even skeptics will concede to and I wont assume the inerrancy of Scripture and I will grant you that the Scriptures dont even have to be generally reliable to debate my case. You like facts right? This should be right up your alley. My only request for you, is that you dont punk out behind that screen. With a nickname like “nose buster”, you don’t seem like the kind to step down from a challenge, or do you?

  21. on 12 Dec 2010 at 12:24 pm 21.v8 said …

    Dxt,

    V8,

    Have you read the Scriptures? Have you any theology or understanding of the Scriptures you quoted?

    Note how you completely tried to sidestep the question. The question is:

    dxt, Have you sold everything and given it to the poor? Why or why not?

    If you have, why? If you have not, why not?

  22. on 12 Dec 2010 at 1:00 pm 22.Xenon said …

    “dxt, Have you sold everything and given it to the poor? Why or why not?”

    V8,

    I don’t own anything. All I own belongs to God to do as He wills with it. Does this mean I am not a disciple?

    The Answer Man,

    That is a very good analysis of Scripture perpetually misused by so many.

  23. on 13 Dec 2010 at 11:41 am 23.rael said …

    it is interesting how the texts are interpreted as literal or allegorical depending on the needs of the ‘informed’ believer

  24. on 13 Dec 2010 at 3:17 pm 24.A4 said …

    Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’.

    Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”.

    The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly.

    This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”. — Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking

    (aka the No True Scotsman Fallacy)

  25. on 13 Dec 2010 at 6:39 pm 25.Hoartio said …

    A4

    I really admire you using the musings of a former atheist to make a point? Maybe?

    Flew is you ideal candidate here (RIP) – “follow where the evidence leads”

    Antony followed it to theism and all wise minds will do the same.

  26. on 14 Dec 2010 at 7:08 pm 26.VeridicusX said …

    “Antony followed it to theism and all wise minds will do the same.

    This is false. Antony Flew (allegedly) became a deist.

    This is interesting because a deistic god cannot be said to exist.

    “To exist” means to emerge or appear. It means to be an actual fact in the present.

    This requires at least two things, temporal presence and verifiability. [lookup "fact"].

    But a deistic god is supposed to be outside of the Universe, outside of space/time.

    So the only way to believe in a deistic god is to have “faith” which is a form of lying.

    (Someone may complain and say the deism is based on reason. If this is the case, then others should be able to follow the reasoning and arrive at the same falsifiable conclusions, rather than arrive at an unfalsifiable committee of 12 leprechauns or YHVH).

    Faith means believing things not based in fact. To believe something is to tell yourself that something is true.
    The dictionary says that “truth” is “a fact which has been verified”.

    If I assert that you’re a pedophile and my assertion is not based on verified fact, I would rightly be called a liar, even if it turns out to be true in the end. Making baseless assertions to oneself and others is dishonesty. And once it’s been pointed out to you, it’s lying.

    Therefore, believing faith is an act of dishonesty or lying.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, (including the dishonest ones labelled “faith”), but they’re not entitled to their own facts. (I’m looking at you dxt).

  27. on 14 Dec 2010 at 7:33 pm 27.A Romantic said …

    “I’m looking at you dxt”

    Looking requires the use one’s sight or vision in seeking. Therefore Vx you are a liar. Consequently if you would lie about seeing dxt, we can make a logical assumption the remainder of your post is lies, misinformation and lacking in logic, common sense and intelligence.

  28. on 14 Dec 2010 at 8:58 pm 28.dxt said …

    “(I’m looking at you dxt).”

    ???????

  29. on 14 Dec 2010 at 9:17 pm 29.VeridicusX said …

    A Romantic #27

    websters-online-dictionary: 12. To direct the attention (to something); to consider; to examine; as, to look at an action.

    But because you seem to be a literalist, here are some scriptures for you to ponder:

    Ezekiel 23:20[NIV] There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

    Luke 10:37[KJV] Go, and do thou likewise.

  30. on 14 Dec 2010 at 9:18 pm 30.VeridicusX said …

    “???????”

    That was in reference to your invitation to Observer in comment #20.

  31. on 14 Dec 2010 at 9:32 pm 31.dxt said …

    Lets start with accounting for these historical facts.

    1. Jesus’ death by crucifiction
    2. Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them
    3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed
    4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was changed
    5. The empty tomb

    My explanation of these historical facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain them?

  32. on 14 Dec 2010 at 10:18 pm 32.Xenon said …

    V,

    I must agree with Romantic there. Your entire post is senseless.
    First identify a definition of deist where the deity does not exist.
    Second, Antony was not “allegedly” a deist he stated he was numerous times. Read some of his writings.
    Third faith is not a form of lying it is a form of putting together various pieces of evidence and coming to a conclusion indirectly. I can reference some books on logic and crime scene analysis if you need it. Consider it to be the Oort cloud of the faith community.
    Fourth, I hope you being incongruous since I would not like to believe you to be so dim-witted.

  33. on 14 Dec 2010 at 10:36 pm 33.Severin said …

    31 dxt
    “Lets start with accounting for these historical facts.
    1. Jesus’ death by crucifiction
    2. Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them
    3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed
    4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was changed
    5. The empty tomb
    My explanation of these historical facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain them?”

    May I try (again)?
    1. There are NO evidences, in any historical source, AND at no place in the Bible, that Jesus died. He was hanging on the cross for a few hours, and put off after crucifixion, because of comming Sabbath, after a drunk Roman centurion proclaimed him dead. He was NOT speared through his heart! How can we trust a book which gives no details about any spearing in 4 stories, and only mentions spearing in his “side” (not HEART!) in one of them. Is THAT a reliable (historically relevant!?) “proof” you appeal to? Try better! And try not to lie (about spearing!).
    2. I sincerely believed in Santa when I was 4 or 5. How the fact that someone believed something automatically makes his/her belief true? Explain!
    3. My friend suddenly changed: he stopped drinking! I’ve heard about a lot of people who suddenly changed more radically: they became Muslims. WHAT, the hell, someone’s “sudden changing” proves? That he “suddenly changed”, WHAT ELSE? Explain!
    4. See #3
    5. HOW does an empty tomb proves anything but empty tomb?

  34. on 14 Dec 2010 at 10:49 pm 34.VeridicusX said …

    “Lets start with accounting for these historical facts.”

    “My explanation of these historical facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain them?”

    I think that we should start off by establishing what a fact is.

    fact -noun
    A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; “he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts”
    A thing that is indisputably the case
    an event or thing known to have happened or existed
    a truth verifiable from experience or observation
    Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
    a concept whose truth can be proved; “scientific hypotheses are not facts”

    None of the statements you’ve made have been verified or are verifiable. They are not therefore facts.

    “5. The empty tomb”

    The only stories of this are from the anonymous hearsay gospels.
    This information would not be acceptable in a court of law in any advanced country.
    If these stories wouldn’t be accepted in court there’s no reason why we should accept them.

    You should try the “Resurrection Challenge”.
    See if you can harmonize the resurrection stories and make them coherent.

    “4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was changed”

    This information is not verifiable. It is anonymous hearsay and inadmissible. We don’t even know that Jesus had a brother.

    “3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed”

    Today if something were to happen to someone in the way it is alleged to have happened to Saul, that person would be admitted to a hospital (possibly against their will).

    “2. Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them”

    We don’t know what Jesus’ disciples believed. We don’t even have a coherent list of them.

    What we do know from Paul is that if you said that you’d seen Jesus, you “attained status” in the early movement.

    The Book of Acts shows the sort of “seeing” that people had.
    They were subjective. (The Damascus road stories with Paul are contradictory and do not refute the hypothesis that this “seeing” was subjective).

    We do have a mechanism whereby people can “see Jesus” and Mickey Mouse. It is psychogenic and today we call it “hypnosis” or “suggestion”. The Bible calls it “faith”.
    Beliefs determine behaviors and that includes psychological behaviors.

    “1. Jesus’ death by crucifiction”

    “Cruci-fiction”? Freudian slip?

    It is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus even existed.
    The New Testament gives us a myth built on a legend.
    Most Biblical Historians think that a real historical Jesus figure is the best explanation for the myth but there are others.

    We have Paul’s writings and the Book of Acts which can leave you confused on a skeptical reading. Did this crucifixion happen on Earth or in some spiritual realm?
    Remember those “heresies”?

    Apparently the Romans crucified lots of people. If the original leader of this Jewish sect, “The Way”, was crucified it gives us no good reason to set at naught the laws of nature and logic.

    I have found no good reasons to believe the Christian story, but I have found many good reasons to disbelieve it.

  35. on 14 Dec 2010 at 11:20 pm 35.dxt said …

    These 5 points I mentioned are considered facts by virtually ALL(95%-99%) critical scholars in the last 40+ years that studied the resurrection. The empty tomb is conceded by 75%. They are granted by these scholars because they are strongly evidenced. These facts are not up for debate. If you would like to deny them, then thats up to you. I asked you to account for these in your explanation, thats all. By your post, I see you are highly misinformed on this subject.

  36. on 14 Dec 2010 at 11:27 pm 36.VeridicusX said …

    “First identify a definition of deist where the deity does not exist.”

    My apologies but I’m not the one inventing incoherent entities (gods).
    If you believe in square circles how is that my problem?

    “Second, Antony was not “allegedly” a deist he stated he was numerous times. Read some of his writings.”

    You’re aware that some people claim that he was in his dotage and being manipulated?

    “Third faith is not a form of lying it is a form of putting together various pieces of evidence and coming to a conclusion indirectly.”

    The conclusions drawn from reasoned evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, constitute (legal) proof not faith. (Carry on with your dishonesty. I’ve recently noticed a couple of people who claim that they’ve been deconverted from visiting this site. So keep it up).

    Believing faith is spelled out in dictionaries and in the Bible.
    Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 8:24.

    Romans 8:24 “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” KJV

    Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” NAS

    Dictionaries:
    faith -noun

    · Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

    · Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

    · Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    · Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

  37. on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:08 am 37.VeridicusX said …

    dxt #35

    “These 5 points I mentioned are considered facts by virtually ALL(95%-99%) critical scholars in the last 40+ years that studied the resurrection. The empty tomb is conceded by 75%. They are granted by these scholars because they are strongly evidenced. These facts are not up for debate. If you would like to deny them, then thats up to you. I asked you to account for these in your explanation, thats all. By your post, I see you are highly misinformed on this subject.”

    Logical Fallacies:
    Appeal to authority.
    Appeal to the majority
    Wishful thinking

    You missed a word between “ALL(95%-99%)” and “critical”, that word is “Christian”. And I don’t know where you acquired this statistic. I don’t believe it.

    You expect me to believe that people hold information to be fact that wouldn’t even be admissible in a court of law let alone meet scientific standards?

    I will not be debating your opinions. You’re entitled to them.
    But you are not entitled to your own facts. (This is where we started).

  38. on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:44 am 38.VeridicusX said …

    Proverbs 18:17 The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

    If you’re interested in truth then you’ll perhaps take time to discover what Biblical Scholars have been saying …

    Hector Avalos is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University and the author of several books about religion. He is a former Pentecostal preacher and child evangelist.

    Hector Avalos: “How Archaeology Killed Biblical History Part 1″

    Hector Avalos: “How Archaeology Killed Biblical History Part 2″

  39. on 15 Dec 2010 at 1:14 am 39.Xenon said …

    VX

    Now you are not backing your own claims?

    1. I ask again “First identify a definition of deist where the deity does not exist.”

    2.VX: “You’re aware that some people claim that he was in his dotage and being manipulated?”

    LOL, yes as 911 was an inside job but you know that word proof you use? He denied it, I believe Antony. Accept Antony at his word and give up your faith. lol

    3. VX “I’ve recently noticed a couple of people who claim that they’ve been deconverted from visiting this site.”

    I know some who are now Christians thanks to atheist. Appeal to the masses VX? Sure you have. Anyone who “deconverts” based on this site never had anything to begin with. This site is full of fallacies, opinion and lack of understanding. LOL, read the prayer argument! Its great!

    4. VX “The conclusions drawn from reasoned evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, constitute (legal) proof not faith.”

    Educate yourself look up Oort cloud. You are a fallacy bouncing around like a pinball.

    There is more evidence for Christ than any other ancient character in history. Deny it all you like, it does not change the FACTS. How do you and Sev sleep at night being so dishonest with yourselves?

  40. on 15 Dec 2010 at 1:59 am 40.dxt said …

    #37,

    These are not just “Christian” sources. These are a consensus among All, Skeptical-Conservative, Atheist-Theist, scholars in french, german and english. My source is Dr. Gary Habermas. He has catalogued a 500 page document stating the positions held by all scholars on the subject in the last 40+ years. He is considered a leading expert on the resurrection of Christ. He spent almost 30 years studing it and spent 10 of his first years as a skeptic. He is a distinguished debater as well and travels the country with this information. He knows these facts that I stated because he has counted and catalogued these positions. So, like I said, you can deny them if you like, or you can do your best at a naturalistic explanation. Either way, these are the facts. My suggestion to you would be is to actually learn what the consensus of the critical scholars are saying instead of the ones on the radical fringe that only agree with your presuppositions. There is nothing fallacious about it. These 5 facts I have stated are minimum, meaning even most skeptics will agree to these.

  41. on 15 Dec 2010 at 8:43 am 41.Severin said …

    35 dxt
    „These facts are not up for debate.“
    Because you say so?
    But, let us, hypothetically, all those „facts“ take as real facts:

    Jesus died on the cross.
    His disciples BELIEVED he rose from dead.
    Paul „changed“ because he also BELIEVED something.
    James „changed“, because he BELIEVED something too.
    The tomb was empty.

    Now explain us the logical mechanism from which we can clearly see HOW those facts prove anything but what they claim:

    Jesus died.
    His disciples believed.
    Paul and James changed because they also believed somethig.
    Tomb was empty.
    Then?

    HOW those „facts“ prove he rose from dead and rose to heaven?
    They ONLY prove what they state, nothing more, nothing less.
    An „alien story“, only very unconsistent.
    Thousands BELIEVED they saw aliens, many even stated they were kidnaped from aliens.
    It is a PROVEN FACT that they all „changed“ because they believed in aliens!
    Do you believe in aliens?
    They gave EXACTLY the same sort of „proofs“ as you: they „believed“!

  42. on 15 Dec 2010 at 11:41 am 42.dxt said …

    #41 Severin,

    “„These facts are not up for debate.“
    Because you say so?”

    Not because I say so severin. These are considered as fact by the majority of the scholarly community. They are so because they are strongly evidenced.

    “Jesus died.
    His disciples believed.
    Paul and James changed because they also believed somethig.
    Tomb was empty.
    Then?

    HOW those „facts“ prove he rose from dead and rose to heaven?
    They ONLY prove what they state, nothing more, nothing less.”

    The resurrection hypothesis is the only one that explains these facts.

  43. on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:54 pm 43.VeridicusX said …

    Xenon #39

    “1. I ask again “First identify a definition of deist where the deity does not exist.”"

    Hmmm. That would be all of them wouldn’t it?

    Give me a definition of an existent square circle where the existent square circle doesn’t exist. Then I’ll use your method.

    See Kant. Existence is not a real predicate.

    “… Accept Antony at his word and give up your faith. lol” [Emphasis mine.]

    So you were lying.

    “There is more evidence for Christ than any other ancient character in history.”

    What you’ve said is just another straightforward lie. And easily refuted. I doubt that you have much integrity otherwise you would have checked this by now.

    Historicity of Jesus

    Check Gaius Julius Caesar and compare the evidence for him to the evidence for Jesus.

    For Julius Caesar we have contemporary historians, sculptures, coins, his own writings, his date of birth, etc.
    There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus – nada, zilch.

    What we do have for Jesus are historian’s writings widely regarded as forgeries, and guesses that “Chrestus” might mean Christ even though it was a common name at the time and Christ is a title not a proper name.

    The life of Jesus has been roughly reconstructed and we’ve even had theologians, The Jesus Seminar, voting on which “sayings of Jesus” are authentic.
    The evidence for the “historicity of Jesus” is so bad that some historians have seriously argued that he never existed.

    “How do you and Sev sleep at night being so dishonest with yourselves?”

    Please lookup “Reaction Formation”. You may have heard it in church as, “When you point the finger, three fingers are pointing right back at you!” Or something like that.

    Pay particular attention to the fact that I back up my statements with checkable facts while you make baseless assertions.

  44. on 15 Dec 2010 at 1:12 pm 44.VeridicusX said …

    “Educate yourself look up Oort cloud.”

    Is there evidence for this or not?
    A falsifiable hypothesis is not faith.

    Science is the opposite of faith.

    If something is true, it’s true whether you believe it or not.
    If something is false, it’s false whether you believe it or not.
    So, if you believe something to be true and it is true, then fortunately that’s OK. That belief doesn’t change objective reality though. It doesn’t add anything to reality.

    But, if you believe something to be true and it’s false, that belief only serves to deceive you.
    Therefore, the only purpose believing faith serves is to deceive.

  45. on 15 Dec 2010 at 2:05 pm 45.VeridicusX said …

    dxt #37

    If it’s true that Dr. Gary Habermas is an evangelical Christian apologist, then he is a confessed deceiver.

    He claims to believe things without proof and he wants you to do the same. Faith is lying.

    “He is considered a leading expert on the resurrection of Christ. He spent almost 30 years studing it and spent 10 of his first years as a skeptic.

    All we need to know is that information that would be laughed out of court cannot be considered “fact”. Check your local judicial system’s “rules of evidence”.

    Which is more likely, that the laws of nature were suspended or violated, or that the four anonymous “gospels” are wrong and the person who supposedly had a fit which left him temporarily blind was deluded?

    “The empty tomb is conceded by 75%”

    Take the resurrection challenge. “Resurrection Challenge”

    Try to find out who the authors of the “Gospels” were.
    Find out if there are any contemporary accounts.
    Find out why the other 25% don’t “concede”.

    Google: “Historicity of Jesus” for a more balanced view of what theologians and historians really think.

    Check out Dr. Hector Avalos as well, particularly the two videos that I tried to link to above. He gives an insider view of what has been said in theological circles.

  46. on 15 Dec 2010 at 3:46 pm 46.Xenon said …

    VX:

    “Give me a definition of an existent square circle where the existent square circle doesn’t exist.”

    The fallacy of digression. You still have not supported your argument.

    “I doubt that you have much integrity otherwise you would have checked this by now.

    The fallacy of ad hominiem attack. Again, the claim stands. Wiki is not a source of authority therefore you fail the appeal to the authority claim. I use all sources including Biblical which gives us about 33,000 copies. Go ahead and find a figure that has more. The “Ancient Documents Rule” states a document is accurate until proven otherwise.

    “There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus”

    Hilarious old and bebunked argument. It would not matter since you would claim it was falsified or Jesus was a magician. There is no Biblical evidence for Androcydes. Your point? Why would Romans write of some poor carpenter in Nazareth? Maybe there was records and they were not maintained? Your claim offers no relevant conclusions. Does this mean nobody in Nazareth exited during this time period due to the fact no “Contemporary writings exist”? Since Mark used Peter as his source and he was a contemporary of Jesus, it IS a contemporary source (Peter). Same with Matthew, and John. Your argument does not hold up….again.

    “What we do have for Jesus are historian’s writings widely regarded as forgeries”

    Remember the Ancient Documents Rule. You must provide some evidence.

    “Pay particular attention to the fact that I back up my statements with checkable facts”

    You left out the post with the “checkable” facts. Please repost said document.

  47. on 15 Dec 2010 at 3:52 pm 47.Severin said …

    42 dxt
    “The resurrection hypothesis is the only one that explains these facts.“

    So, to repeat, because I can not trust my eyes:
    Resurrection is, according to you, explained and proved by:
    The „fact“ that Jesus died (not quite proved, but for this purpose let’s say he did)
    The fact that his disciples and 2 other people BELIEVED in it.
    By an empty tomb.

    If I offered such „proofs“ to explain/prove anything, you woul laugh and call me an idiot, and you would be right!

    Someone’s death does not prove his/her resurrection. Billions died!
    Someone’s beliefs do not make the objects of their beliefs true. Billions believe in many things that are not right!
    An empty tomb can be explained by many reason (unused, robbed, body replaced…), and is not a proof for anything, especially not for resurrection.

    From your post I learned:
    - You have no idea about logic
    - You are prone to extreme exaggeration
    - I was never sure whether you are prone to lying or not, now I am sure you are:
    You repeatedly mention 95 -99% of „scholars“ as your „proof“ for something, but you all the time repeatedly „list“ only ONE.

    Please do NOT extend your list! If you list some 10,000 of „scholars“, it will be VERY, VERY FAR of 95 – 99% of them, whatever your „scholars“ were.
    There are millions of scientits on earth today, and I doubt majority of them would do anything but lough to your „arguments“.

    You are pathetic. Ridiculous is maybe better description. And, yes, sorry, you ARE a lier(remeber Jesus’ „spearing his heart“?).

    You, man, can not make yourself right by using „force“: false logic and lies.

  48. on 15 Dec 2010 at 4:10 pm 48.Severin said …

    dxt
    Talking the hypothesis, next hypothesis explain your 5 points much more logically:

    Jesus did not die, but recoverde after he was taken off the cross.
    Jesus’ disciples (+James and Paul) believed what they wanted/liked to believe, exactly as billions of Muslims believe in horse with wings (which does not prove such a horse real!).
    Tomb was empty because of several other (more logical) possible reasons. The most reliable one: IF Jesus was put in this tomb, he recovered and walked out. Or: someone found him, helped him to recover and to leave the tomb.

    If you find traces of fire in a field would your first tought be: “aliens lended here” (or, maybe: “Jesus was here and made fire”!?), or “some shepards/traps made fire to get worm”.

    THAT is the way you reason: to prove your “hypothesis”, you replace several obvious, most probable, totally logical conclusions, with unporbable and illogical ones.
    Alien story it is!

    Additionlly, you do use lies to prove yourself right.

  49. on 15 Dec 2010 at 4:22 pm 49.Severin said …

    46 xenon
    What sort of “fallacy” is when someone (dxt) supports his claims with arguments like these:
    Jesus’ resurrection was proved by next facts:
    - He died
    - His disciples (+2 other people) believed he rose from death
    - His tomb was empty

    Just curious!
    And you are an expert for fallacies!

    Pls. don’t let us uninformed!

  50. on 16 Dec 2010 at 2:04 am 50.dxt said …

    #45 vx,

    “If it’s true that Dr. Gary Habermas is an evangelical Christian apologist, then he is a confessed deceiver.”

    “He claims to believe things without proof and he wants you to do the same. Faith is lying.”

    Deciever? Without proof? Again, by your posting, it shows how actually cluless you are in this subject. Dr. Habermas was a skeptic for the first 10 years like I said before. For 10 years he looked to disprove it and the evidence took him the other way. The information the critics use to determine the these facts predate the Gospels themselves! In other words, you dont even need to consult the Gospels to understand what was being spread about the risen Christ in the early church. So, as for you and I in this discussion, it doesn’t matter who wrote the Gospels. I am not appealing to them. Your “resurrection challenge” shows or proves nothing except that the Gospels were independant attestations of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It offers nothing as to disproving the resurrection itself.

    “Which is more likely, that the laws of nature were suspended or violated, or that the four anonymous “gospels” are wrong and the person who supposedly had a fit which left him temporarily blind was deluded?”

    Again, not appealing to the Gospels. This is precisely the question I asked you from the beginning. So what is your naturalistic explanation, taking into account the 5 historical facts I have listed? Remember, whether you believe them or not, this is the skeptics data im using (lowest common denominator). It sounds like your denying 40+ years of critical scholarly data on this subject and appealing to 1 or 2 skeptics to rest your case on. If you outright deny them, like you are, then just tell me and we will end this discussion because I wont, likewise, debate your opinions on this matter.

  51. on 16 Dec 2010 at 3:34 am 51.sonofthesouth said …

    I ask any and all atheists, backslidders, false believers to read a few pages of an online book, “Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved.” This book is a compilation of nearly 300 deathbed utterances of both saint and sinner. Case number 7 is one in particular that will tear at one’s heart. Even the atheist hero, Voltaire, his final words are recorded as well.
    This book has been responsible for converting the hearts of many, many persons, either backslidden, or in complete unbelief. I hope and pray that many readers here have the opportunity to read if but a few pages of this book. I left my email address if anyone has any questions or wants to discuss anything.

  52. on 16 Dec 2010 at 8:11 am 52.Severin said …

    50 dxt
    “So what is your naturalistic explanation, taking into account the 5 historical facts I have listed?“

    Are you a parrot?

    You keep repeating your 5 „facts“ and your „95% scholars“ (sometimes 99%!) and repeat and repeat asking for „naturalistic“ xplanation for your 5 „facts“, and keep claiming that nothing but resurrection, can explain the „fact“ that several people changed their minds and one tomb was empty.

    When you get naturalistic explanation from both me and VX, ones that are quite logical and fit the world we are living in, you just neglect them and keep shrieking: „5 facts“, „95% cholars“…

    YOU, yourself, feel no obligation to give any evidences/explanations but repeating: „5 facts“ and „95% scholars“.

    Now, for the sake of others who might read this blog, I will repeat „naturalistic“ explanation of your „5 facts“ again:
    I will deliberatelly take the statement that Jesus existed as a fact:
    O.K., Jesus existed and was put on cross.
    So, IF Jesus he existed, and IF he was put on cross:

    His death was not confirmed. He was on the cross only a few hours, his bones were not broken, he was not severely bleeding (he was NOT seriously wounded!), he was NOT speared hrough his heart (if speared at all, because your Bible is contradictory regarding that „fact“), he was put off the cross soon after crucifxion because of comming sabbath. ONLY a drunk, ignorant, illliterate centurion THOUGHT he was dead („when he saw he was death“…HOW did he „see“ it?).
    There was said at NO PLACE he was crucified with nails! But even if he was, he COULD survive it after a few hors on the cross.
    There are no evidences at any place, including the Bible, that Jesus was really dead, and you can not just pass over that FACT: Jesus was NOT declared dead by anyone but drunk centurion (and beside he was drunk and ignorant, it was evening, wasn’t it?).

    A nice, round, logical, naturalistic explanation, clear to everyone:

    Jesus did not die, he RECOVERED, but as every clever imposter, he used his position to further cheat on people, claiming he came back from death.

    People recover extrememe injuries and diseases every day on this earth!

    What is wrong with this explanation?
    Does not fit your fanatism?

    Bad for you!

  53. on 16 Dec 2010 at 1:56 pm 53.JohnnyP said …

    Answer Man (#12): “We agree that God owns all that we have, and we agree to begin to manage it ultimately for the advancement of his kingdom rather than for our own interests.”

    Hahaha, that was good. That must’ve really taken some effort on your part to come up with that. I can just imagine your thought process: “Hmmm, Jesus’ words are pretty cut and dried. I must give up my material wealth if I want to follow him. But I don’t wanna give up all my cool stuff! Therefore, I must somehow come up with a way to interpret that scripture in such a way so that I get to keep my stuff and not appear hypocritical.”

    Typical Xian strategy. Any verses that inconvenience or convict you in any way are either dismissed as out of context, ignored, or twisted and turned until they fit comfortably into your lifestyle.

    Can you clearly explain, please, how you “begin to manage [your big screen tv, car, etc.] ultimately for the advancement of his kingdom”???

    I imagine in lieu of a real answer you’re going to suggest your inspired interpretation is too spiritually deep for my vile heathen intellect to grasp.

  54. on 16 Dec 2010 at 2:17 pm 54.Burebista said …

    Johnny P,

    Lets work through this together.

    God expects us to work for a LIVING. Those are his words.

    Define “Living”. That would be eating, sleeping and housing and raising the family.

    Does God really expect me to give everything away and starve to death? Well no, He didn’t and his diciple didn’t. Therfore you iterpretation is wrong.

    How do you honor God with stuff? By giving ownership of “stuff” to Christ”. By not watching filth on the television, using the car to help other people in need to further his Kingdom, using your money to support Kingdom work in the church and by helping the poor and needy. More importantly be willing to give up anything He asks you to give up. I know people who give cars, money, time and food all to kingdom work.

    The meaning is not difficult. It is the same thing Jesus did with His stuff. He was a carpenter. He had “stuff” as well.

  55. on 16 Dec 2010 at 2:40 pm 55.JohnnyP said …

    Burebista (RE #54): “Therefore your interpretation is wrong.”

    But of course it is!

    “Does God really expect me to give everything away and starve to death?” Hey, Jesus said it, not me. But I get it. If a scripture makes you squirm, then obviously that just couldn’t have been what God meant.

    Uh huh.

  56. on 16 Dec 2010 at 5:18 pm 56.Burebista said …

    Oh Johnny Jesus stated no such thing. LOL, the only one that has problem with this scripture are atheist like you who get their theology off blogs.! Egad!

    Lets start a little further back in your lesson. Do you have a grasp of Koinie Greek? How about Aramaic? If so, maybe you could share some of the key phrases with us that commands Christians to starve.

    Squirming?

  57. on 16 Dec 2010 at 5:36 pm 57.JohnnyP said …

    Yeah, man. You really have me squirming. Oooo! Because the bible really should be that difficult to understand. God really meant for something that means the difference between salvation and damnation to be that difficult. “Yes, My Children. In order to be saved you must have a grasp of Koinie Greek. Also a little Aramaic wouldn’t hurt.” Good one.

    “Oh Johnny Jesus stated no such thing.” I repeated verbatim your wording.

    “…atheists like you who get their theology off blogs” because you’re not expressing your theology on a blog, or course.

    No, seriously, man. I really do get it. I’ll demonstrate:

    Jesus wants me to love my neighbor as myself. That seems like a pretty black-and-white statement. However, that scripture doesn’t work for me because my neighbor is an asshole and I hate him. I have no intention of loving him as myself. So I ask myself “Does God really expect me to love an asshole?” And I answer myself “No sir-ee! He’s an asshole because Satan dwells within him. Loving him would therefore be like loving Satan. Does God want me to love Satan? Of course not!”

    It took a little bit of creativity, but I am now off the hook as far as loving my neighbor as myself. *whew*

    See? It’s easy once you know the trick.

  58. on 16 Dec 2010 at 6:29 pm 58.Anti-Theist said …

    There are inarguably only two types of primates in existence today; those whom reject the supernatural, and those whom embrace it. Regardless of any canons intent or substance; they are improvable by way of evidence, ask that the supernatural be adopted as reality, and require a high degree of blind faith to accept. None of these attributes generate realism in any religion. We atheists would be wise to steer clear of arguments pertaining to any worshiped literary works as the stronger the argument is that is presented, the farther the diluted is drawn into the dilution.

  59. on 16 Dec 2010 at 7:35 pm 59.Burebista said …

    “In order to be saved you must have a grasp of Koinie Greek. Also a little Aramaic wouldn’t hurt.”

    No only believing and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He doesn’t require you to learn Greek or Aramaic.

    You are obviously not highly educated in the ancient languages(no offense) so let me assist here. Anyone who understands anything about ancient manuscripts understands that the ancient languages do not always interpret perfectly into modern day languages. This is why there are numerous tools available to help in the finer points of Scripture interpretation.

    Understanding culture, audience and purpose are also valuable for interpretation. Getting your info off atheist blogs more times than not will not cut it. The word “Believe” is a great example in this study.

    Hope this helps JP. Don’t be a hater, be a lover of mankind and make Christ your Lord today.

  60. on 16 Dec 2010 at 8:14 pm 60.Anonymous said …

    RE #59: “Don’t be a hater, be a lover of mankind…”

    You mean follow the christian example? Actually, if more of you were “lovers of mankind” yourselves no one would have a problem with any of you. Who could argue with spreading joy, peace, and tolerance? It’s the judging, the condemning, the intolerance, the war mongering, the hypocrisy etc. that everyone hates. I’m not suggesting this describes you—I don’t know you—but there are plenty of examples to draw from. Otherwise, who’d care if you wanted to worship a cucumber, if it made you a better person.

  61. on 20 Dec 2010 at 5:17 pm 61.believer said …

    truly bible scripture can and is usually taken out of context by so called christians and others. Luckily we all have a loving, forgiving, gracious God that doesn’t want any of us to perish. But because of our selfish and unloving nature that we all have we (christian or not) tend to reject God and all that he stands for. Is it harder to believe in a Creator of all or a science that tends to theorize most of creation. If you read Genesis about how God spoke everything into existence that would line up with current science on the big bang theory. God says in his word that nature itself proves that he is God. God said that we all are separated from an eternal relationship with him because of our sin (adultery, lying, stealing, unlove, etc). Jesus was sent from God to be sacrificed on the cross that we all could be saved. God says that it took the blood of Christ to not only cover our sin but to wipe it out so that God would never see it again. All we have to do is believe. 1 Corinthians 1:18 says that the “message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 25:”it please God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” 24,25″Jesus Christ the power of God and The wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Truly believing comes from something greater than oneself.

  62. on 20 Dec 2010 at 5:46 pm 62.Anti-Theist said …

    Do you come here in an attempt to convert those who have no respect for what they believe are silly, childish, unrespectable, evidence lacking beliefs ignorantly; or do you come hear offensively to insult our intelligence, annoy, irritate, and shame us of our primitive primate populace.

  63. on 20 Dec 2010 at 5:53 pm 63.Anti-Theist said …

    So sorry, please amend my previous post with “?”.

  64. on 20 Dec 2010 at 7:52 pm 64.Severin said …

    61 Believer
    “But because of our selfish and unloving nature…”

    Sorry, do you include ME in your “unloving and selfish nature”?
    I mean, you said “our”, but did not specify who were you talking about.

    I am an atheist, but I am not selfish and I am not “unloving”, and I never was.
    I am a good and decent human being, loving, compassionte, responsible…I have all atributes of what anyone could call “a good man”, and I feel good.

    I only do not believe in god, and I can NOT see how does it make me “bad”.

  65. on 20 Dec 2010 at 8:01 pm 65.Severin said …

    61 Believer
    “God said that we all are separated from an eternal relationship with him because of our sin (adultery, lying, stealing, unlove, etc).

    This “etc” of yours is important, why are you avoiding it?
    Kill the bride if you discover she was not virgin!
    Kill your son/daughter if he/she disobey you!
    Kill a person working on sabbath!
    Rip a pregnant woman because she disobeys god.

    However, because your slaves are your PROPERTY, be careful not to beat them to death.

    DESTROY the entire human race, including innocent children (AND all animals!!! – did they sin too?) because of “sins” (kill people because adultery? lying?).
    Then sacrifice your own son to YOURSELF to please YOURSELF to do… something, not clear what, because NOTHING HAPPENED after that!

    THAT is your “etc”!

    Please, enlighten us: WHAT is the “context” of it?

  66. on 21 Dec 2010 at 3:04 pm 66.believer said …

    Thankyou for reminding me that I have no right of using the word we. For truly I don’t know any of you. I have no right to judge any of you and truly I wasn’t trying to. The “etc” is a good question though. I remember a time when I wondered about that too. What is sin I asked myself. I’m not a sinner am I? How could I be? I’m a good person. I treat people well. I had a great reputation. I help people all the time. I work hard. I love people. I’ve never murdered anyone. I tell the truth….but then I truly started to look at my life honestly…after a number years. You see life had a way of making me look at myself and be honest with myself. Pretty hard for me I tell you. You see I had this thing about me…Pride.. How could I be that good of a person after my 2nd divorce, good relationships going bad, lies (even little white ones) I have told, reputation not as good as I thought, not always doing my job and running my businesses well, treating my employees and others as well as I could have. Not loving everyone like I should have. Have I been so angry that even though I didn’t murder anyone (yet) did I do so in my heart. Good questions. So have I sinned against man. If so have I sinned against God. But if there is no God then I haven’t sinned against him or man. For without God who can judge me. Without God we can do as we please unless someone stronger than me can stop me. But what right would that person have to stop me and why would they even want to. Who would have the “right” to tell me what is right or wrong. How would anyone know the difference. Who has the right to judge????

  67. on 21 Dec 2010 at 3:36 pm 67.believer said …

    Are people open minded? Do people really want to know the truth? What is the truth? If you see it or hear it will you accept it? I have seen a lot a truth proven and some still try to disregard it. Can science prove everything? Not yet. Will it, probably not. Do we sometimes accept theories as almost the truth? Yes. I believe that the very existence of anything is so overwelming that can any of us in our carnate minds ever understand it. My question for you is this. Do you believe in anything that you can not prove. Can you prove without a doubt the beginning of existence for anything, no matter how mineute. How did the body ever come into existense. How do all the parts of the body come into being and work together to do its job. Who or what decided that every body (man or beast) needed a brain. How did it materalize. Is there spirituality, and supernatural. If so where did it come from. Can you prove it. If there is than maybe there is a real God. God says he is spirit. God says that all creation proves the existence of himself. Can I prove that he is lying or its not true, No. Can you???

  68. on 21 Dec 2010 at 11:07 pm 68.Severin said …

    66 Believer
    “Who would have the “right” to tell me what is right or wrong. How would anyone know the difference.“

    The „general rule“ I follow through my life is: do not do to others what you would not like others to do to you (probably a very clumsy English, but I hope you will understand it).
    I followed this rule even before it appeared in my mind in form of the a.m. sentence.
    I understood very early in my life (I am 68) that the rule does not only apply to other human beings, but also to the (only) planet we have: animals, plants, air, waters…

    So, I (bolded „I“!) know the difference, and I don’t need a god to judge me.

    And if I ever brake some rules, there are laws to correct me or to punish me.
    I recognize the laws of both my country and ineternational laws, and if I violate them, I am, as a responsible individual, ready to bring the consequences
    ONLY other people, through LEGAL SYSTEM, brought to life by democratic way, have right to correct/punish me if I brake some laws.

    If I brake some moral rules that are not precisely described in laws, there are two possible consequences:
    - I will feel bad, my conscience will suffer
    - Other people will avoid me, and I will feel unsocial, and conseqences of being unsocial

    Everything is clear to me. I do not need gods to know whether I am right or wrong. Other „correction factors“: personal and social, keep me going the right direction without much zig-zagging.

  69. on 21 Dec 2010 at 11:46 pm 69.Severin said …

    67 Believer
    “Can science prove everything? Not YET.“ (my bold)
    „Can you prove without a doubt the beginning of existence for anything, no matter how mineute.“

    Of course I can’t.
    I am not expert for all branches of science to be able to prove anything like that.
    I have some education and have my brain. I am very open minded, but also very critical.
    There are three sorts of „evidences“ (proofs?) I am able to consider and eventually accept:

    a) Something I do completely understand with my intelligence and education (earth is not flat, rainbow is not a gift of gods, Pitagora’s theoreme, Newton’s physics, simple chemistry, simple math, not further than analytic geometry and trigonometry…)
    b )Something I do now quite (completely) understand, but my mind is ready to accept it if it fits logic, existing knowledge, accumulated experiances, and if proofs are at least partially provided and fit logic and reality (evolution, genetics…)
    c) something I do not understand at all, but comes from a PROVEN authority (Einstein, Howking…, such as Big Bang), and I can intuitively accept it as close to be right.
    When I say „proven authority“, that means both: accepted as authorities from the people who REALLY understand them, and REALIZATION of their theories in practice (atom power, GPS, vaccines, lasers…

    I accept no „truths“ for granted, ever. I always doubt and expect more proofs.
    I was TAUGHT by my teachers not to take anything for granted; they WARNED me that science is not a rigid matter, and that we can always expect one theory to replace (or to complete) another one.
    I am not unhappy with it.
    There is NO „absolute truth“, BUT, there is a LINE zig-zagging in the direction of bigger and bigger „truths“ (KNOWLEDGE!).
    Yesterday the earth was flat, today it is not any more!
    Yesterday people died from tuberculosis, today they don’t!

    You seem to be a nihilist; sorry, that is not a way I am able to understand and accept.

    Please pay attention to your own „YET“! I am glad you put it there!

  70. on 22 Dec 2010 at 12:29 am 70.Lightning Boy said …

    “something I do not understand at all, but comes from a PROVEN authority (Einstein, Howking…, such as Big Bang”

    So you believe whatever a man will tell you? These men have all been proven wrong many times. I would say you are no different than someone who listens to a religious authority.

    I cautiously believe anything a man would tell me.

    Hawkings believes in aliens and believes they will come to earth and that we should avoid such aliens. How about you?

    Listen to God and His Word. They are the only absolute truth and have never been wrong.

  71. on 22 Dec 2010 at 4:53 am 71.Hell Yeah said …

    “Can you prove without a doubt the beginning of existence for anything, no matter how mineute.”

    Can anyone? No. Should we worship a belief of a myth for the beginning, aka religion? No. Since none of us know exactly how the beginning of existence formed, how about we just leave it as that, unknown? Live life for what we have, not how it began or how we will end up, but for what we can prove we are. That is the Atheist position. Is there anything wrong with that? No.

    Happy Winter Festival to everyone!

  72. on 22 Dec 2010 at 5:02 am 72.Hell Yeah said …

    “So you believe whatever a man will tell you? These men have all been proven wrong many times. I would say you are no different than someone who listens to a religious authority.”

    Hmmm….seems like you have the idea that Atheists don’t know what to believe until they hear from other people. The truth is that most Atheists come to the conclusion on their own thinking over a period of time and then when they read what others have to say, it just confirms what they already believe.

    ———–

    “Hawkings believes in aliens and believes they will come to earth and that we should avoid such aliens. How about you?”

    Well, let’s see. There are many, many other planets out there in the universe. If in the future we find the technology to travel to other planets that are Earth like, then we would be aliens to those planets. So, to answer your question, yes, it is possible. Chances are though, that every civilization out there in the universe probably ended up blowing itself up before it reached that type of technology, but who knows, maybe some got away. That will eventually be our doom as well, and then our lifeless planet will one day many years down the road also be swallowed by our sun.

  73. on 22 Dec 2010 at 8:33 am 73.Severin said …

    70 L. B.
    “So you believe whatever a man will tell you?“

    How typical from theists to fake words of others in order to make themselves a „good starting base“ for further debate!
    I never, at no place, said I believe „whatever a man will tell me“.
    Your “quotation” is so much different of aht I really said, that it might look as deliberate lying.

    Not to mention logic:
    You criticize me (twisting my words!) for trusting Einstein, Howking, Maria Curie, Lavoisier, Prelog, Hahn, Meiner, Galileo, Copernicus, Hubble, Amper, Volta, Archimede… (not just „a man“), then YOU say „:„I cautiously believe ANYTHING A MAN would tell me“ (my bold).
    Yes, those people made many mistakes, but we KNOW a lot more than before they lived and worked thanks to their work AND to their mistakes.
    If they just „beieved“ things, we would still live in stone age.

    THAT is the big difference between us: you cautiously believe „anything a man would tell you“ (see your post; and: what are criterions of your accepting „a man’s“ words, WHY do you believe or disbelieve him?), and I do not cautiously or uncautiously BELIEVE anything on earth.
    I critically (and always temporarily, expectingt they will change), accept new KNOWLEDGES (see dictionary for difference between believing and knowing).

    Muslims also believe (maybe less „cautiously“ than you, but the principle is the same) „anything a man would tell them“! See where it is going?

  74. on 22 Dec 2010 at 9:04 am 74.Severin said …

    70 L.B.
    “Hawkings believes in aliens and believes they will come to earth and that we should avoid such aliens. How about you?”

    Another deliberate lie, or just an „oops“?
    Can you kindly show me when/where Howking said that „they will come to earth“?

    Yes, he said we have to avoid CONTACT with them (IF we ever contact!), for reasons that looks logical.

    For scenes from his documentary:
    „Such scenes are speculative, but Hawking uses them to lead on to a serious point: that a few life forms could be intelligent and pose a threat. Hawking believes that contact with such a species COULD (my bold) be devastating for humanity.”

    So, what he REALLY told was “IF (we contact them, or they contact us)…THEN (we should be cautious and avoid contact)”, not “WHEN”. Big difference!

    Of course I believe there are aliens in the space. Why not? It perfectly fits logic, science, reality…(we DO exist, don’t we?)

    I am a little bit sceptical about possible contact ever (or soon, speaking about thousands or millions of years), because I know how enormeusly big are the distances in space, and that speed of light is a limit.

    But, DO I KNOW IT?
    I can not IMAGINE anything to be faster than light, it conflicts the present state of our knowledge.

    However, not so far ago, ideas of earth being a globe and earth orbitin sun were also unimaginable!
    You never know!

    Todays world would look like miracle not only to Pitecantropus or to ancient Greeks, but to a man from 17th century.

  75. on 22 Dec 2010 at 2:18 pm 75.Lightning Boy said …

    “Of course I believe there are aliens in the space. Why not? It perfectly fits logic, science, reality”

    This is faith with absolutely no proof unless you can provide an alien. I take it you have faith an alien life form will be discovered?

    “See where it is going?”

    Yes men are your ultimate authority. I know that a vast majority of what is believed today will be wrong 200 years from. Yes, it is beneficial like today’s cell phones but eventually fade away. The Bible has never been proven wrong and is the only source of absolute truth.

    “The truth is that most Atheists come to the conclusion on their own thinking over a period of time”

    I don’t believe you have been selected to speak for all atheist,however atheist are men, so how would this change the point?

    Merry Christmas to all!

  76. on 22 Dec 2010 at 2:51 pm 76.believer said …

    I like all of you am a thinker. I like to look at theories, evidence and ideas and sort through them and see if I can come up with proof to confirm my thoughts or beliefs. For we all believe in something. You see I am 57 years old. I remember when I ignored most all religious ideas. It put too many regulations on my life style at a time I didn’t want to be regulated. Who even wants to follow any laws. We break them everyday. I figured if I lived the way I want and didn’t hurt anyone I had the right. But like I said in one of my earlier blogs I did hurt numerous people (divorce,anger,etc). I believe and it has been proven through out history than a people without moral absolutes will not be a people at all. Where did the idea of morality come from I ask? Are we really “a good person”? Based on what. Our own ideas. I challenge any and all of you to seek the truth. Be a truth seeker. You say there is no God. Is this just another idea or have you really searched to find out if it is true. It may be the most important truth you may ever know. You listen to people, read books etc. Have you ever read and studied the bible or any other information on God or Jesus Christ. There is a lot of historical info in the bible to prove itself. Much of the bible was written anywhere from 2000 to 6000 yrs ago. You can verify with written history.

  77. on 22 Dec 2010 at 2:58 pm 77.believer said …

    aliens? Could these aliens be God and his angels? Why not? Makes perfect sense to me. But God is only an alien to those that don’t believe. Other wise he is our creator and life giver and our savior.

  78. on 22 Dec 2010 at 7:16 pm 78.Severin said …

    75 L.B.
    “This is faith with absolutely no proof unless you can provide an alien.“

    Yes, I can!
    We are aliens! What other proofs do you need, but our earth full of life happily floating through the space?
    If it was possible on earth, can you kindly explain why wouldn’t it be possible on some of trillions of planets in the universe?

    WHY?

    Bible will not help you in finding the answer! Your god (in fact: primitive people who wrote the Bible) did not know anything about universe.

    Your god did not even know for Australia!
    He did not know for China, otherwise he would go there to “save” much more “souls” than he “saved” by his appearing in Judea.

  79. on 22 Dec 2010 at 7:29 pm 79.Anonymous said …

    Could aliens be god and his angels?

    LOL. It doesn’t take supernatural powers for there to be others like us out there in the universe.

  80. on 22 Dec 2010 at 7:38 pm 80.Severin said …

    „The Bible has never been proven wrong and is the only source of absolute truth.“

    You come again with „proving something wrong“ bullshit?

    I do not BELIEVE in god, and do not BELIEVE in biblical stories.
    If I say I don’t believe in something, I have no obligation to prove anything!
    How can I prove that I don’t believe, but by saying it?
    If I want you to believe in mermaids, I have to offer proofs! You have RIGHT to require proofs from me!
    If YOU want me to trust the Bible YOU prove it right. YOU pesuade me using some arguments.
    Einstein, Curie, Howking….persuaded me using their arguments, I trust them.
    I don’t trust you.

    You can start with explanation of making a complex human being from mud (dust?).
    HOW god did it?
    Then you can continue with the big flood, explaining us whether Noah did or did not have kangaroos (polar bears, armadillos, millions of species of reptiles, insects, birds…) on his arc.
    If he did, how did he find and transport them from Australia (South America, Arctic…) to the ark.

    If he did not, how is it that we have them today, if god killed ALL animals (as clearly written in the Bible!).

    These are some of the bullshits making me disbelieve the book.

    Then, you could continue with explanation of: why, the hell, your god appeared to Jews, and not to people in China, Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas…

    He DID NOT GIVE ANY CHANCE TO BE SAVED TO THOSE PEOPLE!
    How did he expect them to know for him, to worship him, to obey him, thus earning “eternal life”, without informing them about his existance?
    Did they all go to hell?
    One of theists on this blog answered “yes” to this question!
    Was god an “all loving” sadist? An “all loving” racist?
    Or, mybe there is much more rational explanation?!
    Such as: he never existed, for example.

  81. on 22 Dec 2010 at 7:42 pm 81.Severin said …

    76 Believer
    ” For we all believe in something.”

    Who is “we”?
    Please speak For yourself, and use “we” only when you specify who are “we”.

    I DO NOT BELIEVE IN “SOMETHING”, so I do not belong to your “we”.

  82. on 22 Dec 2010 at 8:31 pm 82.Severin said …

    76 believer
    “Where did the idea of morality come from I ask?“

    Morality is not an „idea“. It comes from evolution.
    It is nothing more but a tool of keeping the species continuing their existance and development.
    There is no such thing as „absolute morality“ in nature.
    What is „moral“ for a cat, is not „moral“ for a mause.

    But both, society of cats, and society of mice, have their moral rules.
    Domination and subordination. Avoiding of eating of thier own youngs, although they are good, protein full meals. Avoiding of mating with relatives….
    Those are MORAL rules, and, yes, some of them are more or less „universal“ („absolute“) for many and many species, but some of them are specific for some species.

    If youngs of some primitive species run away from their own parents not to be eaten, and youngs of another species are protected by their parents, you can say: that IS moral rule!
    In a higher developed species the instinct of protecting youngs dominates over the instinct of eating (=surviving!).

    Most species have no natural mechanisms to recognize their adult close relatives, and will mate with them if they have chance. Humans don’t have such a “built in” mechanism, for example, and will not recognize their own sisters/brothers if they were separated for a long time.. BUT, other, SOCIAL mechanisms were built in many societies, including animal societies, to avoid maing within close relatives. Leaving of the group, for example.

    Primate societies have very complex moral rules, very close to human ones.

    No gods necessary to impose „morality“ to apes! They can’t read Bible, but they DO behave pretty strictly according to THEIR mral rules.

    And, what is so „moral“ in the Bible?

  83. on 22 Dec 2010 at 8:49 pm 83.Severin said …

    77 Believer
    “Could these aliens be God and his angels?”

    Angels: one of the biggest BS from the Bible, making me laugh (sometimes, and sometimes vomit).

    An ALLMIGHTY god, able to simultanously support billions of “connections” with each single human eing on earth, someone able to control everything, able to exactly know whether someone did or did not commit adultery, did or did not masturbate, stole something, did, or did not go to church, knowing precisely what each single person on earth thinks in avery single moment, ABLE TO MAKE A COMPLEX HUMAN BEING from mud (dust?), having a detailed plans for each of us for eternity..needs “angels”?

    What for? WHY would such a creature need angels?
    To prove his inferiority?
    Funny!

  84. on 22 Dec 2010 at 9:49 pm 84.Boz said …

    #79 “It doesn’t take supernatural powers for there to be others like us out there in the universe.”

    Where? I can’t see them. If you believe this you are a faith based creature.

    I know there is a God because we have over 30,000 manuscripts all within 99% accuracy written by dozens and dozens of different authors over multiple centuries relaying His story.

    All I have for aliens is the musings of a scientists and sci-fi authors who has been prove wrong on more than one occasion. I have faith, just not that much.

  85. on 23 Dec 2010 at 12:22 am 85.Hell Yeah said …

    #79 was me.

    Boz,
    You can’t see them because no one ever said that they “are” out there. But they “could” be. If that is how you define your “faith”, then that means you think there could be a god out there, not that there is one. But the main word in what I said was the term “supernatural”. Does it take a supernatural power for someone that could be walking down your street right now? You don’t know that there is someone, but there could be. Fortunately for you, your street is close enough where you can go down it and check for yourself. Other Earth like planets are too far away for us to check. But, we know we exist, so it is possible for other life forms on other planets to exist. This is “natural”, not “supernatural”. Supernatural has no real reason to believe it is true. That is the whole point.

    And for your 30,000 documents you guys keep claiming…..what documents? Where is your source and where are they located? What makes you think that these are what you think they are? Where are these mainstream legite historians that are claiming these are out there and that they are true? There are more than 30,000 blog posts on the internet on why god doesn’t exist, but we don’t claim to use that as reliable statistics to prove that god doesn’t exist.

  86. on 23 Dec 2010 at 1:02 am 86.Boz said …

    “This is “natural”, not “supernatural””

    How do you know? Could be supernatural. We know we have a spirit and God is a spirit. This could be as likely.
    Which planet? Do you have a planet in mind that has the same conditions as ours to support carbon-based life forms? Could of does not equal science or proof. Since everything must be explained by science (for atheist) you are in the little green men faith realm.

    You don’t know about the 30,000 ancient manuscripts but you argue against Christianity? That is highly suspect and shows you have never done your homework. Check into it.

  87. on 23 Dec 2010 at 3:11 am 87.Hell Yeah said …

    “We know we have a spirit”

    No we don’t. That would be part of the supernatural and there is no proof of any kind of supernatural.

    ———-

    “Which planet? Do you have a planet in mind that has the same conditions as ours to support carbon-based life forms?”

    As a matter of fact, yes. They just found one in the Goldylocks zone in a distant galazy that is just like Earth, but 4 times the size and it doesn’t rotate, which means one side is very cold, one side is very warm, but the middle is just like ours and has water on it, which means there is a good chance there is some kind of life on it, whether that is just bacteria or more is unknown.

  88. on 23 Dec 2010 at 4:01 am 88.Boz said …

    “Although the extrasolar planet 70 Virginis b was initially nicknamed “Goldilocks” because it was thought to be within the star’s habitable zone, it is now believed to be closer to its sun making it far too warm to be “just right” for life, thus it is not a Goldilocks planet”

    Got another idea? Do you ever do any research?

    Yes, we do have a spirit, soul and body and we have it right here on this planet. Read a book and see the scientific work done on these three dimensions of man.

  89. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:14 am 89.Severin said …

    84 Boz
    “Where? I can’t see them. If you believe this you are a faith based creature.”

    I saw aliens.
    I see them every day, millions of them.

    What is an alien? A resident of a planet in space?
    I know a planet in space with billions of humans, billions of animals and billions of plants. You know it too.
    And there are trillions of planets in the space.

    It is obviously POSSIBLE that a planet with intelligent life exists.
    Not only “possible”: we are here! Earth is a FACT. A PROOF!

    And, for your god, I can say: where? I can’t see him.
    And you use your finger and show me.

  90. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:32 am 90.Severin said …

    Boz
    “We know we have a spirit …”

    “We” know?
    I don’t know it.
    I am sure I don’t have one.

    I have my body, which will rotten some time after I die, and nothing but pale memories will rest after me.

    That is why I live my life as active as I can. And enjoy as much as I can.

    Yet, I do NOT enjoy in alcohol and drugs. I even don’t enjoy much in food.
    As much consent sex as possible, YES, who the hell cares for adultery (except primitive gods and people with double morality).
    I enjoy in WORKING. I enjoy in GIVING. I enjoy in HELPING. I enjoy in READING, WALKING, TRAVELING, HAVING FRIENDS.
    In being responsible.

    I will die smiling.

  91. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:45 am 91.Severin said …

    Boz,
    “Do you have a planet in mind that has the same conditions as ours to support carbon-based life forms?”

    One must be really very stubborn (or very….?) to deny the FACT: there IS a planet with life. There IS a planet having all necessary conditions to develop and to support life.

    YOU are walking on it! Touch it! Smell it! Look at it! Use your finger and point to it!

    Then ask yourself what, the hell, is SO special on earth, that could not be found on SOME of other trillions of planets all over the universe.

    I said SOME, among trillions.
    Probably much more tan just “some”, because the figures are really HUGE.

    WHY is it impossible? Please enlighten us, maybe we don’t see your reasons.

  92. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:52 am 92.Severin said …

    86 Boz
    “You don’t know about the 30,000 ancient manuscripts but…”

    Please NAME 300 (only 1%!) of them! It will not make a lot of work for you, if you know them, and will not take a lot of space in this blog.

    Give us a good “push” to make us investigate!
    We ARE curious.

  93. on 23 Dec 2010 at 1:52 pm 93.Hell Yeah said …

    Boz,
    Hmm….didn’t I state that they found one recently? What I meant by recently was this year, not in 1996. Below you will find a couple examples, with the one you found being the earliest.

    Exoplanet – Year of discovery – Notes

    70 Virginis b – 1996 – Later confirmed not to be a Goldilocks planet.

    Gliese 581 d – 2007 – Found to be in its sun’s habitable zone in 2009.

    Gliese 581 g (unconfirmed) – 2010 – Most Earth-like Goldilocks planet found to date; probably tidally locked.

  94. on 23 Dec 2010 at 1:55 pm 94.Hell Yeah said …

    “Yes, we do have a spirit, soul and body…”

    No, we don’t…..only a body with chemical reactions.

  95. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:23 pm 95.believer said …

    Well its been somewhat interesting reading and participating in your blog. But I need to sign off and enjoy the Christmas Holiday fast approaching and celebrate the birthday of our savior Jesus Christ. I always wondered if this wass a lonely time for atheists and other non believers that truly celebrate this holiday with a clear concience knowing it is a Christian celebration. I hope it doesn’t offend anyone if I keep all of you in my prayers. Thankyou and God Bless you all. Merry Christmas!!!!

  96. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:24 pm 96.believer said …

    Forgot something. Yes, God does heal amputees!!

  97. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:34 pm 97.Anti-Theist said …

    Though you will not be here to read it I again unstintingly happily point out ( for the remaining ensemble) that whether it be through causes of plagiarism or secularism, Christmas has never been a Christians only holiday; I could surly claim your abode as my own with the same meaningfulness as your claim to our shared secular holiday.

  98. on 23 Dec 2010 at 7:50 pm 98.Hell Yeah said …

    “…enjoy the Christmas Holiday fast approaching and celebrate the birthday of our savior Jesus Christ. I always wondered if this wass a lonely time for atheists and other non believers that truly celebrate this holiday with a clear concience knowing it is a Christian celebration.”

    It was a Pagan winter festival that the Christian leaders decided to make it Jesus’s birthday, even though he would have been born in the spring time around what is celebrated as Easter. So in reality, you should be celebrating his birthday during that time. Holidays like this are more meant to put time aside to get together with family.

  99. on 24 Dec 2010 at 7:08 am 99.Severin said …

    95 Believer
    “I always wondered if this wass a lonely time for atheists…”

    Thank you for your concern.
    I was never lonly. It is probably because I am very tollerant (unlike most theists), and I generally like people, never asking for their religion.

    After I moved, some 12 years ago, from a catholic country to an orthodox country, I established Christmas Eve dinners at my place for my friends, who hardly knew what catholic people eat for CE in this part of the world (their first neighbours).
    It is (at this part of the world): soup of mashed beans, spiced with some herbs, cooked kale with garlic and olive oil and some lemon juice, and codfish with potato, a lot of garlic, parsley and olive oil.

    All of us: several orthodox christians, a few atheists and a wonderful, old, Jewish lady, enjoy my meal and enjoy in each other. At 12.00 we say to each other “Marry Christmas”, and usually continue till 1 or 2 to a.m.

    You see: atheists are atheists, not barbarians.
    They are tollerant, and much more loving than most theists. I am frequently invited to join religious hollidays of my orthodox friends and I always came with joy.

    I have them today again, and I am happy (although I see them frequently, anyway).
    And, yes, I discuss things like these with them, too, but they never try to impose their beliefs to me. We just TALK. Friendly debates.

    Tollerance is the key of living together.

    Marry Christmas to you and everyone.

  100. on 24 Dec 2010 at 7:29 am 100.Severin said …

    Boz
    We are all impatiently waiting you to name 300 (200? 100?) of your 30,000 historical manuscripts!

    Merry Christmas to you!

  101. on 24 Dec 2010 at 7:56 am 101.Severin said …

    95 Believer
    “I need to sign off and enjoy the Christmas Holiday fast approaching and celebrate the birthday of our savior Jesus Christ.“

    Savior?
    Who did he „save“?
    A god who chosed to „save“ a few hundred thousand of Jews (but failed!), and missed to „save“ some 500,000,000 of other people living on earth at the same time?
    An „all loving god“ paying attention to some 0,1 % of total population of earth, and neglecting 99.9%?
    Did he deliberately let the rest of people to stay „unsaved“ and to go to hell?

    Was he a racist? A sadist?

    Jews were NOT „saved“, obviously, but I do not complain to his badly done job, extremely clumsy for god.
    What I do complain, is his LACK OF WILL TO GIVE A CHANCE TO BE „SAVED“ to many millions of other people on earth.
    The poor creatures HAD NO CHANCE to be „saved“, because your “all loving god“ forgot them or neglected them, and just let them to go to hell.

    He CERTAINLY was not „all loving“.
    Or, did he ever exist?

    I celebrate Christmes as a traditional holyday like I celebrate the New Year: holydays of tollerance.

    Even if I believed in some god, I would never celebrate a god/man who let 500,000,000 people to go to hell without giving them any chance to be „saved“.

    If you give Christmas a human dimension, yes it is a nice holyday!

  102. on 24 Dec 2010 at 3:21 pm 102.Observer said …

    Merry Christmas/Saturnalia/Yule Severin and others. We know the Jesus and God stories are nonsense and humbug. REGARDLESS, it is the darkest part of winter, so have a great boozy meal with friends and family in a toasty warm abode with delicious food, drink, and other treats!

  103. on 25 Dec 2010 at 1:45 pm 103.VeridicusX said …

    IO Solstice!

    Seasons Greetings, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice.

    Yes, I know the solstice was on the 21st this year, but we’re told that December 25 was established as the solstice under the Julian Calendar in 46 BCE.
    The mismatch between the actual seasons and the Julian Calendar meant some “drift” accumulated over time and some correction was applied under the Gregorian Calendar of 1582 CE [1581 Easter Year style], but they didn’t restore it to the Julian Calendar and this has left us with around a 3 day mismatch between the solstice and December 25.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply