Bet Predators turn homo on Earth.
With the constant brainwashing WE have - in your face every 2mins.
Careful, your closet door is open.
shareIt sounds like you are comfortable with the constant homo propaganda.
shareYou act as though homophobia is normal and the default behavior of people around the world. Actually people like you are hate mongering jerks who need to lash out at anyone who does not agree with them.
Propaganda does not hurt me at all. Why should it when it is stupid crap that rarely ever makes sense?
If you want to talk about "normal," then simply analyze the human body and it's biological functions. It's obvious that man was made for woman and vice versa. One holds the lock, and one the key, to procreation.
There is nothing natural or normal about gay sex.
Next you will claim there is nothing normal or natural about men and women interacting for any other reason than procreation? That would be BS.
shareNope. I'm not going to claim that.
I'm only going to claim that there is a clear and obvious design for human sexuality and that a simple biological observation makes it clear what this design is.
THAT IS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR TO ENSURE THE SPECIES CONTINUED SURVIVAL...WE ARE A FEW STEPS ABOVE ANIMALS AND HAVE NO NEED FOR INCREASED POPULATION...YOUR ARGUMENT IS ARCHAIC AND PASSIVELY RIDICULOUS.
shareIt looks like you started the lashing, by implying he is a homo, which you shouldn’t be using as an insult unless it is by default undesirable.
shareNothing wrong with being gay. You never heard of gay people who lash out at homosexuality? Just because I claim someone might be gay does not mean I'm insulting them. I might just be calling them a hypocrite
share[deleted]
like the propaganda that two consenting adults can do what they want? damn conservatives hate freedom
shareMore like the propaganda that unnatural behavior is in fact natural.
shareyou do know homosexuality has been found in 450 species so far
https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality.
also if we are going to ban/stop "natural" behaviour, ie not seen in nature, theres a crap tonne of stuff we need to stop. like you driving, or flying. or using a microwave.
Animals do all sorts of things that would be regarded as completely immoral in the human population such as stealing and indiscriminate killing. That's not to mention that they also do stuff like eating their own shit.
Are you going to defend those behaviors on the grounds that wild animals do them?
you said natural. now you move goalposts and say immoral. so ill take that as a concession. what is particularly "immoral" about being gay. get very specific of what morals it violates and why its particularly harmful.i don't want vague nonsense proclamations and grandstanding.
im sorry you are moving the arguement because it was shown to be weak :) then trying to a associate things I never said. YOU SAID its bad because its not natural. not me. by YOUR definition if its natural its good, so YOU are defending all those animal actions we consider disgusting
check yourself clown.
you are exposing yourself as a weak interlocker who cant argue worth shit
Well what I'm really saying is that humans should not look to the animal kingdom for what is natural OR moral for human beings. We are not goats or giraffes or bears. We an entirely different species, and one that uniquely bears the image of God.
My point stands: Do you really want to look to the animal kingdom for justification for human behavior?
As I stated earlier to Ranb, you can simply analyze the human body and it's biological functions. It's obvious that man was made for woman and vice versa. One holds the lock, and one the key, to procreation. One was obviously made for the other. Man was not made for man, nor woman for woman.
It's quite obvious that you're super triggered and struggling to think rationally about this.
YOU WERE THE ONE who said natural. not me. im sorry that line of arguement is silly. check yourself next time before you such an arguement.
by definition non domesticated animals live in nature and do what is natural.... and you claiming humans should do what is "natural" to us would also justify warfare and murder, kidnap and rape in our pre modern societal systems are small tribes..
We an entirely different species, and one that uniquely bears the image of God.
HAHAHAHAH and here comes the arguement I knew was hiding. prove this. which god? which image? god has done mass genocide, including killing millions of innocent children and babies according to the bible. as well as condoning slavery. thats hardly moral.
nope we are homosapiens, who came from other apes, and other. we interbred with neanderthals. we are social animals and all social animals exhibit what we call "morals" or "proto-morals". its been proven many other social species have concepts like fairness
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals
"Experiments like these show that animals make moral choices and that their behavior cannot be explained through natural selection alone. “Mammals have what I call an 'altruistic impulse' in that they respond to signs of distress in others and feel an urge to improve their situation,” writes de Waal"
(although a fake quote by Laplace responding the Napeleon it fits perfect here when you say god explains things) "On being asked by PrimeministerX where God fitted into his human moral model, Leo, quite correctly, replied: 'Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
As I stated earlier to Ranb, you can simply analyze the human body and it's biological functions. It's obvious that man was made for woman and vice versa. One holds the lock, and one the key, to procreation. One was obviously made for the other. Man was not made for man, nor woman for woman.
and hands weren't made for phones. eyes for computer screens. our language and vocal cords didnt develop to talk over phones. we do all sorts of things "unnatural" that our body was not specifically made for. So procreation is the only point of partnership when two people love each other? when are we banning fertile couples from marriage and living together?
You are SOLEY looking at it through sexual compatibility to procreate. without any other consideration of humans social, economic, emotional needs or benefits. Whats superior? a couple who can procreate and are "the lock and key" but hate each other, steal from each other, dont support each other emotionally, dont make each other happy ect.
or a gay couple who cant procreate, love each other, support each other, work together to build a better life ect?
It's quite obvious that you're super triggered and struggling to think rationally about this.
its quite obvious im the only one here thinking logically. I called you out on your nonsense argument (natural means good) and you moved the goalpost and tried to blame me for holding the position YOU argued. Im the only one offering logical and compelling arguments. and what do I get from you?
"cause da bible tells me so!!!" well sir as Hitchens would say, you have all your work ahead of you! demonstrate why I should take the bible seriously and why the bible is true and should be believed, let alone your personal interpretation of it. I am using logic, you are arguement from faith beliefs you cannot demonstrate. and hence are useless. share
[deleted]
[deleted]
damn I destroyed you so bad here you ran away.
shareIf you really want to know why you should take the Bible seriously, I'd be happy to recommend some books. But I feel rather confident you'd never read them.
shareYou lost the debate
shareI wasn't debating.
It is not to me even a matter of debate. One simply either embraces the obvious truth or a lie. For those who are intent on embracing the lie, there is no point in trying to reason with them because they are not reasonable.
you were debating. you were giving your reasons for accepting or not accepting something.
the only one embracing a lie is you and self delusion. its why you didnt address any of my rebuttals I made above. I demolished your gods image argument, your natural argument and procreation argument.
once you can provide actual evidence besides "because the bible tells me so" or any of the number of horribly unconvincing, unsubstantiated apologist books ill be happy.
but you cant. its always arguments from ignorance, god of the gap fallacies, faith arguments ect.
ive heard it all. ive read plenty and watched plenty of debates. none give any compelling evidence. amazing how despite your books theres still 1000s of religions and 1000 denominations of Christianity. if only they read "the books you read" then FINALLY they'd know the true god and true interpretation.
shareIs it your belief that the universe is eternal? Always here with no beginning or end?
shareI don't know. we don't know enough. and in my opinion and to my best knowledge, nor do you or anyone with any level of certainty. sure you can claim it, "cause the bible tells me so" but you are one of 5000 religions all making claims to know the nature of your god/gods and the origins of the universe.
demonstrate what you believe is true. give me evidence. show me your belief is supported and better than the 4999 other religious claims and their origin stories.
notice how you always flee when I ask for evidence. you should maybe reflect on that
shareMy bad. Your response was relatively reasonable and even-handed, so you're right, I should've replied.
I'll preface it by saying that if you really want the data, once again, there are some good books you can pick up instead of trying to siphon it out of random posters on the Internet. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek are good starting points. I'd also recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.
In any case, I think what you should do is stop and look and what sort of evidential case each individual religion can provide. Can Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Asatru, Islam, the Raelians, Christianity and so forth all provide an equal defense of the faith? I suspect that if you're being intellectually honest you will find that they cannot and that the Christian apologetics system is in a class of its own. This is to say that just because there are a thousand religions does not mean that all systems are equal. It's much like how the round earth and flat earth models are both explanations about our world, but certainly these two do not stand on equal footing.
There are a number of areas from which Christians derive arguments for the Christian faith: philosophy, archaeology, the natural sciences, fulfilled prophecy, logic, and others.
But you asked for data points so I'll just give you two things:
I am convinced that the gospels are reliable accounts of Jesus's life (based upon the reading I've done). If that is correct, then it's almost undeniable that Isaiah predicted the life of Jesus hundreds of years before Jesus lived (compare the details in Isaiah 53 with Jesus's life).
(continued below)
no offence but none of those books are taken seriously. nor do they present any data at all. the link below rebuts the numerous assertions made. none of which were "data". none. they are each sizeable and I cannot address every point but feel free to give me 2 solid arguments from any or a combination of the books you think are good. I do appreciate you proving them though but heres one person showing massive issues with a case for Christ
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/the-case-for-a-creator/
In any case, I think what you should do is stop and look and what sort of evidential case each individual religion can provide. Can Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Asatru, Islam, the Raelians, Christianity and so forth all provide an equal defense of the faith?
each offer claims they cannot provide evidence for. hence why its faith based not evidence based. if islam says mohammed was the final prophet and brought the true final word of god, and christians say Jesus was the final prophet and did the same, yours is no more convincing or better. thats intellectual honesty until such time as you can demonstrate your religion can do better.
I suspect that if you're being intellectually honest you will find that they cannot and that the Christian apologetics system is in a class of its own. This is to say that just because there are a thousand religions does not mean that all systems are equal. It's much like how the round earth and flat earth models are both explanations about our world, but certainly these two do not stand on equal footing.
flat earths dont have a model that works. and nor can you'd demonstrate yours is superior or works.
There are a number of areas from which Christians derive arguments for the Christian faith: philosophy, archaeology, the natural sciences, fulfilled prophecy, logic, and others.
yes they do, and so do they claim. but its amazing how no one has ever in any peer reviewed literature submitted evidence for god. Christians claim it is. No such claims have ever been demonstrated. And so does every other religion do the same thing. Point out what is special about chrsitanity and what has been demonstrated.
I am convinced that the gospels are reliable accounts of Jesus's life (based upon the reading I've done). If that is correct, then it's almost undeniable that Isaiah predicted the life of Jesus hundreds of years before Jesus lived (compare the details in Isaiah 53 with Jesus's life).
And if a muslim is convinced the quran gives a reliable account of mohammeds like then same for him!
Another piece of circumstantial evidence is the survival of the Jewish people. The Jews have been conquered, exiled from their homeland and flung to the four corners of the earth, and hunted with the aim being their extinction. Every normal expectation would be for them, as an ethnic group, to have been obliterated and subsumed like so many others before them (where are the Hittites now? Or the Minoans?). But instead, they not only survived, but in 1948 were re-formed as a nation within their ancestral homeland. And guess what book predicted this? The Bible.
Every single human that exists came from a people that have been conquered persecuted people. By definition our ancestors survived if im hear typing it. That demonstrates NOTHING about god. Also if you actively work towards what the book says, that’s not prophecy. If I “prophesize” I will eat steak tonight. And I go to the store and buy steak and cook it, is that prophecy?
In any case, I will agree with you on one thing: I can't claim to know BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Christianity is true. But what I will tell you is that absolute certainty is not required to be a follower of Jesus. For me, the there are ENOUGH reasons to believe and to be a Christian. Ultimately some faith is, and always will be, required. And I'm okay with that.
which every single other religious person also claims. You haven’t provided a single piece of strong or good evidence
so far ive gotten
-“there’s data in these books”
-“well ya Christians exceptional vs those other religions”
-“I am convinced by the bible and if its true jesus is god”
-“Christians use philosophy, archeology, science to argue their case (so does every religion, and you’ve given no scientific evidence)
-jews surviving is unlikely
-jews actively working towards a homeland is prophesy (no it isn’t)
share
PT 2
In the end, if I am right, then I will have gained everything and lost nothing. If I am wrong, I still will have followed a faith that made me a better person and enriched my life, and I will have lost little.
your pascals wager is dismissed. As there could be so many other alternatives. There could be a god who puts chrsitans in hell for eternity. There could be one who put athetists in heaven and tortures the religious.
.
In my experience, those who reject Christianity rarely do so on truly evidential grounds. Rather, it's because they don't WANT to believe it. At the end of the day, there must be an open heart and mind, and a willingness to believe in God and follow. .
well your anecdotal experience is dismissed. I asked for evidence. I have gotten none. I don’t want or not want to believe either way. I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. What evidence in those two posts did you give that would convince anyone who is reasonable and rational and wants evidence?
“the jews survived so god”. No
“my religions more special than the others” no
share
Well I'll be frank, I have no interest in going back and forth with you, especially since I believe there is virtually no chance that I'll change your mind on anything. It seems that you are quite dug in and entrenched in your own position, and I am also, so I'm not sure what's to be accomplished here.
Just the sheer fact that you say there is "no data" in the titles that I have provided is enough for me to know that this is not an honest conversation, nor is it destined to be a fruitful one.
I have provided the resources that I have found useful. If you wish to know why I believe as I do, as I've stated, those are good starting points.
I have other reasons but they are purely personal experiences that I can't rationally explain away as coincidence, so you would dismiss them as anecdotal.
Debating the issue any further with you is not of interest to me. Have a good one.
notice how when I ask for specific evidence, I get " no you wont change your mind"
It seems that you are quite dug in and entrenched in your own position, and I am also, so I'm not sure what's to be accomplished here.
provide a single shred of evidence
Just the sheer fact that you say there is "no data" in the titles that I have provided is enough for me to know that this is not an honest conversation, nor is it destined to be a fruitful one.
you didnt provide any data at all. what "data" did you provide? name one thing. what actually is happening here is you dont have any good reasons to believe. your beliefs are based on faith and fallacy' and the minute someone asks for actual evidence you got in defence mode
I have provided the resources that I have found useful. If you wish to know why I believe as I do, as I've stated, those are good starting points.
they aren't and they've been rebutted thoroughly. why then are no scientists talking about this "irrefutable evidence of god". it would be front page! you would win a Nobel piece prize! it would arguably be the most significant finding in history!
I have other reasons but they are purely personal experiences that I can't rationally explain away as coincidence, so you would dismiss them as anecdotal.
yes your anecdotes dont mean anything to anyone but yourself. thats not rude. thats just how personal experiences work. I could give you 100s of thousands of "it cant be a coincidence! anecdotes form muslims and jews and hindus
amazing how when asked for data and evidence and specifics, you run. this is the problem with religion. you've shut down all logical faculties to defend a feeling
share
First, I should tell you that I left Christianity for about 20 years and became an agnostic. I not only left, I argued against it. But it was the evidence that brought me back.
The feeling I get from you is what when you say "evidence," you mean physical evidence. You won't accept circumstantial evidence nor anecdote (even though both are regarded as evidence; for instance, eye witness testimony is a form of anecdotal evidence). You want a video of Jesus Christ walking out of the grave and anything less convincing will be dismissed. Well I don't have that for you and no one else does either.
I suspect that you accept other points of ancient history that have less support than the life of Christ--say, for instance, certain points on the life of Alexander the Great--but you don't think to give the same level of scrutiny to those things.
I can tell you that I find the correspondences between Isaiah 53 and the life of Jesus compelling and evidence of fulfilled prophecy. You though will wave it away and say, "That's nothing. Not evidence!" Okay, fine. That's how you feel, but for me it is compelling and I'm not sure why your brain interprets it differently.
I can tell you that I find the fact that in Ezekiel it is written that one day the Jews will be re-formed once again into a nation, and that over 2,000 years later the Jews did once again became a nation against all odds in 1948, to be very compelling and remarkable. But you will say, "Who cares! Not evidence!"
And we could go down a whole list of arguments like this to no effect.
So where does that leave us?
But it was the evidence that brought me back.
evidence you won't provide.
The feeling I get from you is what when you say "evidence," you mean physical evidence. You won't accept circumstantial evidence nor anecdote (even though both are regarded as evidence; for instance, eye witness testimony is a form of anecdotal evidence).
great so show me these eye witnesses. show me how they differ from every other religions claims of eye witnesses.
1. you do know eye witness testimony is unreliable massively
2. you do know how many people claim to eye witness aliens.
give me a mechanism to discern between a "TRUE EYEWITNESS of god" and a delusion, mental illness ect"
You want a video of Jesus Christ walking out of the grave and anything less convincing will be dismissed. Well I don't have that for you and no one else does either.
wrong. yet here we are quibbling. and you till haven't provided any strong evidence
I suspect that you accept other points of ancient history that have less support than the life of Christ--say, for instance, certain points on the life of Alexander the Great--but you don't think to give the same level of scrutiny to those things.
this is the problem with religion. you cant think of the difference here? maybe that if Alexander the Great existed or not it doesnt really affect anything, he was just another ruler. Its mundane claims, he went to war and existed. It affects me none the slightest
whereas you claiming Jesus did and god would have massive implications. and I have to believe all the claims of magic, miracles, heaven ect. People arent telling me to live my life according to "alexanderism" and base my life on their beliefs. Whereas you are claiming to be believing in the literal son of god.
you couldn't tell the difference between these two. Scenarios….. wow... just wow......
I can tell you that I find the correspondences between Isaiah 53 and the life of Jesus compelling and evidence of fulfilled prophecy.
1. thats the problem with vague "prophecies". you can interpret them however you want
2. those who wrote the books of the new testament had access to these writings. So whoopdee doo! They wrong the books to fit what was found in the old testament! How miraculous!
That’s akin to me claiming that in harry potter and the dealthy hallows the prophecy about ahrry potter was fulfilled from goblet of fire so it must be a real book not fiction! Its writing the later text to fit the past text. That’s the most unremarkable thing ive heard.
I can tell you that I find the fact that in Ezekiel it is written that one day the Jews will be re-formed once again into a nation, and that over 2,000 years later the Jews did once again became a nation against all odds, to be very compelling and remarkable. But you will say, "Who cares! Not evidence!"
you actively work towards it like that its not a prophecy. If I “prophesize” ill own a hosue in 10 years. And work and save and buy it. Was that “prophecy”. That’s ridiculous. Be better than that
So where does that leave us?
You still providing no good or strong evidence. You do know every single thing you said, every other religion can make.
share
You keep bringing up other religions but think about this:
Christianity's writings about Jesus (the gospels) were written only a few decades after Jesus's life. The Koran's on the other hand was written hundreds of years after Jesus's life.
Furthermore, the gospels were written by eye-witnesses. But if you don't believe that, then they were at least written by people who could have conceivably been alive when Jesus was.
The Koran also talks about Jesus. However, it was written not decades, but hundreds of years, after Jesus's life.
So which would you suspect would be the more accurate and reliable account of the life of Jesus?
You don't even have to answer because we both know the answer is obvious.
1. the EARLIEST was written a few decades after. the latest almost 100 years. and?? this proves nothing? is all the claims and magic and Jesus more true if the bibles written 50 vs another book written 55 year? this is fallacious reasoning.
2. you dont know who wrote the gospels. they also contradict each other often. did only one woman see a man in Jesus tomb and told no one (how then did he know). or did two women see an angel?? and so what? so were other religious texts. come on man you are better than this. this proves absolutely nothing about the truth of what is written.
where did I say the Koran has a better account of Jesus? I was saying every other religion can make the same claims about their beliefs that you do. just replace god with Allah.
come on. religion is making you turn off your logical faculties to and ignore reason to push fallacious beliefs that feel good and you want to believe.
still after all these exchanges. literally zero good evidence has been presented.
Okay, well at least now we're at zero "good" evidence, rather than zero evidence at all. It sounds like we're at least getting closer to agreement on basic stuff like what constitutes evidence in the first place.
And I agree with you on the dating, though Mark may have been written as little as 25 years after Jesus's death. That's pretty early. Consider the fact that today we have people who wait until their 60s or 70s to write their memoir. In these memoirs they often write about events that occurred 50 or more years in the past. Do we then claim that all memoirs are invalidated and unreliable?
In regard to the claims of Jesus's miracles, what is interesting is that we even have secular sources that speak of Jesus as someone who did amazing feats (Josephus, for instance). In these instances, the sources don't claim that Jesus did not do these things. Rather, they look for alternative explanations as (as an example, I believe the philosopher Celsus said Jesus was a conjurer). If the apostles claims of Jesus performing miracles were simply false, why wouldn't non-Christian writers be eager to point that out?
While the gospels are technically anonymous, authorship was attributed very early to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there was no dispute about this. However, we know that the early church was always happy to dispute it when there was a question about a book's authorship, and they DID dispute authorship claims in many cases.
Regarding "contradictions" in the Bible, a handful have been put forward and each one has a plausible explanation. Here's one:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-many-women-visited-the-tomb-of-jesus/
(continued below)
However, while I believe that the Bible is without error, let me put forward a mind-blowing revelation for you: The Bible doesn't have to be without error for it tell a true story about God. It's not different from how a biography of Abraham Lincoln might have an error on page 362 but still be an overall reliable account. I do think the Bible is without error and that all so-called contradictions have a resolution, but even if it were proven that someone miscounted or accidentally misindentified someone or got a date wrong or something, that doesn't invalidate every other detail of the text anymore than an error in a modern history book invalidates the entire book.
In regard to other religions, it's like I said before, just because there are other religions doesn't mean that every religion can defend itself equally well.
you claimed
"There are a number of areas from which Christians derive arguments for the Christian faith: philosophy, archaeology, the natural sciences,"
where's this natural scientific evidence.
I personally find the fine-tuning argument very compelling.
shareYou cant demonstrate the universe couldn't be any other way. there are also many other equally compelling and convincing arguments why the universe is how it is, without god.
so if a think can be explained equally by 100 different theories, which is right?
how is "therefore god" better than "therefore natural processes"
you have to demonstrate your explanation is superior with evidence.
the Nobel prize is waiting for you
Another piece of circumstantial evidence is the survival of the Jewish people. The Jews have been conquered, exiled from their homeland and flung to the four corners of the earth, and hunted with the aim being their extinction. Every normal expectation would be for them, as an ethnic group, to have been obliterated and subsumed like so many others before them (where are the Hittites now? Or the Minoans?). But instead, they not only survived, but in 1948 were re-formed as a nation within their ancestral homeland. And guess what book predicted this? The Bible.
In any case, I will agree with you on one thing: I can't claim to know BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Christianity is true. But what I will tell you is that absolute certainty is not required to be a follower of Jesus. For me, the there are ENOUGH reasons to believe and to be a Christian. Ultimately some faith is, and always will be, required. And I'm okay with that.
In the end, if I am right, then I will have gained everything and lost nothing. If I am wrong, I still will have followed a faith that made me a better person and enriched my life, and I will have lost little.
In my experience, those who reject Christianity rarely do so on truly evidential grounds. Rather, it's because they don't WANT to believe it. At the end of the day, there must be an open heart and mind, and a willingness to believe in God and follow.
[–] PrimeMinisterX (7028) 12 days ago
Animals do all sorts of things that would be regarded as completely immoral in the human population such as stealing and indiscriminate killing. That's not to mention that they also do stuff like eating their own shit.
Are you going to defend those behaviors on the grounds that wild animals do them?
SO BEING GAY IS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THEFT,MURDER AND SHIT EATING?
YOU FUCKING SUCK,BRO.
Is that really the message you got from that? Or is that we shouldn't look to the animal kingdom for lessons on how to live as human beings?
sharewhy would I accept anything but good evidence on such a large extraordinary claim? here ill show you. "I have a dragon in my attic that is the creator of the universe". are you going to take my eye witness account as true? why would I do the same about yours?
again just like before with Alexander the Great. you re shutting off your logical capacities in favour of defending religion. come back to reality man. im not going to answer your memoirs argument. think slowly (remember what I said about Alexander) why mundane memoirs would be different than "this is the word of god with supernatural claims I swear is true!". think slowly.....
we even have secular sources that speak of Jesus as someone who did amazing feats (Josephus, for instance). In these instances, the sources don't claim that Jesus did not do these things. Rather, they look for alternative explanations as (as an example, I believe the philosopher Celsus said Jesus was a conjurer). If the apostles claims of Jesus performing miracles were simply false, why wouldn't non-Christian writers be eager to point that out?
again your logical faculties are deteriorating as you attempt to find any justification for your emotions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
“The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while most scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life and execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
“
you are actually quoting known modified documents as “proof”… wow………………………………………………………. The second reference just claims “jesus was executed by Pilate”. share
Which is wholey unremarkable. And says nothing about his magic claims or son of god status.
Celcus was born 200 years after jesus. I don’t care if he said it was sorcery, magic or magic fairies? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO with the truth of Christianity? You actually wrote thinking it was evidence??
Again. You are better than this. Come back to reality.
While the gospels are technically anonymous, authorship was attributed very early to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there was no dispute about this.
And?????
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-many-women-visited-the-tomb-of-jesus/
this was the biggest load of nonsense and forced fitting ive ever seen. They do contradict eachother objectively. Not even at the level of a courtroom would these different accounts be accepted in any form. Let alone arguing for one of the most important questions in history and entire foundation of chrsitianity
However, while I believe that the Bible is without error,
it is full of errors. So you are wrong.
The Bible doesn't have to be without error for it tell a true story about God
SO DEMONSTRATE THIS. 10 comments in and you haven’t demonstrated anything close to this.
again. Think slowly why comparing the bible to an Abraham Lincoln autobiography makes no sense.. (see my alexander the great rebuttal of comparing the possibly natural and mundane of alexander being tree or not. vs the supernatural and existential altering claims of god and the bible being true)
you have clearly turned off all logical faculties to believe something that feels good to you
share
Okay, bro. Well, like I said, you are closed off to the truth. You are among those whom Paul wrote "do not like to retain God in their knowledge."
The reality is that God is the hypothesis that best explains the universe's existence and that Christianity is the most reasonable of all belief systems about God.
But it's quite clear to me that you are just going to keep saying shit like "that's not evidence!" and "that makes no sense!" even when something is evidence and does make sense. You are sold out to your beliefs and the facts are unimportant.
But you should understand that you WILL meet God one day.
Anyway, I will not be replying to you any further. I have already provided resources that are far greater than myself for defending Christianity. I'd suggest you engage with them.
the truth and facts are those which can be demonstrated to comport with reality. you haven't done so in anyways
your strongest source of Jesus's magical existence was Josephus. and even that was a forged/edited text. and that wouldn't prove anything. other than Josephus believed a magical guy name Jesus existed
god isn't the best hypothesis. everything we have found so far that explains the universe and things around us has been natural. can you give me one example where we had no explanation and found it was god that was the cause? even one? or something we thought was natural and we know god?
even when something is evidence and does make sense. You are sold out to your beliefs and the facts are unimportant.
what facts and evidence have you presented?
-the jews existing is unlikely so god? what??? how did you get there. how did you show "therefore god". natural explanations explain it better. as I showed every single one of us is descendant from other cultures that were invaded, persecuted and a segment killed. the only difference is the jews kept their religion, while other ethnic groups converted or forced to convert.
either way the jews of 3000 years ago are not identical to the jews today. JUST LIKE every other culture that survives today.
But you should understand that you WILL meet God one day..
DEMONSTRATE THIS. you seem to confuse assertions with evidence. the muslims claim I WILL meet Allah, the Jews Yahweh. the hindus that I will be reborn. DEMONSTRATE that your supernatural post death claims are better than theirs with evidence.
you need to stop projecting your ignorance on me please. your analogies have been so poor and I showed why. you couldn't rebut my rebuttal. you've made claims "it must therefore mean god" without doing any demonstration it is, or that it couldn't be another better explanation.
share
Using internet isn't natural either, but here you are.
share