Informational Deep Into Christianity

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
My original position is in my opinion the historical Jesus did exist, but the biblical Jesus is a farce. In terms of authors, there's question marks on Pauline letters, some of which are certainly pseudepigrapha. Another author was Peter, we know his authorship is unauthentic and can be dismissed entirely. And don't get me started on the remaining authors.

Your own quotation from wikipedia:

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

The challenge you continue to struggle with is separating history from mythology. Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. If you are privy to such evidence please be so kind to share it with us, otherwise stick to blind faith. Lesson from today is it's safer for you to stick to your catholic encyclopedia. Clearly when you quote from wikipedia, you're opening a can of worms for yourself.
inno you want proof that Christ walked on water? :) do you think that faith would hold any meaning if people believe because someone walks on water? :)

but first let's begin by saying that after 500 pages in this thread, you should have at least realized that the size of your font does not matter.

second, rest assured you did not invent anything new here, and it is not as if you have uncovered a unique and a recent perspective that will overturn all the tables upside down. we are all very aware about the leap of faith that takes one from Jesus the man to Jesus as God. Paul himself was a very rigid disbeliever, not only did he disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, but he also acted on this disbelief and sent many Christians to their end. and yet look where he ended up himself, the great philosopher that he was. he made the transition from Christ the man to Christ the Lord.

third, Paul is not alone in this process, people have been making this transition for the last 2000 years, and in both directions, and yet you bring up the subject as if humanity has just realized it today. different people unlock their faith differently, some through miracles, some through understanding, others through human interaction, etc.. so if you have issues with the miraculous, the miraculous occurs around us every day, you simply do not see it. you think that turning water to wine is quite an unnatural phenomena? is wine and grapes and man storing them to be fermented natural? is the existence of man grapes and wine natural? is the existence itself with everything else it entails anything short of a miracle? is the adherence of all mater to the mathematical laws of physics ordinarily natural?

fourth, it follows that it does not take all that much to witness a miracle, everything around us is nothing short of miraculous, pending that you are able to think it through, something that you have not been able to do so far in this or in other thread. just out of curiosity, can you point out any constructed or elaborate arguments you have made so far in this thread? i am more than anxious to see that.

fifth, it then becomes obvious that the misfortune is that you (well, i am giving you too much credit here for parroting sagan, but let's stick to "you") take the word natural for granted, and seek the miraculous only in your tight perception of mythology, because you are unable to absorb how extraordinary everything is, and this inability to perceive the miraculous depth of all that there is, is in fact why anyone would formulate that statement as such "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or in your case, it is why anyone would parrot carl sagan as blindly as such. labeling existence as ordinary does not make it any bit less than miraculously extraordinary.

and finally , all of what you are attempting, has been summarized by the following:
"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." people do not need a miracle to believe, adherence to truth will inescapably lead to faith. atheism as such is not the norm, but rather the exception and the aversion against the signs that are present all over and everywhere.
 
  • Advertisement
  • The premise of your question is wrong. You’re assuming the bible or religions in general are rational and consistent which is erroneous. In fact, the bible is known for its numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, so it comes at no surprise that the character of Christ preaches peace and harmony whilst condemning non-believers and espousing slavery among other hideous things… I’ve posted these scriptures multiple times in this thread and Deep into Atheism…
    Did you know these scriptures when you were a devout Christian? or did it only happen when you absorbed the knowledge of all popes, priests, and commoners combined, i.e., at the time you got shocked and dropped your devout faith which was espoused unto you by your parents?
     
    I think you should re-examine that statement. This is your own opinion, or more accurately wishful thinking. The problem with you religious folks is you live in a bubble and assume others share your delusions.
    How would you rate the level of your delusions at the time you were a devout Christian, i.e., before you were shocked by your own faith when you went deep into it? How did you overcome your own delusions? Was it Hitchens? Did he finally shock you and give you the depth of your thinking to finally reject your hallucinations? Were you treated by a professional for your hallucinations or was it a personal struggle?

    Secondly, you base your entire knowledge of the bible from what your church has told you, not from real historians and scholars.
    Is that how you acquired your knowledge when you were a devout Christian? How were you able to realize that there are real historians and scholars? How long did it take to transition from your devout Christian state - where your entire knowledge was based on the bible, to your enlightened Hitchensian state - when your entire knowledge became based on real historians and scholars? Can we establish a timeline?

    There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea which this whole biblical legend was based on. Furthermore, there’s much controversy surrounding Pauline letters. Their authenticity are disputed by scholars and some of the letters are pseudepigraphal as is the case for other authors of the bible. Point being, we know nothing about this man from Judea except from what is written about him by people who never knew him. What we do know is the character of Christ is an entire fabrication. This we can say with certainty and that’s all that matters.
    Before your enlightenment, did you really think the man in Judea was Christ? Did you really believe Paul met him at that time? How did you realize that Paul never met the man from Judea? Was it Giordano Bruno who made you realize that the man from Judea was fictional? Is it the realization about Paul that made you finally rational (after your devout hallucinating Christian state)? Is that how we can treat our delusions about the man from Judea that Paul never met? As a devout Christian at the time, did you really believe in miracles without extraordinary evidence, were you that naive??
     
    inno you want proof that Christ walked on water? :) do you think that faith would hold any meaning if people believe because someone walks on water? :)

    but first let's begin by saying that after 500 pages in this thread, you should have at least realized that the size of your font does not matter.

    second, rest assured you did not invent anything new here, and it is not as if you have uncovered a unique and a recent perspective that will overturn all the tables upside down. we are all very aware about the leap of faith that takes one from Jesus the man to Jesus as God. Paul himself was a very rigid disbeliever, not only did he disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, but he also acted on this disbelief and sent many Christians to their end. and yet look where he ended up himself, the great philosopher that he was. he made the transition from Christ the man to Christ the Lord.

    third, Paul is not alone in this process, people have been making this transition for the last 2000 years, and in both directions, and yet you bring up the subject as if humanity has just realized it today. different people unlock their faith differently, some through miracles, some through understanding, others through human interaction, etc.. so if you have issues with the miraculous, the miraculous occurs around us every day, you simply do not see it. you think that turning water to wine is quite an unnatural phenomena? is wine and grapes and man storing them to be fermented natural? is the existence of man grapes and wine natural? is the existence itself with everything else it entails anything short of a miracle? is the adherence of all mater to the mathematical laws of physics ordinarily natural?

    fourth, it follows that it does not take all that much to witness a miracle, everything around us is nothing short of miraculous, pending that you are able to think it through, something that you have not been able to do so far in this or in other thread. just out of curiosity, can you point out any constructed or elaborate arguments you have made so far in this thread? i am more than anxious to see that.

    fifth, it then becomes obvious that the misfortune is that you (well, i am giving you too much credit here for parroting sagan, but let's stick to "you") take the word natural for granted, and seek the miraculous only in your tight perception of mythology, because you are unable to absorb how extraordinary everything is, and this inability to perceive the miraculous depth of all that there is, is in fact why anyone would formulate that statement as such "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or in your case, it is why anyone would parrot carl sagan as blindly as such. labeling existence as ordinary does not make it any bit less than miraculously extraordinary.

    and finally , all of what you are attempting, has been summarized by the following:
    "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." people do not need a miracle to believe, adherence to truth will inescapably lead to faith. atheism as such is not the norm, but rather the exception and the aversion against the signs that are present all over and everywhere.
    Just a small comment on the cute "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is quite a neat statement, it sounds authoritative and quite true. Yet, its origins is David Hume (of course Sagan framed it this way for pop culture consumption, but its nexus is from Hume) - and his "extraordinary" discussion has been rebutted and debated by numerous scholars (irrespective of Christianity, Miracles, or anything of the sorts). What is sad is that those who parrot it (and think that it's so strong) do not even know its origins, evolution, and actual context. It is really a shame when one's worldview foundations (regardless to which way they point) are based on memes and pop culture, flavored by half-smart looking statements like the one above.
     

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    I submit to you the entire bible is a metaphor, including the rising from the dead and flying to heaven bit, aka the resurrection. The shifting interpretations of the bible became a paradigm of Christianity's survival in modern times. This is not a bad thing, the more flexible and open to interpretation a religion becomes, the less harmful and benign. Take Islam as an example, it's like the Church about 400 years ago, intolerant of free thinking and expression. But even Islam is going through a seismic shift due to zeitgeist of the information age. What was taken literal in the past, becomes absurd in succeeding generations and is quickly relegated to the figurative interpretation. Don't be surprised one day if you look up and find the bible categorized in the fictional category. It's already happening in some places and would have been far more prevalent if not for sensitivities of the religious community. You have to be careful with the cult of God, sort of like weaning a child off santa clause...
    Not that I can't debunk this gibberish in five minutes, but...

    I already told you that I don't play with cheats who keep shifting the goal post.

    When you provide evidence for your initial claims, or you admit that you have no such evidence, we can move to any other point you feel like discussing.

    We will be addressing one point at a time, or none at all.
     
    The premise of your question is wrong. You’re assuming the bible or religions in general are rational and consistent which is erroneous. In fact, the bible is known for its numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, so it comes at no surprise that the character of Christ preaches peace and harmony whilst condemning non-believers and espousing slavery among other hideous things… I’ve posted these scriptures multiple times in this thread and Deep into Atheism…
    These are basic academic principles necessarily applied and followed in any sort of objective investigation. A verse/text does not speak for itself, a verse/text is not its own interpretation, a verse/text claims x means this verse/text claims x according to this or that valid ( / established) interpretation/explanation of it. Also, as ridiculous as that may sound, you don't have be in agreement with the idea you would want to critique, the veracity of "someone saying or believing x" is distinct from the veracity of "x"; the two are sought-out and investigated independently of one another, and you don't have to accept the veracity of one, which you may consider irrational or ridiculous, in order to investigate the veracity of the other, and accepting/rejecting the veracity of one should not get in the way of investigating the veracity of the other.

    'Jesus of judea' being the Christ of the Bible, or the claim 'Jesus of judea having died and resurrected', like any interpretation/explanation of a verse or text or a piece or set of data, is built on an all encompassing evidence in the form of a rational explanation/argument; consisting of a set of different types of evidence that are sought-out and established independently from one another and which corroborate one another with regard to the claim or interpretation or explanation in question. For instance, 'Jesus being historically claimed and honestly believed to have died and resurrected' can be addressed and established or refuted, regardless of your own view concerning the resurrection, independently of addressing and accepting/rejecting the resurrection. You can tackle the resurrection, and thereby then the whole claim, only by trying to offer a different explanation/interpretation of the historical evidence used in support of the claim or interpretation or explanation in question, a process which in itself might require seeking and tackling all sorts of evidence in addition to the mainly-historical type in order to tackle and answer respectively the different types of questions that the alternative/opposing explanation might pose and/or be required to account for.

    It is historically sufficiently established that Jesus was a jewish messiah claimant. That a jewish messiah claimant being defeated and killed at the hands of israel's enemies was the definitive proof that the claimant isn't the messiah. That all the movements of other contemporary messiah claimants who were killed have vanished after the death of their corresponding claimants. That Jesus was killed at the hands of israel's enemies, that this event has caused the emergence - rather than the vanishing - of his messianic movement which consisted mostly of Jewish followers which in turn included former jewish persecutors of the latter, all claiming through their persecution and death that Jesus is the messiah. How do you tackle and explain this phenomenon?
     
    Last edited:
    You’re floundering in the hole you’ve dug yourself:
    and the crushing majority of scholars and historians around the world, including non-Christians and historians, recognize that Christ is real.
    Then your own quotation from wikipedia:
    Wikipedia -- Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]
    Your position and own quote from wikipedia are contradictory. Christ (the anointed one) is not real. Your "crushing majority..." comment is a result of your indoctrination. Embarrassing isn’t it.
    inno you want proof that Christ walked on water? :) do you think that faith would hold any meaning if people believe because someone walks on water? :)

    but first let's begin by saying that after 500 pages in this thread, you should have at least realized that the size of your font does not matter.

    second, rest assured you did not invent anything new here, and it is not as if you have uncovered a unique and a recent perspective that will overturn all the tables upside down. we are all very aware about the leap of faith that takes one from Jesus the man to Jesus as God. Paul himself was a very rigid disbeliever, not only did he disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, but he also acted on this disbelief and sent many Christians to their end. and yet look where he ended up himself, the great philosopher that he was. he made the transition from Christ the man to Christ the Lord.

    third, Paul is not alone in this process, people have been making this transition for the last 2000 years, and in both directions, and yet you bring up the subject as if humanity has just realized it today. different people unlock their faith differently, some through miracles, some through understanding, others through human interaction, etc.. so if you have issues with the miraculous, the miraculous occurs around us every day, you simply do not see it. you think that turning water to wine is quite an unnatural phenomena? is wine and grapes and man storing them to be fermented natural? is the existence of man grapes and wine natural? is the existence itself with everything else it entails anything short of a miracle? is the adherence of all mater to the mathematical laws of physics ordinarily natural?

    fourth, it follows that it does not take all that much to witness a miracle, everything around us is nothing short of miraculous, pending that you are able to think it through, something that you have not been able to do so far in this or in other thread. just out of curiosity, can you point out any constructed or elaborate arguments you have made so far in this thread? i am more than anxious to see that.

    fifth, it then becomes obvious that the misfortune is that you (well, i am giving you too much credit here for parroting sagan, but let's stick to "you") take the word natural for granted, and seek the miraculous only in your tight perception of mythology, because you are unable to absorb how extraordinary everything is, and this inability to perceive the miraculous depth of all that there is, is in fact why anyone would formulate that statement as such "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or in your case, it is why anyone would parrot carl sagan as blindly as such. labeling existence as ordinary does not make it any bit less than miraculously extraordinary.

    and finally , all of what you are attempting, has been summarized by the following:
    "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." people do not need a miracle to believe, adherence to truth will inescapably lead to faith. atheism as such is not the norm, but rather the exception and the aversion against the signs that are present all over and everywhere.
    You’ve made a pretty strong argument for blind faith in your last soliloquy. The extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is pure logic. A scientist like Sagan values speculation and skepticism over knee jerk superstition. Miracles have to meet that criteria, otherwise they are just superstitious hocus pocus. Take the stigmata of Padre Pio, a credulous ignorant theist would be inclined to believe its a miracle, while a sane common sense person would understand its a case of self mutilation. Therein lies the difference between superstition and common sense.
     
    Last edited:
    These are basic academic principles necessarily applied and followed in any sort of objective investigation. A verse/text does not speak for itself, a verse/text is not its own interpretation, a verse/text claims x means this verse/text claims x according to this or that valid ( / established) interpretation/explanation of it. Also, as ridiculous as that may sound, you don't have be in agreement with the idea you would want to critique, the veracity of "someone saying or believing x" is distinct from the veracity of "x"; the two are sought-out and investigated independently of one another, and you don't have to accept the veracity of one, which you may consider irrational or ridiculous, in order to investigate the veracity of the other, and accepting/rejecting the veracity of one should not get in the way of investigating the veracity of the other.

    'Jesus of judea' being the Christ of the Bible, or the claim 'Jesus of judea having died and resurrected', like any interpretation/explanation of a verse or text or a piece or set of data, is built on an all encompassing evidence in the form of a rational explanation/argument; consisting of a set of different types of evidence that are sought-out and established independently from one another and which corroborate one another with regard to the claim or interpretation or explanation in question. For instance, 'Jesus being historically claimed and honestly believed to have died and resurrected' can be addressed and established or refuted, regardless of your own view concerning the resurrection, independently of addressing and accepting/rejecting the resurrection. You can tackle the resurrection, and thereby then the whole claim, only by trying to offer a different explanation/interpretation of the historical evidence used in support of the claim or interpretation or explanation in question, a process which in itself might require seeking and tackling all sorts of evidence in addition to the mainly-historical type in order to tackle and answer respectively the different types of questions that the alternative/opposing explanation might pose and/or be required to account for.

    It is historically sufficiently established that Jesus was a jewish messiah claimant. That a jewish messiah claimant being defeated and killed at the hands of israel's enemies was the definitive proof that the claimant isn't the messiah. That all the movements of other contemporary messiah claimants who were killed have vanished after the death of their corresponding claimants. That Jesus was killed at the hands of israel's enemies, that this event has caused the emergence - rather than the vanishing - of his messianic movement which consisted mostly of Jewish followers which in turn included former jewish persecutors of the latter, all claiming through their persecution and death that Jesus is the messiah. How do you tackle and explain this phenomenon?
    As usual, you’re creating a new branch of pseudoscience with a corresponding methodology instead of common sense. In layman terms, you're running away from the cold hard facts. The bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, while hypocrisy and religion go hand in hand. More recent examples would be priests preaching love and tolerance to the choir while molesting children in their spare time. The biblical Jesus was a sadist and lunatic as evidenced by his ministry. A man who thinks he’s god or his son or whatever has an ego problem, a man who purports to perform miracles is delusional at best, fraudulent at worst, and a man who would be willing to face torture and death for all of this is a sadist with a high degree of mental retardation.
     
    Last edited:

    LVV

    Well-Known Member
    As usual, you’re creating a new branch of pseudoscience with a corresponding methodology instead of common sense. In layman terms, you're running away from the cold hard facts. The bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, while hypocrisy and religion go hand in hand. More recent examples would be priests preaching love and tolerance to the choir while molesting children in their spare time. The biblical Jesus was a sadist and lunatic as evidenced by his ministry. A man who thinks he’s god or his son or whatever has an ego problem, a man who purports to perform miracles is delusional at best, fraudulent at worst, and a man who would be willing to face torture and death for all of this is a sadist with a high degree of mental retardation.
    YEAH he is only God for 1\3 of Humanity, a prophet for 1\2 and an inspirations for many others like Gandhi; all people agree on his kind spirit ;
    you are a big liar out of touch.
     
    YEAH he is only God for 1\3 of Humanity, a prophet for 1\2 and an inspirations for many others like Gandhi; all people agree on his kind spirit ;
    you are a big liar out of touch.
    There's also 1.8 billion muslims today who believe in peculiar things, the ancient Greeks and Romans believed in Zeus and a host of other gods... Numbers don't make something real.
     

    LVV

    Well-Known Member
    There's also 1.8 billion muslims today who believe in peculiar things, the ancient Greeks and Romans believed in Zeus and a host of other gods... Numbers don't make something real.
    Well unfortunately for you Jesus supporters are both quantitative and qualitative by billions from all religions and races
    He is with his mother the most beloved pair in History
    Even Thinkers like Rousseau or Jefferson who were deists agreed he was the most admirable person who ever walked on this planet
     
    Well unfortunately for you Jesus supporters are both quantitative and qualitative by billions from all religions and races
    He is with his mother the most beloved pair in History
    Even Thinkers like Rousseau or Jefferson who were deists agreed he was the most admirable person who ever walked on this planet
    Forgive me for forgetting his beloved mother and the virgin birth, the mother of all miracles. Mary's metamorphosis into a parthenogenesis velvet worm was a unique phenomenon that must not go unnoticed.
     
    As usual, you’re creating a new branch of pseudoscience with a corresponding methodology instead of common sense. In layman terms, you're running away from the cold hard facts. The bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, while hypocrisy and religion go hand in hand. More recent examples would be priests preaching love and tolerance to the choir while molesting children in their spare time. The biblical Jesus was a sadist and lunatic as evidenced by his ministry. A man who thinks he’s god or his son or whatever has an ego problem, a man who purports to perform miracles is delusional at best, fraudulent at worst, and a man who would be willing to face torture and death for all of this is a sadist with a high degree of mental retardation.
    These are a well known and established principles applied by academics all over the world as a matter of basic requirement in their respective academic fields. Pseudoscience actually starts when said principles are discarded or not followed. For instance, we don't have to believe in the resurrection in order to investigate the veracity of the disciples' belief in it, and our belief, or lack thereof, in the resurrection doesn't have to get in the way of verifying the disciples' belief in the resurrection, this is basically how humans can actually conduct and obtain objective studies issued by all kinds of scholars, each with different/opposing personal belief or background, from all the different fields, and consequently build informed corroborative/conductive reasoned/objective arguments about any subject or topic.

    Also, and especially to the gullible, any material/object of study, on its surface, may appear either consistent or contradictory/conflicting, any claim may appear supported or opposed by the presented corresponding material, the task, however, for any truth-seeker, is to validly demonstrate either position. Rants, poetry or empty rhetoric in place of reasoned arguments are inherently evasive and divertive in this regard, having no argumentative force besides always self-defeating their utterer in the most poetically ironic of ways (e.g. anti-pseudoscience pseudoscience advocate/practitioner, anti-blind belief blind-believer, etc)

    Also, In the same vein, the often parroted 'extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence' has a inherent flaw that limits the scope of its application and discourages holding it as maxim for truth-seeking in general and scientific endeavors in particular. Anyone might easily believe their neighbor telling them he ran and won in yesterday's marathon, but rightly not that easily so if they told them they won the marathon by literally flying or jumping in the air over all the other participants. However, it starts to lose appeal and even become a hindering force when truth-seeking in general comes into the scene, namely, by shoehorning/qualifying the needed evidence rather than allowing for the evidence to lead wherever it may lead, or by constraining our truth-seeking and establishing activity from being constantly ready to be informed by whatever may be presented on the table.

    You are yet to live up to your proclaimed paraded self and demonstrate, with the above criteria in mind, three different claims that you are recently, as in the past, still evading; a) Jesus not being Jesus of the Bible, and/or the resurrection, b) Jesus espousing evil c) Pio is a fraud.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    These are a well known and established principles applied by academics all over the world as a matter of basic requirement in their respective academic fields. Pseudoscience actually starts when said principles are discarded or not followed. For instance, we don't have to believe in the resurrection in order to investigate the veracity of the disciples' belief in it, and our belief, or lack thereof, in the resurrection doesn't have to get in the way of verifying the disciples' belief in the resurrection, this is basically how humans can actually conduct and obtain objective studies issued by all kinds of scholars, each with different/opposing personal belief or background, from all the different fields, and consequently build informed corroborative/conductive reasoned/objective arguments about any subject or topic.

    Also, and especially to the gullible, any material/object of study, on its surface, may appear either consistent or contradictory/conflicting, any claim may appear supported or opposed by the presented corresponding material, the task, however, for any truth-seeker, is to validly demonstrate either position. Rants, poetry or empty rhetoric in place of reasoned arguments are inherently evasive and divertive in this regard, having no argumentative force besides always self-defeating their utterer in the most poetically ironic of ways (e.g. anti-pseudoscience pseudoscience advocate/practitioner, anti-blind belief blind-believer, etc)

    Also, In the same vein, the often parroted 'extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence' has a inherent flaw that limits the scope of its application and discourages holding it as maxim for truth-seeking in general and scientific endeavors in particular. Anyone might easily believe their neighbor telling them he ran and won in yesterday's marathon, but rightly not that easily so if they told them they won the marathon by literally flying or jumping in the air over all the other participants. However, it starts to lose appeal and even become a hindering force when truth-seeking in general comes into the scene, namely, by shoehorning/qualifying the needed evidence rather than allowing for the evidence to lead wherever it may lead, or by constraining our truth-seeking and establishing activity from being constantly ready to be informed by whatever may be presented on the table.

    You are yet to live up to your proclaimed paraded self and demonstrate, with the above criteria in mind, three different claims that you are recently, as in the past, still evading; a) Jesus not being Jesus of the Bible, and/or the resurrection, b) Jesus espousing evil c) Pio is a fraud.
    The burden of proof is on the claimant, especially when the claimant is making outlandish statements without a shred of evidence, let alone extraordinary.

    Secondly, whoever they may be, the writings of the biblical authors were a reflection of the times, were slavery and the subjugation of women were the norm, so it's not surprising that they would espouse this way of life. Now someone like you might be ashamed of such scripture, so you try to creatively apply other meanings, dig deep and bend their interpretation like a yoga stretch. With you it's so extreme that you've resorted to inventing a new personalized pseudo-philosophy just to avoid admitting the vile truth of such scripture. This is the ultimate weakness of theists, they get entrenched in their indoctrination out of fear of seeing their entire belief system collapse. It's really not all that bad living without the belief in guardian angels and fairytales.

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    1 Timothy 6:1
    All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.

    Luke 12:47-48
    And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
     
    As usual, you’re creating a new branch of pseudoscience with a corresponding methodology instead of common sense. In layman terms, you're running away from the cold hard facts.
    Is that how you used to approach things when you were a devout Christian?
    The bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, while hypocrisy and religion go hand in hand.
    At your time as a devout Christian, what prevented you from discerning these inconsistencies? Also, after your conversion, how did the revelation of the truth of religion come to you; was it Hitchens? or Sagan? You never watched Sagan at the time of your devotion?
    More recent examples would be priests preaching love and tolerance to the choir while molesting children in their spare time.
    It is not completely accurate, some priests do it in their work time. Also a more contemporary example would be Giordano Bruno. He was burned at the stake!
    The biblical Jesus was a sadist and lunatic as evidenced by his ministry. A man who thinks he’s god or his son or whatever has an ego problem, a man who purports to perform miracles is delusional at best, fraudulent at worst, and a man who would be willing to face torture and death for all of this is a sadist with a high degree of mental retardation.
    This would be true (IF he existed), otherwise, it's just a figment of your imagination. It seems despite acquiring the knowledge of all popes, priests, bishops, and Christ's vicars on Earth, you are still maintaining fragments of your delusions from back when you were a devout Christian, you really still think that a man from Judea walked on water and performed miracles? Your delusion treatment seems to have only partially worked. If you have not heard - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", unless you have extraordinary evidence on a lunatic from Judea (if he existed), your claims are moot.
     
    Well unfortunately for you Jesus supporters are both quantitative and qualitative by billions from all religions and races
    He is with his mother the most beloved pair in History
    Even Thinkers like Rousseau or Jefferson who were deists agreed he was the most admirable person who ever walked on this planet
    That's how indoctrination works.
     
    These are a well known and established principles applied by academics all over the world as a matter of basic requirement in their respective academic fields. Pseudoscience actually starts when said principles are discarded or not followed. For instance, we don't have to believe in the resurrection in order to investigate the veracity of the disciples' belief in it, and our belief, or lack thereof, in the resurrection doesn't have to get in the way of verifying the disciples' belief in the resurrection, this is basically how humans can actually conduct and obtain objective studies issued by all kinds of scholars, each with different/opposing personal belief or background, from all the different fields, and consequently build informed corroborative/conductive reasoned/objective arguments about any subject or topic.
    Do you know what objective means?

    Also, and especially to the gullible, any material/object of study, on its surface, may appear either consistent or contradictory/conflicting, any claim may appear supported or opposed by the presented corresponding material, the task, however, for any truth-seeker, is to validly demonstrate either position.
    What exactly is a truth seeker? Please reveal your secrets oh truthful one.

    Rants, poetry or empty rhetoric in place of reasoned arguments are inherently evasive and divertive in this regard, having no argumentative force besides always self-defeating their utterer in the most poetically ironic of ways (e.g. anti-pseudoscience pseudoscience advocate/practitioner, anti-blind belief blind-believer, etc)
    How ironic that you of all people would say that.

    Also, In the same vein, the often parroted 'extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence' has a inherent flaw that limits the scope of its application and discourages holding it as maxim for truth-seeking in general and scientific endeavors in particular.
    No it doesn't. If anything the necessity to reliably prove something before taking it as a maxim is what drove scientific advancement. But you view that as a constraint since it disallows you from believing that Mary birthed a god while she was a virgin. Since you obviously know that that didn't happen.

    Anyone might easily believe their neighbor telling them he ran and won in yesterday's marathon, but rightly not that easily so if they told them they won the marathon by literally flying or jumping in the air over all the other participants. However, it starts to lose appeal and even become a hindering force when truth-seeking in general comes into the scene, namely, by shoehorning/qualifying the needed evidence rather than allowing for the evidence to lead wherever it may lead, or by constraining our truth-seeking and establishing activity from being constantly ready to be informed by whatever may be presented on the table.
    So stop yapping and present objective evidence that Mary was a virgin when she birthed god. Explain the truth to us if you please since you seem to be in intimate contact with it.
     
    The burden of proof is on the claimant, especially when the claimant is making outlandish statements without a shred of evidence, let alone extraordinary.
    Exactly, as Sagan put it "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", none of the forumers produced this evidence. They are still at the stae you were in when you were a devout Christian (just right prior to the knowledge you acquired when going deep into Christianity".
    Secondly, whoever they may be, the writings of the biblical authors were a reflection of the times, were slavery and the subjugation of women were the norm, so it's not surprising that they would espouse this way of life.
    There is no evidence that the biblical authors even existed. They were the figment of imagination of the population. Do you even know that the so-called bible was written anonymously?
    Now someone like you might be ashamed of such scripture, so you try to creatively apply other meanings, dig deep and bend their interpretation like a yoga stretch.
    Yet, they should get the meaning directly from the horse's mouth - just like you started doing AFTER getting out of your years of indoctrination.
    With you it's so extreme that you've resorted to inventing a new personalized pseudo-philosophy just to avoid admitting the vile truth of such scripture.
    Not to mention how this vile nature was practiced - case in point, the execution of Giordano Bruno a scientist, not a pseudo-scientist, at the stake!
    This is the ultimate weakness of theists, they get entrenched in their indoctrination out of fear of seeing their entire belief system collapse. It's really not all that bad living without the belief in guardian angels and fairytales.
    Yes, theists are like you were when you were a devout Christian: indoctrined, fearful, and delusional. They need treatment - the exact same treatment you got when you collapsed your beliefs and was able to live greatly without belief in fairytales. I suggests you share your experience in more details - how did you overcome your indoctrination? Was it Hitchens?


    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
    You really think Peter existed? There is no contemporary evidence that talks about Peter. For all we know, the above verses were written in the imagination of some man who lived in ancient Judea - why should we take them at face value? Extraordinary claims (i.e., that Peter wrote the above) require extraordinary evidence, can you produce that evidence? If you can't, we cannot discuss the above.

    1 Timothy 6:1
    All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.
    This verse comes from Pseudoepigrapha written by Paul, a man who never met the man in Judea (if he actually existed). Whatever a Pseudoepigrapha says is useless and just the figment of imagination of a delusional man, who never met the man from Judea (if he existed) nor do we know that he even exists.
    Luke 12:47-48
    And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
    Yes, this is how Christ and his vicars on earth treat people. Giordano Bruno was treated as a heretic and burned at the stake!
    From the horse's mouth:
    Matthew 13:42 " They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
     
    Is that how you used to approach things when you were a devout Christian?

    At your time as a devout Christian, what prevented you from discerning these inconsistencies? Also, after your conversion, how did the revelation of the truth of religion come to you; was it Hitchens? or Sagan? You never watched Sagan at the time of your devotion?

    It is not completely accurate, some priests do it in their work time. Also a more contemporary example would be Giordano Bruno. He was burned at the stake!

    This would be true (IF he existed), otherwise, it's just a figment of your imagination. It seems despite acquiring the knowledge of all popes, priests, bishops, and Christ's vicars on Earth, you are still maintaining fragments of your delusions from back when you were a devout Christian, you really still think that a man from Judea walked on water and performed miracles? Your delusion treatment seems to have only partially worked. If you have not heard - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", unless you have extraordinary evidence on a lunatic from Judea (if he existed), your claims are moot.
    Why are you so hung up that he abandoned his religion? Can't you just accept that some people no longer see a benefit in believing in gods and angels and would rather focus on other things?
     

    Top