Would You Hire a Vocal Atheist?

[watson3]

Originally Posted by Jmick
On top of that, there isn't any real evidence that Jesus actually existed. Someone of his stature who was drawing such large crowds and was the ire of the Jews and the Romans wouldn't have had anything written about him (when writing was common) until the Gospel of Mark which by the churches own admission was 40 years later.
Christinaity is not the only religion that believes Jesus existed..

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by garnet13aj
I find some of what you say interesting and some of it I haven't heard before, but I can't find anything that proves that the bible is the legitimate word of god, so quotes from it don't make me believe in him. I do think that some of them can provide good insight into they way one should live their life. There was a quote a while back on this thread that I think Bang Guy posted that I really liked. I'm starting to babble, but what I'm trying to say is that I see the bible as a compact form of thoughts on how one should live there life to get the most out of it, rather than unquestionable truth about god's existence. I do plan to read it one day, so at least I know what's in there, but I am perfectly happy the way I lead my life and couldn't imagine it any other way. I love the adventure of knowing I'm in control of my life as far the decisions I make day to day and it gives me comfort to know that my lifestyle is something I have decided upon myself and is not based on someone else's perception of how I should behave.
i will garentee that if u studied the bible u would find the proof you are looking for

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
I have a lot of christain friends (the typical kind that go to church once a year) and they certainly don't share your beliefs. So if god has things planned then why aren't we all christians, why is there war, famine, murder, genocide, brutality, corruption? Also, why would god create man in his image..sounds terribly vain and something man would like to hear or say...
Look at what you just typed and ask yourself who think knows Christian doctrine better. Your friends who go to church once a year. Or me and some of these others who are in the church 3-4 times a week or maybe more.
In the SW hobby, this is the equivelant to asking a newbie to explain how a deep sand bed works. Or the best way to set up a succesful SPS tank.
I know plenty of "Christians" who go to church once a year too. Most of them know practically nothing about the Bible. They pick up on a few traditions usually, and come up with some general ideas of there own with no objective reason for doing so. It's ridiculous to rely on these type of people to explain Christian doctrine to anyone.
I would guess that at least 50% of the people who go to Christian churches (at least occasionally) aren't actually Christian. I would also guess that most of them might not even know why I would say that. I used to be one of those people. I always considered myself a Christian even though I had only been to church 20-30 times in my whole life until I was 25 or so. I knew absolutely nothing about Christian life other than the few things I picked up from real Christians I knew. I thought I was a good person too. I never did anything most would consider wrong. Now I realize that wasn't true at all. I didn't really even understand who Jesus was or why He was so significant. It's these kind of people that you are getting your doctrinal info from?

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Well if it gave us free will, then how can it send us to hell for making our own choices?
I already explained this. But here it is again. Hell is defined in the Bible as seperation from God. God allows you to choose to spend eternity with him or without him. Now, no doubt a Christian would see a place without God as a terrible place. But perhaps not for a non-believer. God is light, but men love darkness. If you love darkness He allows you to go on forever in it. It may not be as much fun as it is here though I suspect.

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
I thought Jesus was all about love, tolerence and forgiveness?
He was about love, I said that quite clearly. He is also very much for forgiveness. With tolerance, it depends on what exactly you mean. He tolerates sin in that he allows people to do it if they choose. But he is also intolerant in that a single sin is penalized by death (spiritual, sometimes physical but rarely these days). But if you believe in him as lord and savior, he will FORGIVE you and it's as if the sin never happened. That is why he died on the cross. He bore the punishment for all of humanities sins so that those who believed in him wouldn't have to.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by hagfish
He was about love, I said that quite clearly. He is also very much for forgiveness. With tolerance, it depends on what exactly you mean. He tolerates sin in that he allows people to do it if they choose. But he is also intolerant in that a single sin is penalized by death (spiritual, sometimes physical but rarely these days). But if you believe in him as lord and savior, he will FORGIVE you and it's as if the sin never happened. That is why he died on the cross. He bore the punishment for all of humanities sins so that those who believed in him wouldn't have to.
hey hagfish were in ILL do u live im in geneva

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
On top of that, there isn't any real evidence that Jesus actually existed. Someone of his stature who was drawing such large crowds and was the ire of the Jews and the Romans wouldn't have had anything written about him (when writing was common) until the Gospel of Mark which by the churches own admission was 40 years later.
You are making MANY unsupportable ASSERTIONS that are just not true. There are many secular texts that speak of Jesus from the 1st century. It is commonly accepted among pretty much all historians that Jesus existed.

 

[watson3]

Originally Posted by hagfish
You are making MANY unsupportable ASSERTIONS that are just not true. There are many secular texts that speak of Jesus from the 1st century. It is commonly accepted among pretty much all historians that Jesus existed.
Thats what I meant

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
hey hagfish were in ILL do u live im in geneva
Granite City. Near St. Louis. Geneva is north isn't it?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by hagfish
You are making MANY unsupportable ASSERTIONS that are just not true. There are many secular texts that speak of Jesus from the 1st century. It is commonly accepted among pretty much all historians that Jesus existed.

I think more and more historians are beginning to question his actual existence and like myself, view him as a mythical character. Why are there no written documents from his lifetime that mention him (7bce to 33ce)? There are writing from this time, like that of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. His dates, 30 BCE - 453, include Jesus’ alleged life span. Among his writings is a history of the Jewish people. It is still available today. Philo was particularly interested in contemporary religious movements and sects of which there were many. Yet he never once mentions Jesus or any of the extraordinary events associated with him in the New Testament.
Evidence that Jesus ever lived is found only in the New Testament gospels. But just how reliable is it? Consider the following: 1) The dates of their writings are well after the alleged time of Jesus and contain numerous irresolvable contradictions and obvious forgeries10. 2) The writer of the Gospel of John presents a different Christ from that of the synoptic gospels. 3) Paul presents a mystery Christ unlike that of both John and the synoptics. 4) Much in the gospels was borrowed from pagan sources. 5) No two gospels writers could agree as to the date or circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and the birth narratives appear to have been contrived. 6) The gospel writers cannot agree on the short inscription over Jesus' head at the alleged crucifixion. 7) The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are hopelessly contradictory. (Louis W. Cable)
Any religion makes sense if you look at it only from the inside. George C. Scott

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by hagfish
You are making MANY unsupportable ASSERTIONS that are just not true. There are many secular texts that speak of Jesus from the 1st century. It is commonly accepted among pretty much all historians that Jesus existed.
Cite a source.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by hagfish
Granite City. Near St. Louis. Geneva is north isn't it?
yes im near chicago, i went to school at siue though so i know wher thats at

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
I think more and more historians are beginning to question his actual existence and like myself, view him as a mythical character. Why are there no written documents from his lifetime that mention him (7bce to 33ce)? There are writing from this time, like that of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. His dates, 30 BCE - 453, include Jesus’ alleged life span. Among his writings is a history of the Jewish people. It is still available today. Philo was particularly interested in contemporary religious movements and sects of which there were many. Yet he never once mentions Jesus or any of the extraordinary events associated with him in the New Testament.
Evidence that Jesus ever lived is found only in the New Testament gospels. But just how reliable is it? Consider the following: 1) The dates of their writings are well after the alleged time of Jesus and contain numerous irresolvable contradictions and obvious forgeries10. 2) The writer of the Gospel of John presents a different Christ from that of the synoptic gospels. 3) Paul presents a mystery Christ unlike that of both John and the synoptics. 4) Much in the gospels was borrowed from pagan sources. 5) No two gospels writers could agree as to the date or circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and the birth narratives appear to have been contrived. 6) The gospel writers cannot agree on the short inscription over Jesus' head at the alleged crucifixion. 7) The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are hopelessly contradictory. (Louis W. Cable)
Any religion makes sense if you look at it only from the inside. George C. Scott
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Consider the following: 1) The dates of their writings are well after the alleged time of Jesus and contain numerous irresolvable contradictions and obvious forgeries10. 2) The writer of the Gospel of John presents a different Christ from that of the synoptic gospels. 3) Paul presents a mystery Christ unlike that of both John and the synoptics. 4) Much in the gospels was borrowed from pagan sources. 5) No two gospels writers could agree as to the date or circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and the birth narratives appear to have been contrived. 6) The gospel writers cannot agree on the short inscription over Jesus' head at the alleged crucifixion. 7) The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are hopelessly contradictory. (Louis W. Cable)
Any religion makes sense if you look at it only from the inside. George C. Scott
I don't have a lot of time to write about this as it's getting pretty deep. But I'll make some comments. I'm curious which of these bothers you most. And I'd like some backup for the claim. Because most of it can be explained pretty easily.
1. Historically speaking, the Bible is one of the best ancient historical texts in existence. You say the timing is bad. Well, most of the secular ancient texts that nobody is really doubting are MUCH worse.
2. Please explain with some details what is meant by #2
3. Please explain #3 further as well. You can't just assert these things and not back them up.
4. Research tends to show that the pagans typically borrowed from the bible from what I've seen.
5. I've never thought about this. So I won't say much about it. Although the phrase "appear to have been contrived" pretty much concedes that that sentence is useless.
6. So what? It's a piece of text. It really has no bearing on anything.
7. Show me the contradictions. They all have explanations. I've yet to hear one that didn't.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by hagfish
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
It is evident that at an early date Christians were painfully aware of this fatal omission and took steps to correct it. Between sections two and four of chapter 3 of Antiquities there appears a short section, appropriately titled section 3, in which Jesus and the Christians are indeed mentioned. However, section 3 interrupts the natural flow of the text and appears to be out of place. When section 3 is removed chapter 3 makes more sense. Section 3 is an acknowledged interpolation6. Also, early Christian writers, such as Origen and Tertullian, frequently referred to Josephus without once citing this passage. They certainly would have done so had they been aware of it. Last, but by no means least, the passage was obviously written by a Christian which Josephus was not. It is interesting to note that in the sixteenth century Vossius7 had a ancient manuscript of Josephus which does not contain the passage in question.

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Farslayer
Cite a source.
I just put some quotes down. I honestly can't stand defending the position that Jesus EXISTED. There is more historical evidence he existed than probably anyone in history. And from a historical standpoint one cannot totally dismiss the bible. Historical and archeological finds have only supported the bible to this point. In fact, these are two of the best and most easily accessed supports for the bible from an outsiders perspective.

 

[watson3]

Originally Posted by Farslayer
Cite a source.
Muslims, Jews..

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by hagfish
I just put some quotes down. I honestly can't stand defending the position that Jesus EXISTED. There is more historical evidence he existed than probably anyone in history. And from a historical standpoint one cannot totally dismiss the bible. Historical and archeological finds have only supported the bible to this point. In fact, these are two of the best and most easily accessed supports for the bible from an outsiders perspective.
Then what you said is worthless. You provide no evidence, no study showing that historians accept he existed, nothing. Show me a photograph, show me anything. The Romans wrote of their gods more than the entire contents of the bible; should we believe in Roman mythology? No archaeological find has supported Jesus; several years ago a burial box was found and claimed to have held the body of Jesus' brother, James: it was a fraud. Historically, yes, the bible can be dismissed. There is no evidence of a massive flood, no evidence that the universe was created in six days, no evidence that man was created from clay. There is, however, evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. There is evidence of evolution, there is evidence of global climate change, of the reversal of magnetic poles, yet not one solid bit of evidence for ANYTHING substantial other than a few names, dates, and nonsense.
Support science, not superstition.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by watson3
Muslims, Jews..
Cite their writing from the period he is supposed to have lived Watson...you can't because they do not exist.
Seems like other noteworthy people in ancient history had a lot of writing about them during the times they lived. If was capable of all the wondrous miracles and healings don't you think writers and important people of the time would have written about it?

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
It is evident that at an early date Christians were painfully aware of this fatal omission and took steps to correct it. Between sections two and four of chapter 3 of Antiquities there appears a short section, appropriately titled section 3, in which Jesus and the Christians are indeed mentioned. However, section 3 interrupts the natural flow of the text and appears to be out of place. When section 3 is removed chapter 3 makes more sense. Section 3 is an acknowledged interpolation6. Also, early Christian writers, such as Origen and Tertullian, frequently referred to Josephus without once citing this passage. They certainly would have done so had they been aware of it. Last, but by no means least, the passage was obviously written by a Christian which Josephus was not. It is interesting to note that in the sixteenth century Vossius7 had a ancient manuscript of Josephus which does not contain the passage in question.
Quickly, I will just say that if early Christians were aware that people actually knew Jesus existed there would be no reason to make a special note of this text.
There is no strong proof in your argument here anyway. This could easily be dismissed as opinion.