U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2017, 01:11 PM
 
Location: USA
2,751 posts, read 983,176 times
Reputation: 809

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
Again...what would suffice?
"hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing."

Overcoming the inherent nature of the claim of a corpse coming back to life and flying away would necessarily need to be firm evidence that was undeniably compelling. All Christians have however is unsupported rumor and unrealistic assertions. And the entirely empty claim that the historical evidence supports their position because they say so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2017, 01:24 PM
 
7,603 posts, read 3,331,887 times
Reputation: 1700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Christians commonly suppose that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds of people. Far too many to have been delusional or simply mistaken. The story of a corpse coming back to life is simply not realistic however. Yet hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing.

The truth of the matter is that NO ONE REPORTED ANY OF THE CLAIM AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. What we actually have are five sources for the story of the risen Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the letters of Paul. All written years after Jesus was dead. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously, and the identities of the authors is largely a matter of Christian tradition (it's true because Christians declare it to be so). And Paul, who by his own admission was not a witness to the life and death of Jesus.
Well did it occur to you that maybe most people couldn't read or write in that time period? How silly is it to assume that our modern day society functioned exactly the same way back then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post


None of this "evidence" is sufficient to overcome the ridiculous nature of the claim that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. What we actually have is the nature of the stories that were in circulation by the end of the first century. Acts of the Apostles makes it clear the the immediate followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. No one but the followers claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. No one but the followers of Jesus claimed to have seen him fly off up into the sky and disappear into the clouds. Claims which are flatly ridiculous and unbelievable.
Why is it ridiculous? Because you never seen someone rise from the dead? How do you know that is impossible? Science certainly hasn't solved all the mysteries to life. If you told me that ancient cultures were far more intelligent than us, I would probably find that ridiculous and unbelievable. Yet we have artifacts like the Voynich manuscript which has stumped the greatest minds in our generation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post



Much as we have accounts of the wonderful things that Heracles accomplished during his lifetime which we spread by his followers after his death. And while we might find the story of how Heracles managed to slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra entertaining, we in modern times are not compelled to suppose that it actually occurred.
The Bible is a collection of books from numerous authors spanning centuries yet it has a remarkable consistency with telling and foretelling the coming of Christ all the way back in Genesis 3:15. That alone is a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 01:29 PM
 
Location: USA
2,751 posts, read 983,176 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
sounds just like any other fundy/milli mental defending a belief statement over reality. In Fact, it sounds exactly like the more vocal atheists here at CD. Their core belief "religion is so dangerous its ok to deny, minimize, and shun any science that weaks that claim."

so what's the difference in belief statements? 'deny anything for my personal need"? pretty much the same thing to me

They might not have the same wings, but its flying B.S. "belief statements" in the face of facts just the same.

what do you want to do about it, tired? address how the universe works openly and honestly or just rail on religion?

I see christian core beliefs as treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. And, Hold healthy idea's (memes) over personal needs.

I haven't met any christian, other than a milli/fundy mental, that doesn't concede that is their main goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
sounds just like any other fundy/milli mental defending a belief statement over reality. In Fact, it sounds exactly like the more vocal atheists here at CD. Their core belief "religion is so dangerous its ok to deny, minimize, and shun any science that weaks that claim."
Do you consider dismissing the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away to be the same as a "fundamentalist claim?" And do you consider discrediting pseudoscientific claims with valid accepted science as merely an attempt to "weaken" the pseudoscience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what do you want to do about it, tired? address how the universe works openly and honestly or just rail on religion?
Would you actually like an example of how the universe works, without any appeals to the supernatural (i.e. make believe)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I see christian core beliefs as treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. And, Hold healthy idea's (memes) over personal needs
The concept of the golden rule existed long before the birth of Jesus. And in fact when practiced the golden rule covers just about any and every moral question that might arise. So I am a fan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,394 posts, read 8,601,924 times
Reputation: 17853
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Well did it occur to you that maybe most people couldn't read or write in that time period? How silly is it to assume that our modern day society functioned exactly the same way back then.




Why is it ridiculous? Because you never seen someone rise from the dead? How do you know that is impossible? Science certainly hasn't solved all the mysteries to life. If you told me that ancient cultures were far more intelligent than us, I would probably find that ridiculous and unbelievable. Yet we have artifacts like the Voynich manuscript which has stumped the greatest minds in our generation.





The Bible is a collection of books from numerous authors spanning centuries yet it has a remarkable consistency with telling and foretelling the coming of Christ all the way back in Genesis 3:15. That alone is a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence.
1. So therefore, you do not have significant evidence. Thank you for admitting what we have been saying.

2. Actually, yes. It is rare that we have once in a lifetime...or in this case, once in all lifetimes...occurrences. It is exactly why it is unbelievable.

3. No, that is cult belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Booth Texas
12,796 posts, read 4,060,989 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Christians are very vocal in making their claims. But when push comes to shove they become strangely quiet and touchy about defending those claims. And very hostile over the necessity of providing such a defence. It seems to me that any defence of Christian claims should provide Christians with a splendid platform for establishing the undeniable truth of their beliefs. Instead, any such exchange inevitably results in Christians lashing out at those who contradict them, and then disengaging from the discussion in a great display of indignation. Which, I am afraid, invariably makes them appear to be losers.

The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.

Do Christians really have an unimpeachable case for their beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "It's all true because that's what I was raised to believe?" Which is the foundation of EVERY religious belief, whether currently in practice, or having long since fallen extinct.
You can buy people books and send them to school, but you can't make them study, and you can't prove anything to a Christian who doesn't study enough, much less an Atheist. I say there is a mountain of evidence just from the hidden language behind the language, but even the majority of Christians never find this language or practice it in order to learn it.


Jesus came speaking in Parables using a hidden language of design, and if you aren't obsessed with learning that language, you can read those parables every day and never know what they mean. It's just like the book of Revelation that looks crazy, but it is speaking in a language not English. You have to know all the holy days, traditions, rituals, prayers, duties of the priests, and you have to put your feet in the shoes of a Jew being raised to be a rabbi.


Proving God to a Gentile would be like trying to prove Einstein's theories to people who never learned math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:08 PM
Status: "tired of the nonsense." (set 19 days ago)
 
4,933 posts, read 1,220,644 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Christians commonly suppose that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds of people. Far too many to have been delusional or simply mistaken. The story of a corpse coming back to life is simply not realistic however. Yet hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing.
From 2000 years ago...at a time when it was very expensive to produce such written documentation.

Nice.
Quote:
The truth of the matter is that NO ONE REPORTED ANY OF THE CLAIM AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. What we actually have are five sources for the story of the risen Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the letters of Paul. All written years after Jesus was dead. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously, and the identities of the authors is largely a matter of Christian tradition (it's true because Christians declare it to be so). And Paul, who by his own admission was not a witness to the life and death of Jesus.
It was recorded in the Gospels and in Acts. And an entire church was established. But hey..you say NO ONE reported it....
Quote:

None of this "evidence" is sufficient to overcome the ridiculous nature of the claim that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. What we actually have is the nature of the stories that were in circulation by the end of the first century. Acts of the Apostles makes it clear the the immediate followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. No one but the followers claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. No one but the followers of Jesus claimed to have seen him fly off up into the sky and disappear into the clouds. Claims which are flatly ridiculous and unbelievable.

Much as we have accounts of the wonderful things that Heracles accomplished during his lifetime which we spread by his followers after his death. And while we might find the story of how Heracles managed to slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra entertaining, we in modern times are not compelled to suppose that it actually occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
"hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing."

Overcoming the inherent nature of the claim of a corpse coming back to life and flying away would necessarily need to be firm evidence that was undeniably compelling. All Christians have however is unsupported rumor and unrealistic assertions. And the entirely empty claim that the historical evidence supports their position because they say so.
I'm fully convinced that it wouldn't how many sources we had, or what they were. You'd find a reason to doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,448,811 times
Reputation: 6000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
We have 4 different historical accounts of the life of Jesus (and prophecies regarding him) along with an historical account of the growth of the young church, in addition to letters written to the local churches.

But I'm guessing that the OP really won't take those as evidence. Honestly though, I think if we had 4 times the level of documentation, it wouldn't be enough.
Four times zero IS zero, you know. Which speaks to the need for a valid BASIS for evidence. I think by now even you have to admit that you're not offering evidence we'll accept. The question then is, are you willing to listen to our actual issues with that evidence, make sure you correctly understand our issues, or will you simply dismiss them with simplistic explanations such as "you're stubborn" or "you hate god" or "you're spiritually blind"?

If you would drop such self-ratifying nonsense we might get somewhere.

I mean, there are only the following ways forward for you that I can think of:

1) Figure out some way to convince us -- clearly what you're doing isn't working.

2) Failing that, at least get clear that we have a reasonable (to us at least) basis for our rejection of your truth claims, don't take it personally, but make sure you don't project on us reasons that have nothing to do with what is actually going on.

We might not reach your hoped-for outcome (a Damascus Road experience for even one of us) but at least we'd come away better understanding our ACTUAL positions. We'd feel respected and heard.

But that would require that you respect and hear us, and I don't think (and I say this as kindly as possible) you're able and willing to do either. All you are able to lead with is dogma, generally speaking. This is only good for preaching to the choir.

I appreciate very much that in the separate discussion (today IIRC) about issues around terminal illness, suffering and suicide, you were able to express your ideals and acknowledge at least the possibility that, if they were tested, you might change your mind concerning for example whether you would enter hospice care rather than fight tooth and nail to the bitter end in the face of a fatal illness diagnosis (which fight you presently consider the ideal). This shows, in that particular area, epistemological humility, and a recognition that people of good conscience could hold views different from yours without being in any way derogatory or unfriendly just by doing so or explaining why they disagree.

Given that you're capable of this, I wonder if you could consider applying it to less abstract possibilities, not just ones that you think / hope you may never have to actually wrestle with. I'm inviting you to wrestle with the possibility that your doctrine is less objectively and demonstrably right than you think it is, that people can disagree in whole or in part with it and still be honorable persons of integrity who want to share their existence with you with good will. That in fact people can totally disagree with your theology, be part of a different group or tribe or denomination or belief system or political persuasion and not be in any way a threat to you, your actual rights and legitimate needs. That you almost certainly have things you can learn from us, despite disagreement.

A good start would be less regurgitation of talking points and more listening. Repeating back things to make sure you take the actual meaning. Not making unwarranted assumptions about motivations.

I grant you that next to, e.g., JeffBase and some others here you are positively reasonable, so there's that. But if you can't start looking for common ground you're not going to find much either.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

And yes ... some of us unbelievers could take the same advice. But you can only control your own conduct in the world, not that of others. I'd like to think that I, and others, have shown good will in this regard. In fact it's pretty easy for me because I used to be part of your belief system and quite devoted to it, so it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from.

So I understand your frustration in our not being impressed with, say, the gospels, the NT in general, that we don't see the fulfilled prophecies that you do, etc. But it's a simple fact that evangelicals (of which you're a part) represent roughly 17% of people who identify as Christian, on a worldwide basis, and in turn, those who so identify represent about a third of the world population.

So it's just good sense to try to understand the 66% of humans who don't understand even cultural Christianity, much less your little corner of it. When you are 17% of 33% of the world (such that roughly 94.4% of all people are outside your immediate group) you don't help yourself by stereotyping and demonizing that 94.4%.

It's rather like some new forum visitors who come in with guns blazing, don't introduce themselves, etc., and then wonder why people aren't nice to THEM. That's not how you see yourself, but it's literally what it feels like to many of us. It fares well only in comparison to the real immature exemplars of your faith like JeffBase, and that's honestly not saying all that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:24 PM
 
Location: USA
2,751 posts, read 983,176 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
How about you define what "impeachable evidence" is exactly? Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my ancestor was a primate? No you can't but that seems to be the level of evidence that atheists demand to even consider if Christianity is true. Futhermore, can you can prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt? Evidence for anything can easily be torn apart. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
Unimpeachable evidence means much more than simply "That's what I heard," or "That's what my mommy told me." In the final analysis the story of the risen (and flying) Jesus is based entirely upon rumors spread by his followers after he was dead. Hardly uninmpeachable evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Well did it occur to you that maybe most people couldn't read or write in that time period? How silly is it to assume that our modern day society functioned exactly the same way back then.
People dictated letters to paid scribes, and Rome had a very efficient postal service in operation. Yet not a word of this momumental "event" escaped Jerusalem at the time it was supposed ot have occurred. This includes Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" story.

Matthew 27:
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Not a single word of this particular "event" was ever mentioned by anyone, other than Matthew's single account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Why is it ridiculous? Because you never seen someone rise from the dead? How do you know that is impossible? Science certainly hasn't solved all the mysteries to life. If you told me that ancient cultures were far more intelligent than us, I would probably find that ridiculous and unbelievable. Yet we have artifacts like the Voynich manuscript which has stumped the greatest minds in our generation.
impossible
[im-pos-uh-buh l]
adjective
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.:
an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.
4. not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety:
an impossible situation.
5. utterly impracticable:
an impossible plan.
6. hopelessly unsuitable, difficult, or objectionable.

Things which are impossible are things which contradict all observation and experience. A corpse coming back to life and flying away contradicts all observation and experience. Which is why such a claim would require unimpeachable evidence to establish that it was even potentially plausible. "That's what someone said" is NOT unimpeachable evidence.

While interesting, the Voynich manuscript is hardly supernatural.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The Bible is a collection of books from numerous authors spanning centuries yet it has a remarkable consistency with telling and foretelling the coming of Christ all the way back in Genesis 3:15. That alone is a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence.
Except that the name Jesus appears nowhere in the OT and requires Christians to declare that references of Jesus actually exist there. Are you aware that the Muslems have declared that there is a reference to the prophet Muhammad in the Song of Solomon?

Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Islamic apologists have attempted to bolster the credibility of their beliefs by claiming that the Bible, itself, makes reference to the coming of the prophet Muhammad. Ironically, this claim comes even in the face of the prevailing Islamic contention that the Bible has been corrupted, and thus cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of God’s Word. Nevertheless, Muslim polemicist Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Hebrew text of Song of Solomon 5:16. The reader is urged to weigh this claim in light of the exegetical evidence surrounding the passage.

In English, the verse reads: “His mouth is most sweet, yes, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem!” (NKJV). A phonetic transliteration of the underlying Hebrew text reads: Kheeco mahm-tah-keem vuh-coollo ma-kha-madeem zeh dodee veh-tseh ray-ee beh-note yerushalayim. Muslims claim that the bolded word, though translated “altogether lovely,” is the name of Muhammad (Naik, n.d.).
Apologetics Press - Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad?

The Jews aren't buying this particular reinterpretation of their book either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: USA
2,751 posts, read 983,176 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
You can buy people books and send them to school, but you can't make them study, and you can't prove anything to a Christian who doesn't study enough, much less an Atheist. I say there is a mountain of evidence just from the hidden language behind the language, but even the majority of Christians never find this language or practice it in order to learn it.


Jesus came speaking in Parables using a hidden language of design, and if you aren't obsessed with learning that language, you can read those parables every day and never know what they mean. It's just like the book of Revelation that looks crazy, but it is speaking in a language not English. You have to know all the holy days, traditions, rituals, prayers, duties of the priests, and you have to put your feet in the shoes of a Jew being raised to be a rabbi.


Proving God to a Gentile would be like trying to prove Einstein's theories to people who never learned math.
Maybe Jesus would have left less confusion behind him if he actually said what he meant. Writing something in his own hand and leaving that to posterity would have been very useful in making his message less obscure as well. Apparently he never thought of that. Which represents a serious lack of forethought for a major deity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:32 PM
Status: "tired of the nonsense." (set 19 days ago)
 
4,933 posts, read 1,220,644 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Four times zero IS zero, you know. Which speaks to the need for a valid BASIS for evidence. I think by now even you have to admit that you're not offering evidence we'll accept. The question then is, are you willing to listen to our actual issues with that evidence, make sure you correctly understand our issues, or will you simply dismiss them with simplistic explanations such as "you're stubborn" or "you hate god" or "you're spiritually blind"?
I sincerely doubt that there is such a thing as evidence that you'd be willing to accept.
Quote:
If you would drop such self-ratifying nonsense we might get somewhere.

I mean, there are only the following ways forward for you that I can think of:

1) Figure out some way to convince us -- clearly what you're doing isn't working.
Impossible. The atheists on this site have dug in and are not willing to budge. I don't expect to argue you into God's kingdom...because the Bible tells us it won't happen unless God changes your heart. But I will defend against the silly accusations for the benefit of lurkers.
Quote:
2) Failing that, at least get clear that we have a reasonable (to us at least) basis for our rejection of your truth claims, don't take it personally, but make sure you don't project on us reasons that have nothing to do with what is actually going on.

We might not reach your hoped-for outcome (a Damascus Road experience for even one of us) but at least we'd come away better understanding our ACTUAL positions. We'd feel respected and heard.

But that would require that you respect and hear us, and I don't think (and I say this as kindly as possible) you're able and willing to do either. All you are able to lead with is dogma, generally speaking. This is only good for preaching to the choir.

I appreciate
I know you think you do. You simply don't believe. I recognize that. If you refuse to believe, nothing I say will change that.


Quote:
very much that in the separate discussion (today IIRC) about issues around terminal illness, suffering and suicide, you were able to express your ideals and acknowledge at least the possibility that, if they were tested, you might change your mind concerning for example whether you would enter hospice care rather than fight tooth and nail to the bitter end in the face of a fatal illness diagnosis (which fight you presently consider the ideal). This shows, in that particular area, epistemological humility, and a recognition that people of good conscience could hold views different from yours without being in any way derogatory or unfriendly just by doing so or explaining why they disagree.

Given that you're capable of this, I wonder if you could consider applying it to less abstract possibilities, not just ones that you think / hope you may never have to actually wrestle with. I'm inviting you to wrestle with the possibility that your doctrine is less objectively and demonstrably right than you think it is, that people can disagree in whole or in part with it and still be honorable persons of integrity who want to share their existence with you with good will. That in fact people can totally disagree with your theology, be part of a different group or tribe or denomination or belief system or political persuasion and not be in any way a threat to you, your actual rights and legitimate needs. That you almost certainly have things you can learn from us, despite disagreement.

A good start would be less regurgitation of talking points and more listening. Repeating back things to make sure you take the actual meaning. Not making unwarranted assumptions about motivations.

I grant you that next to, e.g., JeffBase and some others here you are positively reasonable, so there's that. But if you can't start looking for common ground you're not going to find much either.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

And yes ... some of us unbelievers could take the same advice. But you can only control your own conduct in the world, not that of others. I'd like to think that I, and others, have shown good will in this regard. In fact it's pretty easy for me because I used to be part of your belief system and quite devoted to it, so it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from.

So I understand your frustration in our not being impressed with, say, the gospels, the NT in general, that we don't see the fulfilled prophecies that you do, etc. But it's a simple fact that evangelicals (of which you're a part) represent roughly 17% of people who identify as Christian, on a worldwide basis, and in turn, those who so identify represent about a third of the world population.
I think unreasonable expectations are placed on the Gospels. I don't think it has anything to do with the Gospels--but unreasonably expectations would be placed on ANY NUMBER of texts we came up with. If there were 12 Gospels....someone would complain that there weren't 14.
Quote:
So it's just good sense to try to understand the 66% of humans who don't understand even cultural Christianity, much less your little corner of it. When you are 17% of 33% of the world (such that roughly 94.4% of all people are outside your immediate group) you don't help yourself by stereotyping and demonizing that 94.4%.
I recognize that many are simply nominal adherents. I get that.
Quote:

It's rather like some new forum visitors who come in with guns blazing, don't introduce themselves, etc., and then wonder why people aren't nice to THEM. That's not how you see yourself, but it's literally what it feels like to many of us. It fares well only in comparison to the real immature exemplars of your faith like JeffBase, and that's honestly not saying all that much.
To be fair, the atmosphere around this forum is pretty hostile to ANY Christian who dares to actually say what the Bible says--whether they take time to establish familiarity with everyone or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top