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)
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:24 AM
 
9,673 posts, read 12,336,055 times
Reputation: 3487

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I'd say they're addicted to anti Christian rage, and like with all addicts, you don't change your drug of choice easily. To switch their rage target to something else would be difficult and would leave them in withdrawal. There are rage addict targets of choice all across the spectrum, this forum just seems to be a back alley strewn with dirty needles dripping anti Christian hate. *shrugs and gets another cup of coffee*
"Would leave them in withdrawal". That's hilarious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
14,563 posts, read 9,989,369 times
Reputation: 2502
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
No. I'm sure someone else has described it better as "different aspects" of the same divine.
Ummm. No Ozzy. That doesn't work mate. I can allow two different aspect within the same religion such as a difference in the definition of say...hell. But how can you claim that two diametrically opposed religion which are divided by such beliefs as ...'There is only one god' V 'There are many gods' or 'We go to heaven or hell' V ' We are reincarnated.' are essentially...the same god belief.

Quote:
I want to know what your personal motive is for asking a question like that
. Nothing more than, as you say that Christianity must be true because it has lasted for 2000 years, I want to see if you also think that religions that far exceed 2000 years are also true. You said yes, that is indeed what you think, so now we have an interesting situation whereby you think that Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and quite a few other pagan religions are all true. I find that interesting, not to mention bizarre!

Quote:
Religious beliefs are set in stone against skeptics like yourself. You are never going to change what other people believe.
Well, I do disagree there as I have witnessed a couple of theists leaving their religion after being swayed by reason and logic. Nevertheless, it is not theists that we seek to 'de-convert'. WE know that most of them are a lost cause. But there are thousands out there that read these boards and never post here who are sitting on the fence. I have had two people contact me to say that they have been swayed by the atheist argument.

Quote:
As a non-believer you should know that someone's belief shouldn't matter to you... or does it?
Well as I have said many times on this forum. I am opposed to wilful ignorance and superstition and I have fought it for 50 years. I don't intend to give up now so yes, what people believe DOES matter to me, especially if what they believe is propagating wilful ignorance and superstition - and even moreso if the beliefs are being slid under the doors of our schools and governments under the guise of 'science.'

Quote:
Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a reason that atheists are so obsessed with religion.
There is. We see it as detrimental to society. It is divisive, primitive, dangerous, it takes advantage of the weak and then has the cheek to expect immunity from criticism for no other reason than it's someone’s "belief". Some of us are not prepared to put up with it any longer.

Quote:
What are you seeking?
I can only speak for myself. I seek an end to wilful ignorance and superstition. The sort of wilful ignorance that says...'I don't care what you say; I don't care what evidence you present - I am not going to change my mind'

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Exactly. Exactly, Ozzy.

I'm turning a new leaf, and only answering questions that appear sincere.

My post count here on this forum is about to come to a screeching halt. ;D
You mean that you are only going to answer questions that don't put you on hot coals. That's OK. We are used to that when it comes to theists
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,618 posts, read 668,463 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I'd say they're addicted to anti Christian rage, and like with all addicts, you don't change your drug of choice easily. To switch their rage target to something else would be difficult and would leave them in withdrawal. There are rage addict targets of choice all across the spectrum, this forum just seems to be a back alley strewn with dirty needles dripping anti Christian hate. *shrugs and gets another cup of coffee*

Among the rage addicts, though, I think there are people who are genuinely interested in discussing religious beliefs, although they don't hold any themselves, and so it makes for an interesting board.
So much straw. And a persecution complex as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:45 AM
 
8,575 posts, read 3,358,174 times
Reputation: 21963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Ummm. No Ozzy. That doesn't work mate. I can allow two different aspect within the same religion such as a difference in the definition of say...hell. But how can you claim that two diametrically opposed religion which are divided by such beliefs as ...'There is only one god' V 'There are many gods' or 'We go to heaven or hell' V ' We are reincarnated.' are essentially...the same god belief.

. Nothing more than, as you say that Christianity must be true because it has lasted for 2000 years, I want to see if you also think that religions that far exceed 2000 years are also true. You said yes, that is indeed what you think, so now we have an interesting situation whereby you think that Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and quite a few other pagan religions are all true. I find that interesting, not to mention bizarre!

Well, I do disagree there as I have witnessed a couple of theists leaving their religion after being swayed by reason and logic. Nevertheless, it is not theists that we seek to 'de-convert'. WE know that most of them are a lost cause. But there are thousands out there that read these boards and never post here who are sitting on the fence. I have had two people contact me to say that they have been swayed by the atheist argument.

Well as I have said many times on this forum. I am opposed to wilful ignorance and superstition and I have fought it for 50 years. I don't intend to give up now so yes, what people believe DOES matter to me, especially if what they believe is propagating wilful ignorance and superstition - and even moreso if the beliefs are being slid under the doors of our schools and governments under the guise of 'science.'

There is. We see it as detrimental to society. It is divisive, primitive, dangerous, it takes advantage of the weak and then has the cheek to expect immunity from criticism for no other reason than it's someone’s "belief". Some of us are not prepared to put up with it any longer.

I can only speak for myself. I seek an end to wilful ignorance and superstition. The sort of wilful ignorance that says...'I don't care what you say; I don't care what evidence you present - I am not going to change my mind'

You mean that you are only going to answer questions that don't put you on hot coals. That's OK. We are used to that when it comes to theists
I certainly don't mind questions that are very thought-provoking, or are posed from the position of nonbelief.

I have no reason to be on "hot coals", though, because my personal beliefs are not your business, and I don't have to be forced to defend them to an audience that isn't interested in listening. I'm sure you can comprehend that. (well maybe not?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,618 posts, read 668,463 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
I said investigate; most of which is not reading.
But you have to read the texts to investigate what the early Christians thought, when they thought what they did, and when they changed it for religious and political reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
There's no reason to learn another language. That's dumb. The experts have already done their work. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.
OK, you believe the religious lies instead of investigating with an open mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
The reading is only to get the basics for groundwork to know who Jesus was. It should be done, but then one moves on.
Which Jesus? The angel, the son of the Jewish god, the Jesus who is god, or the Jesus who is the son of a god different to the Jewish god. They are ALL in the NT if you investigated it with an open mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
The last thing I'm going to do is sit around analyzing scripture under the microscope.
That is obvious. but then you can not accuse us of not investigating, or having closed minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,618 posts, read 668,463 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
Wow. That is breath-taking, but I don't want to read too much between the lines, so let me play back what I THINK you're saying, to see if it's accurate....

"Everyone should have the guts (or balls, if you got 'em) to investigate Christianity fully and entirely, before they criticize it. But this thorough investigation isn't helped by going back to the original source documents, which might get us closest to the real picture. Rather, we should just accept at face value whatever bastardized version of events made it through several centuries of biased translation and editing, to support a political and theological narrative (presumably the KJV Bible?). And then, armed with that biased version of events, we really need to get out in the "real world" to absorb all the information floating around for the taking, which will teach us everything we need to know about the origins of Christianity. You can't learn nothin' by reading.

Did I get that right?
Too soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:55 AM
 
8,575 posts, read 3,358,174 times
Reputation: 21963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
So much straw. And a persecution complex as well.
Maybe you don't know about people addicted to their own rage? I do. It's a thing.

It's like people who are addicted to their exercise adrenaline, and start to get withdrawal symptoms if their typical work out time has passed and they're still at their desk.

There are people addicted to the adrenaline that is released when they rage, and they tend to try to find the same exact trigger for their rage. Like hating Jews, hating Blacks, hating liberals, hating conservatives, hating Hilary, hating Trump, on and on and on.

And for them, it's very uncomfortable for the to go any real length of time without a "fix".

Not sure where the persecution complex came in, but oh well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
14,563 posts, read 9,989,369 times
Reputation: 2502
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
I wonder why so many western atheists probably have no real problem with the non-western views of Hell or the variations in eastern religions, but they seem to be so obsessed with the Christian version. It's pretty funny actually.
What is pretty funny is that you don't know why. It's because Buddhists are not trying to get their religion into governments and places of learning. Neither are Hindus or Shintoists. Neither Hindus or Shintoists, Zoroastrians or Celtic Pagans, Taoists or Druids trying to introduce laws to affect us all based on what they think their gods want for us. Christianity IS. As for Muslims, I fight them just like I fight Christians. Do you understand now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
14,563 posts, read 9,989,369 times
Reputation: 2502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I have no reason to be on "hot coals", though, because my personal beliefs are not your business, and I don't have to be forced to defend them to an audience that isn't interested in listening. I'm sure you can comprehend that. (well maybe not?)
Then why don't you drag yourself over to the Christian forum. It would make more sense because there, you are less likely to get challenged and you can all happy clap together. It simply seem ludicrous to me to spend your time on a board where you are going to get challenged and then claim that you are not going to answer questions that you don't like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,618 posts, read 668,463 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I am not comparing the 'rejection' passages with the baptism passages. I am comparing all three 'rejection' passages and (separately)
all three 'baptism' passages. In the first three only Luke mentions Nazareth and in the second three, only Mark does. In both cases they can be seen as clarifying additions by those two writers.

Or maybe you meant something else. Did i number the passages incorrectly?
I think we are talking past each other. I was referring to the one mention of Nazareth in Mark, and why it is probably a later 'correction'. We look at the same parallel pericope in the other gospels (the baptism of Jesus), and look at the same parallel verses to see if and how they have been changed.

So the parallels for Mark 1:9 (In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan).

are

Matt 3:13 (Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him).
Luke 3:21 (Now it happened, when all the people were baptized, Jesus also had been baptized, and was praying. The sky was opened,)

No mention of Nazareth in the parallel passage Matt 3:13. So that and the unusual double location is a big clue Mark did not mention Nazareth.
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

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, 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