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.
Just for change of pace I went through a list of 60 "guaranteed" prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled. I could not believe what I was reading. If these are prophecies, they are fulfilled by Jesus only in the fevered imaginations and wishful thinking of the most ardent Christians. Some of them are so ridiculous it shames me to even bring them up but here are a few:
Of course one of the most infamous is Matthew blatant backfire of having Jesus riding into a Jerusalem on a horse and also a donkey:
"Behold, your King is coming to you;
Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, (a horse) the foal of a donkey."
So I guess this would make Matthew a bit of a horse's @sz, wouldn't it?
Then there is
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11:1.
Anyone can clearly see that the baby child is in fact Israel being called out of Egypt during the Exodus, but that's not good enough to suit Matthew. He wants this prophecy to be about Jesus. So he invents the story of Herod's slaughter of the children so he can have Jesus Mary and Joseph running to Egypt and then calling them back to Israel. Pretty dramatic stuff. The stuff that makes for best-selling novels. The only problem is none of it is true. Luke tells an entirely different tale in the nativity story. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. It's shocking to me that gullible Christians fall for this nonsense.
More proof that Jesus the divine son of God never existed.
Mt 2:13 - ...an angel of the Lord told Joseph to take the child to Egypt---v14; so Joseph took the child to Egypt---v15, He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what was spoke through the prophet(Hosea),
Then Matthew mentions Jesus over 50 times as does Mark, Luke and John. Anyone without a preconceived idea can clearly see the child is Jesus. If Matthew wanted to show it was Jesus, the story would have ended after chapter 2, but it didn't, and the the gospel writer would not have mentioned Jesus at all.
It is not the gullible who accept the story, it is those with understanding.
It is gullible to accept the versions offered by those with preconceived ideas.
It really is astonishing how the one thing we are not getting is any proofs of Jesus.
Not really old horse. You and I both know that the reason we aren't getting any verifiable evidence for their man-god is....there is none! It's that simple old plumb. We both know that if there was any verifiable evidence for the Christian man-god, it would have been produced yonks ago and the discussion would be settled. For 2000 years, Christians have looked under every stone for evidence that would prove their man-god was real and, finding nothing, they have invented it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610
Why? Jesus could be standing in front of you and you would call him a fraud.
There is no point in attempting to tell you anything because all you want to do is argue.
Ah yes! that old chestnut!! When you don't have any verifiable evidence to support your claims, just pretend that you do have it but that it's not worth showing it ...because those asking for the evidence wouldn't believe it anyway!
Quote:
I am curious though why you talk so much about someone you do not believe ever lived.
To counter the wilful ignorance and superstition of those that DO believe he lived.
We ought to have a thread on that but I'd say it is where Bible -literalism kicks in. It is where what a lot of God believers would consider a metaphor of mans' condition is made Genesis literalism. The 'Fundies' would say 'No. That really happened'.
This of course comes out mainly in Genesis. And the Ark and Flood scenario is perhaps the eminence grize towering over all the rest. Jonah's whale or Big Fish is another. But it's also very much a NT matter, too. Virgin birth, Nativity star, Gadarene swine, Shekel -eating fish. These are just as Fundymental questions as the OT ones. Jesus' exhortations on the mount are just as open to question as the commandments of the OT, parting of the Read Sea or the whole very edifying Lot -story.
And increasingly the Big One of the resurrection - even bigger than the Ark and flood - may, under a sort of critique of "The resurrection; a Feasibility study" of which there hasn't been one - one either believed it as a true account or dismissed it as a miracle claim which could not (by definition (1) happen - come to be shown to be unfeasible (2) as a believable account and may come to be seen as a metaphor or symbol for a spiritual resurection which I would accept the disciples did believe had happenned. I don't have to agree they were right. In fact i would disagree with them as much as I would disagree with the Fundies or Bible Literalists would would insist the story was fact and never mind that it doesn't work.
(1) Miracles are things that do not happen. The resurrection is a miracle, therefore it did not happen, Bingo, QED and I get to press the button again.
(2) I can't believe that's how it's actually spelt.
Homosexuality is a sin = literal. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. = allegory....
...or to put it another way.
Anything that you like and want to follow = literal.
Anything you don't like and don't want to follow = allegory.
There is another way. Jesus done person to do that, not every Christian.
If I gave all of my money away, I would not be able to help others. Also others would have to help me. Why should I get help when I am perfectly capable of helping myself? God never condemns wealth is gotten honestly. He condemns the love of money and how it is obtained.
Some of the OT characters ever very wealthy: Abraham and Solomon etc.
Is there a web site that can explains the difference between funi-christian and extreme-fundi-christian?
What is the dividing line between the two? You guys are all in agreement until one does something that's extreme.
What is that line? What is that act that elevates a christian to extreme?
It is a matter of not properly understanding the term. Fundamentalism is based on a theology of sol scriptura. We get all of our theology only from the Bible. The secular view usually expressed say fundamentalist insist the Bible is all literal. Those denominations who do accept that, are not true fundamentalists.
There is another way. Jesus done person to do that, not every Christian.
If I gave all of my money away, I would not be able to help others. Also others would have to help me. Why should I get help when I am perfectly capable of helping myself? God never condemns wealth is gotten honestly. He condemns the love of money and how it is obtained.
Some of the OT characters ever very wealthy: Abraham and Solomon etc.
That's certainly the humanist socially -functioning unit -view and thanks for confirming that is the way you actually live just as much as we secularists do, and quite rightly.
But it isn't the message of Gospel Jesus and forget about the rich men of the OT - Jesus made all that obsolete - even sabbath observance. While it is true that he likes to have dinner withn the wealthy - Pharisees, Tax colectors and Synagoge rulers rather than share the poor fare of the poor, the gospel message is
"Don't worry about where you next meal is coming from - God will provide. Don't hang on to your money: guarantee your place in heaven by giving it all away and following Jesus."
That is the message of the gospels, and then when you have given it all away and become a poor follower yourself..why then Jesus and his church will seek out new rich men to hang around.
In effect, yes, though it would be more true to say that the tasrget is religious influence on society, whether it is fundamentalist or not. In fact Creationists are the most alarmingly dangerous because they target science in education. The Others simply want people obedient to the church.
I don't think you can lump all religion together like that trans. Religious influence is not a bad thing, religious influence that takes things to the extremes like the one you pointed out above do need to be targeted and pointed out their error. But that goes both ways, the extreme atheists that want to destroy ALL religion and ALL costs also needs to be targeted; as both are stating the same thing, either believe like we do or else. It is nothing more then a hate based mentality towards those who do not agree with them.
What I would like to see is an even playing field as it were. If people are going to speak out against extremes then should not those same people speaks out against the extremes in there own field as it were?
I have often taken to task those who hold an extreme religion but have yet to see an atheist do that to one of their own. It is as if they are scared to get kick out of the club or something.
Quote:
I have come to see the value of religion, When points are made about the uses it has and how it might be socially necessary, I accept it. I also accept various possibilities about Cosmic minds or NDE's, but reserve Belief until some decent evidence is produced.
Glad to here that Trans. Believe it or not I also value the scientific method atheist use and see no reason they cannot co exist in peaceful fashion.
Quote:
That's me, but this is the general view of atheism, including 'Militant' atheism, which is simply Old style atheism but doing something about the harmful effects of organized religion (fundy or not) and advocating a humanist based society and removing religion from society (separation of Church and state being one aspect,).
What about the harmful effects of militant atheism? In my post to AJ I gave a couple of examples from Dawkens book.
Quote:
There is a place for Theists in rolling back religious influence too, because they can see the harm and also a humanist society protects their own freedom to believe something other than the orthodoxy. Irreligious god -believers are often more allies of Militant atheists than so called atheists who fight Change tooth and nail.
I agree that religion has caused a lot of hurt to people and it should be more humanist in it approach, but again that goes both ways, the atheist must also tow that same line.
Quote:
And so are those who say they Know what they believe is true. Of course they don't and are agnostic, as inded we all are, because nobody really knows. Theism and atheism is not about what we know, but about what we believe. Theists believe what they do not know, and they may feel they have good reasons for it. It's what the debate is about.
Atheists do not believe because, while we do not know for sure, we see a total lack of good reason to believe any god -claim.
Of course we do say 'there is no God', but there are caveats with that, as theists are with 'I know God exists'. caveats and qualifications. It's just that only in the detailed nit -picking of debate and trying to get any kind of Edge do these nuances on terminology become so terribly important.
I agree we are all agnostic in the sense that there are some things we just do not know.
Quote:
I must say I am happy the way our discussion is going. A discussion rather than debate, now, and mutual understanding rather than one beating the other to a frizzled frazzle looks to be the possible (and preferrable) result.
Ya me too.
Quote:
Atheists don't so much want to Win - we just want to be Understood
Actually jealously is an sign of love. If a partner commits adultery, the other partner would only be jealous if he/she loved there other person.
One thing that causes jealously is suspicion. When the Bible says "love is not jealous," it is indicating complete trust in the partner.
Why did god invent jealousy?
Is there jealousy in heaven?
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.
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.
but I'd say it is where Bible -literalism kicks in. It is where what a lot of God believers would consider a metaphor of mans' condition is made Genesis literalism. The 'Fundies' would say 'No. That really happened'. 
(1) happen - come to be shown to be unfeasible (2) as a believable account and may come to be seen as a metaphor or symbol for a spiritual resurection which I would accept the disciples did believe had happenned. I don't have to agree they were right. In fact i would disagree with them as much as I would disagree with the Fundies or Bible Literalists would would insist the story was fact and never mind that it doesn't work.
