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.
I don't know why you continually have your panties in a wad about atheists insulting Christians. As I've stated before... It's Christians that are claiming that atheists are going to burn in hell because they won't bend the knee and believe.
If anything is worth being discredited and insulted... it is that.
They won't leave us alone. So why should we be obligated to be nice to them.
Where I live a common question when you get introduced to new people is "have you found a church home yet?" Yet, to you and others like you... if the first thing out of our mouths when we met a new person was "have you realized there is no God yet?"... you would think that was terrible and hateful.
My tactic is this. They say "have you found a church home yet?" I then ask, "no, what church to you go to?"
Then they tell me the church the attend. And then I say, "I'm sorry, but I'm an (pick out a church with significant doctrinal beliefs than theirs) and we think the people in your church are going straight to hell... with all those atheists."
Over half the posts on this board are Atheists insuting and mocking Abrahamic Religion Adherents.
Please show me all these posts on this board where Christians are telling Atheists they are, "going to burn in hell because they won't bend the knee and believe". I've never seen them.
I certainly have seen nothing like the story you relate. And if that's how you talk to people that ask you something so innocuous...you have serious issues.
But...I don't believe you. I call defamation. Prove your slanderous claim.
I got that same question a lot when I moved to Colorado Springs. I gave a very simple answer: "You don't know me well enough to ask that question. Mind your business." I eve got that question from the clerk at the grocery store checkout that I didn't even know.
It DOES seem like a basic understanding of Christianity would including "minding one's own business", but, alas and alack ... it apparently does not.
Really the questions you get in the South and some other areas about where you go to church are just triangulations to determine if your'e in the in-group or the out-group or in some sort of barely tolerated purgatory of "deluded but still a potential convert". It has nothing to do with spiritual concern and everything to do with seeing if you can be shamed and blamed into joining the club. Also it is a crude shortcut to determine if you're "okay" to associate with or not.
In the Bible Belt it appears you are either "one of us" or someone to disparage, exclude and gossip about. How very Christian! Behold how they love one another!
It DOES seem like a basic understanding of Christianity would including "minding one's own business", but, alas and alack ... it apparently does not.
Really the questions you get in the South and some other areas about where you go to church are just triangulations to determine if your'e in the in-group or the out-group or in some sort of barely tolerated purgatory of "deluded but still a potential convert". It has nothing to do with spiritual concern and everything to do with seeing if you can be shamed and blamed into joining the club. Also it is a crude shortcut to determine if you're "okay" to associate with or not.
In the Bible Belt it appears you are either "one of us" or someone to disparage, exclude and gossip about. How very Christian! Behold how they love one another!
It DOES seem like a basic understanding of Christianity would including "minding one's own business", but, alas and alack ... it apparently does not.
Really the questions you get in the South and some other areas about where you go to church are just triangulations to determine if your'e in the in-group or the out-group or in some sort of barely tolerated purgatory of "deluded but still a potential convert". It has nothing to do with spiritual concern and everything to do with seeing if you can be shamed and blamed into joining the club. Also it is a crude shortcut to determine if you're "okay" to associate with or not.
In the Bible Belt it appears you are either "one of us" or someone to disparage, exclude and gossip about. How very Christian! Behold how they love one another!
That is so true. With the fundamentalists, usually shortly after meeting someone, the question follows after all the fake niceties are over. "Where do you go to church?" My answer to that now is "I don't." That's it and I change the subject.
It is not worth getting in a verbal war and run the risk of making said religious person mad enough to ruin you. That is NOT a stretch. In the South. Even the mouth of the South doesn't go around advertising or trying to convert them to something that they would rather die before becoming.
They all going to fly high in the sky pretty soon, while us heatherns (that's how some people here really pronounce it) are left behind to be stung and eaten by giant monster insects. Yeah, that sounds real.
The question is not if Christ existed...it's if Jesus existed.
I don't care, myself...the mojo is the same, regardless. I've even stated that I see it as even more impressive if the Jesus character in The Bible is fully a invention of literary artistic genius.
I view The Bible as a metaphorical and allegorical work of literary art...and among, if not the most, epic and prolific writings of all time.
But...whether the Jesus character was actually based upon a person that existed, is a common question.
And...as per the determination of the majority of scholars and others that have done the most specific and focused research on it...that character is based upon a itinerant Rabbi that was a person who did exist at that time.
Certainly, reason would dictate that I defer to them...especially over a few Anti-Religion keyboard warrior nobodies.
Unless you can show credentials and citations that would put you in their status...the suggestion that you would be a superior authority to turn to for that answer has very little merit.
So you are not interested in what the text literally says, you are just interested in argument from biased authority who pretend the text says something else, while ignoring the actual credited authorities that agree with me (or after checking, I agree with them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
As I said...I'd be more impressed if he was a fully created character...but based upon what I can see is the conglomerate of research work done on it, the majority consensus is that the character was based upon a real person.
You all are working off a obsessive biased agenda to discredit and insult Christians and Christianity...and I know that. And that is a big factor to whether I view you as credible.
Who cares about the opinion of a narcissist, your rant is to me sausage. I am doing a hobby I enjoy, investigating the history of the early Christian religions (yes, plural). It is you who is working off an obsessive biased agenda to discredit and insult atheists, and we all know that.
And the only reason I bother to respond to you is because you make the religious look stupid and dishonest, and it amuses me when other theists pat you on the back while you stick the knife in theirs.
But is it also possible that the rearrangement could have been so others would have a better understanding of what he was trying to say?
I doubt that, considering some of the rearrangements disrupt the flow of his arguments. Paul was obviously a passionate writer, and from his literary style, he was also well educated. His messages are clear where his letters are not rearranged.
So you are not interested in what the text literally says, you are just interested in argument from biased authority who pretend the text says something else, while ignoring the actual credited authorities that agree with me (or after checking, I agree with them).
Who cares about the opinion of a narcissist, your rant is to me sausage. I am doing a hobby I enjoy, investigating the history of the early Christian religions (yes, plural). It is you who is working off an obsessive biased agenda to discredit and insult atheists, and we all know that.
And the only reason I bother to respond to you is because you make the religious look stupid and dishonest, and it amuses me when other theists pat you on the back while you stick the knife in theirs.
Well...it's great to see it is still working as good as ever...and continues to keep you helplessly compelled to use my material. Good, good.
I told you that you wouldn't be able to stop.
HOWBOWDAH?!!
I call out Atheist derisives...you find that to be a "discredit" to you.
The Religious aren't stupid and dishonest...that is what you all spend every day for years saying in tens of thousands of posts. And you say it in every way, from every angle.
I point out how disrespectful and uncouth that is of you to do.
I couldn't discredit Atheists any more than they already are...you can't get lower than they are already viewed.
I didn't make it this way...it just is: https://www.livescience.com/50872-at...-of-death.html
I doubt that, considering some of the rearrangements disrupt the flow of his arguments. Paul was obviously a passionate writer, and from his literary style, he was also well educated. His messages are clear where his letters are not rearranged.
I doubt that, considering some of the rearrangements disrupt the flow of his arguments. Paul was obviously a passionate writer, and from his literary style, he was also well educated. His messages are clear where his letters are not rearranged.
This makes sense in that, if someone wanted to modify / distort / change Paul's original message, they would necessarily have to make them less clear. One would expect diddled passages to be obtuse and/or confusing.
This makes sense in that, if someone wanted to modify / distort / change Paul's original message, they would necessarily have to make them less clear. One would expect diddled passages to be obtuse and/or confusing.
Paul would have been quite a well-known figure in the Mediterranean, making several trips from one port city to another, setting up all these churches and rubbing shoulder with all the elites of the areas he went to. How is it that not a single historian took note of his inexhaustible work for Christianity and his fame? It boggles the mind he wasn't known well enough to be mentioned in passing by at least one of the dozens of reputable historians writing in that period. Seems almost impossible. Maybe it just IS impossible. Maybe Paul is just another anonymous figment started by rumors and his letters were actually written by someone else, like Marcion for example. I mean we haven't a single fragment, not even a scrap of his letters. That's suspicious. Wouldn't at least one of these churches preserve the document for posterity? Smells to high 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.
