Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko.
Ah - I see what you are saying. Thanks for the explanation.

[toddytodd]

Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

[John]

toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

[toddytodd]

John wrote: toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

The proof would lie with my IT department tracing back to this IP address through their "Capture History" logs. If I were important enough, my followers would have some type of documenting procedure to prove what I written or said.
If something actually happens, there is proof to show it, although one may have to look long and hard to find it. We might, some day, find irrefutable proof of God. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But as of today, there is no proof.
As I said, there is no solid proof that any story in the bible is true as described The main reason could be the way it was actually written - word of mouth and handed down over time until someone finally had the idea "Hey, I should write this down...".
The only 'truth' lies in each individual's belief that it happened, not in the empirical evidence that it happened. That is what your faith is for. One who believes has faith that it happened, not proof. Their strict adherence to their faith and broad interpretation of their faith leads them to their own 'proof' or 'fact'. Which for them, that's fine. Don't expect others to use your faith in something to prove their beliefs.
Even your faith comes from what is written and what you are told, not entirely from your experiences. Yes you have had some 'unaccountable' experiences, but until you actually (and document) part the sea, calm the storm, drive out demons, have you pencil turn into snakes to eat the other office worker's pencils, turn water into wine, etc, you rely on those written stories of proof of the miracles and therefore, God's existence.
Unexplainable things happen to me all the time - is it God? Maybe, but I won't say "Yes, definitely" because I can't know. To suggest that would mean I have enough understanding of all powerful all knowing God, and as a mere human, that's not possible.

[John]

toddytodd wrote: John wrote: toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

The proof would lie with my IT department tracing back to this IP address through their "Capture History" logs. If I were important enough, my followers would have some type of documenting procedure to prove what I written or said.
If something actually happens, there is proof to show it, although one may have to look long and hard to find it. We might, some day, find irrefutable proof of God. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But as of today, there is no proof.
As I said, there is no solid proof that any story in the bible is true as described The main reason could be the way it was actually written - word of mouth and handed down over time until someone finally had the idea "Hey, I should write this down...".
The only 'truth' lies in each individual's belief that it happened, not in the empirical evidence that it happened. That is what your faith is for. One who believes has faith that it happened, not proof. Their strict adherence to their faith and broad interpretation of their faith leads them to their own 'proof' or 'fact'. Which for them, that's fine. Don't expect others to use your faith in something to prove their beliefs.
Even your faith comes from what is written and what you are told, not entirely from your experiences. Yes you have had some 'unaccountable' experiences, but until you actually (and document) part the sea, calm the storm, drive out demons, have you pencil turn into snakes to eat the other office worker's pencils, turn water into wine, etc, you rely on those written stories of proof of the miracles and therefore, God's existence.
Unexplainable things happen to me all the time - is it God? Maybe, but I won't say "Yes, definitely" because I can't know. To suggest that would mean I have enough understanding of all powerful all knowing God, and as a mere human, that's not possible.

That couldn't in anyway "prove" to me..that you wrote it. I'd have to basically take your word for it and weigh the likely hood that you are telling the truth. If you were important enough..and I respected you..that would be enough.

[toddytodd]

John wrote: toddytodd wrote: John wrote: toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

The proof would lie with my IT department tracing back to this IP address through their "Capture History" logs. If I were important enough, my followers would have some type of documenting procedure to prove what I written or said.
If something actually happens, there is proof to show it, although one may have to look long and hard to find it. We might, some day, find irrefutable proof of God. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But as of today, there is no proof.
As I said, there is no solid proof that any story in the bible is true as described The main reason could be the way it was actually written - word of mouth and handed down over time until someone finally had the idea "Hey, I should write this down...".
The only 'truth' lies in each individual's belief that it happened, not in the empirical evidence that it happened. That is what your faith is for. One who believes has faith that it happened, not proof. Their strict adherence to their faith and broad interpretation of their faith leads them to their own 'proof' or 'fact'. Which for them, that's fine. Don't expect others to use your faith in something to prove their beliefs.
Even your faith comes from what is written and what you are told, not entirely from your experiences. Yes you have had some 'unaccountable' experiences, but until you actually (and document) part the sea, calm the storm, drive out demons, have you pencil turn into snakes to eat the other office worker's pencils, turn water into wine, etc, you rely on those written stories of proof of the miracles and therefore, God's existence.
Unexplainable things happen to me all the time - is it God? Maybe, but I won't say "Yes, definitely" because I can't know. To suggest that would mean I have enough understanding of all powerful all knowing God, and as a mere human, that's not possible.

That couldn't in anyway "prove" to me..that you wrote it. I'd have to basically take your word for it and weigh the likely hood that you are telling the truth. If you were important enough..and I respected you..that would be enough.

Why and how do you believe in the bible? Because you want to believe - there is no other answer. God may have 'told' you this (which is debatable itself), but you choose to believe what 'He said'. There is no proof that it was written by God through people, only that it was written by people.
But that is everyone's choice to believe in something or not. People can believe (or not) actual proof, or blow off proof, especially when it doesn't coincide with their assumed ideals.
But if you can't honestly see why it's hard for many to believe in God when there is no proof, this points to a biased view of everything (which isn't bad, as long as you keep it to yourself and not force your views on anyone else who doesn't want or agree with them).

[mODULAR mAN]

Revenant wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: its from reading many of them, listening to podcasts, reading books.
Not all sources agree, some are Apologetics, some are more or less skeptikal.

Bob Price is a great Biblical Scholar and fun to read.

Here is a debate "Jesus: Fact or Fiction"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/index.shtml

I forget who "wins" the debate.

Interesting debate. Both actually did very well. However, even in the beginning, Dr. Price admitted that historians have to deal with probabilities, and that nothing is certain.

However there is a stark contrast with what you posted and what Dr. Price is speaking about. He hardly portrays JC as a "wacko". Hell, he still attends Episcopal Church. It seems as if his critiques are of the Christian Right (rightfully so), and not Christianity as a whole. Much of the recent explosion of secularism is in response to reactionary Christians, but it seemed as if Dr. Price is against the rabid fundamentalists, not Christians as a whole.


I said John was a wacko, not JC. John is the one who imbues his tales with much more supernaturalism than the others. It's hard to take John seriously, after all he's the one who wrote Revelations.

Price doesn't believe Jesus even existed, so I don't know if you can call him any kind of Xian.

I have read other things by Price, and listened to him on a number of (lengthy) podcasts: he is no Xian.
He was an apologist and now an atheist. It is his job and passion to talk about the reality of the Bible, and so it doesn't suprise me that he attends church for material.

However, he has often mentioned that he lives in the South surrounded by Xians, and they are "good people", he doesn't engage them in debate at cocktail parties or in the streets.

I woud say he is a preeminent scholar on the Bible, but there are many others. He has his take, and others have theirs (some believe Jesus existed, others don't).

BTW, here is an interesting paper on Mythic markers in writing.
http://www.chass.toronto.edu/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article1en.html

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Revenant wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: its from reading many of them, listening to podcasts, reading books.
Not all sources agree, some are Apologetics, some are more or less skeptikal.

Bob Price is a great Biblical Scholar and fun to read.

Here is a debate "Jesus: Fact or Fiction"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/index.shtml

I forget who "wins" the debate.

Interesting debate. Both actually did very well. However, even in the beginning, Dr. Price admitted that historians have to deal with probabilities, and that nothing is certain.

However there is a stark contrast with what you posted and what Dr. Price is speaking about. He hardly portrays JC as a "wacko". Hell, he still attends Episcopal Church. It seems as if his critiques are of the Christian Right (rightfully so), and not Christianity as a whole. Much of the recent explosion of secularism is in response to reactionary Christians, but it seemed as if Dr. Price is against the rabid fundamentalists, not Christians as a whole.


I said John was a wacko, not JC. John is the one who imbues his tales with much more supernaturalism than the others. It's hard to take John seriously, after all he's the one who wrote Revelations.

Price doesn't believe Jesus even existed, so I don't know if you can call him any kind of Xian.

I have read other things by Price, and listened to him on a number of (lengthy) podcasts: he is no Xian.
He was an apologist and now an atheist. It is his job and passion to talk about the reality of the Bible, and so it doesn't suprise me that he attends church for material.

However, he has often mentioned that he lives in the South surrounded by Xians, and they are "good people", he doesn't engage them in debate at cocktail parties or in the streets.

I woud say he is a preeminent scholar on the Bible, but there are many others. He has his take, and others have theirs (some believe Jesus existed, others don't).

BTW, here is an interesting paper on Mythic markers in writing.
http://www.chass.toronto.edu/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article1en.html

I watched a documentary about Revelations a few eeks ago and they spoke to John's 'wackiness'. Most people now believe him not to be mentally 'crazy', but very upset and just...old...and cranky (for lack of a better term). His writings were more set to symbolically reference current (and sometimes even past) actions of the gov't and his society. Quite interesting and fun to watch.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote: John wrote: toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

The proof would lie with my IT department tracing back to this IP address through their "Capture History" logs. If I were important enough, my followers would have some type of documenting procedure to prove what I written or said.
If something actually happens, there is proof to show it, although one may have to look long and hard to find it. We might, some day, find irrefutable proof of God. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But as of today, there is no proof.
As I said, there is no solid proof that any story in the bible is true as described The main reason could be the way it was actually written - word of mouth and handed down over time until someone finally had the idea "Hey, I should write this down...".
The only 'truth' lies in each individual's belief that it happened, not in the empirical evidence that it happened. That is what your faith is for. One who believes has faith that it happened, not proof. Their strict adherence to their faith and broad interpretation of their faith leads them to their own 'proof' or 'fact'. Which for them, that's fine. Don't expect others to use your faith in something to prove their beliefs.
Even your faith comes from what is written and what you are told, not entirely from your experiences. Yes you have had some 'unaccountable' experiences, but until you actually (and document) part the sea, calm the storm, drive out demons, have you pencil turn into snakes to eat the other office worker's pencils, turn water into wine, etc, you rely on those written stories of proof of the miracles and therefore, God's existence.
Unexplainable things happen to me all the time - is it God? Maybe, but I won't say "Yes, definitely" because I can't know. To suggest that would mean I have enough understanding of all powerful all knowing God, and as a mere human, that's not possible.

Yes, there is enough factual evidence to find out if you are the author of your work, plus, does it matter? (Besides, of course to your future followers :wink: ).

After all, you are writing a post, which is quite common and understandable. YOu are not making a claim that you have transported in spirit and written the words on John's computer screen with laser vision.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: John wrote: toddytodd wrote: Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

And one doesn't need a PHD to write a book on a subject, have an opinion or post an opinion online. Those with PHDs often come to different opinions on the same subject - especially religion.
The only fact about the bible is that is was written and many parts still exist today. There is no proof about what was written in it to be true, no proof of time lines, no proof of exact conversations, etc., which is something we all would do good to remember.

Where is the proof that you actually wrote this comment in this thread?

The proof would lie with my IT department tracing back to this IP address through their "Capture History" logs. If I were important enough, my followers would have some type of documenting procedure to prove what I written or said.
If something actually happens, there is proof to show it, although one may have to look long and hard to find it. We might, some day, find irrefutable proof of God. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But as of today, there is no proof.
As I said, there is no solid proof that any story in the bible is true as described The main reason could be the way it was actually written - word of mouth and handed down over time until someone finally had the idea "Hey, I should write this down...".
The only 'truth' lies in each individual's belief that it happened, not in the empirical evidence that it happened. That is what your faith is for. One who believes has faith that it happened, not proof. Their strict adherence to their faith and broad interpretation of their faith leads them to their own 'proof' or 'fact'. Which for them, that's fine. Don't expect others to use your faith in something to prove their beliefs.
Even your faith comes from what is written and what you are told, not entirely from your experiences. Yes you have had some 'unaccountable' experiences, but until you actually (and document) part the sea, calm the storm, drive out demons, have you pencil turn into snakes to eat the other office worker's pencils, turn water into wine, etc, you rely on those written stories of proof of the miracles and therefore, God's existence.
Unexplainable things happen to me all the time - is it God? Maybe, but I won't say "Yes, definitely" because I can't know. To suggest that would mean I have enough understanding of all powerful all knowing God, and as a mere human, that's not possible.

Yes, there is enough factual evidence to find out if you are the author of your work, plus, does it matter? (Besides, of course to your future followers :wink: ).

After all, you are writing a post, which is quite common and understandable. YOu are not making a claim that you have transported in spirit and written the words on John's computer screen with laser vision.
Quite true. I am not writing about anything that important for people to argue over who I am and what I write. Now, if I were to claim a similar story like what is in the bible, I would expect people to try to verify my claims and look for proof of my character and experiences.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote:
Quite true. I am not writing about anything that important for people to argue over who I am and what I write. Now, if I were to claim a similar story like what is in the bible, I would expect people to try to verify my claims and look for proof of my character and experiences.

Exactly. We have to assume that the laws of physics, and the general experience of life was the same back then. They were more ignorant of science, and they didn't have the printing press (which means tales would have been primarily transmitted orally - like some other things... :wink: :lol: ).

While ancient man was very adept at remembering long tales in great detail, they often embellished (i.e., one person may have been great at remembering a tale word for word, another may have been a great story teller, but embellished when he couldn't remember the details).

So, the level of proof must be in proportion to the claim. If Chuck the Farmer had three nipples, I don't really care if you back it up with proof. But if you claim Chuck the Farmer had lunch with aliens while orbiting Neptune, I expect some extraordinary evidence.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote:
Quite true. I am not writing about anything that important for people to argue over who I am and what I write. Now, if I were to claim a similar story like what is in the bible, I would expect people to try to verify my claims and look for proof of my character and experiences.

Exactly. We have to assume that the laws of physics, and the general experience of life was the same back then. They were more ignorant of science, and they didn't have the printing press (which means tales would have been primarily transmitted orally - like some other things... :wink: :lol: ).

While ancient man was very adept at remembering long tales in great detail, they often embellished (i.e., one person may have been great at remembering a tale word for word, another may have been a great story teller, but embellished when he couldn't remember the details).

So, the level of proof must be in proportion to the claim. If Chuck the Farmer had three nipples, I don't really care if you back it up with proof. But if you claim Chuck the Farmer had lunch with aliens while orbiting Neptune, I expect some extraordinary evidence.

Personally, I would be much more interested in the 'alien lunch' than the how many nipples Chuck had... :x

[mODULAR mAN]

I think they eat nipples... :shock:

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I think they eat nipples... :shock:

Poor Chuck

[LetsGetReal]

Revenant wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining. Why would you trust anything he links or even says.He Misquoted one of the most commonly quoted teachings of CS Lewis to make it appear as if he was Anti-Jesus.If Modular had the ability to read he would have noticed that CS Lewis was making fun of people who call Jesus just a good man.

Here again is the quote he took out of context twiceto prove a erroneous POV:"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity

Now do you see why I laugh at whatever he says, obviously he is a copy/ paste anti-christian many have come through this forum and I'm sure he'll go, because his lies will not hold water here.

P.S. He took most of the other quotes out of context as well but I'm not going to babysit him and correct all his errors. He should know that believing whatever an anti-christian website tells him isn't the best bet. :wink:.

[mODULAR mAN]

I'm sorry you misunderstood my reason for quoting CS Lewis. I am aware he is a proud, and active Xian. My point was regarding the claim of inerrancy in the Bible. CS Lewis, as that quote shows, does not accept ALL of the Bible as inerrant truth.

He does however, practice exceptional Special Pleading because he considers Jesus the manifestation of some kind of nascent myths that have foretold the birth of the savior, and, funny enough, denies any comparison to old myths and Jesus' life.

And stop baiting. :wink:

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm sorry you misunderstood my reason for quoting CS Lewis. I am aware he is a proud, and active Xian. My point was regarding the claim of inerrancy in the Bible. CS Lewis, as that quote shows, does not accept ALL of the Bible as inerrant truth.

He does however, practice exceptional Special Pleading because he considers Jesus the manifestation of some kind of nascent myths that have foretold the birth of the savior, and, funny enough, denies any comparison to old myths and Jesus' life.

And stop baiting. :wink: No you refered to him as saying Jesus wasn't legit but, a lunatic, liar, and the devil. Please don't try to back peddle everything you said is clear as day. I'm sorry you think your correct, but anyone who knows just a tid bit about Christianity knows you don't know what you're talking about.

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm sorry you misunderstood my reason for quoting CS Lewis. I am aware he is a proud, and active Xian. My point was regarding the claim of inerrancy in the Bible. CS Lewis, as that quote shows, does not accept ALL of the Bible as inerrant truth.

He does however, practice exceptional Special Pleading because he considers Jesus the manifestation of some kind of nascent myths that have foretold the birth of the savior, and, funny enough, denies any comparison to old myths and Jesus' life.

And stop baiting. :wink: No you refered to him as saying Jesus wasn't legit but, a lunatic, liar, and the devil. Please don't try to back peddle everything you said is clear as day. I'm sorry you think your correct, but anyone who knows just a tid bit about Christianity knows you don't know what you're talking about.

Read through my post. I expect an apology.

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm sorry you misunderstood my reason for quoting CS Lewis. I am aware he is a proud, and active Xian. My point was regarding the claim of inerrancy in the Bible. CS Lewis, as that quote shows, does not accept ALL of the Bible as inerrant truth.

He does however, practice exceptional Special Pleading because he considers Jesus the manifestation of some kind of nascent myths that have foretold the birth of the savior, and, funny enough, denies any comparison to old myths and Jesus' life.

And stop baiting. :wink: No you refered to him as saying Jesus wasn't legit but, a lunatic, liar, and the devil. Please don't try to back peddle everything you said is clear as day. I'm sorry you think your correct, but anyone who knows just a tid bit about Christianity knows you don't know what you're talking about.

Read through my post. I expect an apology. Now that I look at it you might not have taken it out of context "per se", but you still didn't see the point of his argument, and missed how he dealt with the idea about him just being a philosopher. Half the stuff you post are out of context and aren't dealing with anything pertitnet to the issue at hand. You quote a simple paragraph of a certain believer and claim victory, get real. Why don't we take a look at their whole life and all of their works and then say an aswer on what their true beliefs are.

Alexander Hamilton slipped up and said he believed in Monarchy 1 time ,but to this day it is one of his most remembered lines. I guess when you die people scrutinize single statements more then your whole life. :?

[mODULAR mAN]

If this is the quality of apology you can muster within your conscience, I will take it.

You may not like what I say, but I'm under no obligation to take your Religious text seriously, literally, metaphorically or dogmatically. If I have an odd interpretation, ask for sources, instead of attacking the messanger.

Many Theists have become atheists (and, visa versa, to be fair). The jury is not in on any of it, and we will never know until after death.

Look, post your strongest points, keep hammering on them and working them - Heck, I'll even give you good arguments. But just be prepared to have reasonable answers.

Whether we live forvever or not, we all only get one life on Earth like this one - lets not be ****. Lets discuss things rationally (or, if you would like don't engage in the convo).

I will say some controversial things, but they are based in real reasearch or humor. If I am wrong , I will admit it - possibly begrudgingly, or with a caveat, but I will admit it.

I come from a perspecive: I am opposed to Religion, and Nationalism (I see them as similar emotional ploys). I don't believe in the supernatural, but believe in mans ability to create meaningful mythology. I am a Secular Humanist, wealthy, for Democratic Socialism but understand brute force, spirituality and Nationalism are concepts people believe in strongly.

If you have a problem with what I say, ask for a reference or explanation. I will ask the same of you.


There is no reason we need to be at odds in discovering more about our existence in the Universe.