500 Characters [page 4]

500 Characters [Page 4]

Tacitus refers to a group of troublemakers in Rome not directly to any events in Palestine. If the reference is genuine (there is evidence of forgery, changing Chrestianos into Christianos) it proves the existence of Christians, not Christ.

Paul (Saul) was indeed in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged events and yet only "met" Jesus after his ascension.

Josephus is widely acknowledged to have been tampered with in the parts touching upon Jesus and Josephus wasn't a twinkle when Jesus died.

He makes a direct reference to the Christus, mocking him in a satirical manner and the fools that follow him in Rome.

Suetonius mentions Chrestus in his history of the emperor Claudius, Chrestus being a ringleader responsible for troublemaking by Jews around 49/50 CE which led to the Jews being expelled from Rome. Why the Greek name Chrestus rather than Jesus? Or indeed Emmanuel, how many names has this guy not got? How many Jewish zombies were there in Rome at this time? More than in Jerusalem on Good Friday, which nobody else noticed.

I don't see the problem with a Roman Equite using a greek name. Greek was considered a novelty and rather prestigious thus Suetonius learned it while studying in Rome.

So using another name in another language is not unusual. Right. So a different language, a different vowel and mixing up a name and a title is perfectly OK for you to make a positive identification of who the account is about, because you know what you want it to be about.

I'm not following that argument at all... people use different languages... so?

The man used a Greek word, which is actually a Greek male given name, which is similar to the Greek word for saviour. And he is as you say not Greek. And from this you infer he must have been referring to the followers of YOUR wannabe Saviour. And that because there were followers this is proof that the person YOU BELIEVE they claim to have been following must have been be real and is also not dead but living in your internal organs.
And you don't even see the contortions in this stretch.

thats not true at all, Isn't Alessandro the translation of italian for the english name Alexander and visa versa. People are capable of translateing things, I still am not following that logic.

Of course you're not following logic, you are within the orbital pull of your core dogma, you would be hard pressed to follow any logic at all. You must believe that story so it has to be true and therefore it is true. Chrestus is not Christ, even if the word was Christ rather than the Greek given name Chrestus it would not imply your Jesus Christ or be evidence that he existed as a man. The tales are about people claiming to be following Chrestus not Jesus the risen son of the Jewish god.

Now you're saying my beliefs make me stupid so I can't be right. The world is filled with multiple languages with translations that run parallel with one another. Theres nothing strange with someone that writes a history in Greek to use a Greek name. By that logic if a Spanish Bible says Cristo instead of Christ it HAS to be a different person.

I am pointing out something that most people are too polite to tell the religious. Faith does not help anybody find the truth, that is why to a scientist using faith is regarded as gross professional misconduct. Doubt, question, verify, examine other possibilities, evaluate fairly, these are sound academic methods. Not faith.
Maybe a non-Greek using the Greek man's name Chrestus refers to a man named Chrestus. Can't you even consider possibility that it isn't actually an error?

But in the Context of the historical references to Chrestus and his followers... I mean who else could that reference.

Who else could Chrestus reference? How about Chrestus? Chrestus was a common Latin given NAME, from the Greek meaning good. It MIGHT have been a mishearing of the Greek WORD Christus which means oily (also by extension anointed with oil). Romans did not have the same associations with anointing with oil as did the Jews. But there is also the simpler possibility that it was just this guy Chrestus. There has never been a monopoly on the claim to be the Jewish messiah.

ok now this is getting ridiculous. Sure there were people claiming to be messiahs but how many were recognized by Rome.

It's getting ridiculous now? What about the virgin birth, the unnoticed slaughter of the innocents, the talking snake and a man getting sacrificed to himself to placate his own wrath for the sins of the yet to be born? I'd say it's been ridiculous for a very long time and it's high time we grew up and put it all where it belongs, in the pre-scientific infancy of our species.

I'm referring to you coming up with half baked excuses against the historical backgrounds. Also, I agree with those in the fact that the bible uses stories, such as the cases referenced above, to tell stories to provide morals and shouldn't be taken word for word. Any Theologian would agree with me on that.

If the crucifixion is just a story then Jesus is just a poor philosopher. If he isn't God made flesh then he's just this guy with a bunch of weird moral tales which would get him laughed at when compared to real and competent moral philosophers. There are hardly any people who genuinely follow the absurd and immoral teachings attributed to him. European civilization has developed enormously DESPITE not because of the alleged teachings of Jesus.

haha hey now thats not what I said, plus I find it hard to believe that any major faith has any major teachings that could seriously be considered immoral. And given you still haven't responded to the historical argument I'm taking that as a concession

You cannot be serious. You don't think that any "major faith" has immoral teachings? Perhaps we should meet up and we can discuss a fair price for my daughter, do you need a slave? She's a virgin, you could have her, if the price is right.
The pacifism in Jainism is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Genocide to create Hebrew lebensraum is immoral. So is turning the other cheek and splitting up families to follow Christ. So is the entire notion of vicarious redemption, sacrifice and original sin.

When I say major faith I say Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to bring up the motiviation of the nazi party is out of place completely. Which of those 3 modern day religions support slavery. The historical passage refers to his followers in the City of Rome. Thats taken out of context as well. Also... what is so terrible about Pacifism?

All the Abrahamic faiths support slavery in their texts. Of course people who have become civilized through non-scriptural sources of ethics have distanced themselves from these awkward facts.

Pacifism is evil. Do you know Gandhi's strategy for the Jews in Nazi Germany? Mass protest suicide. I'm sure Hitler would have been positively delighted. If somebody wants to take my life, rights or property they should expect a fight. Pacifists rely on others to protect them, bastards.

Reread lebensraum. It states that Germany needs land resources so they should be taken from the east, replace the Polish and Russians with upper class Germany, I am not seeing Christ even mentioned

haha I mean come on man you're an Athiest Missionary and I'm a 15 year old high school student, you should be able to do better than this

Haven't you got eyes to see and ears to hear? Parables man, allegories. God told the Hebrews to exterminate the people living on the land he "gave" them, including the original builders of Jerusalem, the Jebusites. Exterminating lesser races (the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites) to make living space for the chosen/master race. Lebensraum. It is evil whether ordered by gods or by dictators. Evil sky pixie, evil.

Just reading your last comment it leads me to question your morality. You would rather kill you are saying even if there are peaceful alternatives?

Slavery was commonplace of the time which is why I said MODERN so its melodramatic to offer up your daughter. Definition of Pacifism
opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

Sounds scary!
Once again out of context. Suicide only if captured by Hitler's troops or to prevent dieing by their hands

Wrong. The Gandhi plan was suicide as protest. That is thoroughly immoral and it would have achieved nothing. Gandhi's strategies only worked because his enemy was civilized and gentlemanly, they would not work against people who didn't care what other people thought. Pacifism would not work against invading aliens coming to eat you and it would not protect your country from fascist invasion. I am not going to just give my freedom up to the first tyrant who wants to take it.

I actually have read the bible, and if you have any historical knowledge whatsoever you would realize that slaves are no more important to the story than anything else. Why? When you live in a time slaves are the commonplace for centuries there is nothing considered immoral. The only thing that MIGHT be considered back then was the the condition of treatment of slaves. You cannot say that if you lived then you would say that its immoral since you have not lived in the same society In fact the only reason you find Slavery immoral is due to your societal predispositions. Novels such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and documents such as the Emancipation Proclomation (from my society specifically) provides a nation with no slaves. If there is none of something it sends the message hey this must not be best for us. That is the ideal of pacifism to establish a mainstay of a lack of war between all nations

The only reason you are defending slavery now is that you have been forced to by your allegiance to the dogma beaten into your ancestors.

Take a step back and look at yourself. Remember this day. This was the day you defended slavery because you want to believe in magic.

There is a choice you know, you don't have to be a monster.

I am no warmonger I just know that if you refuse to fight under any circumstances you have all the defences of a vegetable. I am not aggressive but I am prepared to use violence in defence rather than merely surrender. If you are seeing that as immoral it is your moral sensibilities which have been damaged by irrational dogma. With the possible exception of Costa Rica no Christian nation takes its defence strategy from the words of Jesus the cheek-turning Appeaser.

theres also an inherent difference between stateing and supporting. True the texts state slavery since they had slaves, however please point out the line advertiseing slavery as the 'best idea ever!!!!'
Example; I am debateing with an Athiest. Does not mean I am supporting you does it?

How hard would it have been for Jesus or Paul to condemn slavery if they thought it was immoral? No harder than it would have been to condemn the barbaric practice of sacrificing doves and animals in the temple. It didn't happen. Jesus condemned entrepreneurship but defended killing innocent animals in pathetic magical rituals.
Paul wrote about Christians keeping slaves but he did not say they should not do it. Open your eyes and read the Bible, our secular morals are much better today.

and since you haven't bothered responding to my point of Recognition of a messiah leading 'fools' as the documents reference I'll take that as a concession for the time being

If there was a leader of foolish Jews being a nuisance in Rome it would not be Jesus Christ, would it? More likely a guy named Chrestus.

If the events in question were wars or the processions of emperors we would not be unduly worried by the lack of corroborative evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not a single word was written about Jesus until a decade after his ascension, by ANYBODY, even Christians. There were lots of literate people around in that time, plenty of dogs that didn't bark.

He acknowledges the existence of Christ when he calls his followers fools for following him. Also, if you want to say that wars are a different story due to some magical source of information read Dio's account of the battle of Carrhae, then read Plutarchs. Any differences there?

Wouldn't you be a fool for following a fictional character, or is that sensible behaviour?

There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus. The only evidence suggests a small number of ill-behaved people were following a leader who they claimed had died within their lifetime - something which is uncontroversial.

If you object to the ill-behaved bit note that nobody was mentioning the Chrestians for running soup kitchens or healing the sick, just for being cultish.

so now you're positive that Tacitus and Sutonius have nothing to do with him? Not sure since you've been dancing around that point the entire time. Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm relying completely on this but it is easy to believe that it is possible that during the Christian Prosecutions histories related to Jesus would have been lost.

It's easy to believe all sorts of strange things if you really want to because you think that believing in them makes you a better person.

Judaism is racism.
Thats why Jews hate non-Jews (Goyim) so much.

Don't trust any group which has a special name for people outside its group that isn't a simple negation of its own label. Gentiles, civilians, infidels, textiles, straights, laity, commoners. If anybody tells you that you joined the opposing club by default you just know you have to watch the bastards very carefully. Creating a special out-group label is a sign of dangerous thought patterns, there's no special label for people who don't play golf. The label is step one, it makes hating easier.

More Pascal Wagering

Gods of some description may or may not exist. That isn't a fifty-fifty. If any gods exist there is at least some possibility that the particular god you believe in exists. The possibility of the unimaginatively named god "God" as envisioned by your preacher of choice existing cannot be discounted unless it is proved to be a physical impossibility.

The exact same argument holds for fairies and the particular fairy "Tinkerbell" as envisioned by Walt Disney.

We cannot determine what is true by choosing to believe in it. Reality is not affected by beliefs.
Belief isn't a matter of choice, any more than breathing is, we can try to force it for a little while but eventually we just have to believe what we actually do believe not what we try or choose to believe. The wager is bogus. Faking belief does not work, an all-seeing god will see through it.
Why does God require us to believe in him BEFORE it becomes obvious that he exists? What's his problem?

The real question is who by faith believed what God said and excepted Gods FREE GIFT of eternal life. IT's not a debate about religius hucksterism, it only has to do with YOU personally. and what do phoney preachers and money grabbers have to do with what God said in his Word.? If people looked in the Bible they would never be fooled by phoneys

So you claim. To believe your claim people have to believe
1] gods could exist
2] "souls" can only grow in bodies but can survive death when they can't survive the effects of brain injury or senility
3] only one god does exist, going by the name of God, and having the properties described in the Bible
4] the purpose of life is to sort souls into good and bad because the almighty all wise god doesn't have any other way of doing it but what we think of as "real life"

Stuff and nonsense.

NO. I would claim the first half of 3] and that would have to be changed to one true and living God. 1Timithy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I don't believe any of it. No gods, living or otherwise, jealous or one and only. No spirits. No souls. No immortality. No good or evil as anything but adjectives. No heaven. No hell. No possibility or need for either of them. No demons or angels. No revelations. No prophets or prophesies, no sacred dictators and no holy scriptures. You have no power over me. Stand aside, I have a life to lead, you're annoying me with your dangerous superstitious primitive fantasies.

Well i guess that settles it then, It must not be so. After all you dont believe it . And if amybody thinks different, they can just ask you, and you will tell them: dont worry about nothing, it's only your eternal destiny. Right? Proverbs 11:21
Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

No, you're really not getting this at all. Beliefs are beliefs. Reality is reality. Belief does not change reality. You can't scare me with things which you believe and I don't. The more you try the stupider you look and the less inclined I am to take anything you say seriously. Quoting the Bible at me (with chapter and verse) is just hilariously lame. I've read it all, it didn't impress me. Why should it impress me now you are quoting it?
I'm not a child, your stories don't scare me.

OH . I get it perfectly well : your blinded by Satan, your unable to use good reason, logic and comon sense,It's not ME trying to scare you. Its the living Word of the Living GOD that is causing your discomfort. You need to repent of your sin and turn to JESUS CHRIST before it's to late. IF you die without HIM your Doom will be sealed.

Satan? Right. How many times do I have to say this, I do not believe in the stories you believe in. No gods, no demons, no soul, no possibility of any afterlife whether ruled by your favourite fictional characters or any others. You have no ammunition which works against me, nothing you say registers with me as sane or credible.

Seeing religious people appealing to reason and logic is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

re.// "You have no ammunition which works against me," If my ammunition worked at all, it would be FOR you, NOT against you. 2Timithy 2:25
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

If telling people about Hell is doing them a favour please explain why Hell wasn't explained to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah or indeed Adam. None of these characters had any clue that God would be holding them to account after their deaths, he never breathed a word of it to them. If God really doesn't want to punish us who or what is making him do it? When I want to forgive my children I just do it. Forgiving is easy when you love somebody and you're not a vicious, violent, vindictive shit.

Deut. 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. [about the time of Moses] Proverbs15:24
The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath [Solemon's time] Isaiah 14:15
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. [ about 600 bc.] And about 30 more times in the old tesriment alone

Read the whole thing, in order. Be aware of when each book was written. Of course the CHRISTIAN translations use words like hell and soul, but there is no description of what hell is or what it is for, no mention of souls, no hint of life after death. Read the thing, it's your book! Read it like you would read any other book, thinking about who wrote it, when and what they were trying to achieve by writing it. They were not writing it for American Christians!

Reading it every day is where you are going wrong. That makes you blind to the stuff that isn't there. When I read it I did so in the proper way, with an open mind, starting at page one. I was three quarters of the way through it before there was the slightest hint that death was not the end. That is significant. It was only after the captivity that anybody saw monsters with multiple ill-assorted heads. Did God suddenly invent them after Jews saw such carvings on Babylonian walls?

The instances of the word "hell" in the Old Testament actually refer to "Gehenna", a rather large pit-like valley where the Jews burned people who committed crimes.
It's basic biblical history. Go google it.

Gehenna is a firey pit your right. would you want to be stuck there forever? NO. Hell is like unto it but far worse It is Down inside the earth, It's the holding cell untill the unsaved are brought up at the White Throne, Sentenced and then cast into the lake of fire, which is eternal perdition.
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revolation 20:14-15

The Old Testament never says it's forever. It just says you'll go there, which you would if you broke the law. You are confusing your concept of hell and the Jewish one.

There's no afterlife in the Old Testament. No soul. Heaven and Hell were introduced to Jewish mythology in intertestamentary times.

Really! Why was Jesus', Jewish mother, Mary, mopping up his blood during the passion?

I have no idea whether any events of the gospels happened. Was Mary Jewish or was she a Christian? I think we have a clearer idea of the motivations and character of the bloke in the bee costume on the Simpsons than we do of Mary.

You speak so commandingly about that which you obviously don't know.

Why do sins need to be washed away with a blood sacrifice? Why will "killing" an innocent unkillable god-man count as fit punishment for crimes not yet committed by people unborn? Why can't God just forgive? I can just forgive. It's easy, and I'm not even immortal let alone all powerful. Your religion is absurd from start to finish, that is why I don't believe it.
There is no test of time when you are not allowed to say it's all bullshit. Any nonsense can pass a test it isn't allowed to fail.

Why Why Why Why Why because GOD said so. God is Rightious and Holy and Just,we can't comprehend it cause we'er Not Nahum 1:3 a
The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked ------------Jesus paid it

Martin, Why are you making an argument here?

You've already stated, "Belief isn't a matter of choice, any more than breathing is"

If your statement is correct...
You're not going to "change" a christians' beliefs . And you're not going to influence the beliefs of non-christians.

So again, Why are you making an argument? and for whom are you making it?

I am not expecting to convince the convinced. My aim is to be part of the movement which ensures that the rising generation knows that religion is a choice they really don't have to make. This is a long term movement. Five hundred years ago we could not speak our beliefs at all, anywhere. I am not expecting to destroy religion in a decade. I am helping to free humanity one mind at a time. That's enough because I'm not alone.

That's fair...
So You believe that Belief is a choice, just not a choice one has to make.
That position is a far cry from "Belief isn't a matter a choice, any more than breathing is"

Nobody chooses what they believe. You can try to believe something that you have chosen to try to believe but you can't force it. People believe what their minds allow them to believe. I couldn't believe in the absurd god I was asked to believe in and I stopped trying, and I haven't looked back for over thirty years. Any all powerful god could tell the difference between forced belief and sincere belief. What would an all powerful god lack, want or need? Belief? What for?

Sorry Martin, As a former atheist/agnostic, I KNOW you to be incorrect. My existence refutes your argument.
You're not "freeing humanity one mind at a time" because
1) mind, by definition, has free will, I think the word you describe is brain
2) If one cannot choose, but is only "allowed" by their brain what to believe, you cannot "help" or influence a choice they don't have.
What would an all powerful God want?
For you to choose him, I pray that you may one day see that you have a choice.

Can you prove you were an atheist?

Can you prove I wasn't?

and I said atheist/agnostic since
Modern atheists tend to include agnostics in their ranks.
Lets call it nonreligious for the matter of argument because its impossible to prove the non-existence of God in the universe.

I have known quite a few staunch atheists who became famous Christian apologists but I don't know any devout Christians who became famous defenders of atheism.

The most famous ex-atheist I know who became a famous Christian is C.S. Lewis whom when he was an atheist was angry at God for not existing. If atheists don't see believing God as a matter of choice and honestly cannot choose to believe then maybe they should see faith in God as a gift from God. Pray and ask for this gift from God!

I have known hundreds of atheists, they don't convert. Many times I have asked people to provide evidence that CS Lewis was famous before he became a Christian or to provide evidence that he was famously and persuasively atheist. It seems all anybody has to do to become "a famous atheist convert" is to become famous as a Christian and then say they once used to be an atheist. That's so weak. Two years of atheism in their teens with nothing to show for it doesn't impress me.

Well Lewis was not as famous as Dawkins or Hitchens but he was a well respected scholar in Britain during his atheist days with the famous Tolkien (who was a Catholic). Lewis was an atheist from the age of 15 until 33 not just a couple of years in his teens. If you want evidence then go to wikipedia for a start. Off course you don't know any Christian converts from atheism you need to go to church to find them. How many atheists martyrs do you know who willingly suffer & die for their beliefs?

Why would anybody consider it sensible to die for the non-existence of gods, in the expectation of no reward? Why would any sane person regard a willingness to die for beliefs to be virtuous? It's evidence of mental illness. I know hundreds of atheists. If they convert why wouldn't they email me and tell me? I have been asking for proof of such conversions for years now. One Mormon-raised atheist lapsed for about two weeks (while under the influence of lust) then confessed his errors. That's it.

I know countless theists who have suffered and died for what they claim to be truth of their beliefs throughout history. They are willing to suffer and die for what they claim to be the truth. Now if atheists are so convinced about their "truth" that there is no God then how many atheists martyrs can you name? Isn't truth worth suffering and dying for? Isn't spreading the truth a noble virtue even in the face of strong persecution or even the threat of death?

Thomas Aikenhead was the last atheist killed in Britain for being an atheist.

There's probably lots of them murdered each year in Islamic countries where they kill you if you're an apostate or they think you've lied about your belief. You can't win, they'll just kill you either way. Bastards. The religious are like that when they have absolute power.

If by dying I could rid humanity of all religious belief I would. Willingly and gladly. In an instant. But that isn't ever going to happen so I'll keep living, if that's all the same to you.
I wouldn't blow myself up to kill half a dozen nasty people in a bar, I would kill myself to sink an enemy aircraft carrier in a war. I put a value on my life, quite a high one, but not infinite. I cannot foresee any situation in which I could die for atheism that would be worthwhile.

Beliefs cannot be validated by how holding such beliefs make people feel. "I don't have cancer, the doctors are wrong!" is an empowering belief. It might even redeem, whatever that means. It doesn't mean it is true. Believing that you can sing like an angel is empowering, it won't help you if you are up against Simon Cowell or convince anybody apart from yourself.

If you want people redeemed from shame by giving up religion look at a gay pride march, you'll see hundreds.

Did you ever hear that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly? It's wings shouldn't be able to support it's weight, yet this creature flies. The simple thought that it couldn't be in existance because it's body doesn't make scientific sense, is not a strong argument. Those who don't believe, choose not to and try to justify it. Some ask where God came from, but if the big bang theory stand true, where did the sun come from?

If a scientific theory does not agree with reality it is not reality which is wrong. Bumblebees can't fly like aeroplanes. They fly like bees. Our aerodynamic theories have advanced substantially because we let reality change them rather than using the religious approach of invoking magic or declaring that reality is at fault and scripture is correct.

500 Characters page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6

Atheism \| Politics \| Memes \| Mind \| Matters \| Interact \| Feedback \| Email \| Links \| Search \| Forum \| Home
© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited