cuchulain

Not addressing the point that your religion stole the date first?

You mean like even current translations aren't accurate? Or not addressing that point?

Via the dictionary...cult, a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. The worship of Jesus fits perfectly, but since its popular is called a religion. Religion, a particular system of faith and worship...much similarity.

Indeed, King Arthur is a prime example I like to use. Historical evidence exists that there was a real Arthur, but that he was merely a tribal chieftain. Politics on the parts of kings who wanted to bolster their claims exaggerated the claims enormously until today we think of King Arthur as a near miraculous figure who's wisdom was ages ahead of his actual time. Edward the first comes to mind.

As is probably obvious with my posts, I have a tendency to overexplain and overindulge in rants. No offense was taken from you, I was simply overexplaining again. my bad.

When specifically was Jesus born? Ultimately, it wasn't December 25th. That's something most Christian authorities and studies agree on. So...you are saying that Satanists picked the day merely to interfere with your religion on an arbitrary basis? Your religion picked the date to interfere with pagan holidays in the same time span...pot and kettle?

I tend to think all religions are cults, by the definition. Most people take umbrage with that, but it isn't meant to impugn anyone or anyone's beliefs, merely to point out that they are all cults by the definition of the word. Social acceptance from cult to religion relies strictly on a logical fallacy, argument ad populum. Many believe it, so it's no longer a cult.

Now you see why I have Songster on ignore, or at least a small portion. He's always right, always assumes he's right, tells us we are clearly wrong and assumes we are wrong, often engages in personal attacks, is unwilling to consider another opinion except to say how horribly wrong it is, then blames the person for all that he does himself and states repeatedly we refuse to accept his proof that he never offered.

So...you believe several manuscripts because there are several...but cannot provide proof they all read as the original, because there are no originals left? Does that sum it up? Again, I say...I don't believe that. If you can provide proof that the originals match the remaining copies, then I will reconsider. But since you don't have access to the originals, it's going to be hard to do, isn't it? Look at our discussion about your infallible prophecy, Dan. One translation says one thing, another says another completely. Not just a little, completely. We cannot agree about the right translation on that. You want me to take it on faith that the later copies are exact? I already have proof that there are changes, or errors, or whatever you want to call them. I have proof that the book has changed, WITH WHAT IS READILY AVAILABLE. You want me to believe that the originals match? Prove it. I will accept proof, your incorrect notions of me aside.

I don't need to prove Jesus was a real person for multiple reasons. First, the burden is on the claimant. Since some assert he was real, its their job to convince me. Second, depending on the specific claim is the level of evidence required. I can accept with various manuscripts, biblical and otherwise, that a person named Jesus lived. If they further seek to claim his divinity, the required proof to accept that increases exponentially. Third, his existence is irrelevant to whether teachings acredited to him are of value. Even if Joe wrote them in his basement, the understanding is the same as if a natural nondivine Jesus taught them. Do the teachings make sense? As with most, some do and some don't. Are they required for a good life? In my opinion certainly not. They overlap with the basic rules of most societies and many belief systems enough so that they are hardly unique, once the artifice of divinity is removed. And there are plenty of good people who believe other things, or as atheists and dont believe in the divine.

Happy new year...and may the flies depart in peace.

Cant prove up...so blame me for my not accepting?

Nah...i think i might move past the present madness myself. Sometimes i have trouble realizing the horse is dead, as many here could attest.

Why are they so difficult for the religious? I mean, I generally try to use dictionary definitions for all the words I speak and write. Sometimes, yeah, I flub it up. It happens. There have been instances where I thought I was right about something, some word, and someone pointed out I wasn't. So then I research it minimally, and it takes about two minutes usually to see where I made the mistake. I got in a debate with someone one time who used the user name 'Nurse Ratched'. Now for whatever reason, when I read "one flew over the cuckoo's nest", that name stuck in my head as 'Nurse Ratchet'. I pointed out to the person that their user name wasn't accurate, to which they replied it was indeed and I should research it. Turned out they were right. It was a stupid, simple mistake...much like many people make often. I apologized and admitted my error and the reason behind it and they graciously accepted and we moved on. But for the religious, for whatever reason...it's like it's anathema to admit they were wrong about anything, even something so stupid simple as the definition of a word. Why is that? Maybe it's not just the religious, but I haven't noticed any atheists adamantly insisting that the definition they use is the right one even though the dictionary says otherwise...

I have to add how amazing I find it that you say I have no points to make against your arguments and so make false accusations about your comments. You comment in one place that there is ample evidence, then in another that I personally just reject every piece of evidence and wouldn't accept it if Jesus appeared before me and performed a miracle, and then in yet another place you state clearly that there IS NO EVIDENCE, that it's entirely faith based...you realize that not all these comments you keep spewing can be true because some directly contradict the others, don't you? And you accuse ME of being the one to attack you because I don't have answers or have lost another argument? But then, you so often say it's us atheists that lack faith, that lack understanding, that choose not to believe...these are all statements that put you on a superior level than us, and you will deny saying that as well, even though you spell it out time and again. And it's ME???? Seriously? I tell you this in all seriousness. If you provide me with acceptable evidence, I will reevaluate. I have done so before, and have been proven wrong before, to the point that I changed my view. But here's the thing. You are not going to provide me with that evidence that you continually say I just keep rejecting. You never provide actual evidence. Your statements of belief, and biblical quotes, are NOT EVIDENCE. I have to think at this point one of a few possibilities with you, Dan. Either you genuinely don't get that your debate style is completely bonkers, meaning you circle around, you never come out and say things directly in the first place, you constantly change definitions to change what you really said, any number of tactics that you use. Or you do indeed know what you are saying, that you are saying things in circular, manipulative fashion on purpose. In the first case, you could be brainwashed so badly that you just don't understand debating and how evidence really works. In the second you are deliberately deceptive. Personally I think it's a blend of the two. You have to realize that when you literally define a word as an argument, but don't use that word...it doesn't really mean you didn't say that. Just that you set up a technicality to use later, so you could insist you never said "persecuted". Honest advice from the atheist who seems to be more honest than you are capable of...You need to sit and reflect on all the things you believe with an open mind. You could benefit from reevaluating what you consider evidence and why, and taking the time to honestly consider other positions than your own. You could really, REALLY benefit, from learning some simple communications skills and in investing in a dictionary, since a vast majority of people use words from the dictionary how they are defined by the dictionary instead of in an arbitrary way. And if you find yourself in the position of having misused a word, AS I HAVE MYSELF, simply acknowledge that you misused a word, or misdefined something. Instead of insisting you didn't say "persecuted" simply acknowledge that your definition was not kosher with the dictionary, you reevaluate, and indeed that IS what you were referencing. It's so much easier than digging with that shovel and trying your best to talk your way out of having defined the word precisely with your points then insisting you really didn't after all.

so what it boils down to, ultimately, is if a person doesn't believe, they are immune to the prosecution of God? And you are trying to spread his message why?

The idea of automated help gives me pause. There are too many things that seem like they could easily go wrong with automated help, unless I am misunderstanding and you don't really mean you are going automated? I don't think I have your ideas down, or there is a disconnect somewhere. Your first statement said nothing of automation, it talked of people helping each other(which describes perfectly a commune, by the way), to make life easier. I referenced the Jonestown massacre because it seems relevant to commune style religious communities, which I and others often refer to as cults. There are a variety of religious cults that have attempted the commune lifestyle over the centuries, none of them seem to have had much success, and I was merely curious if this is indeed what you are referring to, the commune style base. As I said, it really seems like there might be something missing on either my end or yours, information wise, and I don't want to jump to conclusions about what you are attempting so I am simply asking for clarification.

To your first point. Translation should be simple...with the help of God. If he can make the original error proof, why not the copies? You believe the original writings were mistake proof? Why? Have you viewed the originals? You consistently tell me that the copies are unchanged from the originals, yet now easily use the scapegoat of "scribal error" once again...but you have never seen the originals to know that they are unchanged. But you insist this is proof.

Persecute: 1 subject someone to hostility and ill treatment, especially because of their religious beliefs. 2 harass or annoy someone persistently Dictionary definitions are too hard for you, aren't they Dan?

Life isn't easy in my experience, but good luck.

Redefine away. Ill Treatment: cruel or inhumane treatment. cruel: disposed to inflict pain or suffering. suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship. distress: anxiety sorrow or pain. hardship: difficult or unpleasant. At this point, I acknowledge that I have a bias whereas after having observed your(dan) patterns of behavior, I believe you deliberately mislead others in what you think and speak. I believe that you deliberately obfuscate conversations that turn against you in some perceived manner, even if it is imaginarily perceived on your part. I believe you to be a misleading person. You continuously redefine words to suit your meaning, and attempt to elude the points of others by "mistranslating" what they say, then defeating the new version(straw man). You continually present things in a sideways manner, that is you will for example claim superiority by telling us atheists dont' have morals like Christians, or claim to be persecuted by defining the literal definition of the word without actually speaking the actual word and later claiming you never said that, then when called on it...you once again come up with some b.s. definition off the wall and say that's what you really meant. I could say, and have in the past, that it must be mere coincidence or unintentional at worst. But after years of observing you fight with Johnathan, after years of examining what you write and how you write it, and the numerous times you've had the same exact conversation and the terms pointed out as wrong or misleading...I have realized that Johnathan is exactly right. You are a misleading individual who deliberately plays the victim in your debates on here in an effort to appear to have victory where none exists. I have lost count of the number of people who have corrected you on the definition of atheist vs agnostic, or many other particular topics. Anyone reading should be able to pick out the patterns of your postings fairly easily after having it pointed out, I consider myself slow in such matters as it took me a longer time than I feel it should have.

I don't believe that belief is a choice. Can you provide evidence, or proof of such a claim? For blasphemy...Mathew 12:31 Therefor I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him. but whosoever speaketh against the holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. I don't see anything there about being a believer, and only believers being capable of sinning in such a manner. In fact, your perfect myth says quite clearly "man", which should be inclusive of all men I should think. Ahhh…..wait a minute! We have another case of crystal clear scripture being mistranslated, even though it's perfect! And of course, you cannot prove the bible, so you cannot hold to 1 Thessalonians 5:21, since you cannot prove your book. Isn't that a contradiction within the ideals of the bible? It telling you to believe it completely(Hebrews 11 6, anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists...Romans 10 7, consequently faith comes from hearing the message...Romans 15 13, may the god of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him...Peter 1 8-12, Though you have not seen him, you love him) but then telling you in a different part to question all things?

what you describe has been done numerous times. Have you ever heard of the Jonestown massacre? You should look it up. The basic premise was much as you describe.

If they weren't fallible how have there been so many errors contained within the perfect book? God made the writers infallible, but not the copyists? Pretty big oversight on the part of that perfect being, who if he felt the need could have made us all born with the knowledge needed...or, if you think the book is perfect...Jeremiah 31 31-34: The days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel...(Isn't the new testament your new covenant?)...I will put my law in their minds and write it on their heart. No longer will they teach their neighbor(how I WISH you Christians would shut up about it, but you sure won't), or say to one another, "know the lord" because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest(now, it's surely not just me, but don't we all preach today that we are all equal? God says there are some greater than others...hmmm). I don't have knowledge of God written on my heart, nor do I know all his law as he proclaims in your perfect book. Neither do you or other Christians. Know how I know that? Because none of you can agree on what his law is. If it were written on your hearts as he proclaimed in your infallible book, there would be no need to argue. But I gotta wonder how many times you are going to change your mind about that perfect book. "so I don't believe the writers were fallible."...up until someone points out a simple error in the book that is. Then you are the first to cry scribal error, mistranslation...or any other number of excuses. See, if the book were perfect, it certainly wouldn't need you to come up with excuses.

You have repeatedly claimed the Satanists were out to bully your religion. YOUR WORDS. Now you try to redefine persecute? FOR DAN>>>SO YOU KNOW. Persecute: subject to hostility and ill treatment, especially because of religious beliefs. Now tell me, when you say your religion has been bullied, that the Satanists did it specifically to irk and interfere with your religion, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERSECUTE??? You LIE...by claiming you aren't saying they are persecuting you. Plain and simple lie. Remember the "False witness" topic? Here's some food for thought. I had two pieces of bread with a piece of lunchmeat and some mustard on it, placed together so the bread was on the outside on both sides...but I never said I had a sandwich for lunch.