cuchulain

That you believe a thing to be true doesn't make it so...and again, you make it sound like a crime to question. For such an enlightened being, God sure does have awfully thin skin, doesn't he? He can forgive any sin, from stealing to murder...but not blasphemy, not bad mouthing the holy spirit. THAT is beyond reproach? No...it's ludicrous at face value. You think I wouldn't be capable of changing my mind? Look in the mirror before casting stones, Dan. Your arguments wiggle more than an earthworm on a hot sidewalk.

That "mediocre task" being botched up led to multitudinous death and destruction...but it was beneath an all loving being? And I still notice a lack of proof for what I asked too.

I say it's a piece of evidence because they (Christians) take it as so dramatically important when he was born, if he lived at all. I can respect that you believe there is enough evidence to conclude he was a real person. I have not decided if he was a real person(legend) or simply a mythological figure that latter religious zealots added in to bring some weight to their arguments. I certainly don't believe the claim that he was the son of God, since I don't believe God exists. I am open to proof of such a claim. To his philosophy being important and helping build our current lives, it is fully possible that it was never his philosophy, but was simply rebranded later on, and that is what we have all come to accept. Having researched the historicity of Jesus, I have encountered countless times one solid barrier to my believing he was a real person...the continual progression doesn't match up. The most likely reason for believing he was a real person given by any historian I have encountered as yet always ends with "historians agree"...but they cannot provide the evidence as to WHY they agree. To me that is fishy. If scientists came up with a hypothesis they wanted to call a theory, they wouldn't leave it at "scientists agree"...they would publish peer reviewed journals with tests to their theory and evidence to support it, at which point many other scientists would recreate the test and try to disprove the theory, and then they would accept or reject it based on results. As far as I can tell, historians that agree are simply Christians who want it to be true so claim it is, since they fail to publish any actual reason for believing.

That's true enough, and good for a laugh.

Continuing the court room analogy...did you know that in sex assault cases against minors in Illinois, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is legally defined as the jury believes the claimants testimony? They said so is legally enough evidence. That's kind of what you are saying here...and it's bunk. If you held that as the reasonable state of evidence, you would believe in Zeus. Especially in conjunction with your other statements, that you hold the bible to be true because it mentions places and people that really lived at the time. So too does Greek mythology...and someone said so, but you still don't believe Greek mythology any more than I believe Christian mythology. I will reiterate again, though for the life of me I don't know why because you just fail to grasp this simple concept: I don't choose to disbelieve Christianity, or any other mythology. It just isn't credible. Talking bushes, floods that kill everyone except Noah and his family...and that they magically reproduced enough to repopulate the world to what we have it today...unicorns, dragons, talking snakes...this all takes a little bit more proof to accept than you own a green house.

I don't believe that. Can you prove that the original manuscripts were 100% error free and true...without the original manuscripts?

First, some definitions, since those always seem to get murky somehow. False: not according with truth or fact, incorrect. deliberately made or meant to deceive. Fact: a thing that is proved to be true. Proof: evidence or argument establishing a fact. True: in accordance with fact or reality. Testimony: a formal written or spoken statement. Witness: a person who sees an event, evidence or proof. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Substantiated: evidence to support or prove the truth of. Supposition: an uncertain belief. False witness or testimony can be defined from these as: A statement that is not in accord with the truth or fact, or is incorrect. Perhaps also a person falsely claiming to witness something, providing false evidence. In debates, I have often encountered false evidence/testimony, especially in dealing with Christians. It boggles the mind that a person can be so hypocritical as to provide false testimony about a religion that specifically claims providing false testimony as a sin, but that's human nature I suppose. For example...when a Christian makes the claim, "the tomb is empty! He is arisen!". It is a testimony in support of religious belief, or a formal statement that claims these facts as true, therefor the religion must be based on truth. The problem for me is the claimant is never capable of producing the empty tomb, nor showing that "He", i.e. Jesus, is really risen. They haven't witnessed anything first hand, they cannot provide an accurate location for said tomb(The location available has not been determined with certainty to be the actual tomb of Jesus), they cannot provide substantiated witness statements of someone who actually saw Jesus rise from the grave(One person's eye witness account is not a substantiated claim, nor verified), they cannot provide medical testimony that states Jesus was really dead in the first place...in other words...the testimony of any Christian claiming "the tomb is empty, he is arisen!" is at best false testimony, a sin. I know some will claim their holy book is the substantiating evidence, but this is not acceptable as substantiating evidence. It is hearsay at best, testimony that in and of itself has never been proven true or false, by anonymous authors, which we have no way of testing. But something else bothersome. Many Christians will tell you readily that you have to accept it on faith, that evidence isn't important but belief is. I can understand and accept that it is true for them, although not for me. But then they will go on to cite such false testimony as given above as if it is beyond reproach, as if it's better than video evidence with absolute 100% certainty correct. Which is it? Do you not need evidence that cannot be provided, or do you have absolute evidence and thus your faith is really based in fact? The truth is the first, but many will claim to have that absolute evidence...a false claim at best, especially when that very same person has acknowledged that there is NO absolute evidence. My summary from all this? My take? A lot of Christians are liars. Oh, it's not just Christians, of course. Those are the ones I have the most interaction with. Religious, superstitious, supernatural claims of a wide variety, all fall into the same category. It's just that hypocrisy that really bothers me, from Christians, who claim such a high moral standard and then lie through their teeth to try to convince you of something AFTER TELLING YOU THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T EXIST!

We're debating translation errors in a 'perfect and incorruptable' book...does anyone else see the irony?

Religion at its worst...

A little late on my part but merry christmas and happy holidays.

The constitution also doesn't include the words right to a fair trial...and you probably understand the judicial system interprets the law, adding to our understanding and the way the law is applied. Jurisprudence continually uphold a separation of church and state for keeping the government from promoting one religion over another, and from interfering in religion. i.e. Lack of taxation on religion. You specifically stated we atheists through the satanic temple were persecuting you christians...though your specific wording was different it means the same thing. Religious bullying, oppressing...it all amounts to the definition of persecution. Now you straw man the argument by saying 'you' instead of christians. I call this deceptive attempt to win a failed point. You are a deceptive person for using deceptive practices. If you must lie to prove a point, maybe you should reexamine your point or be honest with yourself.

It begs the question, if you are such a majority as that...exactly how do you get it so backwards as to say you are persecuted by us?

If its written on our hearts, he certainly doesnt...

Wrong. Sunshine is natural, christianity isnt. An overwhelming majority of Americans support the constitution which calls for separation of church and state and the gov not endorsing one religion over another. the law also allows abortion, so by your logic you should tolerate that as well as gay marriage.

Many copies of original works do not make the original work true, just oft copied. Still cant answer why christians have to display in public space instead of their own?

Here's another way to approach my position that even you, Dan, should be able to understand. You favor self defense. The Satanists didn't start the fight...they are defending themselves from the Christians repeated attacks. Since self defense is something you are in favor of, you should be in favor of them putting up monuments against your religion, because it's an act of self defense. And no, I don't suppose that, or assume that. I took the time to go to the satanic temples website and read. It clearly states that their motives are exactly as I have previously described. They put up the monuments in defense of their rights, not in antagonism of anyone else's. But then, legitimate research, understanding others positions...these are things that are foreign to apologists who would rather make things up and assume what works for their BIGOTRY.

It's a piece of evidence in favor of the legend hypothesis that even believers cannot specify a date for his birth without debate. my opinion, of course...since there is no evidence outside of biased testimony of religious zealots.

False. Bigoted: obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others. Your opinion is that we should all accept your religion in public space, and that when we protest such bad behavior on your religions part WE are the one's engaging in incorrect action. YOUR religion is the group of people foisting their beliefs in an inappropriate manner. Yours is the one who destroys OUR representation in public space. You are merely lying if you tell me no Christians have filed suit to have their monuments in public but NOT OURS. My narrative has been and remains, the law should be upheld. There should be equal representation for all, or no representation for anyone, in a public space. You cannot tell me how that is bigoted...because it isn't. Forcing a satanic statue into a public place was not religious bullying. Forcing your religion in public IS.

The entire debate about apologetics makes the point about why it's such a lousy system, in my opinion. the apologist makes a point. It gets easily countered...until they change the definition of a word without telling you first, or until they decide that isn't what they really said even though it's clearly written, or until they decide to alter their argument that the bible is literally true FOR A SPECIFIC POINT ONLY, or until they cry scribal error, or mistranslation, or misinterpretation... Geez. For an all knowing being, god sure makes a lousy author. And that in itself, the fact that there is such poor communication from the perfect being, such poor instruction, such poor construction, poor everything on his part...really does belie the whole all knowing all powerful aspects of his supposed being. That and the fact that despite all his power, the fact that the truth is "written on our hearts"...the whole spiel really just fails. I would think for such a perfect being, there would be credible, ample, evidence. Instead we get drivel from his followers about how it's our fault for not grasping, not having enough faith, whatever b.s. line they decide to feed us to make us feel bad about not seeing the obvious truth(which isn't obvious by definition if it isn't clearly observable).

You DO see where you wrote, "was translated from the original Hebrew text"...I'm clearly not imagining that you said it was translated from Hebrew....Oh wait...it's another case of you moving the goal post. Never mind.

They fought for the same access...big difference. You assume the motive to fit your bigotted narrative.

Translated from hebrew doesnt predate hebrew, does it?

Jesus strikes me as a legendary character at best, much like king arthur. Possibly based in reality with a heavy amount of fiction to build him up.

You suppose wrong. As i explained and you ignored(because it shows your deliberate bias) they put up displays to peacefully protest the use of gov funds and public land for supporting your religion over others. That is an action taken against oppression on the part of christians against other religions that are not allowed equality.

I dont believe that there are manuscripts predating the jewish translation. Can you provide proof of that claim?