Christian Threats of Damnation

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

The bible is no conclusive evidence at all. It gathers from afar. The dating is from the areas they first appeared and the style and location of the scribes. Most comes from what is modern day Turkey and Rome. There is no evidence that anyone in the NT ever met Jesus and books like Peter's 1&2 are thought of as later frauds. James is possibly a connection and his view differs from that of Paul. I don't expect it to mention 75AD because it's not about the persecution ofJudaism and is about the legend of Jesus. Sorry Dan I don't accept your view or analysis or you turning a no religion section of the forum into you pulpit. It was arguing you witch finally convinced me Christianity had no foundation beyond myth and bible worship.

 

 

Nice try.  It's Dan.   Reality just bounces off his umbrella of Faith.     

 

 

 

[Pete]

 

Dan said -The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves.

I had to laugh at that comment because I believe they are the best evidence that it is a nonsense. I mean we have an edited and rewritten and altered set of gospels written by who knows who and many letters by people who never met this Jesus.  If you take the story of Robin Hood which has also been written many times and film makers have told many versions of the tale and yet, the story is fiction and you would probably, rich or poor, have been robbed by outlaws in Sherwood forest but the story is still false and there is no evidence that Robin ever existed.  Robin Hood never existed. The story is no evidence that he did. Now the gospels are no evidence that Jesus existed or the gospels are true.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

Dan said -The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves.

I had to laugh at that comment because I believe they are the best evidence that it is a nonsense. I mean we have an edited and rewritten and altered set of gospels written by who knows who and many letters by people who never met this Jesus.  If you take the story of Robin Hood which has also been written many times and film makers have told many versions of the tale and yet, the story is fiction and you would probably, rich or poor, have been robbed by outlaws in Sherwood forest but the story is still false and there is no evidence that Robin ever existed.  Robin Hood never existed. The story is no evidence that he did. Now the gospels are no evidence that Jesus existed or the gospels are true.

 

 

 

 

Just this once, Dan is right.  The Gospels are the best evidence for themselves.  Actually, the only evidence for themselves.  Have you seen any other?  Neither have I.

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

21 hours ago, Pete said:

[...] It was arguing you witch finally convinced me Christianity had no foundation beyond myth and bible worship.

 

Hear, hear! I second that.

[Pete]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

 

 

Just this once, Dan is right.  The Gospels are the best evidence for themselves.  Actually, the only evidence for themselves.  Have you seen any other?  Neither have I.

 

 

 

Yet, even that evidence is flawed. Dan won't agree but the whole thing contradicts in my view. If an all powerful god wanted to pass on a message using this book then they made a really poor effort. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Hear, hear! I second that.

It just got the more the argues go on the more tenuous and oddball it all gets and you step back and think this is ridiculous. Well that is what happened to me.

I have talked about slavery, killing non virgin wives, and killing neighbouring towns all because a preacher was preach a differing message, killing your children for following a differing religion and Paul's real lack of engagement with those who met Jesus and all this gets justified. He even swaps sayings by Paul as sayings by Jesus. 

I am sure he will come back but I got to see the religion through him and it all got so difficult to swallow until I realised I just cannot be part of this and realised I was agnostic.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

It just got the more the argues go on the more tenuous and oddball it all gets and you step back and think this is ridiculous. Well that is what happened to me.

I have talked about slavery, killing non virgin wives, and killing neighbouring towns all because a preacher was preach a differing message, killing your children for following a differing religion and Paul's real lack of engagement with those who met Jesus and all this gets justified. He even swaps sayings by Paul as sayings by Jesus. 

I am sure he will come back but I got to see the religion through him and it all got so difficult to swallow until I realised I just cannot be part of this and realised I was agnostic.

 

 

I've gone on to Apatheism.  I don't even wonder now, about God.  A God that can not be detected or discerned, is not relevant.  I don't care whether or not God exists.  Even the question is futile.  IMO

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I've gone on to Apatheism.  I don't even wonder now, about God.  A God that can not be detected or discerned, is not relevant.  I don't care whether or not God exists.  Even the question is futile.  IMO

 

 

 

 

 

That makes sense ✌

If you can't prove it. You cannot see it or see it reacting to other things then there is no evidence that it is there. So what is the point of putting mythical properties on it. It does not make it more convincing. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

That makes sense ✌

 

 

Thank you.  I have discovered that I find arguing about metaphysics dull and boring.  In my current outlook, metaphysics should only be resorted to -- when regular physics -- like prune juice -- won't get the job done.