Fundies. Put A Lid On it!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Tangerine


If we're referring to a person, it would be some sort of documentation produced while the person lived by a person who witnessed that person living. It could be a coin with the emperor's picture on it or a hieroglyph depicting a particular pharoah or a letter saying, "I saw Jesus of Nazareth at the well today. He's got some nice new sandals." One piece of documentation is suggestive, two better evidence, and three strong evidence.

The person documenting the existence of another need not have any particular status although someone with special credentials would, depending on the context of the information, be preferable. For example, an official record of an individual being tried, sentenced and executed would be good evidence that that person actually lived.

The important thing to remember is that the person doing the documenting had to have lived at the same time the person in question lived and have had the ability to witness the existence of the person in question. The documentation has to clearly refer to the specific person in question.

I hope this answers your question.

So you dont deny the bible as a historical document then.

I somehow dont think you mean what you are saying, sounds like you are saying something and then something else, can be awfully confusing to me around here sometimes

Whats Josephus got to do with contemporarys when there seems adequate valid evidence.

Regarding the existence of Jesus? I most certainly do deny that its an historical document. Which author of the Bible who wrote about Jesus lived when Jesus lived and claimed to have witnessed him living? Certainly not the authors of the Gospels.

Regarding Josephus, you clearly do not understand that someone who is not alive can not witness someone else living. Josephus was not alive when Jesus allegedly lived. How, then, could Josephus possibly have witnessed Jesus living?

originally posted by: borntowatch


I think you overstate the issue.
Christianity is not militant and the fundamentalist Christian is not in the majority.
Atheists have taken control of country's and people with weapons and decimated populaces, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few, street corners with bibles or guns and little red books.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

Blinkers much?

Atheist terrorists hey, no surprise there.

Name a military conflict conducted in the name of atheism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a vegetarian who goes to war and a vegetarian who goes to war in the name of vegetarianism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a kilt-wearing despot who kills people and a kilt-wearing despot who kills people because they refuse to wear kilts.

When you say Christianity is not and can not be forced on an individual you demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge of history.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


Comtemporary documentation of Jesus' "life and actions" is lacking anywhere except in "the Bible" - which is NOT a 'historical document', any more than Dante's Divine Comedy, or Homer's Ulysses, or Harry Potter are 'historical documents'.

Contemporaneous documentation of the existence of Jesus is not found in the Bible.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: borntowatch


I think you overstate the issue.
Christianity is not militant and the fundamentalist Christian is not in the majority.
Atheists have taken control of country's and people with weapons and decimated populaces, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few, street corners with bibles or guns and little red books.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

Blinkers much?

Atheist terrorists hey, no surprise there.

Name a military conflict conducted in the name of atheism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a vegetarian who goes to war and a vegetarian who goes to war in the name of vegetarianism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a kilt-wearing despot who kills people and a kilt-wearing despot who kills people because they refuse to wear kilts.

When you say Christianity is not and can not be forced on an individual you demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge of history.

Over reaction is a very interesting reaction.

You can submit to a belief but does that mean you internally believe it, many people may indeed accept the rule but do they accept the belief. I live in a secular society but I am not secular, not all people in China are communists.

Military conflicts that are instigated by atheists, I named them, how could you miss them.

As for Josephus, whats your point, he wasnt contemporary, fail to see the significance.
I do see the Gospel writers and the writers of the Epistles

You dont get to decide who is valid and who isnt.
The New Testament was not written as a book, it was 4 books and then the letters.

But hey, believe what you want. That is what atheists do

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: borntowatch


I think you overstate the issue.
Christianity is not militant and the fundamentalist Christian is not in the majority.
Atheists have taken control of country's and people with weapons and decimated populaces, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few, street corners with bibles or guns and little red books.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

Blinkers much?

Atheist terrorists hey, no surprise there.

Name a military conflict conducted in the name of atheism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a vegetarian who goes to war and a vegetarian who goes to war in the name of vegetarianism. You don't seem to understand the difference between a kilt-wearing despot who kills people and a kilt-wearing despot who kills people because they refuse to wear kilts.

When you say Christianity is not and can not be forced on an individual you demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge of history.

Over reaction is a very interesting reaction.

You can submit to a belief but does that mean you internally believe it, many people may indeed accept the rule but do they accept the belief. I live in a secular society but I am not secular, not all people in China are communists.

Military conflicts that are instigated by atheists, I named them, how could you miss them.

As for Josephus, whats your point, he wasnt contemporary, fail to see the significance.
I do see the Gospel writers and the writers of the Epistles

You dont get to decide who is valid and who isnt.
The New Testament was not written as a book, it was 4 books and then the letters.

But hey, believe what you want. That is what atheists do

It's interesting that you've assumed that I'm an atheist. I don't know whether you've intentionally ignored my comments or genuinely misunderstand. In either case, further discussion is futile and I leave you to your beliefs, however ill-founded.

I was just in another thread where the OP posted an article that he only mentioned that his question came from but after reading the article which I found immensely interesting I thought some here would enjoy reading it.

I had no idea about some of the stuff in there like how before the Council of Nicea Christian factions were slaughtering each other more than any other nation or faction. Here is an excerpt of a long article.

Christians are believed to have massacred more followers of Jesus than any other group or nation.

Those who believed in the Trinity butchered Christians who didn’t. Groups who believed Jesus was two entities—God and man—killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood. Some felt certain God inspired Old Testament Scriptures, others were convinced they were the product of a different, evil God. Some believed the Crucifixion brought salvation to humankind, others insisted it didn’t, and still others believed Jesus wasn’t crucified.

Indeed, for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered those who disagreed. For many centuries, Christianity was first a battle of books and then a battle of blood. The reason, in large part, was that there were no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian, so most sects had their own gospels.

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: Klassified I was raised Baptist, two of my uncles were Baptist preachers. Growing up I saw more bigotry, hating and holier than thou attitudes than I have in the past 39 years that I have been an adult. My brother, a born again christian yelled at me a few years ago that his church and god would burn me on the stake for my "witchy" ideas. I informed him not to worry because my God wouldn't do that, he was a god of love and we must have different gods. No problem. He was upset because I collect Buddha statues and believe the ideas of love and non violence that Buddha taught. It is a way of life, not necessarily a religion. I believe in God, not religion.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I was just in another thread where the OP posted an article that he only mentioned that his question came from but after reading the article which I found immensely interesting I thought some here would enjoy reading it.

I had no idea about some of the stuff in there like how before the Council of Nicea Christian factions were slaughtering each other more than any other nation or faction. Here is an excerpt of a long article.

Christians are believed to have massacred more followers of Jesus than any other group or nation.

Those who believed in the Trinity butchered Christians who didn’t. Groups who believed Jesus was two entities—God and man—killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood. Some felt certain God inspired Old Testament Scriptures, others were convinced they were the product of a different, evil God. Some believed the Crucifixion brought salvation to humankind, others insisted it didn’t, and still others believed Jesus wasn’t crucified.

Indeed, for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered those who disagreed. For many centuries, Christianity was first a battle of books and then a battle of blood. The reason, in large part, was that there were no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian, so most sects had their own gospels.

www.newsweek.com...

The Orthodox church is still fighting the Catholic church, nothing new.
I guess thats your problem, you only know half the story.
If you think its the full story you are at a loss. The fact you can only comment on the fighting and have no interest in finding a reason reflects more about you than you could imagine.

Jesus only called the religious people snakes, I find that interesting.

originally posted by: Tangerine

It's interesting that you've assumed that I'm an atheist. I don't know whether you've intentionally ignored my comments or genuinely misunderstand. In either case, further discussion is futile and I leave you to your beliefs, however ill-founded.

I didnt assume, I just suggested you can believe what you want to believe, just like atheists do.
You can, its not for me to demand you believe what I want you to do.
If I ask questions or disagree its because I either want to understand or think you are wrong.

The Gospels are historical, they are written by contemporarys, deny it if you wish.

a reply to: borntowatch

Do you feel that the Bible is the only source for the words of God?

a reply to: borntowatch


Has anyone ever mentioned that you have a nasty habit of accusing people of things and making assumptions of what they do, know or act. Because if this is a first for you then I would be surprised.

Anyway I can tell by your response you didn't read the article I linked because of how off base you are.

So maybe you shouldn't be so concerned about how things reflect on me and work on yourself being a better person instead.


Even if the casting stones saying from Jesus was fabricated some 1000 years after the NT gospels were written it has a good moral.

a reply to: borntowatch

The Gospels are historical, they are written by contemporarys, deny it if you wish.

No.
No, they are not.
But you can believe that if you wish.

a reply to: Tangerine

Contemporaneous documentation of the existence of Jesus is not found in the Bible.

Yes. You are right.
I should have said 'the only PURPORTED contemporaneous documentation' is found in the Bible (by people like borntowatch, even though it had been very well established, clearly, that NONE of the writers of the Bible 'knew him'.)

The Bible is not documentation by anyone who actually knew "Jesus", and it is CERTAINLY not a work of journalistic non-fiction.

Thanks for helping me clarify.

Really - it astounds me that people on a conspiracy site refuse to see the dazzling, glaring truth of their precious tome. It's propaganda. Just like most of the MSM today.

a reply to: lost in space
I'm sorry you have to tolerate such things from your own family. My family are mostly fundamentalist. At this point, there have been enough "discussions" that I get little grief from them any more, and I don't give them any either, unless one of them starts in.

I informed him not to worry because my God wouldn't do that, he was a god of love and we must have different gods. No problem. He was upset because I collect Buddha statues and believe the ideas of love and non violence that Buddha taught. It is a way of life, not necessarily a religion. I believe in God, not religion.

Well done. Don't ever let them play the guilt, shame, and fear card on you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Brainwashed they are.
The thing is it has effected everthing else in their lives.
A brand new scientific discovery? ....better check the bible to see if it is allowed and if not it is lies no matter how much evidence is there.
Beyond ignorant.
Personally I don't think he wvet existed. ..just a tool for the new roman empire.

a reply to: Klassified

Christianity is hardly an elitist ideology, but common sense should tell you how to pick your battles. This individual should never have posted what she did.

The replies sound more in line with the teaching of the Westboro nuts, than with the majority of Christians.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Klassified

Christianity is hardly an elitist ideology, but common sense should tell you how to pick your battles. This individual should never have posted what she did.

The replies sound more in line with the teaching of the Westboro nuts, than with the majority of Christians.

The problem is that the majority of Christians have let the nuts speak for them. No mainstream Christian faith has officially spoken out against the Religious Right. Until they do, they suffer the consequences of being heaped into the same pile with them.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Klassified

Christianity is hardly an elitist ideology, but common sense should tell you how to pick your battles. This individual should never have posted what she did.

The replies sound more in line with the teaching of the Westboro nuts, than with the majority of Christians.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out she goes to that church. lol.

I do see Xtianity as elitist in the sense, that if you are not a Xtian, you do not go to heaven. You are rejected by god, and depending on your sects beliefs, you are either separated from god for eternity, or you go to hell for eternal punishment. Obviously, Xtianity is not alone. There are other religions of the same mindset. One either belongs, or one doesn't.

Nevertheless, as I said in the OP. I realize this woman is not an example of the average Xtian. Yet there are many who think and act like her. It really puts those Xtians who aren't like that in a bad light. Wrong or right, our society has a tendency to lump everyone together under one umbrella, and slap a label on them.

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't trust Christians. They preach a religion of love but practice a religion of condemnation, intolerance and censorship of those with different Ideas.

They know that their spiritual arrogance drives people away; but they don't care. I know it's a broad brush but that's my experience being raised a Baptist.

The Texas Baptists' I grew up with would secretly like to bring back the Inquisition and it's tortures, all in the name of Jesus.

I don't know about your personal experiences, but you seem awfully willing to paint all members of a very large group with the same brush. How is that something other than intolerance on your part? I happen to consider myself Baptist in practice, and much of that has been in Texas, as it happens. The people I knew were nothing like what you describe. Now and then, of course, you get someone that doesn't act as they should, but for the most part, these were all loving and decent people, and no, they didn't have any secret wish for anything like what you describe. Of course, some use the label without truly being Baptists, too, such as that horrible WB clan.

There is a huge difference, though, in sticking to one's beliefs and in being "arrogant, condemning, and intolerant". I could as easily apply those labels to any and all that disagree with me, but what would that accomplish? Nothing good!

To the OP, without knowing exactly what was said, it's difficult for me (though apparently not for many others) to state anything relevant about the FB comments on your friend's wall. Perhaps you could offer a quote, without any names? Certainly, there are a few people who are more than willing to make truly negative comments, and make them in ways that are not loving or caring, and not conducive to sharing the Gospel message. That said, there are also plenty who, at the first mention of any Christian idea, no matter how lovingly offered, get all bent out of shape. Without knowing the words used, I can't say which was the case here.

a reply to: Klassified

Might surprise you to know that even though I consider myself a Christian, I don't believe in a literal hell. I do think that anyone who has not accepted Christ will experience the lake of fire, but I do not think that it would be for eternity. I think of it as a purification, kind of like purifying gold with fire. And, maybe it isn't literal fire. Maybe you need to relive or experience portions of your life to learn from.

I guess we'll all find out sooner or later.