Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (hell, atheist, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first passage says Chrestians, not Christians, and the rest of that small section appears to have been a later addition.
As was the Testimonium Flavium in Josephus' Jewish Wars. There, the change in tone and style is so jarring that it has the flavor of a modern "and now a word from our sponsors" segue. Such "pious frauds" appear to have been necessary to insert a little pseudo evidence for Jesus into the stark wilderness of secular accounts.
But even if for the sake of argument Tacitus has not been doctored, and Chrestians = Christians, all it is really confirming is the existence of Christianity and its general historical claims that there was a historical leader of that cult who was crucified by the authorities. That it is worthy of any consideration at ALL is due to the fact that Tacitus was a "hostile witness" who was biased against Christianity and all other troublesome elements of the Palestinian zeitgeist. But then that would be exactly why this passage would have been chosen for "enhancement" by some zealous scribe.
As was the Testimonium Flavium in Josephus' Jewish Wars. There, the change in tone and style is so jarring that it has the flavor of a modern "and now a word from our sponsors" segue. Such "pious frauds" appear to have been necessary to insert a little pseudo evidence for Jesus into the stark wilderness of secular accounts.
But even if for the sake of argument Tacitus has not been doctored, and Chrestians = Christians, all it is really confirming is the existence of Christianity and its general historical claims that there was a historical leader of that cult who was crucified by the authorities. That it is worthy of any consideration at ALL is due to the fact that Tacitus was a "hostile witness" who was biased against Christianity and all other troublesome elements of the Palestinian zeitgeist. But then that would be exactly why this passage would have been chosen for "enhancement" by some zealous scribe.
Correct, even if the Tacitus passage is genuine, we do not know the source of his information.
As was the Testimonium Flavium in Josephus' Jewish Wars. There, the change in tone and style is so jarring that it has the flavor of a modern "and now a word from our sponsors" segue. Such "pious frauds" appear to have been necessary to insert a little pseudo evidence for Jesus into the stark wilderness of secular accounts.
But even if for the sake of argument Tacitus has not been doctored, and Chrestians = Christians, all it is really confirming is the existence of Christianity and its general historical claims that there was a historical leader of that cult who was crucified by the authorities. That it is worthy of any consideration at ALL is due to the fact that Tacitus was a "hostile witness" who was biased against Christianity and all other troublesome elements of the Palestinian zeitgeist. But then that would be exactly why this passage would have been chosen for "enhancement" by some zealous scribe.
Most Christians don't know or refuse to acknowledge publicly that an 11th century scribe deliberately altered the "e" in Chrestians to "i" to say "Christians". We are likely talking about an entirely different individual than Jesus who was crucified and then had a group of followers that Tacitus was referring to.
Tacitus (text copied by a monk in the 11th century). Photographic facsimile by Henricus Rostagno, 1902. derivative work: User:Earthsound (talk) - MII.png : 6th line, 2nd word Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.
Unless I'm confusing you with another poster, I'm quite sure that I've personally corrected your errant perspective on this. If you refuse to learn and understand, then the problem is yours. Willfully persisting in ignorance is not a good look.
Ah yes, the typical and classic catholic talking down to others routine.
Unless I'm confusing you with another poster, I'm quite sure that I've personally corrected your errant perspective on this. If you refuse to learn and understand, then the problem is yours. Willfully persisting in ignorance is not a good look.
True, and no doubt ignorance is what gives this thread a very bad look indeed...
I'm an atheist, so all this back-and-forth about what the head honcho might do or might not do is rather comical to me. If I believed in a god or were the head honcho, however, I would punish all of you by having someone create a thread in which hours and hours would be wasted with comments about what I'm all about. Punishment for those so foolish and an ongoing good laugh for Me!
So...you are saying the premise the OP is based upon...and thus, the whole argument (and, thus, the whole thread), is flawed...and he's been going off like this over nothing?!
If so, why didn't you say that 2000 posts ago?
True, and no doubt ignorance is what gives this thread a very bad look indeed...
I'm an atheist, so all this back-and-forth about what the head honcho might do or might not do is rather comical to me. If I believed in a god or were the head honcho, however, I would punish all of you by having someone create a thread in which hours and hours would be wasted with comments about what I'm all about. Punishment for those so foolish and an ongoing good laugh for Me!
Well, it's heartening to know that someone is getting some enjoyment from all this back and forth beside Gldn. But I think it should have become apparent to some posters after 2000+ comments that the OP is not always arguing from his personal point of view--that more than often his arguments are from the position of asking why Christians believe God is in control of everything when from all appearances he is in control of nothing. The question then becomes WHY is he in control of nothing--why is he letting the world go to hell in a handbasket when he has the power to do something about it and does not. If he is omnipotent and is doing nothing, then from a practical point of view (and the OP is ALWAYS practical, I can assure you) God is deist and that's in line with the OP's personal view. But from the point of view of an antagonist to the Christian's view it appears he is either omni-IMPOTENT, OR he's in dereliction of his duties, at the very least to Christians all around the world. If the former, he is not God; if the latter then he definitely bears full responsibility for how screwed up the world is simply by virtue of the fact Christians are constantly presenting their god as a hands-on, fully active-in-the-world God when from the looks of things going on in the world, nothing could be further from the truth. Does this give you a clearer picture of where the OP is coming from?
What?!!
Oh, my! There really isn't a "Extant Deist God" guy that created everything and is the Head Honcho who should have made it so that humans couldn't design nuclear bombs, other WMD, and made sure all the Problems of Evil/Suffering were prevented from get-go?!
Well, I have no idea how you are gonna break this to thrillobyte in such a way that he doesn't lose it more than he already has.
Break it to him easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
