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.
What does this non-sequitur have to do with my actual points?
The way guys like you run away from actually dealing with actual points never ceases to amaze me. You always resort to ad hominem attacks like this. Maybe this is because you have no actual response or persuasive counterargument, IDK.
No one is running. The fact is... you have denied history. In the context of the discussion of historical accounts of "religion has always supported war", it seems relevant to point that you selectively deny history to support your belief or non belief of Jesus existence.. After all this is a historical discussion... right? It's an atheists equivalent of being a flat earther.
Frank Zindler, a former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors for American Atheists, wrote an article in 1998 for the magazine titled "What is Atheism? Did Jesus Exist?" in which he stated that he took it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Zindler said that it would be easier to believe that Tiberius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, was imaginary than to believe that Jesus never existed. This alone doesn't prove or disprove anything other than he has an open mind.
Previously... I Quoted this fact before directly to you... Scholars estimate that there are around 30 independent sources written by 25 authors from the first century that mention Jesus.
There is no Christianity without Jesus. The life and existence of Jesus would require a literary genius greater than Shakespeare to make the life of Jesus up. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the existence of Jesus. You lose credibility refusing to acknowledge the reality.
I think you may be mis-identifying the actual aggressors here, but this is not a topic we can get into in this venue.
All I'll say is that if, for instance, the Jewish gentleman who is my next door neighbor took leave of his senses and tried to set my house on fire, the fact that he's Jewish, that his ancestors experienced the Holocaust and other various outrages in the past, would in no way make it wrong for me to decide that he's an arsonist and report him as such. This would be objectively true even if I had defaced his house with spray paint prior to that -- that's a separate issue for which I would be liable. The charge that I would be anti-Semitic by calling a spade a spade would not be logical, and the massive escalation from defacement to annihilation would also not be supportable. Nor would a "well you started it" argument spare him guilt in open court. Nor would him generalizing my actions as reflecting the action of every man, woman and child in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (from whence came my ancestors) permit him to fly over there and start shooting people.
None of this is remotely subjective or complicated, it is quite straightforward. There is NO justification for genocide -- not even genocide.
The effort and/or challenge of being critical about anything Israel or Jewish without being accused of antisemitism is profoundly difficult and in it self another one of the tactics that seems to be designed to keep such evaluation or criticism to an absolute minimum if not to be prevented altogether.
Quite straightforwardly complicated, or so many will like to make it...
I was just having a bit of fun, Christian's believe Revelation and Matthew 24 are end of days prophesy coming on the world, but I would say all those prophesies happen inside a person.
At least the "end of days" prophesies is something we might all agree happens inside a person. At about the time we all die, but of course there are many who believe these prophesies happen outside a person too. As a result of more mental straightjacketism.
Seeking to kill every single terrorist trying to eliminate my existence would NOT be genocide. You seem to have difficulty understanding what genocide IS! Those trying to eliminate Iraelis (arbitrarily killing men, women, and children) are Arabs. Genocide would be an attempt to eliminate all Arabs, NOT specific aggressive terrorists. I am always astounded at the inability of liberals (especially antisemitic ones) to make appropriate analogies.
Foul!
It is true that calling what the Israelis are doing in Gaza can't really be considered genocide, just as criticism of Israeli policy there can't be called antisemitism. Not necessarily or in this case anyway, but you too? Please..., the comparisons are a result of indiscriminate killing, maiming and displacement of innocents in inexcusable numbers with no end or "end game" in sight. No matter what you call it, it's wrong and intolerable, as even many people in Israel are rightfully protesting along with millions of others one way or another all over the world.
I first thought about sticking to the topic of this thread and then thought what better example...
Yes, goes without saying, isn't it?
And yet, there was not even time to mourn the dead victims of the horrific attack. The vengeance inspired war to annihilate all those perceived as the enemy, - regardless of the aged, babies, children, women giving birth, -obliterated the responsibility to safely return the hostages - the old, infirm, women and babies - to their families. Some hostages were simply sacrificed for the cause. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the leaders' criminal behaviour, their negligence to secure the safety of the citizens, conduct war in violation of the international humanitarian laws, and now, lies.
It is always the people who act and create karma - good and bad - that settles on the world, we all bear the consequences one way or another.
No one is running. The fact is... you have denied history. In the context of the discussion of historical accounts of "religion has always supported war", it seems relevant to point that you selectively deny history to support your belief or non belief of Jesus existence.. After all this is a historical discussion... right? It's an atheists equivalent of being a flat earther.
Frank Zindler, a former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors for American Atheists, wrote an article in 1998 for the magazine titled "What is Atheism? Did Jesus Exist?" in which he stated that he took it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Zindler said that it would be easier to believe that Tiberius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, was imaginary than to believe that Jesus never existed. This alone doesn't prove or disprove anything other than he has an open mind.
Previously... I Quoted this fact before directly to you... Scholars estimate that there are around 30 independent sources written by 25 authors from the first century that mention Jesus.
There is no Christianity without Jesus. The life and existence of Jesus would require a literary genius greater than Shakespeare to make the life of Jesus up. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the existence of Jesus. You lose credibility refusing to acknowledge the reality.
That was my point.
The fact remains, Dave, that you are not addressing my actual points, preferring to perform an ad hominem attack: you think I'm wrong about x, therefore I can't possibly be right about y (or anything else, apparently). One has nothing to do with the other; they are different topics on which I am in principle independently persuadable on -- you only have to present your evidence.
I do not "lose credibility" "refusing" to acknowledge "the reality". I acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is historical and, way beyond that, divine (Muslims excepted). I simply don't strongly agree with their historicity arguments and I do not agree that popularity guarantees correctness. You have Tertullian as a hostile witness, a stele that proves the historicity of Pilate, and the obviously doctored Tesimonium Flavium. It isn't much to go on, like it or not. But if it's enough for you, great, now prove that this historical Jesus raised the dead and walked on water and made water into wine using the vast array (*cough*) of independent, non-religious attestations to his ministry and miracles, the earthquakes and darkness at noon and zombies walking the streets. I'll wait!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Do you believe religion has always supported war?
Overall yes. In specific cases, not at all. In others, somewhere in between. But in the main, yes. I'd estimate on a total historical basis that religion has been a direct cause of war about 1 times in 8 and contributing cause or accelerant maybe 4 times in 8.
Often such questions are not black and white. It's nuanced. I didn't make it that way, so don't shoot the messenger.
It is true that calling what the Israelis are doing in Gaza can't really be considered genocide, just as criticism of Israeli policy there can't be called antisemitism. Not necessarily or in this case anyway, but you too? Please..., the comparisons are a result of indiscriminate killing, maiming and displacement of innocents in inexcusable numbers with no end or "end game" in sight. No matter what you call it, it's wrong and intolerable, as even many people in Israel are rightfully protesting along with millions of others one way or another all over the world.
I first thought about sticking to the topic of this thread and then thought what better example...
Foul!
The Hamas terrorists are killing innocents by using them as shields.
No one is running. The fact is... you have denied history. In the context of the discussion of historical accounts of "religion has always supported war", it seems relevant to point that you selectively deny history to support your belief or non belief of Jesus existence.. After all this is a historical discussion... right? It's an atheists equivalent of being a flat earther.
Frank Zindler, a former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors for American Atheists, wrote an article in 1998 for the magazine titled "What is Atheism? Did Jesus Exist?" in which he stated that he took it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Zindler said that it would be easier to believe that Tiberius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, was imaginary than to believe that Jesus never existed. This alone doesn't prove or disprove anything other than he has an open mind.
Previously... I Quoted this fact before directly to you... Scholars estimate that there are around 30 independent sources written by 25 authors from the first century that mention Jesus.
There is no Christianity without Jesus. The life and existence of Jesus would require a literary genius greater than Shakespeare to make the life of Jesus up. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the existence of Jesus. You lose credibility refusing to acknowledge the reality.
That was my point.
Do you believe religion has always supported war?
I would rather say that religion has too often supported war, but would add that some wars are 'necessary'.
No one is running. The fact is... you have denied history. In the context of the discussion of historical accounts of "religion has always supported war", it seems relevant to point that you selectively deny history to support your belief or non belief of Jesus existence.. After all this is a historical discussion... right? It's an atheists equivalent of being a flat earther.
Flat earthers deny the evidence. The rational mythers follow the evidence that you must ignore, as it is in the NT and 1 Clement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Frank Zindler, a former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors for American Atheists, wrote an article in 1998 for the magazine titled "What is Atheism? Did Jesus Exist?" in which he stated that he took it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Zindler said that it would be easier to believe that Tiberius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, was imaginary than to believe that Jesus never existed. This alone doesn't prove or disprove anything other than he has an open mind.
You are quoting Jesus and the victory of God by NT Wright, a Christian. Zindler believes Jesus did not exist, probably because we have evidence for Tiberius, such as coins, he had towns and villas built. He was a consul five times, and that is how the Roman calendar worked, by naming the consuls for the relevant year. We even have eyewitness accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Previously... I Quoted this fact before directly to you... Scholars estimate that there are around 30 independent sources written by 25 authors from the first century that mention Jesus.
It is not a fact. There are zero independent sources from the first century, whereas Tiberius has hundreds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
There is no Christianity without Jesus. The life and existence of Jesus would require a literary genius greater than Shakespeare to make the life of Jesus up. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the existence of Jesus. You lose credibility refusing to acknowledge the reality.
You lose credibility by ignoring 2 Peter, that is an argument against Christians who said the gospels are fables. By ignoring Hebrews, that said Jesus was a divine being sacrificed only once, in heaven, in a temple not built by human hands (unlike the annual Jewish sacrifice in Jerusalem). You do not need to believe Jesus existed on earth to be a Christian, Paul even said Jesus was an angel.
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.
