You and your boyfriends relentlessly try to derail these threads and make them all about me, but the best you can muster is to howl that the British informal slang word 'chap' is arrogant and grandiose.
That's some weak ass shit! lol
A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
That's some weak ass shit! lolYou don't seem to know much about Christianity, do you? Only what you've read from atheist sources you already knew you were going to agree with.
Nobody ever claimed God wrote the epistle to the Romans.
No, it wasn't simply Paul's opinion. Paul met the living disciples of Jesus, and was in broad agreement with them. He would not have been allowed to conduct his ministry if he was in direct conflict with Peter.
What made you think any religious scriptures can only be legitimate if 'god wrote it'? That's literally the first time in my life I've heard someone make that claim.
The intellectual basis for Christianity is the historical evidence for the death and resurrection of the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. Its based on a historical event, not Mesopotamian mythology.
You are free to believe that Christians are idiots, and the accounts in the canon are fabricated lies invented by cynical and dishonest followers of Jesus.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
you're the one being haughty.You and your boyfriends relentlessly try to derail these threads and make them all about me, but the best you can muster is to howl that the British informal slang word 'chap' is arrogant and grandiose.
don't be haughty.
in terms of the thread topic, you're a deranged lunatic who claims to be a religious atheist or whatever the fuck, who thinks science and religion are the same.
you're a nutcase.
ftfy...After all these attempts to turn the thread into a bitch-fest about me, I'm still waiting to hear a believable reason for why the British informal slang word 'chap' is arrogant and grandiose.you're the one being haughty!
don't be haughty!
Do you howl in protest at the words shag and posh too?
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
The words of Jesus are all that matters,After all these attempts to turn the thread into a bitch-fest about me, I'm still waiting to hear a believable reason for why the British informal slang word 'chap' is arrogant and grandiose.
the church fathers are historical revisionism to dilute the message.
I accept your belated and tacit confession that prominent Christians since at least 55 AD have been talking about the physical order and design of the cosmos as evidence for a divine law giver -- aka, so it is neither stupid, moronic, nor irrelevant if I mention it.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
even before Jesus was dead evil actors were trying to bury his true message.
you laud and embrace their subtraction from the true message.
Paul was writing to his misbehaving followers and was giving his advice on how to fix things. Nothing more. Nothing less. Advice is an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I’m sure some of Paul’s letters are legitimate. That doesn’t change the fact that they are advice.
I never said the accounts in the canon were lies, pally boy. I’ve told you that many times. We do know what the canon is though, and how it came about. Sheer politics. Popular acceptance. Nothing from on high.
There’s no evidence of physical impossibilities. Nobody rose from the dead after three days. Merely “testimony” from “witnesses”. Joseph Smith had the same thing.
No virgin birth. No walking on water. No water from wine.
Not sure why the evolution of religion is such a "gotcha" point to make.
I've literally never heard any reputable atheist triumphantly trot that idea out as if it shuts down the legitimacy of religion
I only say that it is rational to infer order, design, mathematical organization come from a purposeful organizing principle. Not that I know it's true.
Atheists believe I am a Bible thumper and holy rollers believe I am an atheist. Funny!
Try doing a little more research, and not just rely on atheist sources you already know you're going to agree with.
You seem unaware that Paul met with Peter and other apostles and had support from the Jerusalem Church. It they fundamentally disagreed or hated what he was doing, he would have been branded a heretic.
The level of authority with which Paul's writing were universally treated is demonstrated by the fact early church bishops were already quoting from them in the late first and early second centuries. Paul wasn't just one guy with an individual opinion.
Sure you have, you have posts here saying the resurrection account was cynically fabricated so the disciples could acquire influence and power.
That makes no sense, because the disciples did not acquire any power, women, of money. If fact, what they earned were beatings, floggings, and death
You're free to believe two billion Christians are idiots for believing in the historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus.
You could get rid of the Virgin birth and the walking on water stories, and nothing substantive would change about fubdamentalnChristian belief and practice regarding salvation, fellowship, and service to others.
You've keep mentioning Joseph Smith, but keep forgetting to mention Joseph Smith was a known petty criminal, and many of his 'witnesses' later abandoned him. Those are real blows to his credibility. There is no evidence Jesus was a petty criminal. His disciples belief in what they heard and saw was so sincere they were willing to risk punishment and death. That speaks well of the credibility of Jesus.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Same here, but you called it: it's an example of confirmation bias.
Agreed. No one nows why the Universe is as it is. To me, it seems reasonable to infer it's either planned or is the product of randomness across an infinite number of universes where ours happens to work. It'd be like tossing an infinite number of puzzles out a window and having some fall to the ground in perfect order.
Labeling you as a Bible thumper or an atheist is another example of extremism on their part.
Those are the only two that I think can be rationally inferred: order and design are the result of a designer; or order and design was resulted from a random selection event from an uncountably large number of universes.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I guess he doesn't like Redcoats. LOLSince when did the word 'chap' become grandiose, ornate, and lofty?
It's not a common term in the Midwest and South unless talking about one's lips.
The British slang words shag and posh became popular here after those Austin Powers movies, lolI guess he doesn't like Redcoats. LOL
It's not a common term in the Midwest and South unless talking about one's lips.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
you shut down the legitimacy of religion with your focus on opinions of irrelevant figures and your willful ignorance of christ's actual message.
you embrace "reputable atheists" over the words of Christ's.
you're a demonic liar and idiotic sophist.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
product of randomness and result of a designer are two conlicting views.
besides you and Dutch uncle blowing each other there's nothing of merit happening here, except for my insightful insights.
Not a problem, except in your mind .
In the 1950s the big Bang hypothesis and the steady state theory of the universe were directly contradicting each other, until we had enough evidence to say the Big Bang was the correct idea.
The problem with the multiverse inference is that it doesn't explain the origin event.
Paul may well have met with Peter and James and others. But he claims his message came not from man, but through revelation from Jesus himself.
Whatever his contacts told him may or may not have been true. No way to tell. Then, his interpretation of what they supposedly told him may or may not have been accurate.
The early church bishops were all over the fucking map on the teachings of Jesus. There was no consensus for hundreds of years. The only reason Christians believe in the Trinity is because Arius lost the vote. All political. Nothing divine about any of it.
And you need to quit lying about my posts on the resurrection. It’s pretty annoying and doesn’t reflect well on you or your credibility.
There is no evidence that Jesus ever claimed he was the son of God, yet that’s the basic tenet of Christianity. Somebody, somewhere made that claim later. Probably, one of the so-called resurrection “witnesses”. Messiahs weren’t supposed to die, so something else was needed to explain what the fuck went wrong.
Joseph Smith was a conman and Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Next.
A good part of the scriptures, including several letters originally attributed to Paul, are forgeries, fraudulent, modified or otherwise not true at all. So much for the inerrancy, huh?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed.