Understanding Christianity - Questions for Christians

[Stelakh]

Ad Hominem BS....nothing to debate. You have documented nothing as to the actual history of the church and the many thousands of original partial manuscripts that existed prior to any council meetings....manuscripts that have been subject to comparative analysis, while the manuscripts that could not compare with the cannon were rightly declared "uninspired"....as the cannon of the New Testament has never been subject to contradict history as recorded by the many enemies of the Church.

You accuse me of an ad hominem attack, and then go on to attack me instead of answering the question at hand (because you actually can't answer that question). This makes you a hypocrite (and as I have often remarked on this forum, the bible has some very not nice things to say about hypocrites, doesn't it?).

As I said....how does your subjective opinion and lack of faith effect me?

As I said, Ralph, I don't believe it affects you nor do I expect it to because you are blind to fact and evidence. I frankly don't care whether you have faith or not.

I have personally introduced hundreds of reasons that causes DOUBT in relation to truth.

No, you haven't. You've claimed that you have, but when you are expected to provide the physical proof that you wish others to provide, you can't do it, so you throw out nonsense about "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when it comes to belief without knowledge.

And the most laughable part of your statement is that you think truth is doubtable. If something is truth, then it is truth. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, then I suggest you consult any dictionary for the word "truth" and its definition.

You may blindly and willingly DENY truth, but truth is not subject to interpretation.

If you were as educated as you pretend there would be no problem with you providing objective testable argumentation , instead we get the ad hominem BS.

There's that ad hominem accusation again while you're actually engaging in it. Shame on you and your hypocrisy.

If you were educated you would have been subjected to the actual history of the Church regardless of your faith...clearly you have not, as you have parroted the secular opinions from the supposed educated secular trolls that frequent the internet.

Actually, Ralph, I was once very, VERY orthodox. And then I became educated and saw that what others viewed as "the word of god" is a tissue of human nonsense cobbled together to give them power over other people. You know not only nothing of the faith I was brought up in but also nothing of what religion I may or may not practice.

You are clearly incapable of debate on this subject because you can't see past the bible. You expect others to provide you with proof that something doesn't exist. It is not possible to prove an absence. But by the same token when someone holds your feet to the fire as I did and demands the kind of proof for the existence of something that you demand for its absence, you go on the attack.

Thank you for helping me to prove a point here, Ralph. That point being, of course, that is is impossible to expect logical, reasoned discourse and debate with someone like you - someone so ill-equipped to face the real truth and so well-prepared to hide behind the almighty nonsense of demanding the impossible while being unwilling to provide it yourself.

Here endeth THAT lesson.

Next?

 

[Ralph]

You accuse me of an ad hominem attack, and then go on to attack me instead of answering the question at hand (because you actually can't answer that question). This makes you a hypocrite (and as I have often remarked on this forum, the bible has some very not nice things to say about hypocrites, doesn't it?).



As I said, Ralph, I don't believe it affects you nor do I expect it to because you are blind to fact and evidence. I frankly don't care whether you have faith or not.



No, you haven't. You've claimed that you have, but when you are expected to provide the physical proof that you wish others to provide, you can't do it, so you throw out nonsense about "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when it comes to belief without knowledge.

And the most laughable part of your statement is that you think truth is doubtable. If something is truth, then it is truth. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, then I suggest you consult any dictionary for the word "truth" and its definition.

You may blindly and willingly DENY truth, but truth is not subject to interpretation.



There's that ad hominem accusation again while you're actually engaging in it. Shame on you and your hypocrisy.



Actually, Ralph, I was once very, VERY orthodox. And then I became educated and saw that what others viewed as "the word of god" is a tissue of human nonsense cobbled together to give them power over other people. You know not only nothing of the faith I was brought up in but also nothing of what religion I may or may not practice.

You are clearly incapable of debate on this subject because you can't see past the bible. You expect others to provide you with proof that something doesn't exist. It is not possible to prove an absence. But by the same token when someone holds your feet to the fire as I did and demands the kind of proof for the existence of something that you demand for its absence, you go on the attack.

Thank you for helping me to prove a point here, Ralph. That point being, of course, that is is impossible to expect logical, reasoned discourse and debate with someone like you - someone so ill-equipped to face the real truth and so well-prepared to hide behind the almighty nonsense of demanding the impossible while being unwilling to provide it yourself.

Here endeth THAT lesson.

Next?

Indeed, I always call a lying dog...a lying dog. As I said, there is no debating ad hominem BS....the questions you asked at the beginning were answered by documented testable evidences. If you have a problem debunking the sources provided that sounds much like a typical TROLL..... especially when you keep using circular arguments ad nauseam. What you presented was brought into question by the actual history of the 1st 300 plus years of the church....yet you insist upon asking more boring questions that do nothing but consume time? That is the point no? I have successfully debunked your first attack as being secular BS....now you attempt to present more BS Really? You nor the parroted shopping list is worthy of answering any more than 1 or 2 charges...the rest are worthless by comparison.

 

[Stelakh]

Indeed, I always call a lying dog...a lying dog.

And yet you've not presented any lie that anyone has said. Interesting.

the questions you asked at the beginning were answered by documented testable evidences.

This is the problem, Ralph. THIS is why I argue with you over what YOU have said. Because what you're asserting is an absolute lie, and I'm about to prove it without ad hominem remarks, without circular arguments, and without anything but the truth. And they're the questions I asked at the beginning that YOU say are answered by "documented testable evidences." See the following blue text.

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Because all you've actually done here Ralph is provide the typical sectarian response to logic and reason: "I BELIEVE it's true, so it is! SO THERE! INFINITY! Amen."

This thread started off with honest questions and the moment the Christians saw the questions they threw a wobbler and started attacking - Just.Like.You.

And I love that you reference the first 300+ years of the church, as if that is some kind of hard, physical, documented evidence that would withstand even the slightest logical and reasoned scrutiny to determine whether or not ANY history of ANY church is evidence for the existence of a ANY deity. It's not, Ralph. It's not. All religious history, be it yours or mine, is hearsay at best.

If you have a problem debunking the sources provided that sounds much like a typical TROLL

I have no problem debunking the sources you provide as "documented, testable evidence," Ralph. I'll tell you what. Just to appease your rage (because rage is such a horrible, sinful thing for a good Christian such as yourself to carry, let alone display so obviously), once per day you set up one of your "documented, testable evidences" and I'll knock them down with logic and reason. How's that? Does that make you feel better?

What you presented was brought into question by the actual history of the 1st 300 plus years of the church

You... uh... you're not onto a winner here, Ralph. Have you actually READ anything about the formative years of the Church? Before you reference that again, you should probably read up on it (lest I have to give you the kind of spanking I gave someone else within the past year, that time regarding the reality of the Crusades because THEY had no idea of the reality of what they were talking about and just parroted what they were told in Sunday school).

I have successfully debunked your first attack as being secular BS

No, you didn't, Ralph. You merely said, "I have evidences!" and then didn't present any. That's not debunking anything, successfully or otherwise. It's just being a petulant child who's got his knickers in a twist.

....now you attempt to present more BS Really?

If by "more BS" you mean I turned your own demand for proof on you, then yes, that's what I've done. But really, I exposed YOUR bullshit, Ralph, because you have yet to provide any example of physical, testable, demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence beyond screaming, "I SAID SO!", which is no evidence at all.

You nor the parroted shopping list is worthy of answering any more than 1 or 2 charges...the rest are worthless by comparison.

And there it is again. I think you'll find that I never parrot anything, Ralph. I think for myself because logic and reason are those things that are of value to me. I've already challenged PMP to show where I have parroted or cut and pasted anyone in my posts here (and they couldn't), and I now challenge you to prove your accusation or apologize.

Now go on, Ralph. Tell me I'm hitting you with more BS because I'm challenging you to prove your accusation so that everyone who reads this thread sees exactly where you stand and exactly what kind of person you are.

You made the accusation, Ralph. Do you stand behind it and do you have the character to either prove it or apologize? PMP didn't. I'm sure we're all agog with anticipation to find out.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

parrots repeat what they hear.....I don't apologize to parrots.....

 

[Ralph]

And yet you've not presented any lie that anyone has said. Interesting.



This is the problem, Ralph. THIS is why I argue with you over what YOU have said. Because what you're asserting is an absolute lie, and I'm about to prove it without ad hominem remarks, without circular arguments, and without anything but the truth. And they're the questions I asked at the beginning that YOU say are answered by "documented testable evidences." See the following blue text.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Because all you've actually done here Ralph is provide the typical sectarian response to logic and reason: "I BELIEVE it's true, so it is! SO THERE! INFINITY! Amen."

This thread started off with honest questions and the moment the Christians saw the questions they threw a wobbler and started attacking - Just.Like.You.

And I love that you reference the first 300+ years of the church, as if that is some kind of hard, physical, documented evidence that would withstand even the slightest logical and reasoned scrutiny to determine whether or not ANY history of ANY church is evidence for the existence of a ANY deity. It's not, Ralph. It's not. All religious history, be it yours or mine, is hearsay at best.



I have no problem debunking the sources you provide as "documented, testable evidence," Ralph. I'll tell you what. Just to appease your rage (because rage is such a horrible, sinful thing for a good Christian such as yourself to carry, let alone display so obviously), once per day you set up one of your "documented, testable evidences" and I'll knock them down with logic and reason. How's that? Does that make you feel better?



You... uh... you're not onto a winner here, Ralph. Have you actually READ anything about the formative years of the Church? Before you reference that again, you should probably read up on it (lest I have to give you the kind of spanking I gave someone else within the past year, that time regarding the reality of the Crusades because THEY had no idea of the reality of what they were talking about and just parroted what they were told in Sunday school).



No, you didn't, Ralph. You merely said, "I have evidences!" and then didn't present any. That's not debunking anything, successfully or otherwise. It's just being a petulant child who's got his knickers in a twist.



If by "more BS" you mean I turned your own demand for proof on you, then yes, that's what I've done. But really, I exposed YOUR bullshit, Ralph, because you have yet to provide any example of physical, testable, demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence beyond screaming, "I SAID SO!", which is no evidence at all.



And there it is again. I think you'll find that I never parrot anything, Ralph. I think for myself because logic and reason are those things that are of value to me. I've already challenged PMP to show where I have parroted or cut and pasted anyone in my posts here (and they couldn't), and I now challenge you to prove your accusation or apologize.

Now go on, Ralph. Tell me I'm hitting you with more BS because I'm challenging you to prove your accusation so that everyone who reads this thread sees exactly where you stand and exactly what kind of person you are.

You made the accusation, Ralph. Do you stand behind it and do you have the character to either prove it or apologize? PMP didn't. I'm sure we're all agog with anticipation to find out.

Really? LMAO What part of nothing you have presented is worthy of debating do you fail to comprehend since the first 2 accusations were demonstrated to be totally false by history actual? 1. You stated that Hebrew is impossible to translate into a contextual comprehension of ENGLISH or any other language....this in spite of the fact that both Jesus and Paul is recorded teaching from the Old Testament in a Greek Translation, both DEVOUT Hebrew scholars. 2. A Roman Council in the 4th century somehow picked the words in the New Testament Revelation of Christ Jesus....in spite of the comparative existence of thousands of portions of manuscripts that existed from the 1st century on.....as directly quoted from "many" historical figures both friendly and contentious of Christianity....centuries before any Roman Council.

The Bible has the exact analogy fitting for individuals such as yourself who continue to argue in circles simply to hear themselves speak or in your circumstance to see your circular words in print.

"THE FOOL"

1. How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. -- Prov. 1:22

2. A fool has no delight in learning, but in expressing his own heart. -- Prov. 18:2

3. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of the fool pours forth foolishness. -- Prov. 15:2

But wait....the Old Testament can't be translated correctly into English. Enlighten us with the correct Hebrew translation and allow us to witness the vast contextual integrity that was lost in the translation. I do not talk to hear my head rattle, having demonstrated the obvious point.....I simply move on leaving the fool flapping his mouth.

 

[Stelakh]

parrots repeat what they hear.....I don't apologize to parrots.....

In other words, you can't prove your accusation and yet don't have the character or personal honesty to admit it and apologize for the accusation.

Thank you for once again helping me to prove to everyone here your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth.

 

[Stelakh]

Really? LMAO

Really.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

In other words, you can't prove your accusation and yet don't have the character or personal honesty to admit it and apologize for the accusation.

Thank you for once again helping me to prove to everyone here your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth.

are you pretending what you posted was original?......in what year did you discover the discrepancy in Mark......did you publish your findings?......how are you still alive since its been reported for nearly 100 years already.....

 

[Stelakh]

Really? LMAO What part of nothing you have presented is worthy of debating do you fail to comprehend since the first 2 accusations were demonstrated to be totally false by history actual? 1. You stated that Hebrew is impossible to translate into a contextual comprehension of ENGLISH or any other language....this in spite of the fact that both Jesus and Paul is recorded teaching from the Old Testament in a Greek Translation, both DEVOUT Hebrew scholars. 2. A Roman Council in the 4th century somehow picked the words in the New Testament Revelation of Christ Jesus....in spite of the comparative existence of thousands of portions of manuscripts that existed from the 1st century on.....as directly quoted from "many" historical figures both friendly and contentious of Christianity....centuries before any Roman Council.

The Bible has the exact analogy fitting for individuals such as yourself who continue to argue in circles simply to hear themselves speak or in your circumstance to see your circular words in print.

"THE FOOL"

1. How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. -- Prov. 1:22

2. A fool has no delight in learning, but in expressing his own heart. -- Prov. 18:2

3. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of the fool pours forth foolishness. -- Prov. 15:2

But wait....the Old Testament can't be translated correctly into English. Enlighten us with the correct Hebrew translation and allow us to witness the vast contextual integrity that was lost in the translation. I do not talk to hear my head rattle, having demonstrated the obvious point.....I simply move on leaving the fool flapping his mouth.

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

 

[Stelakh]

are you pretending what you posted was original?......in what year did you discover the discrepancy in Mark......did you publish your findings?......how are you still alive since its been reported for nearly 100 years already.....

Was that your accusation?

No, it wasn't. You accused me of cutting and pasting from websites. I've called you on that assertion, and you have yet to prove it.

The very idea that because someone thinks the same as someone else neither should say what they think without a free accusation of plagiarism is almost as preposterous as you are.

And it might come as a surprise to you, but I actually can tell you the year I discovered the contradictions throughout the bible.

In the summer before my Freshman year of High School, I thought that because I was unchallenged with and bored to tears by the curriculum in public school perhaps I should try a different kind of education. So I asked my parents if they would permit me to go to a private school.

And so I went to the private school with the best academic record among private schools in my district, which was a Catholic school; where I realized that the curriculum was actually no better and at the same time I became a conversion project for every nun who was trying to earn a Get-Out-of-Purgatory-Free card.

So to defend myself against the sectarian push of the nuns, I started reading the bible, and I read it repeatedly so I could be sure to call bullshit when I saw it - because I have ALWAYS been an asshole to people who deserve my ire and contumely (as you clearly know).

And that's why I know the year I realized that all of the bible, not just Mark, was riddled with discrepancies: 1982.

You see, stupid little "prophet," not everyone comes to the same discovery at the same time, but they very often come to the same discovery independently, at different times.

And you still have yet to prove your accusation. You're working to deny it as hard as you did to deny that the bible didn't tell us the exact nature of Satan's existence. We know how well THAT ended for you, don't we (see my reference to your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth)?

Apology accepted.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And it might come as a surprise to you, but I actually can tell you the year I discovered the contradictions throughout the bible.

was it before or after they started printing Bibles that noted the discrepancy of Mark.......or were you the one that shattered the complacency of Christianity by disclosing some deep dark secret......because I'm over sixty and I can't remember a time when it wasn't known.........

1982.

after then......did you "discover" this by reading the NIV version which states in the heading to that section of Mark that it doesn't appear in the earliest discovered transcripts?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Was that your accusation?

yes, did you miss it?.....

 

[Stelakh]

yes, did you miss it?.....

No, it wasn't. You're lying about what you said.

What you said was...

of course there was....what you said wasn't honest.....I merely replied in kind.....if you want to pretend that a cut and paste from an atheistsRus web site warrants deep thought you are welcome to my amusement instead......

You made the accusation that what I said was a cut and paste from a website. You were wrong, and now you're lying about what you said in an attempt to cover it up. I'm sure nobody here is surprised.

Apology accepted.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

apology gleefully withheld.......laughing at you with God-blessed abandon......I still think its amusing that you thought you were making some faith-shattering announcement about the gospel of Mark......and it was already published in bibles before you "uncovered" it.....see, if you read the Bible more often you would know more about it.......

 

[Litmus]

I was raised Christian


I am an atheist


I could never make myself believe any of the religious myths.


Once I had science it was enough for me.



all organized religion is a tool for sociopaths to gain power over others

We agree for once. I include Islam in my disdain though.