You won't find God in the dictionary.

Homepage Forums Atheism You won't find God in the dictionary.

This topic contains 171 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 166 through 172 (of 172 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27543

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Simon keeps repeating this “truism” that Jesus’s message was some how revolutionary and new

    He was saying old things in a new way.

    #27545

    Davis
    Participant

    And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament.

    It says True sections of the New Testament. That is a fairly large sample of books. We know for a fact that parts of it, especially written by St. Paul are true. The author says nothing about the Gospels because if he did he would be lying. It’s like saying that parts of Shakespeare’s works are True, cause some elements of the history plays are (thoguh they are still highly fictionalised). However a Midsummers Night Dream is pure fiction (with a few names drawn from historical references). So while shakespeares works have true sections, that doesn’t mean Romeo and Juliette’s lines in their plays were their actual words because its based on a story based on a story based on a story and may very loosely be modeled after some somewhat similar tragic event.

    Jesus said, Don’t judge.

    The author never claims that this is a true section of bible he. He first makes a claim about true sections of the bible. And then he ends the piece with a quote from the Bible of Jesus’s purported words which wraps up his article. That is not an argument Simon. And even if it were (perhaps he has no problem putting two sentences together and not caring that people assume he is stating more. Religious writers do that kind of shit all the time).

    You really need to start evaluating your sources and the strength of arguments Simon. This is a magazine article pontificating about Jesus’s message and how evangelicals ignore what the author subjectively thinks is the important message from a pretty enormous testament filled with fairly complicated layered text and hundreds of rules and lessons. This is NOT an article about the veracity of the bible and their words. It is not a particularly reliable source but an opinion piece. There are few if any references to research or academic/intellectual works or the quoting of other works. It doesn’t cite other texts or arguments by scholars. It’s a magazine article so no references are given. This tells us at best that the information we get from the article may be interesting but is DEFINITELY not reliable enough to confidently swallow what is being said. You’ll have to find another source to back up the claims made.

    And even if this was a more reliable source (which it isn’t) recognizing an argument is a very important skill in critical thinking that can be sharpened by studying it or even watching youtube lectures on critical thinking.

    And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament.

    That is not an argument. It is referring to something very indirectly. The only information you can get out of this is that some sections of the New Testament are true. We know that. Parts written well after Jesus died and the events that are chronicled and the life of the author can be confirmed through other contemporary sources. The same cannot be said of the Gospels. There are next to no contemporary sources confirming anything written down and we know for a fact the authors wrote it DECADES after these events happened. That kind of source material would be considered totally unreliable under ANY circumstances. Yet for some reason religious people think they have a special “we don’t need rational reliable sources” card for this, and only this one subject. I don’t know how you can take the “non-argument” above and then conclude that the accounts of Jesus’s life and his sayings are true. You are reaching out REALLY hard there for justification of Jesus worship based on a non-argument that doesn’t even make that claim in an opinion piece in a magazine. Based on your absurd claim that Jesus’s message is something special (it isn’t), original (that’s bullshit it was all said before and way better than Jesus supposedly said it) and that we can trust that some guy named Jesus actually said the stuff written down in the bible (we absolutely CANNOT). Consider reading a reliable non-biased book on the historicity of Jesus. And for the love of God try to read a book, any reliable non-biased book about the history of Christianity and Jesus. For someone who worships the words this guy said you seem to know shockingly little about the context in which those words were written…which will definitely help you evaluate your own peculiar take on it.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #27548

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    That depends what your definition of “is” is.  The author is clearly implying that the following statements are attributed by experts to Jesus.

    #27549

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Don’t judge

    Yeah, except that is what Jesus is all about. His entire spiel is to walk around dropping parables that judge and test the faithfulness and devotion of his subjects. Based on this judgment he either saves you in heaven or tortures you in hell.

    Imagine for a second if Jesus was “for reals”, all of the things he could have taught us. Things we still don’t know or understand. Instead all we get is Iron Age nonsense.

     

    #27550

    Davis
    Participant

    Interesting Simon. Could you please give me the names of a few of those experts and an example of a work of theirs where they make this claim please?

    #27551

    Davis
    Participant

    He was saying old things in a new way.

    I see you’ve finally changed your mind about it and are now no longer of the stubborn opinion that it was somehow new. Now it’s just “in a new way”. That’s what every bloody spiritualist has done since history began. They all say a similar message in a new way. Jesus’s words (of which we have no evidence he ever said any of it) was just a repackaging and it wasn’t a particularly good one. It is accompanied by highly contradictory garbage where he mentions if you don’t believe in him you’ll burn forever in eternity, where he justifies the great flood, approves of various kinds of violence and commits violence himself. Meanwhile Lao Tzu said EVERYTHING Jesus did, before Jesus did, in a much better way and without the religious baggage, the hypocrisy, the horror that emanated from it and no threats of eternal torture nor justification of genocide.

    You basically have a hard on for a guy who we cannot confirm had any of the qualities you seem to love in him nor said any of the things that has led to your bromance with him. If you can get the same message and the same value from someone’s sayings and drop the toxic baggage that comes along with it, reason would suggest you drop the bullshit already.

    Now I’m looking forward to your next ridiculous easily refuted claim about the so called “Jesus’s message”.

    #27552

    From the last Sunday School —What would Hitchens and JP have to say on the matter.

Viewing 7 posts - 166 through 172 (of 172 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.