So here's a question for the believers...

[Jester]

I agree that we could all be wrong. However, actual evidence supports my hypothesis.



I disagree. I'd posit that there is no reason that, if something exists, it cannot be demonstrated, just like everything else we know to exist. Your continuing reliance on unsupported assertions does not support either your supernatural sycophancy, nor your current assertion on an unrepeatable or falsifiable test.



While possible, it's unlikely.



Right. This is how the truth is discovered. We just pick a random answer because it feels good, and then just pretend that it's the best.

You've exhibited nearly every quality that you have claimed not to in this thread.

Based on your responses in this thread, you really could have just summed up your entire post with "If you won't let me win, I'm just going to take my ball and go home!"

You are quite good at picking apart a response yet you spin the response into something you can pick apart. I have never once said that we should stop searching for the truth. Not even for a second. I would love to know the truth, but until then, I am gonna go what I feel to be the truth and wait for the truth to be revealed to me.
Like it has already been stated, I win either way if I am wrong. If I am wrong and their is no God, what do I lose? If I am right and there is a God, then I am happy.
If you are wrong......well, good luck. With that said, I am not saying I think you will go to hell. I think that is a made up place to make people behave or scare them into believing.

[Maddhattter]

You are quite good at picking apart a response yet you spin the response into something you can pick apart.

No spin is put on any of your posts. That is the reason I quote the entire post and respond to it.

I also quote entire posts so that when someone states, for example, "I dont begin to act like I understand any of it" that they are not different when they, then, state "That is what knowing God is about". When the cognitive dissonance appears that allows two, or more, mutually exclusive statements to be held as if they are, somehow, a singular cohesive idea, it needs to be illustrated and brought to the attention of the one demonstrating it.

I've not even pulled your statements out of context. I respond to them within the context they are posted, but isolate the portion relevant to my statements to avoid the claim that I am not responding to individual points in people's posts.

I have never once said that we should stop searching for the truth. Not even for a second.

I agree that you never stated that directly, but by your own statements, you believe you've already found the truth. Much like my car keys in the morning, when I find them, there is no reason to continue looking. So, once again, you provide two directly contradicting statements.

I would love to know the truth, but until then, I am gonna go what I feel to be the truth and wait for the truth to be revealed to me.

You've stated that the truth already has been, by way of "knowing" god. So, again, you state that you know the truth, yet are still looking for it. The two are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

You are also, by this statement, intellectually lazy. If you are just waiting for the truth to be revealed, you are, explicitly, not looking for it. You are waiting for someone to bring it to you.

Like it has already been stated, I win either way if I am wrong. If I am wrong and their is no God, what do I lose? If I am right and there is a God, then I am happy.
If you are wrong......well, good luck.

I've also explained how Pascal's wager is, not only, erroneous but a terrible bet. You're betting on a horse in a race with an infinite amount of competitors. You're claiming that you know the one that wins. I'm saying that it's possible that none of them will. If I'm wrong, and that god/gods would punish me for using the intellect it gave me to come to the conclusion that he/she/it/they do/does not exist when there is no evidence for it, then he/she/it/they, in my opinion, is/are not worthy of worship as they would be no better than petty tyrants. Even if I found that god concept to exist, I would admit it's existence, but still refuse to worship it.

Retreating to Pascal's wager also reillustrates my statement of you not being interested in finding the truth. You just want to find what feels good to you. Pascal's wager has the underlying implication that the truth is irrelevant to the situation; you should just go with with what will benefit you the most, based on the most common religion in your region. For Pascal, and for you as well, that religion is christianity. As I stated before, this does not help your case, as the exact rationale is used by many people of many different religions. So, this bad logic is not unique to your favored fantastical overlord's cult, nor does it better support any religion vs none, as if you are wrong about your theism, you've squandered the one life that you get. To put it in perspective, you'd have taken the equivalent to a cure for cancer, as wasted it on a hypochondriac.

With that said, I am not saying I think you will go to hell. I think that is a made up place to make people behave or scare them into believing.

So, you disagree with the book that "has really told me to read and try and follow to have a closer relationship with him(god)"? I ask because the book you claim to be holy, by your stated adherence to christianity, states that not only will I go to hell, but you should kill me and speed my trip.

There is no consistency in your stances. You pick a choose what morality you wish to believe based on what you already believe to be true. You are then asserting that you've got the right answer, which precludes the chance of the answer being wrong, impeding the search for actual truths that have more credibility than Grimm's fairy tales, which no religion has.

[The King]

So, you disagree with the book that "has really told me to read and try and follow to have a closer relationship with him(god)"? I ask because the book you claim to be holy, by your stated adherence to christianity, states that not only will I go to hell, but you should kill me and speed my trip.

There is no consistency in your stances. You pick a choose what morality you wish to believe based on what you already believe to be true. You are then asserting that you've got the right answer, which precludes the chance of the answer being wrong, impeding the search for actual truths that have more credibility than Grimm's fairy tales, which no religion has.

No, it does not. Since you are obviously so well versed on Scriptural matters however, you should have no problem quoting references from the Bible, likely by way of googling in your case, to support your statement that anyone among us is beyond redemption and already destined to go to hell, or that Christian adherents should kill anyone to speed said individual's trip to hell, as you put it.

[Jester]

response.

READ VERY CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY

What I have felt is now what I have FAITH in. If I had found that feeling revealed to me by a unicorn, I would believe in the almighty unicorn. It is SIMPLE for you to debate what you have not felt and to call it nonsense. I NEVER once said I believe the Bible to be true. I read it to try and understand better what I have experienced and to try and help me get some answers. I have read plenty of science books, and plenty of alien books, and plenty of different religious books, and plenty of other books in my search for the truth. So called "scientists" such as yourself love to try and lump Christians all into the same category, but that is not the case.

You want truth or evidence? Well, to me, I have seen enough proof in my life to believe what I believe. I have never felt anything as real as what I felt. And I am truly sorry you have not experienced it. I applaud you for continuing to try and unlock the great mystery. Good luck.

And my big argument against all the religious people when i thought differently was all they actually had was faith. And I was right. All I have is faith. And that is all I need.

[Maddhattter]

No, it does not. Since you are obviously so well versed on Scriptural matters however, you should have no problem quoting references from the Bible, likely by way of googling in your case, to support your statement that anyone among us is beyond redemption and already destined to go to hell, or that Christian adherents should kill anyone to speed said individual's trip to hell, as you put it.

I will gladly post evidence for my statements. However, first, your strawman of my statement needs to be addressed. I never said that anyone is beyond redemption, just hellbound. Now, the bible refers to people who are beyone redemption via blasphemy...

Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.”

Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Hebrews 6:4-8: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case — the things that have to do with salvation.”

Hebrews 10:26-29: “For we, sinning wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?”

All the above is fairly irrelevant to what I said, as I never mentioned anything about being beyond redemption. However, the bible explicitly mentions a sin that will not be forgiven.

Now, on to my statement, that "...not only will I go to hell, but you should kill me and speed my trip".

The bible clearly states that the only way into heaven is via Jesus. In fact, Jesus himself says so in John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Considering that I reject the very existence of Jesus based on there being no extra-biblical or contemporary historical evidence to even show that he existed, I cannot accept him into my heart or ask his forgiveness, or gods for that matter. This sentences me to hell. The bible mentions no place that is an alternative to heaven or hell after death, without believing in god or Jesus, I can't get into heaven. This leaves only one other option.

As to the helping me on my trip, Jesus explicitly tells Zacchaeus and the listening Luke 19:27 : "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Now, as I do not submit myself to something that has no actual historical data to support it's existence, I would be an enemy, which would not that it should reign over me, and I should be brought forth and slain.

So, it would seem, that unless you attempt to arbitrarily redefine words or continue to build straw-men of my arguments, that the bible does in fact, state that I am going to hell, and Jesus called for those who reject him to be brought forth and killed.

I even broke out my bible from the late 1800s, a KJV bible app I have installed on my phone, bible.org and bible.cc to ensure that all the context is being properly considered in these verses.

While listing the sources is fairly irrelevant, I just wanted to take the chance to brag on the nearly 200 year old bible I got as a gift. It's a beautiful book.

[Maddhattter]

READ VERY CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY

What I have felt is now what I have FAITH in.

Which, as I've stated before, is fine. You're welcome to believe any nonsense you'd like. However, what you can't honestly say is that you know that which you believe on faith. You just assert it, with no evidence to support the claim.

If I had found that feeling revealed to me by a unicorn, I would believe in the almighty unicorn.

This shows that you have no concern on what is the truth. You only care about what makes you feel good. Again, I think this is silly, but you are free to believe whatever you'd like. It does not, however, give you any claim to truth when you have no evidence to support it. The only thing you can claim is true is that you believe something, not that what you believe is true.

It is SIMPLE for you to debate what you have not felt and to call it nonsense.

It is simple for me to debate you, as I did feel that way. I was a christian for many years, and I found that I care more about the truth than what gives me fuzzy feelings inside. A sentiment that you, apparently do not share.

I NEVER once said I believe the Bible to be true.

So, are you stating that you do not believe it to be true? That would be an odd claim, as there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the book, so that is the only source of information on him. Unless you just make shit up and claim you have it on faith...

I read it to try and understand better what I have experienced and to try and help me get some answers.

If you do not believe the bible is true, as you implied above, then how can you get answers out of it? When you contradict yourself on so many occasions, it's hard to take any of your statements seriously. Either you believe the bible is true or you do not.

I have read plenty of science books, and plenty of alien books, and plenty of different religious books, and plenty of other books in my search for the truth.

By all appearances, you've dismissed all of them when it comes to the rationality of your religion. You just assert that you know things that you can give no evidence for. Religions and god concepts are mutually exclusive, they cannot all be right. That would mean that only one, or none can be right. We can make no honest claim of the truthfulness of any religion without evidence to support those claims. Given that, the number of religious books you've read means nothing, as none of them provide any evidence to support them claims beyond the baseless assertions they present between the covers the pages are bound to.

While I have no doubt that extraterrestrial life exists, we've found no evidence to support that anyone has ever seen or encountered any beyond the microscopic level. UFO stands for, -READ VERY CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY- unidentified flying object. The 'U' is important, as it stands for unidentified. That means we cannot identify the object. If we cannot identify the object, that means we don't know what it is. This means that asserting that is an extraterrestrial craft is an argument from ignorance. If you believe it is one, I don't care. It's when you claim that it's true, that you begin to stop being honest.

So called "scientists" such as yourself love to try and lump Christians all into the same category, but that is not the case.

Never stated I was a scientist. In fact, I've never stated what I do for a living at all. However, I'll take the compliment of you assuming that is the case.

I do not lump all christians into the same category. There are multiple sects of your particular cult. I do, however, put people into the categories they indicate they put themselves in and there are basic stipulations that must be true for the label to fit. If you call yourself a christian, you must believe that Jesus, Yahweh's son, died for your sins. The only place this information comes from is the bible. Therefore, the bible must be sufficient evidence, to you, for the accuracy of the Jesus story. This would mean that you think the bible is true.

This process is called reasoning. It's not beyond your capability, as I have no doubt that you use it quite often. It just appears that you stop using it when it comes to your religion.

You want truth or evidence?

Yes. Explicitly, the same kind of evidence that is used to support anything else that we know to exists. Reproducible, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence.

Well, to me, I have seen enough proof in my life to believe what I believe. I have never felt anything as real as what I felt.

You take a feeling, that you state you don't understand, then state that you know it comes from god, then call it evidence? This is contradictory and incompatible. I'm not denying that you felt... well... anything. However, the feelings you had are reproducible, and have no requirement of a supernatural origin and no evidence to support that it ever comes from one. You, however, are just baselessly asserting that it came from the deity that happens to be the most popular one in the area you live. This is called an argument from ignorance, supported by conformation bias. These are well understood phenomena.

And I am truly sorry you have not experienced it. I applaud you for continuing to try and unlock the great mystery. Good luck.

I hope I do find what is actually true. I'll even concede that you may be right. Problem is, if you are, based on the information you've provided you are right for all the wrong reasons. You've provided a precedent for you to believe anything, as long as you feel good about it. This is a terrible foundation to build any belief system on.

And my big argument against all the religious people when i thought differently was all they actually had was faith. And I was right. All I have is faith. And that is all I need.

If that's all you need to believe, that's fine. As I've stated earlier in this post and in others, you're free to believe whatever you wish. I would not want that right taken from you, or myself.

Again, though, I will reiterate that, with only faith, you have no intellectually honest means of which to claim that you have truth.

[The King]

I will gladly post evidence for my statements. However, first, your strawman of my statement needs to be addressed. I never said that anyone is beyond redemption, just hellbound. Now, the bible refers to people who are beyone redemption via blasphemy...

Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.”

Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Hebrews 6:4-8: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case — the things that have to do with salvation.”

Hebrews 10:26-29: “For we, sinning wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?”

All the above is fairly irrelevant to what I said, as I never mentioned anything about being beyond redemption. However, the bible explicitly mentions a sin that will not be forgiven.

Blasphemy of the holy spirit is indeed recorded in the Bible as an unforgivable sin, but that in of itself does not mean anyone is already "hellbound" as you state. An individual must first exercise their free will and choose to engage in such blasphemy, in which case they may very well be. In the End however, Jesus is the only authority with the power to render that judgement, so your speculation meanwhile is just that......speculation. You may be of the opinion that you have engaged in such blasphemy here, but if so it is my opinion that you're not exceptionally proficient at it.

Now, on to my statement, that "...not only will I go to hell, but you should kill me and speed my trip".

The bible clearly states that the only way into heaven is via Jesus. In fact, Jesus himself says so in John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Considering that I reject the very existence of Jesus based on there being no extra-biblical or contemporary historical evidence to even show that he existed, I cannot accept him into my heart or ask his forgiveness, or gods for that matter. This sentences me to hell. The bible mentions no place that is an alternative to heaven or hell after death, without believing in god or Jesus, I can't get into heaven. This leaves only one other option.

Again, Jesus will be the only authority who renders judgement in this matter, 'hatter.

As to the helping me on my trip, Jesus explicitly tells Zacchaeus and the listening Luke 19:27 : "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Now, as I do not submit myself to something that has no actual historical data to support it's existence, I would be an enemy, which would not that it should reign over me, and I should be brought forth and slain.

So, it would seem, that unless you attempt to arbitrarily redefine words or continue to build straw-men of my arguments, that the bible does in fact, state that I am going to hell, and Jesus called for those who reject him to be brought forth and killed.

I even broke out my bible from the late 1800s, a KJV bible app I have installed on my phone, bible.org and bible.cc to ensure that all the context is being properly considered in these verses.

While listing the sources is fairly irrelevant, I just wanted to take the chance to brag on the nearly 200 year old bible I got as a gift. It's a beautiful book.

This is your most ludicrous post thus far, at least in response to mine. Your selection from Luke 19 above conveniently omits all preceeding lines in the chapter, including those of the parable of which your qoute above is the closer. It is the central figure in the parable, not Jesus, who is the literal subject of that verse. Nice try through, Maddguy/racrhatter, and kudos to your selection of sources.

[Maddhattter]

Blasphemy of the holy spirit is indeed recorded in the Bible as an unforgivable sin, but that in of itself does not mean anyone is already "hellbound" as you state. An individual must first exercise their free will and choose to engage in such blasphemy, in which case they may very well be. In the End however, Jesus is the only authority with the power to render that judgement, so your speculation meanwhile is just that......speculation. You may be of the opinion that you have engaged in such blasphemy here, but if so it is my opinion that you're not exceptionally proficient at it.

Straw-man, as expected. I never stated that anyone is already "hellbound". If you accept the first sin doctrine, then everyone is, in fact, hellbound until they ask for forgiveness.

While Jesus may have the only authority, the professed opinions of the character are expressly stated so his judgement can be reasonably extrapolated. So, no speculation by me. Only what's stated.

Again, Jesus will be the only authority who renders judgement in this matter, 'hatter.

Again, I never stated the book said otherwise. This is why I quoted him, to keep the context. His own quotes indicate the judgement. I'm, once again, not passing judgement, I'm restating his statements to support my claim that I'm going to hell based on my actions, or lack thereof. Simple proof of this, I don't believe Jesus ever existed. So, my opinion is that the words of a character in a book is meaningless beyond the story. That would be me making a judgement.

This is your most ludicrous post thus far, at least in response to mine. Your selection from Luke 19 above conveniently omits all preceeding lines in the chapter, including those of the parable of which your qoute above is the closer.

Baseless assertion. The parable ends on Luke 19:24. Starting Luke 19:25 the context of the statements no longer follow the perspective of the parable that Jesus was telling. In fact, Luke 19:26 "For I say onto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him", Jesus is restating the moral of the parable he has already concluded. As I stated, the quote is kept in context, as even if Jesus had told 100 parables in the chapter, it does not change the context of Luke 19:27. Especially considering that Luke 19:27 has no placement within the context previous parable.

It is the central figure in the parable, not Jesus, who is the literal subject of that verse.

As a simple literary analysis, as explained above, shows otherwise, this is not correct either.

Nice try through, Maddguy/racrhatter, and kudos to your selection of sources.

No trying involved. All of it is plainly stated, as long as the verses are not cherry-picked, and the context is maintained. Your assertions would carry more weight if you actually supported them with evidence, as I do and have done, rather than merely assert that you are correct.

[Jester]

You have showed no evidence whatsoever on what you think might be true. None! You have yet to even begin to discuss what you believe or even might want to follow in your pursuit for the truth. Well, enlighten us.

What you actually do is just run away with a tiny portion of a statement and twist it to support your argument. You should work for any news station out there other than Fox.

Example? sure.
"So, are you stating that you do not believe it to be true? That would be an odd claim, as there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the book, so that is the only source of information on him. Unless you just make shit up and claim you have it on faith..."

So, I say I never said I thought the Bible to be true and you twist it into the above statement. It really does make you come off more as a moron instead of the intellect you are desperately trying to portray yourself as. The Bible has been translated several times and also edited several times. Until I can search the deepest depths of the Vatican, or uncover any other ancient documents filling in the gaps, I will read the Bible as a story or a guideline. Nothing more.

So, I will await anxiously for you to go ahead and show me some of your real wisdom instead of twisting statements to what you want them to say.

Let's hear it. Let's hear what you believe to be true and let's see all of the evidence. I would also like to know what exactly made you not a Christian anymore and how you can be so sure it is bogus.

For someone who trys to present themselves as having an open mind, you really seem to have quite the opposite.

[Jester]

hatter, you also mentioned thaqt Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible. I spent 30 seconds on google.

Question three: Do other historical records mention Jesus? Yes!

Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.

One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).

Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.

Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion::

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*

In addition, the writings of opponents of Christianty such as Jews and Gnostics, confirm that Jesus was a real person. If they could, the best alternative for Christianity's enemies would have been to say Jesus never lived. But the evidence was too real and fresh--there were people still alive who knew Jesus or the Apostles. Their only alternative was to accept Jesus, but change his message.

The conclusion: the non-Christian writtings confirm that Jesus was a real person

[Maddhattter]

You have showed no evidence whatsoever on what you think might be true. None! You have yet to even begin to discuss what you believe or even might want to follow in your pursuit for the truth.

You are correct. I have not discussed what I believe to be true. I've provided evidence to nearly all of my positive claims. If there is a positive claim I've made that you'd like me to provide evidence to, you need but to ask.

Well, enlighten us.

In regards to theism? I maintain the default stance. I lack a belief in any god/gods/supernatural. I lack this belief because there is no reliable evidence, that meets my previously stated criteria, to support the claim.

Funny thing is, even if I believed that the bhagavad gita a factual account of the supernatural, that would in no way change any of the statements I've made above, aside from any reference to my beliefs. It would also not change any of the logical fallacies that you've engaged in to reach your current stance. What it would do, however, is illustrate that I am failing to apply the same standards of evidence to my beliefs that I expect you to apply to yours.

I will also note, that my current beliefs on the supernatural are irrelevant to the discussion as I've not once claimed that my beliefs are true or fact.

What you actually do is just run away with a tiny portion of a statement and twist it to support your argument. You should work for any news station out there other than Fox.

Example? sure.
"So, are you stating that you do not believe it to be true? That would be an odd claim, as there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the book, so that is the only source of information on him. Unless you just make shit up and claim you have it on faith..."

So, I say I never said I thought the Bible to be true and you twist it into the above statement.

I asserted, in the post before yours that you saw the bible as true. You responded with the statement that you never said the bible is true. This creates the implication that you do not believe the bible is true. That is why the statement you just quoted starts with a question, not a statement of fact. The entire quote, as a response to your statement that you did not state that you thought the bible is true, is a valid response in context. There is no twisting done, as none was needed. Simple reading comprehension would have prevented your misunderstanding..

It really does make you come off more as a moron instead of the intellect you are desperately trying to portray yourself as.

I can see how it would make me come off that way to people who don't know how to properly take statements in the context in which they are presented.

The Bible has been translated several times and also edited several times.

Right. I, however, fail to see the relevance. If you concede that translation errors are made, then you cannot verify that any of the information contained within is true. This completely undercuts any reason to seek the bible for anything other than fiction.

Until I can search the deepest depths of the Vatican, or uncover any other ancient documents filling in the gaps, I will read the Bible as a story or a guideline. Nothing more.

So, you do not believe the bible is true... This only expounds on the silliness of you claiming my quote twisted anything.

So, I will await anxiously for you to go ahead and show me some of your real wisdom instead of twisting statements to what you want them to say.

I can't have twisted anything. Not only have you admitted that you do not believe the bible is true, but I did not twist anything in the initial quote you're using. The only way my statement above can be twisting anything is if it is altered to state...

"You stating that you do not believe it to be true. This means that you just make shit up and claim you have it on faith..."

This would have me misrepresenting your statement, and jumping to a conclusion. That is what happens when peoples statements are twisted.

Let's hear it. Let's hear what you believe to be true and let's see all of the evidence. I would also like to know what exactly made you not a Christian anymore and how you can be so sure it is bogus.

I'm fairly certain I've explained my stance already in previous posts...

Oh, look...

Either we were both atheists at one point, or you never were.

Here is an admission that I am an atheist. Fairly certain that I explained the reason for it somewhere too...

I was a christian for many years, and I found that I care more about the truth than what gives me fuzzy feelings inside.

There it is.

Your misrepresentation of my stance, while amusing, shows only a failure to actually read my responses. I've never said that I am sure it's "bogus". I only stated that it is untrue, or, to simplify it, that there is no rational reason to believe it, and due to the lack of evidence no way to call it truth.

Just because I'm being lazy at the moment, I'll refer you to this post where I explain how untrue =/= false.

For someone who trys to present themselves as having an open mind, you really seem to have quite the opposite.

Incorrect. I've never stated that your beliefs are false, nor have I stated that they cannot be true. There has been a complete and utter failure on your part to provide any evidence to support your religious claims, and, therefore, no reason to for me to believe your religious claims. Just because I don't swallow your unsupported assertions of truth in regards to the existence of a deity, does not indicate close-mindedness. Close mindedness would require that I refuse the assertion despite the evidence provided. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Your ignorance of how to properly apply skepticism to all things does not change this.

[Maddhattter]

hatter, you also mentioned thaqt Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible.

Straw-man. I never stated this. I stated that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed outside of the bible. Please, if you are going to provide evidence to something, respond to what I'm saying and not a characture of it.

I spent 30 seconds on google.

And we all know that 30 seconds on goolge allows you to verify your sources, had you provided any. I took the liberty of finding the page that you copy/pasted without researching. So, we'll do what anyone interested in the truth would do... We'll first look at the source.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/about/doctrinal-statement.html

"The Word of God. The Bible is the inspired word of God, true in all that it claims to be true, without error in the original manuscripts. It is our final standard of faith and practice."

This is an admission that they have a clear bias to dismiss any evidence that is contray to their stance, regardless of it's validity. This does not state that what they say is false, but it does demonstrate that there is no reason to trust this source.

In the interest of the truth, we'll go on.

Question three: Do other historical records mention Jesus? Yes!

Mentioning Jesus does little to support the claim that he existed. It would provide a little support, but there are problems in application of techniques used to verify historical figures and the techniques used below. I'll explain.

Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.

This is irrelevant to the question and gives the answer no credence or support.

One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).

Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.

Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion::

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*

In addition, the writings of opponents of Christianty such as Jews and Gnostics, confirm that Jesus was a real person. If they could, the best alternative for Christianity's enemies would have been to say Jesus never lived. But the evidence was too real and fresh--there were people still alive who knew Jesus or the Apostles. Their only alternative was to accept Jesus, but change his message.

So, there are no contemporary records of Jesus existing, as all these statements are made after his death. No extrabiblical contemporary records of his miricals, of zombies storming the cities. Just people writing what was told to them in a generational game of telephone.

The conclusion: the non-Christian writtings confirm that Jesus was a real person

Sorry, the conclusion does not match the evidence. If you'd like to pursue this line of thought anymore, I suggest starting with the 'What makes the bible true' thread. This will prevent you from attempting to present the same unreliable information from unreliable sources that others have already presented. Both of our time would be better spent that way, as neither of us would have to repeat things that have already been covered.

[Jester]

response.

As we all know, the only real evidence is the eye whitness accounts that knew Jesus. Now, these were not the smartest people in the world at the time, which is why I do not put a lot of "faith" into the Bible. I read it and that is about it. Also a big reason why I do not go to church or put myself in any particular christian area. I claim to be a Christian because when I found God and Jesus, it was as real to me as anything I have ever known. It was as real to me as the air I breathe.......which I have also not seen but know it is there.

So, I(me personally) do not need one shred of proof that what I know to be real to me exists.......because of my faith that it is real. You can simply call it ignorance. Don't care. I do, however, enjoy wondering and seeking what else may be out there and what else may be the truth. I believe I know the truth. I also understand that people believed the earth to be flat at one point. Until the day I meet my maker, or there is nothing, or any other inifinite possibilities presents itself before me, I will not know.

To explain this in an extremely easy to follow way, let me put it like this. I find Guiness Draught to be the absolute best beer on the planet. I may be wrong. There are lots of other beers out there that claim to be the best, but I have faith that mine is the best, because to me, it is. Until a more beautiful beer comes along and completely changes my mind about my beer, I will be faithful to my beer. I will enjoy trying other beers from time to time, but I have my doubts that any beer will be better than my beer. I will wait patiently and enjoy my beer until you hand me a better beer.......and then I shall remain faithful to that beer until someone finds me a better beer.

[racrguy]

As we all know, the only real evidence is the eye whitness accounts that knew Jesus. Now, these were not the smartest people in the world at the time, which is why I do not put a lot of "faith" into the Bible. I read it and that is about it. Also a big reason why I do not go to church or put myself in any particular christian area. I claim to be a Christian because when I found God and Jesus, it was as real to me as anything I have ever known. It was as real to me as the air I breathe.......which I have also not seen but know it is there.

So, I(me personally) do not need one shred of proof that what I know to be real to me exists.......because of my faith that it is real. You can simply call it ignorance. Don't care. I do, however, enjoy wondering and seeking what else may be out there and what else may be the truth. I believe I know the truth. I also understand that people believed the earth to be flat at one point. Until the day I meet my maker, or there is nothing, or any other inifinite possibilities presents itself before me, I will not know.

To explain this in an extremely easy to follow way, let me put it like this. I find Guiness Draught to be the absolute best beer on the planet. I may be wrong. There are lots of other beers out there that claim to be the best, but I have faith that mine is the best, because to me, it is. Until a more beautiful beer comes along and completely changes my mind about my beer, I will be faithful to my beer. I will enjoy trying other beers from time to time, but I have my doubts that any beer will be better than my beer. I will wait patiently and enjoy my beer until you hand me a better beer.......and then I shall remain faithful to that beer until someone finds me a better beer.

Delusional, simply delusional.

[The King]

Baseless assertion. The parable ends on Luke 19:24. Starting Luke 19:25 the context of the statements no longer follow the perspective of the parable that Jesus was telling. In fact, Luke 19:26 "For I say onto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him", Jesus is restating the moral of the parable he has already concluded. As I stated, the quote is kept in context, as even if Jesus had told 100 parables in the chapter, it does not change the context of Luke 19:27. Especially considering that Luke 19:27 has no placement within the context previous parable.

No trying involved. All of it is plainly stated, as long as the verses are not cherry-picked, and the context is maintained. Your assertions would carry more weight if you actually supported them with evidence, as I do and have done, rather than merely assert that you are correct.

The best option is to display the entire parable, rather than your assertions about it. That way the reader can understand for themselves. Wonder why that concept wasn't employed in your albeit already bloated postings? My statement of "nice try" stands.

Luke 19:11-28 (KJV)

And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.