Why do the God-haters persist?

[koshergrl]

Christians certainly aren't judged, and will never be judged, by non-believers.

 

[orogenicman]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.

 

[Boss]

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.

There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.

We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.

No, it's true on it's own.

As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.

 

[orogenicman]

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.

There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.

Well, that is a convenient explanation, isn't it? And of course, you have at hand the documentation demonstrating that the Romans actually expunged any record of the existence of your savior, right? No? well, that too is convenient, isn't it? By the way, if the Jews and the Romans actively expunged any and all record of the existence of Jesus, why are you trying to make a case that Josephus, a well known ex-Jewish Roman, wrote about him? Details, details.

 

[orogenicman]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.

No, it's true on it's own.

As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.

I take it that English is a second language for you. How else to explain your neglect in reading the article at the link I provided earlier about progressive Christianity? Or perhaps willful ignorance, stupidity, denial, retardation? What is it that led to YOUR colossal failure?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.

There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.

We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.

Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.
E.L. Doctorow was famous for his novels that incorporated real people into his fictional accounts. The fact that certain places or events are in the book no more confirm scripture than Houdini confirms "Ragtime".
Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

 

[Boss]

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.

There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.

Well, that is a convenient explanation, isn't it? And of course, you have at hand the documentation demonstrating that the Romans actually expunged any record of the existence of your savior, right? No? well, that too is convenient, isn't it? By the way, if the Jews and the Romans actively expunged any and all record of the existence of Jesus, why are you trying to make a case that Josephus, a well known ex-Jewish Roman, wrote about him? Details, details.

It's not that it's "convenient" it's the truth. What kind of documentation do you want? It's all in the history books of how the Romans and Jews persecuted Jesus' followers after his crucifixion. As for Josephus, I don't think I've ever mentioned his name. I did speak of Paul of Tarsus who was a Roman. There were some Romans who converted to Christianity and advocated the teachings of Jesus. When we speak in terms of history, we often use generalized phraseology like "the Romans" but it is never implied we mean "every single Roman who was alive." In context of thought, it is meant to describe the political and governmental hierarchy. But I am sure you realized this and just wanted to be an obtuse ass clown, right?

 

[orogenicman]

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.

There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.

We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.

Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.
E.L. Doctorow was famous for his novels that incorporated real people into his fictional accounts. The fact that certain places or events are in the book no more confirm scripture than Houdini confirms "Ragtime".
Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

Particularly considering that he has vociferously denied that he is even a Christian.

I've also stated that I am not a Christian, nor do I have any organized religious affiliation.

 

[Boss]

Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.

LOL... Well, jeesh... see that's the thing about when the most powerful ruling government known to mankind is in charge of the records and decides something should be expunged... there's not much actual documentational evidence left behind to incriminate them. I'm sure you've heard the term "the victors write the history books" haven't you?

Tell ya what... I'll provide the evidence you request when you go and find the documentational evidence to explain what happened to 50 million indigenous people who once lived in the Americas. (aka: Indians, Native Americans) You see, you're going to have some trouble because it's not like the US Government kept really accurate records of how many were slaughtered over the years. Still... we don't have absolute ass clown idiots running around claiming it never happened.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.

No, it's true on it's own.

As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.

So many. Where to start?
Sloane Coffin. Stanley Hauerwaus of Duke University. Tony Campolo. Jim Wallis. John Crossan. Marcus Borg. Anne LaMott. Thomas Merton. Bono. Henri Nouwen. John Shelby Spong. Shane Claiborne.

 

[Boss]

Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.

Any particular lie you want to point out, or just flail about?

 

[Montrovant]

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

To be fair, he did say science could eventually detect it.

I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday, if something is there.

I don't think that's what he said at all. I think he said that if the spiritual exists, at some point it can be detected by science. Hence could eventually, not would have. I'm pretty sure he was arguing against your point that the since the spiritual is inherently not physical, science can never detect it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.

You aren't defending Christians.
You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
Your such a weak thinker.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday, if something is there.

And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.

No I haven't and that is a mischaracterization of what I've said. By definition, something that is physically proven with physical science is physical in nature. If something is thought to be spiritual and physical evidence comes to light in support of it, that thing can no longer be spiritual in nature because it just became physical. It's a logic dichotomy.

Where you might be drawing confusion is my position on "evidence" and how physical science can't evaluate spiritual evidence. This does not mean that physical science can't evaluate physical evidence that explains something believed spiritual in nature.

So truth can be extrapolated?
Like with macro-evolution?
Got it.

 

[Boss]

Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".

What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.

You aren't defending Christians.
You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
Your such a weak thinker.

See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, and just debate me on the merits of what I say?

 

[Agit8r]

Because the Abrahamic god is quite simply despicable, as evidenced by the violence that takes place on Earth in his name. Duh.

 

[koshergrl]

How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?

 

[thebrucebeat]

What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.

You aren't defending Christians.
You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
Your such a weak thinker.

See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, and just debate me on the merits of what I say?

I AM!!!
These are your arguments.
YOU have said your version of god isn't personal, it has no interest in you personally. You have said that you don't think the Christian vision of god is accurate, though you like some of what the bible says you don't think it is the inerrant word of a god. You don't believe in the religious doctrine. You just said it!!!!
What context should I take that in? How did I manipulate that?
You just hate it when your own words are thrown back in your face at inconvenient moments. You are a very "weal"(sic) thinker, and you are a coward when faced with your own inconsistent and illogical argumentation.
These are the lack of merits of what you say.
But they ARE what you say.