• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If there is a Heaven, I'll be there.[W:417]

RAMOSS said:
BUt, do you know what his argument is, and do you realize why it's a logical fallacy??? And yes, you copy the arguments people use against you. YOu use the logical fallacies against me, you used the 'you are angry' line against someone who said you are angry. It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't figured it out, I am making fun of you, and whoever else I find who takes themselves too seriously.
 
it's just me said:
In case you haven't figured it out, I am making fun of you, and whoever else I find who takes themselves too seriously.
Click to expand...

In other words you are trolling and baiting, as well as showing off your ignorance.
 
devildavid said:
Your view is silliness. They saw a benefit to following their new religion because it did something for them. You make it sound as if they thought that the religion was all about letting themselves be killed to achieve eternal life. Is that really what christ was asking them to do? Nothing in the bible supports that view.
Click to expand...

Yea, it did something alright. It got them nailed to crosses and fed to wild animals. Christ said to make disciples of all nations. That means all people. That's exactly what the first Christians were trying to do, spread the word.

Matthew 28: 19-20
 
veritas1 said:
Yea, it did something alright. It got them nailed to crosses and fed to wild animals. Christ said to make disciples of all nations. That means all people. That's exactly what the first Christians were trying to do, spread the word.

Matthew 28: 19-20
Click to expand...

Well, there are a lot of claims and stories about it. The actual historical evidence for both Jewish martyrs and Christian martyrs from the 1st to 4th centuries is actually pretty sparse. There is plenty of evidence those stories were edited and expanded upon as a source of inspiration to others... but they stories actually happening, not so much
 
it's just me said:
This is the usual "I'm wonderful and you're not" rant with a healthy dose of "you're copying me" and "you have bad reading comprehension". Over the time I have known you, you have demonstrated an shocking inability to understand or comment on anything anybody else is saying unless it fits your own worldview. There are two possible reasons for this: (1. You don't know what is being said, or (2: you don't care about what is being said and you are arguing just to argue.

I know what Logicman was saying and I know what you're saying, and what you're saying is the usual pseudo-intellectual jazz we get from you. HINT: if Logicman is saying something wrong how about telling us all what it is without resorting to crying "fallacy".
Click to expand...

My vote is on the latter...or maybe the first...or perhaps both...:2razz:
 
veritas1 said:
Yea, it did something alright. It got them nailed to crosses and fed to wild animals. Christ said to make disciples of all nations. That means all people. That's exactly what the first Christians were trying to do, spread the word.

Matthew 28: 19-20
Click to expand...

So how did it spread if they all got killed? And why would people want to follow a religion that apparently in your view meant certain death?
 
Elvira said:
My vote is on the latter...or maybe the first...or perhaps both...:2razz:
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was against JW principles to vote.
 
vegas giants said:
Thankfully the bible is a work of fiction
Click to expand...

Logicman said:
You've obviously never studied it.
Click to expand...


Why would one study an alleged piece of fiction to determine if it is a fiction? This exercise is useless regardless of the truth or falsity of the alleged fiction. It's one of the rather smaller set of things that are false by definition.


Change your DP name.
 
Dragonfly said:
I started this thread. I give you permission.
Go for it.
Click to expand...

Have you anything to say on post #262?

I mean you dont have to or anything but it would be nice seeing as how I took the time to stop in to see you.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Have you anything to say on post #262?

I mean you dont have to or anything but it would be nice seeing as how I took the time to stop in to see you.
Click to expand...

Meh, you basically just made a very broad statement that goes like this:

"I'ts not enough to just not be bad, you also have to be good."

Which really doesn't stimulate a need for a great deal of discussion.
 
Dragonfly said:
Meh, you basically just made a very broad statement that goes like this:

"I'ts not enough to just not be bad, you also have to be good."

Which really doesn't stimulate a need for a great deal of discussion.
Click to expand...

Wrong...It is not enough to not screw up, you need to make an effort to get the main job done.

With the idea that you are going to get judged on how well you get the main job done.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Wrong...It is not enough to not screw up, you need to make an effort to get the main job done.

With the idea that you are going to get judged on how well you get the main job done.
Click to expand...

What's "the main job"?
 
Dragonfly said:
Meh, you basically just made a very broad statement that goes like this:

"I'ts not enough to just not be bad, you also have to be good."

Which really doesn't stimulate a need for a great deal of discussion.
Click to expand...
Says the starter of the Leah Remini thread! Oboy.
 
Mr Person said:
Why would one study an alleged piece of fiction to determine if it is a fiction?
Click to expand...

How would you know it's fiction unless you've done your due-diligence on it to find out? Answer the question?

Mr Person said:
This exercise is useless regardless of the truth or falsity of the alleged fiction. It's one of the rather smaller set of things that are false by definition.
Click to expand...

Horse manure. The day you can demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is fiction is the day you can celebrate. Until then all you have is hot air.

Mr Person said:
Change your DP name.
Click to expand...

Do your homework so you'll have a clue what you're talking about. Then you can run with the big dogs.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, there are a lot of claims and stories about it. The actual historical evidence for both Jewish martyrs and Christian martyrs from the 1st to 4th centuries is actually pretty sparse. There is plenty of evidence those stories were edited and expanded upon as a source of inspiration to others... but they stories actually happening, not so much
Click to expand...

Oh, and Peter wasn't martyred? Paul? First century Christians weren't severely persecuted? There is no debate on this issue among any reputable historians.
 
devildavid said:
So how did it spread if they all got killed? And why would people want to follow a religion that apparently in your view meant certain death?
Click to expand...

It spread because the apostles were not the only people who saw Jesus after his crucifixion. He appeared to 500 people at one time. So, many people went out to spread the word. The people who saw Jesus knew what they saw. The people who didn't see Him believed the testimony of those that did. That's why we now have 2.2 billion Christians.
 
veritas1 said:
Oh, and Peter wasn't martyred? Paul? First century Christians weren't severely persecuted? There is no debate on this issue among any reputable historians.
Click to expand...

There is a possibility about Peter, but most of the others tend to be edited and modified over the years.
 
veritas1 said:
It spread because the apostles were not the only people who saw Jesus after his crucifixion. He appeared to 500 people at one time. So, many people went out to spread the word. The people who saw Jesus knew what they saw. The people who didn't see Him believed the testimony of those that did. That's why we now have 2.2 billion Christians.
Click to expand...

Really? Where does the evidence come from that a risen Jesus appeared to 500 people? And why would this alleged appearance cause them to spread a religion that they knew nothing about? How do you know that these alleged witnesses knew what they saw? And why do you think it was only eyewitnesses who spread Christianity? Saul/Paul was not an eyewitness and did not believe the testimony. He allegedly physically encountered god and thus became a follower. He is a key figure in the spread of Christianity yet does not fit the profile you describe.
 
devildavid said:
Really? Where does the evidence come from that a risen Jesus appeared to 500 people? And why would this alleged appearance cause them to spread a religion that they knew nothing about? How do you know that these alleged witnesses knew what they saw? And why do you think it was only eyewitnesses who spread Christianity? Saul/Paul was not an eyewitness and did not believe the testimony. He allegedly physically encountered god and thus became a follower. He is a key figure in the spread of Christianity yet does not fit the profile you describe.
Click to expand...

It comes from scripture, of course, the same scriopture you are referencing regarding Paul. If 500 people see somebody alive that they know had been crucified and buried, would they keep that a secret? As I stated above, both eyewitnesses and those who believed the eyewitnesses went about spreading the word. People are spreading Christianity this minute and none of them saw Jesus but they believe that the first witnesses did see Him and that is why they carry on Christ's great commission.
 
veritas1 said:
It comes from scripture, of course, the same scriopture you are referencing regarding Paul. If 500 people see somebody alive that they know had been crucified and buried, would they keep that a secret? As I stated above, both eyewitnesses and those who believed the eyewitnesses went about spreading the word. People are spreading Christianity this minute and none of them saw Jesus but they believe that the first witnesses did see Him and that is why they carry on Christ's great commission.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence of 500 people seeing and what did they see and who interviewed them about it?
 
zyzygy said:
Where is the evidence of 500 people seeing and what did they see and who interviewed them about it?
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that Marco Polo went to China? We only have his word for it, yet you believe that don't you? Yet, you refuse to believe the apostles and others who insisted that they witnessed what they said they witnessed and, in many cases, went to their deaths for it. That's simply a chasm that cannot be bridged.
 
veritas1 said:
Where is the evidence that Marco Polo went to China? We only have his word for it, yet you believe that don't you? Yet, you refuse to believe the apostles and others who insisted that they witnessed what they said they witnessed and, in many cases, went to their deaths for it. That's simply a chasm that cannot be bridged.
Click to expand...

Well, for one, when other people went there, the things he described in his book were accurate, so we had independent confirmation about the information he presented.
 
veritas1 said:
Where is the evidence that Marco Polo went to China? We only have his word for it, yet you believe that don't you? Yet, you refuse to believe the apostles and others who insisted that they witnessed what they said they witnessed and, in many cases, went to their deaths for it. That's simply a chasm that cannot be bridged.
Click to expand...

What they were alleged to have believed that they witnessed. Nobody is claiming that Marco Polo had magic powers and rose from being dead. Jesus could have been in a coma. That is a far more likely explanation. We won't go into being impregnated by a ghost.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, for one, when other people went there, the things he described in his book were accurate, so we had independent confirmation about the information he presented.
Click to expand...

And his mother didn't spin a story about a ghost to his father.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom