• 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!

Reasons to Reject Christianity

RAMOSS said:
I will also point out 'like the son of man' is not a so of man but merely 'like' and a vision is a vision...
Click to expand...

You need a lot of help with your theology.

Jesus said the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. Only God is Lord of the Sabbath.
 
Logicman said:
You need a lot of help with your theology.

Jesus said the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. Only God is Lord of the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

Well , it's a good thing I am not Christian then..and of course Daniel is a piece of Jewish writing, not Christian. The attempts to reinterpret it from it's true meaning is rather pathetic though.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well , it's a good thing I am not Christian then..and of course Daniel is a piece of Jewish writing, not Christian. The attempts to reinterpret it from it's true meaning is rather pathetic though.
Click to expand...

Well Daniel was a prophet, and you fancy yourself for sticking up for the Jewish Tanakh, but you don't even accept Daniel as a prophet, nor do you believe in the Jewish God, so what would you know??

Your theology is not representative of Judaism, much less anything else in the Bible.
 
Logicman said:
Well Daniel was a prophet, and you fancy yourself for sticking up for the Jewish Tanakh, but you don't even accept Daniel as a prophet, nor do you believe in the Jewish God, so what would you know??

Your theology is not representative of Judaism, much less anything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...

However, you not find any mainstream Jewish person of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, humanistic, Reconstruction or karsite who will say that it's about Jesus. Not a single one of them.

I will leave you with Pslam 146:3

146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
 
RAMOSS said:
However, you not find any mainstream Jewish person of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, humanistic, Reconstruction or karsite who will say that it's about Jesus. Not a single one of them.

I will leave you with Pslam 146:3

146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Psalm 146:3 NIV - Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.

Jesus was God incarnate. So you failed again.

And there's plenty of Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as their Savior and Messiah.
 
Logicman said:
Nice try.

Psalm 146:3 NIV - Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.

Jesus was God incarnate. So you failed again.

And there's plenty of Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as their Savior and Messiah.
Click to expand...

Ah. you use a corrupted translation What is can nto save' but 'salvation'. Your busted.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will also point out 'like the son of man' is not a so of man but merely 'like' and a vision is a vision, and the map is not the territory.
Click to expand...

Review the posting pair to which your above remark is a reply. The other member asked when did Jesus say he was God. Obviously, the only way to answer that question is from the standpoint of Christian catechism for any other predicte from which one might answer that question from square one and out of hand rejects the notion that Jesus is God.

RAMOSS said:
However, you not find any mainstream Jewish person of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, humanistic, Reconstruction or karsite who will say that it's about Jesus. Not a single one of them.


I will leave you with Pslam 146:3


146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
Click to expand...

??? -- Inasmuch as Jews are still waiting for the Messiah and Jesus said he was the Messiah for whom Jews waited, of course, Jews won't say that passage is about Jesus.
 
Xelor said:
Angel said:
But faith must always strain the credulity of the incredulous, no? That's the only creditable account of faith. Otherwise faith would be incredible.
Click to expand...
The credulity-straining nature of key elements of faith-based belief systems is precisely why they're called "faith-based."

ETA:
Faith isn't what strains credulity. The key claims of a system of belief/though are what, in the context we're here discussing, strain credulity. Those claims strain credulity so much so that faith is what one must possess in order to accept those claims as true.
Click to expand...

Based on your semantics, you, Xelor, may well be of the Christian faith, inasmuch as "the key claims" of Christianity only "strain your credulity" (= are difficult to believe); whereas on my semantics, it is the faith in those key elements that strains your credulity (= it's hard for you to believe anyone could buy into them), while "the key elements" are themselves a matter of disbelief on your part.

In short, isn't it rather the case that you don't believe the claims and that you find belief in them hard to believe?
 
Angel said:
Based on your semantics, you, Xelor, may well be of the Christian faith, inasmuch as "the key claims" of Christianity only "strain your credulity" (= are difficult to believe); whereas on my semantics, it is the faith in those key elements that strains your credulity (= it's hard for you to believe anyone could buy into them), while "the key elements" are themselves a matter of disbelief on your part.

In short, isn't it rather the case that you don't believe the claims and that you find belief in them hard to believe?
Click to expand...
  • Red: I don't find Christianity's dogmatic claims believable. Christianity's sociological claims/dicta aren't incredulous at all.
  • Blue: I have no trouble believing that folks find Christianity's claims believable, but, yes, if I rightly understand your question, I am somewhat astounded that folks do indeed believe Christianity's claims. In that regard, however, Christianity holds no special status with me; I would say the same about adherence to any other faith-based belief system.
 
Logicman said:
Only in your dreams would that be correct.
Click to expand...

It’s the reality of the situation. There was no messiah. And the person we all call Jesus was simply a man, or perhaps several men.
 
calamity said:
Evangelicalism has been the repellent for me. Hearing more than three words from one of them sends me running off the Christ reservation. They want me to believe their god condemns good people who do good things but won’t drink their Kool Aid to hell, while that same god rewards the scumbags who pour it.

Case in point: two monogamous people in a loving relationship who happen to be gay are an abomination heading straight to Hell. But, a lying scumbag who cheated on all three of his wives, paid off pornstars and demonstrates unnatural affections for his daughter is god’s chosen leader. Are you ****ing kidding me?

After one of those preachers opens his yap, I’m going to look at the entire religion as whacked. At that point, it becomes impossible to reconcile good Christ from bad Christ. The whole batch is contaminated, like Romane lettuce after a general recall.
Click to expand...


Evangelicalism does not represent all of Christianity.
 
Logicman said:
Well Daniel was a prophet, and you fancy yourself for sticking up for the Jewish Tanakh, but you don't even accept Daniel as a prophet, nor do you believe in the Jewish God, so what would you know??

Your theology is not representative of Judaism, much less anything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Yet, the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel. I was written many centuries later. You don't seem to be able to accept that fact.
 
To the thread OP....Pat Robertson.
 
Logicman said:
So, the next time you're down and out try finding a BITTER ATHEIST'S HOMELESS SHELTER! Or, you could find hundreds of Christian shelters.
Click to expand...

Population centers are chock-full of secular homeless shelters.


OM
 
Logicman said:
Well Daniel was a prophet, and you fancy yourself for sticking up for the Jewish Tanakh, but you don't even accept Daniel as a prophet, nor do you believe in the Jewish God, so what would you know??

Your theology is not representative of Judaism, much less anything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...

A) Daniel was not a real person. The story is fiction, was based upon the legend of DN'IL, the Ugaritic hero of antiquity.
B) The Book of Daniel was itself excluded from the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible; not only because he wasn't a prophet, but he wasn't a real person either.


OM
 
Logicman said:
Have you never read the NT, dox???

Did Jesus Claim To Be God?


... clipped to fit.

This is an excerpt from the book, “Answers to Tough Questions,” by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read the NT. Several times. You know that.

He says he is the "son" and the only path to the "father", the "father" being God.

But nothing like this from your excerpt { “I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead.”} And no explanation of the trinity. As Xelor notes in a later post, that seems to require diving into catechism.
 
Omega Man said:
A) Daniel was not a real person. The story is fiction, was based upon the legend of DN'IL, the Ugaritic hero of antiquity.
B) The Book of Daniel was itself excluded from the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible; not only because he wasn't a prophet, but he wasn't a real person either.


OM
Click to expand...


To be fair, pretty much all of the bible is fiction.

I'm not sure there's a single event in the bile that's been historically verified.
 
Omega Man said:
A) Daniel was not a real person. The story is fiction, was based upon the legend of DN'IL, the Ugaritic hero of antiquity.
B) The Book of Daniel was itself excluded from the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible; not only because he wasn't a prophet, but he wasn't a real person either.


OM
Click to expand...

Hmm, Ive done research on ancient mythology for my books, but the DN'IL one is new to me. Thanks, OM.
 
Rich2018 said:
To be fair, pretty much all of the bible is fiction.

I'm not sure there's a single event in the bile that's been historically verified.
Click to expand...

The destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 AD was documented shortly afterwards. The advance of Cyrus upon Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar's certain fall in 539 BC was foretold just before Babylon was conquered.


OM
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yes, I've read the NT. Several times. You know that.

He says he is the "son" and the only path to the "father", the "father" being God.

But nothing like this from your excerpt { “I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead.”} And no explanation of the trinity. As Xelor notes in a later post, that seems to require diving into catechism.
Click to expand...

He said he was "I AM" (John 8:58 and also in Mark when he announced himself when walking on the water) - the I AM of the Burning Bush. He said he was the Lord of the Sabbath. He said he is the "Alpha and Omega". So be fair, dox. Those are clear claims to deity.

It's also extremely clear to anyone without a bias that he is Jehovah God:

Jesus Must be Jehovah - https://righterreport.com/2011/09/29/jesus-must-be-jehovah-god/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom