• 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!

Fake Jesus is bad for your education.

Given that you identify so strongly as an atheist that you put it in your name, I doubt there's anything I will be able to do to change your mind in the least, nor do I feel particularly moved to, so not really debating, but I do have a question, if you would allow it.

Why do you figure that, as an atheist, you need to know the Bible better than Christians? Why do you care at all? Just curious, probably won't be a follow up.

Good question... I suspect that it stems from his fundamentalism, which fuels his hatred towards people who adhere to different religions than his own. He likely feels the need to "prove them wrong", even though attempting to prove Atheism correct and/or Christianity wrong (and vice versa) is logically fallacious... ;)
 
Why do you figure that, as an atheist, you need to know the Bible better than Christians? Why do you care at all? Just curious, probably won't be a follow up.

This is a great question; and though it wasn't directed at me, I would like to freely offer some relative info. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a subscriber to the biblical narrative. What fascinates me are two things:

a) Near East history; whether geopolitical, sociopolitical, or religious.

b) The failed relationship with my mother (RIP). She was your typical doting and attentive mother of the 60's; divorced by 1970. After her divorcing my father, she went into this "search" phase; trying to discover meaning and purpose. She finally found refuge in Christianity, of which I too became involved, and eventually "saved". But such fundamental changes have effects. Initially, as a "saved" church-going family, everything appeared idyllic. What I didn't take into consideration however was the distinct change in my mother. She stopped being loving "mom", and assumed this role of distant "religious teacher". From then on, for the rest of her life, whenever we talked or got together, EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION involved a God and/or Jesus filter. She lost all her motherly compassion, became emotionally aloof; everything was according to "God's purpose". No matter what I wanted to talk to her about, she injected God and/or Jesus into the discussion. Every single time for the next 40 years. She eventually sent me to live with my father, for whatever reason, even though I was smack-dab in the middle of a private Christian education. I was still a believer. Soon afterwards, "God told her" she had to move away to another state, far away from her children. She spent the next 33 years completely isolated from her family, and never married again. At some point during my adulthood, I began searching for my own answers; and I realized Christianity was merely another ideological pursuit that didn't provide those answers. I wanted to understand the ideology that separated me from my mother. I wanted to understand the CONTEXT of the revered texts, and not the dogmatic principles behind them which consumed my mother. After decades of distancing herself, she eventually died alone in a freezing room with nobody to attend to her. I just want to understand why.

Anyway, perhaps I've said too much; but now you get a clearer picture.


OM
 
Joseph Smith designed a new religion during the 19th century. During the 20th century, Scientology was designed by a author looking for a tax break.

You say it is a fact because it was written into a bible. Fine, read the Mormon Bible, and accept that it is true. Then, read what ever Scientology and believe that too.



No

I said Jesus was a nobleman, descended from kings.

You said if that were so, then there would be evidence of it in a Bible.


I proved you wrong by quoting the chapter and verse from Matthew which, as I confirmed, is a book in the Bible.



I also said that although the Bible is evidence, it is not strong evidence. You have decided to argue the validity of the evidence rather than admit you were wrong by saying that if Jesus were indeed a nobleman descended from kings, then the Bible would say so.
I pointed out that it does and therefore you are wrong.


You need to read the Bible more before asserting what is in it and what isn't and secondly admit you were wrong.
 
The bible is not evidence, because it could have been written by men with a political, social, and economic gains. If you can show a independent document during the first century that backs up the wording of the bible -- then you have evidence....

Wrong.

The Bible is evidence of god and Jesus' divinity because it contains books that support this...and these books could have been written by men who were eye witnesses.

In order to dismiss the Bible as evidence, you have to prove that the writers weren't alive or eye-witnesses to the Crucifixion OR that they never spoke to anyone who was.


...in my judgement, Jesus was a made up to be a fictional icon. Zeus and Jesus are equal to each other -- they are fiction.


Great, I might actually agree with you on that...all the same the Bible is evidence of Jesus' divinity....


Evidence does NOT equal proof.
 
Wrong.

The Bible is evidence of god and Jesus' divinity because it contains books that support this...and these books could have been written by men who were eye witnesses.

In order to dismiss the Bible as evidence, you have to prove that the writers weren't alive or eye-witnesses to the Crucifixion OR that they never spoke to anyone who was.





Great, I might actually agree with you on that...all the same the Bible is evidence of Jesus' divinity....


Evidence does NOT equal proof.
No it isn't.
 
Wrong.

The Bible is evidence of god and Jesus' divinity because it contains books that support this...and these books could have been written by men who were eye witnesses.

In order to dismiss the Bible as evidence, you have to prove that the writers weren't alive or eye-witnesses to the Crucifixion OR that they never spoke to anyone who was.

In the 19th century, there was Joseph Smith that produce the book of Mormon; His evidence was the book of Mormon "that he wrote himself" as the evidence. In your theory, the book of Mormon is evidence: and it was written in good faith.
 
The problem with the "Fake Jesus" crowd is they haven't done any in-depth homework on the New Testament, etc. They're Biblical illiterates.
 
In the 19th century, there was Joseph Smith that produce the book of Mormon; His evidence was the book of Mormon "that he wrote himself" as the evidence. In your theory, the book of Mormon is evidence: and it was written in good faith.



If evidence has been disproved, you can discount it.

Are you saying that you've been able to disprove the accounts of the gospels ?


Do you know also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?
 
If evidence has been disproved, you can discount it.

Are you saying that you've been able to disprove the accounts of the gospels ?


Do you know also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?

Jesus, and the gods of Egypt are equal to each other. They have been studied for centuries, but, they do not give you a afterlife.
 
Jesus, and the gods of Egypt are equal to each other. They have been studied for centuries, but, they do not give you a afterlife.



So are you saying that you have disproved the gospels ?



Do you now also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?
 
So are you saying that you have disproved the gospels ?



Do you now also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?

Why should anyone pay any regard to anything the Bile - or even the bible - says? The bible is a hodge-podge of old texts of doubtful provenance and even more doubtful veracity.
 
So are you saying that you have disproved the gospels ?



Do you now also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?

Joseph Smith designed a new religion during the mid 19th century. L Ron Hubbard, died in the year I turn twenty; and he designed a new religion called the Church of Scientology. Study the church you going to during its first 150 years.
 
Why should anyone pay any regard to anything the Bile - or even the bible - says? The bible is a hodge-podge of old texts of doubtful provenance and even more doubtful veracity.


So you have proof that the gospels are false and the writers of them could not have possibly seen, or spoken with people who witnessed, the Crucifixion ?
 
Why should anyone pay any regard to anything the Bile - or even the bible - says? The bible is a hodge-podge of old texts of doubtful provenance and even more doubtful veracity.

So are you saying that you have disproved the gospels ?



Do you now also accept that the Bile says that Jesus was descended from kings ?
 
No it isn't.

Yes, it IS evidence, zyzygy... evidence is merely any statement which supports an argument. As was correctly mentioned earlier, evidence is NOT proof of anything.
 
Yes it is. It's just not convincing evidence.

Correct that it IS evidence, but your reasoning behind not accepting it (that it is "not convincing") is a subtle Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. You need not justify why you believe that god(s) do not exist...
 
Why should anyone pay any regard to anything the Bile - or even the bible - says? The bible is a hodge-podge of old texts of doubtful provenance and even more doubtful veracity.

Even if you are not a believer in Jesus Christ as your Saviour, there are many wise proverbs and such contained there-in, and good advice for how to conduct oneself...
 
...there are many wise proverbs and such contained there-in, and good advice for how to conduct oneself...

Ecclesiastes is one of my personal favorites.


OM
 
Yes, it IS evidence, zyzygy... evidence is merely any statement which supports an argument. As was correctly mentioned earlier, evidence is NOT proof of anything.

Schmatements are not schmevidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom