What seems to be missed by humanists, is that in-depth knowledge of the bible, memorization of the scriptures or belief in literal vs interpretive aspects aren’t required by God. It’s so easy that it’s hard for critical thinkers. You only have to confess that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, He died for our sins and God wants us to take care of each other. That’s it. It is walking by faith. Not by sight. You have to be like a child. As a matter of fact, evidence of God or Jesus would actually take away from it, since it is based on faith.
Science is the study that requires evidence and being proven or disproven. The irony is humanists commonly believe that only they reserve the right of using baseless faith when their thesis is hanging in limbo. What commonly happens, as has happened here, is a secular “Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations” approach using scientific metrics to measure christian faith development.
Case and point: The OP’s topic derailed pages ago because ape to man evolution is not a proven theory and they aren’t anywhere near having it proven. However, christianity, the behavior of christians, the bible, religion, Jesus, Paul and God are now all the topics being judged....in between insults.
Well done, science guys. Well done.
Ray,
Do you really thing atheist are not familiar with the wide range of Christian claims regarding what may or may not be necessary for admittance into heaven?
For how many centuries have Christians been debating Faith vs. works, or the new de'jour that Faith leads to works?
Additionally, as I've previously explained, atheism addresses a single question, do you accept any theistic claims, or not. That's it. Being atheist does not require the acceptance of Humanism. Atheist are free to accept any philosophical and moral system they chose so long as it does not theistic, because then they would no longer be a-theistic.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Since you said "Some people..." in our first sentence, I guess there's no way to dispute that as being the reality. But when you say those few people "often castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshiping the Bible", I have to think that you are mistaking their belief in the inerrancy of scripture for worship of the scripture. But you're the one who seems to run into these folks a lot, so who am I to say?
Either way, the Jesus I know isn’t bound by the covers of a book. And my belief in Him doesn’t require an inerrant Bible, nor does my belief in Him require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
If others choose to see it differently for themselves, then so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires an inerrant Bible, nor are my beliefs threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
Guess I lean a little toward being agnostic in the sense that I admit I just dont know.
But that's actually a really interesting position and perspective, antlers. Really interesting.
I've got to think on that a bit.
"I'd rather have an Army of Asses led by a Lion, than an Army of Lions led by an Ass." (George Washington)
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
"I'd rather have an Army of Asses led by a Lion, than an Army of Lions led by an Ass." (George Washington)
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
Well, you served that up well....
Anyway, the key question is not what Bart Ehrman or Hitchens thinks about Jesus, the key issue is what you think about Jesus.
I see many “appeals to popularity” arguments made here. At the end of the day, it boils down to you and God.
The issue is pertinent to the individual, not the herd.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
Correct.
There are different view points. And no this was not a "hasty search", I also have his book, and have read it. Mainly I was posting that video for the purpose I stated, his review of earlier religions with similar elements from which the writers of Christianity borrowed.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
If you read and watch Ehrman carefully, his evidence for the historicity of Jesus is actually very flimsy and what he believes in is not what any Christian would recognize as their "Jesus".
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Yes it is. It is not a proven theory and debating the use of adverbs only suggests that you can’t contend with a fact you refuse to accept. That’s not a very scientific approach. I‘m sure this will invoke an elaborate response that provides more of the same. Perhaps some more deflection and insults will make it less of a fact?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Did you ever get that GED like Ringman?
LOL. Wow. We didn’t even have to wait for a response to get the insult.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Do you really thing atheist are not familiar with the wide range of Christian claims regarding what may or may not be necessary for admittance into heaven?
I understand this is rhetorical (albeit irrelevant to proving we came from apes), but I’ll oblige by answering......”no”?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
For how many centuries have Christians been debating Faith vs. works, or the new de'jour that Faith leads to works?
Good question. What are we discussing again?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Additionally, as I've previously explained, atheism addresses a single question, do you accept any theistic claims, or not. That's it. Being atheist does not require the acceptance of Humanism. Atheist are free to accept any philosophical and moral system they chose so long as it does not theistic, because then they would no longer be a-theistic.
A lot of big words for my tiny brain. I accept that you believe that philosophy, but philosophy isn’t any closer to science than religion. You sure do go a long way to avoid admitting you can’t prove we came from apes. While you seem unable to simply say “There is no proven theory, but I believe it so,” I honestly (without sarcasm) do admire your commitment to debate.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates
Paul allegedly heard a voice and saw a bright light, so nothing like the claims of others seeing a resurrected flesh and blood Jesus. And nothing shows that Paul met and heard Jesus in his three years of public ministry.
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them to kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
Crazy isn’t it? Yet these are outliers of christianity. The ridiculously fringe radical stories that are recycled over and over again. It makes a great distractor for those looking to make certain, so-called scientific ideas look more realistic.
For instance, how many books explain humans coming from apes as a fact without mentioning any other possibility? Millions? How many teachers instruct an unproven theory in a manner that suggests it’s proven? It’s certainly the position of self-proclaimed intellectuals here.
As far as amazement goes, I’d be a little more concerned with what’s passed as “science” to the masses. It’s clear that that the standard is no longer an open-minded and objective practice of scientific method.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates
Your cut & pasted post is a hypothesis. Not a proven theory, as its highly disputed....and not just by christians.
Again, it runs out of evidence and relies on faith....the same stuff that humanists criticize when christians use it to explain the existence of God.
You could not possibly be more wrong. No shortage of evidence. Frequently Asked Question s | The Smithsonian Institution's ... humanorigins.si.edu › education ›
Isn’t evolution controversial among scientists? Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on Earth. As in all fields of science, knowledge about evolution continues to increase through research and serious debate. For example, scientists continue to investigate the details of how evolution occurred and to refine exactly what happened at different times. How do scientists know the age of fossils? Scientists have developed more than a dozen methods for determining the age of fossils, human artifacts, and the sediments in which such evidence is found. These methods can date objects millions of years old. What’s more, the methods can be tested against one another to provide a highly reliable record of the past.
What has been discovered about evolution since Darwin? A lot! Since Darwin died in 1882, findings from many fields have confirmed and greatly expanded on his ideas. We’ve learned that Earth is old enough for all known species to have evolved. We’ve discovered DNA, which confirms that all organisms are related to one another. And we’ve uncovered millions of fossils that provide evidence of how one life form evolved into another over time. What about the gaps in knowledge about human evolution? In science, gaps in knowledge are the driving force behind the ongoing study of the natural world and how it arose. The science of human origins is a vibrant field in which new discoveries continually add to our understanding of how we became human.
Last edited by BOWSINGER; 06/20/20.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
Crazy isn’t it? Yet these are outliers of Christianity. The ridiculously fringe radical(s)...
Wow. That's a good description of Young Earth Creationist.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Like it or not evolution is a reality. The question of how the Universe came about, if it did (cyclic or part of a greater system) is a work in progress.
Live with the mystery folks, the Universe may be not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.....
