Yes....
[video=youtube;mf5oSXIzAjc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5oSXIzAjc[/video]
What is Christianity?
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Yes....
[video=youtube;mf5oSXIzAjc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5oSXIzAjc[/video]
I gave up after he said that the canonical gospels count as evidence for his existence even though they're not historical documents "Because they depict real places."
I went back later and nearly choked when he pronounced "Pilate" as "Pilates" like the Yoga style. He also cites debunked passages by Josephus, and a bunch of other things he clearly doesn't understand.
And somehow, this was enough to sway you, fruityfigtree? How sad.
I gave up when he started jumping around in those silly fingerless gloves.
It made sense at the time.
In the 4th century AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, made Christianity the official religion of Rome. If there was no history of Christianity, why did the traditions of the new Roman-Christian religion; New Testamnet, contain mentions of Rome of the first century? In other words, why would Rome support accounts of their Roman history, in the composite religion, if it was not true? For example, the birth of Christ or Christmas may have been based on the pagan winter solicist, but it includes the details of Bethleham as outlined in the bible.
My explanation was Rome of the 1st cenutry was not Christian friendly and would try not to support the cause in anyway including book burning and denial if they had the chance. But since they were intelligent, they would neverthless have an archive; top secret.
My explanation was Rome of the 1st cenutry was not Christian friendly and would try not to support the cause in anyway including book burning and denial if they had the chance. But since they were intelligent, they would neverthless have an archive; top secret.
Rest assured, given the nature of the data, the issue will be settled--and to your complete satisfaction.
I don't think anyone is asserting that Christianity didn't exist, but plenty of religions exist in spite of being obviously false, such as Mormonism or Scientology.
If something is false, how can it have wide appeal, approaching a billion people, and last 2000 years? Fads don't last, because they loose their ability to stimulate. New fashion wears out before the clothes. Books might last a few months on the best seller list, until replaced by a newer best seller. Some books will last much longer and become classics. What makes a classic? It is something about it that is timeless and touches everyone via shared human experience.
Stalin could not make his atheist socialism last more than a few decades even though there was no religion allowed. It lacked something that Christianity has. Even after being banned for decades, Christianity came back in peace. Stalin atheism without a religion scapegoat to blame, became worse that any religion.
I am not arguing in terms of science and Genesis, but in terms of what makes a classic than lasts over tousands of years. Why after Rome merged with Christianity, did Rome go away, but Christianty remained?
The answer to all those questions is, religion reaches deeper parts of the collective human psyche, than the fads that come and go.
In the last election in USA, the biggest problem facing America was the national debt and economy. However, the masses elected a lawyer instead of a successful businessman. This was not even a rational solution. I thought the atheist would speak up using science odds and probability of success based on the trade of each candidate. It was like choosing the gardener over the plumber to fix the leak in the bathroom. It was not about reason or common sense, but whi had the stronger motivating feeling.
With Christianity feelings are renewed, in each generation. You can't depend on reason and common sense to make things last. You need to get the unconscious gut feeling aniimated so it can lead. The terrorists cannnot rational win. It is not about reason but about that gut feeling that says it is possible, regardelss of odds.
The dumbing down of America is not about reason and common sense, but a feeling this is somehow better. Atheism should be fighting this irrationality, since it is emotional and does not have any proof the result will be optimzed or advanced.
Politics uses rhetoric and mud slinging, instead of data and facts, because data and facts don't motivate. They know you need emotional juice. Religion has the juice.
Maybe we need to discuss why atheism lacks the juice. I should take that back. Why does atheism only have negative juice but can' motivate based on only positive things.
Stalin could not make his atheist socialism last more than a few decades even though there was no religion allowed. It lacked something that Christianity has. Even after being banned for decades, Christianity came back in peace. Stalin atheism without a religion scapegoat to blame, became worse that any religion.
I am not arguing in terms of science and Genesis, but in terms of what makes a classic than lasts over tousands of years. Why after Rome merged with Christianity, did Rome go away, but Christianty remained?
The answer to all those questions is, religion reaches deeper parts of the collective human psyche, than the fads that come and go.
In the last election in USA, the biggest problem facing America was the national debt and economy. However, the masses elected a lawyer instead of a successful businessman. This was not even a rational solution. I thought the atheist would speak up using science odds and probability of success based on the trade of each candidate. It was like choosing the gardener over the plumber to fix the leak in the bathroom. It was not about reason or common sense, but whi had the stronger motivating feeling.
With Christianity feelings are renewed, in each generation. You can't depend on reason and common sense to make things last. You need to get the unconscious gut feeling aniimated so it can lead. The terrorists cannnot rational win. It is not about reason but about that gut feeling that says it is possible, regardelss of odds.
The dumbing down of America is not about reason and common sense, but a feeling this is somehow better. Atheism should be fighting this irrationality, since it is emotional and does not have any proof the result will be optimzed or advanced.
Politics uses rhetoric and mud slinging, instead of data and facts, because data and facts don't motivate. They know you need emotional juice. Religion has the juice.
Maybe we need to discuss why atheism lacks the juice. I should take that back. Why does atheism only have negative juice but can' motivate based on only positive things.
Christianity is popular because it was created and shaped by people to fit the human psyche. It has nothing to do with the truth of the message. Your argument from popularity is particularly common and always a fallacy.
The data are completely lacking and I don't see how they'll be manifest. The only thing that might begin to sway me in the direction of less myth and more history would be... more history. We would need more historical documents contemporary to the alleged Jesus in order to even begin to conclude that Jesus was more historical than mythical. And even then we'll still be able to summarily rule out all the superstitious and magical bullshit about walking on water, curing the blind, exorcising non-existent demons, etc. Not to mention dying then coming back to life like a zombie a few days later. These feats of magic are clearly bullshit and believed only by the most gullible in our society today. Unfortunately, the numbers of these gullible people are high, infecting the gene pool extensively.
With regard to my alleged "misrepresentation" of Christianity:
1) Jesus (according to the story) committed suicide. He knew he was to die -had the opportunity to avoid it- yet allowed himself to be killed. This is clear in several passages, such as the revelation to his disciples that "one here will betray me..." Knowingly taking a course of action that will result in your death is considered suicide. Though I readily admit that it is honorable to do so in many situations and I can see how Christians would place Jesus in a hero status for doing so (see wellwisher's battlefield analogy).
2) Different cults of Christianity worship a perceived supernatural deity in slightly different ways. Their mode of worship is what defines their "denomination." If not mode of worship, then what would create so many cults of Christianity? Some, a very small amount, may simply be a result of ethnic tradition, such as the Greek orthodox church, but the vast majority simply have a different idea of what a Christian should be, i.e. how to worship the Christian gods. While Wikipedia isn't the end-all, be-all for information, I think its still safe to defer to it for this blatantly obvious statement of fact.
From Wikipedia: "Technically, divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority. Issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy separate one denomination from another" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination).
I have not misrepresented Christianity in the least. QED.
Last edited:
Then why aren't you're standing up for the gods Horus, Ptah, Osiris, and Set? They were worshiped in Egypt twice as long as the Christian gods and by 100% of the nation's populace until the Hyksos arrived with a Caananite pantheon. And there is evidence that the Hyksos adopted the gods of their new nation. I wouldn't doubt that there are worshipers of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon even today.
Popularity does not imply reality. Playing the lottery is popular and nearly every single person that does thinks they have a decent chance to win. Yet is remains the tax on the ignorant.
It should go without saying that the longevity of something has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true or good. Daytime soap operas have been on the air almost as long as television itself, and no one would argue that their combination of talentless actors and absurd storylines count as quality programming. Romance novels tend to be among the most popular books despite their overwrought prose and hackneyed plots. The largest-grossing movies tend to be the ones with the biggest budgets rather than the best performances, just as the highest-rated television shows are usually the ones executed in the broadest, shallowest sense.
Christianity grew and endured not because it holds some intrinsic truth, but because it was adapted to suit everyone. Leaving aside the fact that Constantine likely saved it from extinction by converting, Christianity spread initially by adopting many of the traditions and characteristics of its competing religions. Consider all the attributes Jesus shares with contemporary pagan gods, and the fact that some major Christian holidays--most notably, Christmas--are just pagan celebrations adopted to convince the pagans to convert.
In later years, many people converted to Christianity because the alternative was death. Oftentimes Christianity was introduced to a country through military conquest.
If it isn't abundantly clear yet, let me sum it up for you: Christianity is still popular today not because it's true, but because it was designed by its keepers throughout history to appeal to the broadest possible base.
That says nothing of an item's truth or value. Some things are popular for no particular reason. Does anyone think Gagnam Style is a particularly good song?
Nothing Stalin did was in the name of atheism, nor was his regime atheistic. He was himself a demigod. Stalinism itself was the regime's religion.
Of course, even though Stalinism did not last, atheism itself has survived and thrived. Atheism has existed since before the monotheistic faiths, and there are more self-identified atheists today than at any other time in human history. So by your logic, atheism must therefore be true.
For the same reason Islam outlasted the last caliphate. You're talking about a proselytizing religion here. You can't "spread the word" of Rome after the collapse, because Rome was a state, not a philosophy.
Not at all. Christianity was a small cult until it began to adopt pagan attributes.
That's actually a very apt comparison. Religion is the philosophical equivalent of rhetoric and mudslinging. It does not have the merit of data and facts, but its vehemence and appeal to emotion make it a better motivator.
Just like nearly every theist on this forum, you lack the sense of irony to appreciate how you've debunked your own claims here, but rest assured that I very much enjoyed it.
Atheism itself isn't a philosophy. I constantly find the need to remind Christians and Muslims on this forum that atheism is simply the opposite of theism--not Christianity or Islam. Would you call theism a philosophy? Are there dogmas or doctrines of theism? Obviously not. In order to find dogmas and doctrine, one must add a level of complexity to the equation: Denomination. You must be a Christian theist, or a Jewish theist, or a Muslim theist before we can get into worldviews and similar subjects. The same is true for atheism. If you want to talk worldviews, you probably want to talk to a rational humanist, or an anti-theist, not simply an atheist.
On those fronts, people without religion very much do have "the juice." You'll notice it in the fact that the US is slowly de-Christianizing its public places. Courthouses are losing their monuments to the Ten Commandments, public schools are losing the ability to use "Under God" in their morning pledges, and various groups are cracking down on the military for their use of firebrand Christian chaplains on bases and in boot camp. If atheism truly lacked the juice, then how have these initiatives even gained traction, let alone had unprecedented success?
What is about "given the nature of the data, the issue will be settled--and to your complete satisfaction." you don't understand? The issue will be settled, and it will be to your satisfaction.
How do you know?
1) he stated he put you on ignore.
2) I think I answered you in my last post.
3) I'm beginning to see why B. put you on ignore. You like using dishonest debate tactics like poisoning the well and bullying tactics. First it was attempting to pressure me to give you favor for seeming to be associated with B. and hoping I'd be swayed by random accusations of abuse of power, etc. Now you're making a pretense that you think better of me. Please don't bother engaging me in discourse with an expectation for a response. I may or may not choose to reply to your posts depending on if it interests or suits me. Currently, I'm disinclined to participate in discussion with such intellectual dishonesty.
I also stated that my last response to him would be my final response to him on this subject. This, after he repeatedly begged me to stay out of the discussion. I finally bow out, and now he's taunting me for doing so?
Maybe you can see now why there was talk of trolling?
Yes, he states that very often, even while in the midst of an ongoing debate with me. It fails to sound genuine after a while.
Well, if you have no substantial arguments for your misrepresentations of Christianity then so be it. I will consider them vacuous proclamations.
There is nothing random about any accusations. Balerion even commented on things he would only know if you had shared info from private messages with him. I do not make any pretense that I think many have more integrity than Balerion, and you are free to respond or not. I am free to comment on that lack of response, but that should in no way be construed as pressuring you to do so.
You have yet to show any intellectual dishonesty on my part, only arm waving in your own attempt to poison the well. Nothing I have said has intentionally had the motives you infer, as inconvenient as they may be.
Sure, because "I guess" sounds like such a firm commitment from a person who often replies to remind me that I am being ignored. You said: "I guess this will be my last post on the matter." No need to guess, just make up your mind. And I never begged anything of you, but feel free to keep misrepresenting things in underhanded ad hominems.
You only discontinued because I had shown how blatantly you had misrepresented SkinWalker's post.
Syne, Balerion and (to a somewhat lesser extent) SkinWalker:
I suggest that, to save a lot of bile and resentment, you might perhaps consider asking somebody to clarify his position when you are confused by it or think that another poster has not made himself clear.
To Balerion and Syne: do you not think it's just a bit of a waste of time to spend pages debating the meaning of something that SkinWalker wrote, when you could just write a post asking him to clarify what he meant? And then, you know, he could, like, speak for himself on the matter. Are all the name-calling bouts and trolling accusations really necessary?
I guess that as long as you're all enjoying yourselves, it's all good. Some of it can make entertaining reading for others, too. But please don't imagine that many people will actually care whether Balerion is the troll or Syne is the troll, because Balerion or Syne misinterpreted SkinWalker and then decided to stick to his guns and wave his penis at his opponent for a few pages of the thread.
And, in particular, please don't imagine that I, in my role as moderator, would be remotely interested in taking sides in such a bout of penis waving.
If you're going to report posts, please make sure there is a clear breach of the site rules in evidence. "He hurt my feelings" really doesn't cut the mustard. And "He called me a troll" is a bit rich when you're serving out similar insults yourself.
To summarise, I suggest that you may, in fact, all be adults. If you want to have this kind of conversation, by all means go ahead. But when the going gets tough, please don't call for mummy to rescue you from the nasty man.
I suggest that, to save a lot of bile and resentment, you might perhaps consider asking somebody to clarify his position when you are confused by it or think that another poster has not made himself clear.
To Balerion and Syne: do you not think it's just a bit of a waste of time to spend pages debating the meaning of something that SkinWalker wrote, when you could just write a post asking him to clarify what he meant? And then, you know, he could, like, speak for himself on the matter. Are all the name-calling bouts and trolling accusations really necessary?
I guess that as long as you're all enjoying yourselves, it's all good. Some of it can make entertaining reading for others, too. But please don't imagine that many people will actually care whether Balerion is the troll or Syne is the troll, because Balerion or Syne misinterpreted SkinWalker and then decided to stick to his guns and wave his penis at his opponent for a few pages of the thread.
And, in particular, please don't imagine that I, in my role as moderator, would be remotely interested in taking sides in such a bout of penis waving.
If you're going to report posts, please make sure there is a clear breach of the site rules in evidence. "He hurt my feelings" really doesn't cut the mustard. And "He called me a troll" is a bit rich when you're serving out similar insults yourself.
To summarise, I suggest that you may, in fact, all be adults. If you want to have this kind of conversation, by all means go ahead. But when the going gets tough, please don't call for mummy to rescue you from the nasty man.
So after it's all said and done, the forum admin comes in to taunt the participants?
That's brilliant.