Jesus never existed.


Scott Free
#1
I have claimed that Jesus never existed. I have found a little video that explains some of my reasons for saying this: (not complete about 12 minutes)

Video
 
MHz
#2
I'll try to stick to the order the arguments appear in the video.
You do know that time is divided in relation to the birth of Jesus right?
It says Mark was written first and the other 3 were just copies with slight changes. What supports that they were not written until late in that century and that their (last3) appearance can be verified to come after Mark was read? Mark and Matthew and Luke do cover some of the same ground, Mark only starts after Jesus comes back from the 40 days in the wilderness, Matthew and Luke cover events that happen before then, if cheating was involved then Mark would appear to be based on the accounts in the other Gospels, which is the opposite of what is promoted. Also not that while John and Mark do start at the same point they have very different events described as well as similar events. John having the larger number of events overall. (Even Revelation was written before the end of that century. If the author was about 30 in 30AD they would have been about 90 if they wrote it in 90AD)

After Paul was struck blind he went to the Apostles before he went to the Gentiles. If Paul did not witness anything of Christ before the cross and assension why would he write about them. What was Saul doing before he was struck blind, persecuting Christian (Jewish) and quite probably was a witness to how Stephen was stoned to death. He may or may not have been involved in that event but he is mentioned as being there but also being young. There are 4 books covering the events Paul does not cover, Paul was given other things to write about, how would a 5th book helped anybody?

Heb:8:4 does say "For if he were on earth," , that means at that time those words were written, it does not say "if He had ever been on earth". Vs:1 already put Him in Heaven at the right-hand of God, that is where He went after the assension some 40 days after being resurrected from the grave.
 
gerryh
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I have claimed that Jesus never existed. I have found a little video that explains some of my reasons for saying this: (not complete about 12 minutes)

Video


ok...so in your mind Jesus never existed....... what's your point? Or is this thread a troll to start another "yes he did, no he didn't" argument that just goes round and round?

Personally, that's what I see it as because none of those that don't believe are going to change their minds and those that believe aren't about to change their minds either.
 
karrie
#4
I found it to be a neat illustration of how mythology forms, of how religions are born.

It didn't by any means convince me that there was never a person who walked the earth, who spoke and taught among the poor, and inspired the tales that came though.
 
Avro
#5
I believe there was a Jesus but he was nothing more than a scam artist who started a cult to get laid.
 
karrie
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

I believe there was a Jesus but he was nothing more than a scam artist who started a cult to get laid.

As Scott's post points out, there was no 'cult' when (if) Jesus was actually alive.
 
MHz
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Or is this thread a troll to start another "yes he did, no he didn't" argument that just goes round and round?

It probably is, depends on if he has any sensible things to say on the matter.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Personally, that's what I see it as because none of those that don't believe are going to change their minds and those that believe aren't about to change their minds either.

This is also true, but if the dating issue can be narrowly defined then that belief, either way, is from an established perspective. The video puts the writings late in that century with no references at all. Mark certainly never covered 70AD, his started at the baptism and ended at the cross.

For instance has this person had any influence on the 'dating issue'?
"Ever since Reimarus (1694-176 sought to convict the evangelists of conscious fraud and innumerable contradictions, his rationalist followers have put the writing of the Gospels late, in order to lessen their value as sources of reliable information about the life of Christ and his teaching."
When were the Gospels written?

I'm sure you would agree that the earlier the date the more authentic those writings become.
 
Scott Free
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

ok...so in your mind Jesus never existed....... what's your point? Or is this thread a troll to start another "yes he did, no he didn't" argument that just goes round and round?

Not at all. I often make the statement that Jesus never existed (in all probability) and so thought I would back that statement up. The video clearly illustrates that Jesus most probably did not exist. Sure, maybe some nice guy goat herder named Jesus existed but I doubt he has anything to do with the myth that started so long after his supposed life.
 
Ron in Regina
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Not at all. I often make the statement that Jesus never existed (in all probability) and so thought I would back that statement up. The video clearly illustrates that Jesus most probably did not exist. Sure, maybe some nice guy goat herder named Jesus existed but I doubt he has anything to do with the myth that started so long after his supposed life.

Scott, doubting something and knowing something absolutely...are two very different things.
 
#juan
#10
I'm not particularly religious myself but I know a lot of very good people who are and who would be upset with this dopey thread. . I don't care what your views are but if those views upset people maybe you should keep them to yourself Since it is possible to find any number of opposing opinions on any subject, this thread is little more than a troll thread
 
MHz
#11
So if the video promotes that Mark covers the destruction in 70AD and Mark's Gospel starts with the baptism and ends with the cross and covers nothing before or after those events, that doesn't bother you, it just becomes part of your truth in the matter?

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

I'm not particularly religious myself but I know a lot of very good people who are and who would be upset with this dopey thread. . I don't care what your views are but if those views upset people maybe you should keep them to yourself Since it is possible to find any number of opposing opinions on any subject, this thread is little more than a troll thread

It could be quite true, he is trolling, or he might be quite honest in that those are valid reasons for his opinion on Jesus. It still remains that the reasons given can be challenged, and if some are quite silly it just goes to show how thin the argument against a man called Jesus really is.
The real test to if he is trolling is to see if he comes up with any answers, he should have lots of supporters for that vid, I don't see it as having much to do with accuracy and very long on opinion.
Last edited by MHz; Nov 6th, 2008 at 06:31 PM..
 
Vanni Fucci
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

This is also true, but if the dating issue can be narrowly defined then that belief, either way, is from an established perspective. The video puts the writings late in that century with no references at all. Mark certainly never covered 70AD, his started at the baptism and ended at the cross.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Authorship


Fra Angelico's Head of St. Mark.


The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas.[8], who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea:
This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.[9] Irenaeus concurred with this tradition,[10] as did Origen of Alexandria,[11] Tertullian,[12] and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said.[11] Following this tradition, scholars have generally thought that this gospel was written at Rome. Among recent alternate suggestions are Syria, Alexandria, or more broadly any area within the Roman Empire. In any case, many scholars do not accept the Papias citation as a reliable representation of the Gospel's history, pointing out that there is no distinctive Petrine tradition in Mark.[13]
It has been argued that there is an impending sense of persecution in the Gospel, and that this could indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome.[14] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Latinized vocabulary[15] employed in Mark (and in neither Matthew nor Luke) shows that the Gospel was written in Rome. Also cited in support is a passage in First Peter: "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.";[16] Babylon being interpreted as a derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC.
However, the Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs[17] [18] [19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter.[20] Furthermore, certain scholars dispute the connection of the gospel with persecution, identified with Nero's persecution in Rome, asserting that persecution was widespread, albeit sporadic beyond the borders of the city of Rome.[21]
It is generally agreed among contemporary scholars that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written, whereas the traditional view, popular amongst the Church fathers and especially Augustine of Hippo, holds that Mark was composed second, after the Gospel of Matthew (see Augustinian hypothesis). This assertion of Markan Priority is closely associated with the Two-Source Hypothesis, Q hypothesis, and the Farrer hypothesis (see below).

[edit] Date

See also: Synoptic problem There are differing opinions as to how late Mark could have been written. Most scholars agree with the Two-source hypothesis that proposes that Mark was one of the sources for the other Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke; according to this viewpoint the latest possible date for Mark depends on the dating of Matthew and Luke. A papyrus find among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating before 68, has been identified as a fragment of the Gospel, but this is not widely accepted. A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70.[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

[edit] Pre-70 (Before the destruction of the Second Temple)

See also: 7Q5 Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (Mark 6:52–53); thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the letters to be correct, only Mark matches these twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts.[7] Some papyrologists question this identification of the fragmentary text, [29] based on the assumption that all early papyrus Gospel manuscripts were printed as codices.[7], and the assumption that a copy in a scroll format would not have been made for the Qumran librarians. While no other known Greek work matches its wording, no extant copy of Mark contains the phrase "to land" found in 6:52–53.
John Robinson in 'Redating the New Testament' proposes an even earlier date. He accepts Marcan Priority and dates Luke/Acts no later than 62. Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke/Acts, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties.[ citation needed ]

[edit] Post-70 (After the destruction of the Second Temple)

Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based upon the belief that Jesus could not have supernaturally prophesied future events, but the text of Mark must reflect events that had already occurred. Thus, the dating of Mark divides those who consider supernatural prophesy by Jesus as impossible from those who view it as possible that Mark could have been written before the events described took place.
Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, correspondences have been seen by scholars between this passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70.[30] The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus in the year 70.[31] Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[32] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt [33]). Others see the reference in Mark 14:58-59 to the false accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days as another reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70.[34]

[edit] Post-135 (After the Bar Kokhba Revolt)

A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,[35] see a 2nd century date for Mark.[36] [37] [38] These scholars make the case that the "Little Apocalypse" Mark 13:14-23 refers to the events of the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135, and which they see as a much better fit to events described in this text than the First Jewish Revolt of 70. The parallels that they see are as follows: The Emperor Hadrian in the year 130 started to rebuild the city of Jerusalem as a pagan Roman colony named Aelia Capitolina. The Abomination of Desolation (Mark 13:14) according to this hypothesis alludes to the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus that the Emperor Hadrian attempted to install in a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. The leader of the revolt, Simon Bar Kokhba claimed to be the anointed Jewish Messiah (cf. Mark 13:21-25). The Romans suppressed the revolt with as many as twelve legions, and pursued a scorched earth policy. According to the second century Roman historian Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.[39] See also Ten Martyrs [40].

[edit] Audience


Beginning of a Latin Gospel of Mark, Book of Durrow (7th century).


The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36).
Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance, Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.
The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40–60, and the Gospel of Mark came at a time when Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:
Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66–70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.[41]

If we eliminate the supernatural from the equation, as any true historian must do, then we realize that the only plausible dating for Mark places the writing no earlier than 70 CE, after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans.
 
Socrates the Greek
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I have claimed that Jesus never existed. I have found a little video that explains some of my reasons for saying this: (not complete about 12 minutes)

Video

Good day to you Scot Free interesting thread I enjoyed the Video, interesting how all things known to man to this day have been a part of an evolutionary change possess, humanity’s theological belief system has as well experienced an evolutionary process as we see that more and more people, believe that modern man is the derivative of cave man, whom derived from apes……..

Interesting how at the days of God’s son Christ walking on the surface of the water and teaching ST. Peter to walk on water, to today where men has dismissed myth and has embraced advance technological innovation.

The technological world which surrounds us today would have been a miracle back then having a three way CELL conference from three deferent countries traveling at 100 klm each at the same time on three deferent BMW’S.

I believe in God in the form of an invisible source of immense energy, indisputably second to none in existence…
 
Vanni Fucci
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

I'm not particularly religious myself but I know a lot of very good people who are and who would be upset with this dopey thread. . I don't care what your views are but if those views upset people maybe you should keep them to yourself Since it is possible to find any number of opposing opinions on any subject, this thread is little more than a troll thread

juan, this has nothing to do with offending anyone, and everything to do with shining a light on the shadowy origins of the Christ myth...

You make it sound like we are tin-hatters for thinking such things, and we are actually trying to show that our position is exactly opposite...that when weighing the evidence for or against the existence of 'the saviour', ours is a stronger position, as it does not rely on any supernatural elements to support the claim.

A lot of people can't accept that, and wish to marginalize the discussion.

Well I won't let them.

This is far too important a discussion, as it involves no less than the future direction we take as a species.

Will we as a species continue to rely upon faith-based initiatives, or can we one day break from the psychological bonds of religion and see the world for what it really is?

I think enough time has been wasted on superstition...
 
karrie
#15
Juan, while I get what you're trying to say, this is the internet. If someone's on here, on a debate/discussion forum, thinking that no one will ever upset them, then that's their problem, not Scott's for believing differently from them when it comes to religion.

While I may not agree with Scott about the existence of christ or god, or any other number of issues under the sun, HE started a thread, rather than carrying on the debate in someone else's, and I think as his thread, he has as much right to present a view that christ never existed, as I have to open a thread saying he did. And personally, I applaud him for taking his argument to one place, rather than trying to carry it on in assorted threads where he won't be as able to present it fully.
 
karrie
#16
yanno Vanni, it's really annoying when people go and post while I'm composing similar thoughts, and end up making it look like we're ganging up on someone. In the future, please anticipate my desire to post in a thread, and wait. Sheesh. Manners people.
 
gerryh
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by vanni fucci View Post

juan, this has nothing to do with offending anyone, and everything to do with shining a light on the shadowy origins of the christ myth...

You make it sound like we are tin-hatters for thinking such things, and we are actually trying to show that our position is exactly opposite...that when weighing the evidence for or against the existence of 'the saviour', ours is a stronger position, as it does not rely on any supernatural elements to support the claim.

A lot of people can't accept that, and wish to marginalize the discussion.

Well i won't let them.

This is far too important a discussion, as it involves no less than the future direction we take as a species.

Will we as a species continue to rely upon faith-based initiatives, or can we one day break from the psychological bonds of religion and see the world for what it really is?

I think enough time has been wasted on superstition...



roflmfao
 
gerryh
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Juan, while I get what you're trying to say, this is the internet. If someone's on here, on a debate/discussion forum, thinking that no one will ever upset them, then that's their problem, not Scott's for believing differently from them when it comes to religion.

While I may not agree with Scott about the existence of christ or god, or any other number of issues under the sun, HE started a thread, rather than carrying on the debate in someone else's, and I think as his thread, he has as much right to present a view that christ never existed, as I have to open a thread saying he did. And personally, I applaud him for taking his argument to one place, rather than trying to carry it on in assorted threads where he won't be as able to present it fully.


it's called trolling
 
karrie
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

it's called trolling

call it what you will, at least he's doing it in his own thread.
 
Vanni Fucci
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

yanno Vanni, it's really annoying when people go and post while I'm composing similar thoughts, and end up making it look like we're ganging up on someone. In the future, please anticipate my desire to post in a thread, and wait. Sheesh. Manners people.

My apologies karrie..

Going forward, I shall consult my Super 8 ball prior to posting...
 
Vanni Fucci
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

it's called trolling

It seems gerry is one of limited capacity to post anything remotely intelligent...
 
karrie
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci View Post

My apologies karrie..

Going forward, I shall consult my Super 8 ball prior to posting...

That would be much appreciated.
 
gerryh
#23
this is what get's me....and why I consider all of this bullshyte as trolling. This thread is no fricken different than the "Jesus is gay" thread. It's a fricken troll with the sole purpose of trashing Christian beliefs. I have never understood the need of athiests to trash something that they supposedly don't believe in. What the Frick is it to you if someone else believes in Christ? What is your need to trash that belief?
 
MHz
#24
"It has been argued that there is an impending sense of persecution in the Gospel, and that this could indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome."
If this is an indication of when it was written then the persecution Christians suffered at the hand of the Jews should also be counted. Was Stephen killed within afew years of the cross? Before Saul became Paul he was very active in the persecution of Christians. The Jews are also said to follow Christian teachers from town to town.

Ac:13:50: But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

1Th:2:15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

"Babylon being interpreted as a derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC."
1Pe:5:13: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Why the name change, should it not have been this fellow? Peter did not have a son before the cross.

Ac:12:25: And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

"Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs[17] [18] [19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter."

Too bad those aren't actually mentioned in detail.

"Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke/Acts, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties."
What is to say that there were many copies made from one original. In their travels, very early travels, copies of those 4 books could have been left in many places visited. Not copies of copies but copies of originals. Isn't the best way to spread the news would be to leave a record of what is being taught. Scriptire does point to 'letters' being passed to more than one 'church', some are specifically mentioned as being sent to others. If that is a part not from the one the Vatican has then there is more than one copy, all copies would have to be later than any original.

"Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based upon the belief that Jesus could not have supernaturally prophesied future events, but the text of Mark must reflect events that had already occurred. Thus, the dating of Mark divides those who consider supernatural prophesy by Jesus as impossible from those who view it as possible that Mark could have been written before the events described took place."

No kidding, redate the book because you don't believe in prophecy.

That passage is not about 70AD, if it were it would have been earler in the same chapter, it would belong with this verse.
M'r:13:2: And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

"Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[32] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt [33]). "

M'r:12:9: What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Others would mean Gentiles, that came asbout when Peter had a vision in Acts (8 I believe). The jews were made desolate in this verse.

M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

That is just previous to Mk:13, the temple leaders were toast when Jesus exited the temple that very time. That it happened 40 years later (and then continued) was not even worth mentioning.

"A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,[35] see a 2nd century date for Mark."

Not likely unless you want to move Christ's presense that far foreward.
 
Dexter Sinister
#25
For logical consistency, gerryh, you should now drop in to the "Life after death" thread and make the same objection to people trashing Islam. Or are you the only one that's right? It's probably too subtle for you to get, but implicit in that is answer to your question. Read Christopher Hitchens for a really LONG answer. .
 
Socrates the Greek
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

this is what get's me....and why I consider all of this bullshyte as trolling. This thread is no fricken different than the "Jesus is gay" thread. It's a fricken troll with the sole purpose of trashing Christian beliefs. I have never understood the need of athiests to trash something that they supposedly don't believe in. What the Frick is it to you if someone else believes in Christ? What is your need to trash that belief?

I agree none should show disrespect on other peoples theological beliefs, the problem I have with religion is that people have used religion to gain political power, and that sucks, also religion has become a multimillion dollar industry who pay no taxes to municipalities, provincial, and federal, and are on record few administrators including the ministers are in ivory towers while people donate money to pay God.....

 
MHz
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci View Post

Will we as a species continue to rely upon faith-based initiatives, or can we one day break from the psychological bonds of religion and see the world for what it really is?

I think enough time has been wasted on superstition...

I wasn't even aware that Darwinism was now a religion, the 'ism' should have been the big clue I guess.
 
gerryh
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

For logical consistency, gerryh, you should now drop in to the "Life after death" thread and make the same objection to people trashing Islam. Or are you the only one that's right? It's probably too subtle for you to get, but implicit in that is answer to your question. Read Christopher Hitchens for a really LONG answer. .

I also object to that...I objected to the cartoon displays of Allah. I celebrated when that Canadian rag went tits up after it reprinted those same cartoons. There is no reason to trash or belittle someones religeous beliefs.
 
Dexter Sinister
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Socrates the Greek View Post

I agree none should show disrespect on other peoples theological beliefs...

Why should theological beliefs get a free pass? People inject religiously-based arguments into public policy debates about abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, capital punishment, and a host of other things, they've got to take the hits that'll open them to, just as any other argument does. If the religiously-based arguments are not well founded, and most of them aren't, they're just arguments from authority, they deserve to be challenged.
 
MHz
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Socrates the Greek View Post

I agree none should show disrespect on other peoples theological beliefs, the problem I have with religion is that people have used religion to gain political power, and that sucks, also religion has become a multimillion dollar industry who pay no taxes to municipalities, provincial, and federal, and are on record few administrators including the ministers are in ivory towers while people donate money to pay God.....

This might come as a surprise but the really, really rich don't pay taxes either. Some day you, and a whole lot of others, might actually discover that learning about God is pretty much free. The church donations are mostly for show for the neighbours (tax deductible also) and a trickle does make it out to the poor (just don't try to take any candlesticks with you the next time you are in such a building. $1,000 worth of books is not going to make you any smarter than reading a Bible you find laying around abandoned.
 

Similar Threads

69
America Never Existed
by Winnipeg10 | Jun 11th, 2009
11
If FoxNews existed 40 years ago...
by Ten Packs | Oct 28th, 2005