T1B

mvscal wrote:
Who gives a fuck? A sizable plurality don't which is why we see Islamic violence and war in every corner of the planet. Your so called one percent (and it is likely far higher than that) pencils out to ten million blood thirsty degenerates which is more than Hitler or Tojo had at their disposal.

They aren't and never will be "just like Christians." There is a fundamental difference in philosophy. Jesus was a mild mannered rabbi with a message of peace. Mohammed was a mass murdering pedophile with a message of war, murder and rape.

so what's your solution? just go on a crusade and start killing off muslims randomly?
it would be just like the crusades, where we ask "do you believe in Mohammad" and if they said yes, just blow their brains out?

the soulution of course is that it's going to take muslims to stand against these ass wipes, and until such time that we can find someone willing to step out on that limb, they're going to continue to murder in the name of their religion.....

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Wrong Babs, the "message" of Jesus (not an actual historical figure, btw) is as malleable as a blow-up sex-doll. For example, here's the Prince Of Peace in Mathew 10:34, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

You're lying.

Jesus most certainly was an actual historical figure.
If you think otherwise, you are simply delusional.

Jesus did not advocate violence.
You plucked a verse out of Matthew 10 and put it into a context of your own making.
Read the passage -- Matthew 10:34-39.
The "sword" was clearly referring to the division the follower of His must be willing to accept (even among family members) if they were indeed sincere about their choice to follow.

Felix,

Mowing down every muzzie is certainly not the solution. But, sucking their collective dicks won't work either. Treat them like the disfunctional bunch they are. Do not allow further emmigration. When they strike us, strike them back tenfold. And it is time to stop fukking with them concerning Israel. The war with Israel goes on to this day because the world keeps Israel on a short leash. Every attack should result in massive retaliation and when necessary, further territory loss. This last part will bring the problem to an end when the Arabs realize that further attacks will eventually result in Israel owning the entire fukking place.

RACK Smackaholic. Solid, solid take.

schmick wrote:
Trying to differentiate on the level of retardation that each mythology is responsible for is asinine, christian mythology has a 600 year head start on islamic mythology so it is not really fair to compare the level of retardation of the christers of today with the muzzies of today. If you compare todays muzzies with the christers from 600 years ago they're really not that different. Inquisitions, crusades, witch burning = honor killings, beheadings, jihad.

Good god, you're a fucking dipshit.

Why the fuck would you make that comparison? It doesn't even make sense. First things first, though. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression or are you somehow confused as to how Muslims came to occupy the Holy Land?

Intelligent people (ie not you) evaluate behavior in the context of the time in which it occurs. If you want to assess Christian behavior 600 years ago, you look at what was going on in world 600 years ago.

If you want to evaluate contemporary Muslim behavior, you don't look to see what Christians were doing 600 years ago unless you're a total dumbfuck.

poptart wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Wrong Babs, the "message" of Jesus (not an actual historical figure, btw) is as malleable as a blow-up sex-doll. For example, here's the Prince Of Peace in Mathew 10:34, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

You're lying.

Jesus most certainly was an actual historical figure.
If you think otherwise, you are simply delusional.

Jesus did not advocate violence.
You plucked a verse out of Matthew 10 and put it into a context of your own making.
Read the passage -- Matthew 10:34-39.
The "sword" was clearly referring to the division the follower of His must be willing to accept (even among family members) if they were indeed sincere about their choice to follow.

In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that he actually existed. Here, attempt to deal with this basic summation of the claims..
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

The most compelling part of this analysis is the basic fact that no commentators or historians of the period when Jesus is supposed to have lived made the slightest mention of him--despite the gospel claims of Jesus attracting "multitudes" and so forth. Nothing--and make no mistake, even though Jerusalem was a backwater second-tier colony of Rome, it was still under observation--and engaged in the largest construction project in Rome's history, that of the Herodic temple. So, if there was a charismatic cult leader getting any sort of attention, it would have been duly noticed. But no.

L TARD wrote:In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that he actually existed.

No evidence.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John


Believe what you want.
I believe you are completely delusional.

Whether or not some dude named Jesus existed is something you can argue all you want. The fact that the Romans didn't record anything about some bastard jew carpenter is no surprise. It proves nothing one way or another. As for the books written by his alleged homies, you really can't prove them one way or another.

My take on it all, is it is a bunch of fairy tales. What separates, me, a highly doubtful agnostic libertarian from protard aetheist asswipes like lets turd is, I have absolutely no problem with christians doing their christian thing. Well, except the JWs on a saturday morning when they kock on my door. I don't sit up at night trying to figure out ways to put a religious cockblock on them. I fond aetheist who go out of their way to disprove fairy tales way more annoying than the fairytalers themselves.

smackaholic wrote:I fond aetheist who go out of their way to disprove fairy tales way more annoying than the fairytalers themselves.

That's because, in most cases, your politics fall more in line with the fairytalers than they do with the "aetheist."

In any event, atheists don't need to disprove anything. There isn't any proof to begin with. Your annoyance should lie with those who make claims but can't produce the proof.

KC Scott wrote:Theres enough writings about him that there is no doubt he was an individual that existed - this is agreed upon by almost all historians. Two critical points in his life are also acknowledged; he was Baptized by John and he was crucified by the Romans.

The rest of the biblical writings are dogma

This is exactly the point.There is in fact no contemporary writings about him at all. Even the single historical reference by Josephus is after the fact--since he was born after the supposed date of Jesus' death. But no, there is no documentation whatsoever about Jesus or his baptism--or of anyone named John the Baptist at all. And of course there's no record of Herod ordering that all male babies should be executed. Nothing. And of course no record or evidence of Jesus being crucified. And no evidence for that matter that Pontius Pilate was real either. It's amazing how the tales of fishermen, the wash of Syria, and a seething post Jerusalem destruction cult spun out of Rome could have confused so many people as to its facts and its myths.

So what is your end point? You constantly go on about the destructive nature of monotheistic religions and hint polytheism is the great cure

L TARD wrote:This is exactly the point.There is in fact no contemporary writings about him at all

Nonsense, and I pity anyone who reads your tripe and thinks it is correct.


There are four separate historic records of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They all tell the same overall thing.

Just because these four separate accounts were placed within one Book called the Bible, you wave them off.
lol


Ponderous, to say the very least.

The four gospels are all written after the fact. None of these accounts are written in the first person, but simply in the third claiming this and that. None could be accepted as anything but hearsay testimony, period. What's actually interesting is the progression of just when Jesus became God. Consider that the gospels were apparently written in chronological order, and that one by one the divination of Jesus gets earlier and earlier. The first starts with Jesus becoming "Christ" at the baptism by John the Baptist, while the second introduces the nativity as the beginning of his divinity, and by the time we get to John--which is of course not one person at all--jesus is saying things like "before Abraham was, I am." Of course the entire cult was derived from the hysterical intensity following the destruction (totally razed) of the entire city of Jerusalem (not just the temple). The gerrymandering of supposed dates and events wasn't sorted out until about 500ce.

The notion of the bible being offered as some historical evidence for its own credibility is typically irrational as all the rest of the monotheistic contagion.

L TARD wrote:The four gospels are all written after the fact. None of these accounts are written in the first person, but simply in the third claiming this and that. None could be accepted as anything but hearsay testimony, period.

You're gone, dude.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.


There are four separate accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection on record -- and they relay the same basic important things.

Each author wrote from his own perspective, and may have put more emphasis on certain things because he had a target audience in mind for his writing.

Matthew for example, was clearly writing his account for the Jews to read -- and he was intending to show that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah they had been awaiting.


It sucks for you that these records exist, and I predict you will continue to put much effort into trying to spin them away.
But, one never knows.


So -- Jesus is the Christ, LTS.
This is the Truth.

Come to your conclusion.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I fond aetheist who go out of their way to disprove fairy tales way more annoying than the fairytalers themselves.

That's because, in most cases, your politics fall more in line with the fairytalers than they do with the "aetheist."

In any event, atheists don't need to disprove anything. There isn't any proof to begin with. Your annoyance should lie with those who make claims but can't produce the proof.

It has nothing to do with my politics. My politics are pertty much straight libertarian and libertarians are often aetheist. My annoyance is with those that don't think it is enough to believe/disbelieve. They must also stick their nose into others beliefs and the most dispicable example is progtard douchebag that has to go after things like nativity scenes in public places or any mention/celebration of xmas in public schools. This same asshole tends to be the one to look the other way when angry muzzie dude lops off a dome or three by saying christians did the same......600 fukking years ago.

smackaholic wrote: It has nothing to do with my politics. My politics are pertty much straight libertarian and libertarians are often aetheist. My annoyance is with those that don't think it is enough to believe/disbelieve. They must also stick their nose into others beliefs and the most dispicable example is progtard douchebag that has to go after things like nativity scenes in public places or any mention/celebration of xmas in public schools. This same asshole tends to be the one to look the other way when angry muzzie dude lops off a dome or three by saying christians did the same......600 fukking years ago.

Nice white flag, pussy.

Actually, Josephus, the Jewish Roman historian mentions Jesus in his works. Also, Paul the Apostle, mentions many eyewitnesses that theologians number in the thousands who personally met Jesus-- a claim that would immediately be disputed for its' veracity by the rest of the Early Church if it weren't accepted universally in his day. I suppose since DNA evidence and video footage somehow has failed to surface concerning his existence, that means Nero, Alexander, Hannibal, and a whole host of other notables never really existed either.

KC Scott wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:This is exactly the point.There is in fact no contemporary writings about him at all. Even the single historical reference by Josephus is after the fact

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. Historian Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[43] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds

That makes two independent sources other than gospel to confirm his existence

Like I said, there's very little doubt he was a real person

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts. So, how does someone writing a hundred years after the supposed fact make for any sort of evidence? Same with Josephus and the Apostle Paul. AS for suggesting that Mark and John of the gospels were eyewitnesses, this is absurd since we know these texts as well were written long after the supposed death--and the probability of anyone living into their 80's back then was basically nil.Moreover, the gospels are not written in first person at all, as an actual eye witness account would be. And really, why the utter lack of contemporary comment? This charismatic cult leader supposedly had "multitudes" paying attention to him--and yet no authority or historian noticed? And this while all sorts of far more mundane activities and events were described in detail? C'mon....

L TARD wrote:AS for suggesting that Mark and John of the gospels were eyewitnesses, this is absurd since we know these texts as well were written long after the supposed death--and the probability of anyone living into their 80's back then was basically nil.

It's Matthew and John.

Jesus was killed around 30-35 A.D.
The Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. -- a very significant event, and one Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell that Jesus prophesied would happen.

None of the Gospel writers spoke of this major event, and it's inconceivable to think that they wouldn't have.

The Gospels were written within 35 years of the death of Christ.

There is more evidence than this to show that they were written before 70 A.D., but that is the short response.


As predicted, you continue to grasp and flail.

Throw your keyboard in the river.

Your circular logic is familiar, as I've known many Christers. But the plain fact stands that there is no evidence whatsoever just who wrote the gospels at all. the compilation and determination of their exact text wasn't even begun until the middle of the second century, and wasn't completed until the sixth. There's simply no evidence that would begin to stand up in a basic court of law. Hearsay evidence is not sufficient. And by the way, how do you account for the gospels often saying what Jesus was thinking and feeling? Or when he was alone? And as for John, everyone knows this gospel is unique in being originally in Greek--and was written near the end of the first century, and "John" would have been near 100 years old. Sorry, but case dismissed.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
In any event, atheists don't need to disprove anything. There isn't any proof to begin with. Your annoyance should lie with those who make claims but can't produce the proof.

Incorrect.

"Atheism" is a system of belief... the "ism" out back should have told you. I think you're confusing "atheism" with "agnosticism" -- the belief in the unknown that can't ever be settled.


But nice to see the unwavering consistency from Pop -- "the Bible is proof of the Bible," not realizing how unbelievably idiotic the entire concept is. And he'll stick to his guns, shaking his head at the rest of us.

And to Pops and the rest of you... when you start making LTS the sane, l9gical, educated one of the bunch... then it's about time to take a long look at yourself. Most of what he's posted is factually correct. Even Christian historians (by trade) generally think the Gospels are after-the-fact myths.

I'll go with the evidence -- it's not that there was some cool dude named Jesus that ran around doing good deeds... in fact, no such person existed except in myth a few decades later. Unless you throw out the actual historical records of the time (extremely numerous), and buy into ones written much later.

Dinsdapedia wrote:But nice to see the unwavering consistency from Pop -- "the Bible is proof of the Bible," not realizing how unbelievably idiotic the entire concept is. And he'll stick to his guns, shaking his head at the rest of us.

What is unbelievably idiotic is someone continuing to advance the narrative that the Bible is one Book.

It's 66 different Books, by some 40 different authors.

Even Christian historians (by trade) generally think the Gospels are after-the-fact myths.

Ummm...
No, people who say that are not believers.
They are not Christians.

in fact, no such person existed except in myth a few decades later.

That's a fact, huh?

Oh thanks a lot, dins. Here: 9/11 was an inside job. Both Kennedys were whacked by Israel. UFOSs are real. There, ya happy?