SkepticalOne

that looks like a deflection. ancient historicans did refer to him as a magician.

if someone is willing to die for their faith, they probably have a good reason for why they'd make that sacrifice

and the part you didn't quote which is a stronger point, is that the apostles had first hand witness to the events, not just stupid fanatics who die for a random belief.

people generally dont make mistakes in that nature that cost their lives

do you think the willingness to die due their first hand accounts have anything to do with church tradition?

was jesus a cult leader

most people aren't stupid enough to fall for cult hucksters,

it isn't likely that histroicans would record the cult leader as a historical figure and record the deeds the cult leader are said to have performed.

were other false messiahs recorded by historicans?

historians from antiquity sometimes referred to jesus as a magician

someone who is willing to die for their faith, it bolsters what they say. i understand people die for their faith all the time, and some of those faiths are untrue.. but it's still indiciative of soemthing when someone dies for their faith.

it seems far fetched that someone would happen to have a seizure when as far as we can tell, they were otherwise healthy, that just happens to lead to him being a central figure in the worlds most dominate religion.

you haven't pin pointed a good motive in why they would lie about supernatural claims.

their first hand testimony and willingness to die for their faith is compelling.

there's an element of "i want to believe"

No. We need to rewrite history so that we look like the good guys. 

Sometimes history needs to be changed to suit today's goals.

I wouldn't be surprised if an iterant Jewish rabbi with a devoted following was crucified around 33CE. I wouldnt be surprised if people made supernatural claims about him. That happens today with modern figures. Supernatural claims, from any time period, I do not believe.

To answer specific questions, people die for things they believe. Sometimes those beliefs have no basis in reality. I see no reason why deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus are different or special in that regard. 

I don't have any strong opinions on Paul, but I have found seizure to be a compelling explanation of his Demascus road experience. 

I don't tend to think the early followers of Jesus were 'lying'. Someone might have told a lie, but for the most part I accept they believed their testimony. I just don't believe their testimony, at least, not the supernatural parts. I see no good reason why it should be accepted at face value. 

Out of all the hackneyed phrases to gain popularity in the last decade, this deliberate cop out for an actual argument and a blank justification for any unsubstantiated claim is my pet peeve.

Lol, that would explain so much. 

I bet I am more white than you.

I, on the other hand, am pure pale vampire white color like human is supposed to be

I'm a straight white male. 🙄

Im not a huge fan of racists, bigots, or fascists though...not even the ones that look like me.

Christian God owns humans, so everything he does to humans is good and not evil.

Really? It's usual in a presidential election that candidates make promises impossible to keep

Then, it is true that americans don't give a shit about human rights, don't they? What about black people rights to loot? :)

Jesus was God. He was not "a Jew". Jesus established new law that has nothing to do with Jewish laws.

New Testament changed the rules for Sabbath.

So the judge is a solid Democrat? Noted.

Poor Hunter can't catch a break. Those evil Repugs won't rest till Hunter is under the jail.

Do you want me to go through every single verse in the Bible? 

how do you understand the Bible? Did the creation stories in Genesis happen thousands of years ago? Did Jacob's flock get their spots by way of colorful wood? Did the Earth really stop spinning? Can donkeys and snakes talk? Was the flood global? What is the smallest seed?

The bible has many books. 

In the verses I believe that there are certain context clues that help Christians to understand what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken metaphorically.

But nonetheless, it is not smart to assume that the whole bible is to be either taken with a more literal approach, or with a more metaphorical approach

What Christianity are we talking about?

Well, why would you assume that a book has to only either be taken literally, or only be taken metaphorically?

Absolutely - without hesitation.

.......................you know he literally can't talk, walk, or be a normal human being, right?

Republicans are much too extreme currently. I anticipate voting Dem.

So, you would vote for Biden, over any Republican Canidate? 

 I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?

Here's the quote:

 there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. 

We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance. 

If you believe a zygote isn't a human being, a lot of people believe that,

The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life.

This argument only works for abortion needed to save the mother's life

This is the natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. Your hierarchy describes an extinct species.

If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.

You've created a paradox. A place where people can be unnecessarily harmed is not perfect, yet you call it paradise.  I think you're overlooking a crucial trait to true paradise: safety. 

Being able to live together in large groups has many benefits which all become null and void if living together in groups is a greater hazard than living alone. This is the basis for morality. Group life requires a certain etiquette to work. 

My position: "Everyone should abort", means that I am not causing more pain than I am removing

I think the alcohol makes those unattractive people attractive, hence people who drunk alcohol are actually attracted those people.

I'm not sure people having sex out of loneliness is a thing. Do you have any research on this topic?

Keep in mind that we're talking about homosexuals having heterosexual sex of their own volition, not people who are forced in arranged marriages (wherein there are probably instances of people having sex with others they are not attracted to).

Do you know what environmental conditions may trigger homosexuality? 

However, if homosexuals aren't at all attracted to the opposite sex, then there is virtually no chance that in yesteryears they would have had heterosexual sex because they would not have been inclined to do so. 

That being said, it's strange why partial homosexuality exists to any degree. What benefits are there to be found in any degree of homosexuality, or do you suspect it was a coincidental evolutionary adaption?

ALL are choices if and when acted upon. 

If a person says they changed their sexuality by choice who are you to tell them they are wrong?

It's not for you to decide if someone says they truly changed from straight to gay

Is it possible that people change sexuality based on something other than choice? 

And millions HAVE made the choice to change their sexuality

Yet millions of peopke change their attractions throughout their lifetime 

Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent? 

Tell me, what do you think grooming is? It isn't some quick process where you take a child, show them porn, and go "let's do that!" It is a slow process where you guide them step by step, normalizing each step along the way, until they end up doing sexual things.

Hell, many people that were groomed into being porn stars first step in the process was ordinary modeling.

The article I linked clearly shows that part of the intention is grooming (though it does not use that word and the authors likely have some cognitive dissonance in that regard).

Saying "they aren't being convicted" is not saying "there is no evidence

 If our conception of groomers were informed by who is actually being charged sex crimes against children

I do not see how that follows.

Grooming often doesn't result in criminal prosecution.

Since joining DART, however, it just seems like you have grown more dogmatic when it comes to certain political issues

If it came off as an attempted ad hominem, then I apologize, as that was not my intention.

As for grooming? A perusal of recent sex offenders isn't likely to include a drag queen as lawyer Kristen Prata Browe has shown. Link I think her most recent vids are from March, but the point stands. 

This is why multiple drag queens that do reading at Drag Queen Story Hour have been found to been convicted pedophiles, that we see some stories of Drag Queens (like Anastasia Diamond) have recently been found with child porn, oh, and most importantly, the exact points I made about both child drag shows (even giving an example) where you can find them acting no different than some strippers and the article that outlines the purpose of Drag Queen Story Hour that implicitly admits that it is about grooming (an article I even linked).

I mean, come on man, you were so much better at objectively addressing points, even from people you disagreed with, and constructing sound arguments in political discussions back on DDO. What happened in the last few years?

I also think that drag is inherently sexual, and that there very much is a grooming aspect.