Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.I used the term religion - this is a general term. I then used particularly referring to one of the religions. Christianity.
And you singled out Christianity as being "the most dangerous in particular".
Did you actually believe that this stupid and irrational comment of yours would be so easily be forgotten?
You have even expressed to us that Christianity is dangerous to our children's safety and survival?
So stop with your shite! Not once have you mentioned the dangers of Islam in such a way. And now you want us all to believe that you are including all religions and that you are putting them ALL under the same umbrella.?
The Christians here might well give you a pass on all of your faux anti religion, faux anti Christ and faux anti bible stance but that is only because they don't want to agree with me.
I keep asking myself - why does this Stephen keep analyzing every word and sentence I make?
Keep asking. But I don't have to analyse anything that comes from you. Your hypocrisy, inconsistencies and outright bullshite, just LEAP off the page!!!!! see above
Stephen, just FYI, My words, [.............................................] are words that are meant to ask, answer, and attempt to produce discussion.
And that is exactly what I am doing. I am discussing YOUR words. With YOU. As I do with other peoples words on a public forum. Words that you and they write and post up on a public forum on the WWW..
I am flattered you make so much of my words,
Then stop your whining. You will be playing the victim card next. And accusing me of "harassment" AGAIN.
such a person of your skills has much better things to be doing.
You really are shite at sarcasm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well stated. A Theist, a knife-wielding man shouted “Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)” and then beheaded a middle-school teacher on a street in Paris in 2020. That same year, an Atheist promoted Humanism.
Well said.
I couldn't agree more which is why I could never understand why he was stupid enough to state this as fact>>>
Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular Christianity? #153
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.And I have simply highlighted "pedophiles and evolution" as being YOUR reasons that you believe their is no god. ("among other things") is all I am asking?So are you saying that because of those two highlighted above reasons (and others) proves to you there is no god in your eyes? That is a yes or no question.Yes.
I see and it is these and (other things) are how you go about "Proving god is a lie"? Yet I see not a single mention of "evolution or paedophiles priests"in your opening post in your own thread titled Proving god is a lie https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
In fact, you do not mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" throughout the whole of your thread? NOT ONCE!!!
Why is that?
What you do say instead is, that it is the "we" & the "us" atheist and non theists, that should take the burden of proof for the non existence of god onto our shoulders. So I am simply wondering why it is that YOU in your own thread, and as part a YOUR OWN "provocativeness" and YOU taking the "bull by the horns"somehow forgot to mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" as part of the reasons that you believe and prove that "god is a myth and doesn't exist"?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Timid8967
Timid8967 wrote: It appears that some are here just to spew nonsense.zedvictor4, wrote: Nonsense is as nonsense can be proved.
Indeed. He is certainly the one to talk about "spewing nonsense" isn't he. What double standards, what hypocrisy.
And now he's backpedaling just like they all do after being exposed . He wants to pretend he never said anything at all, about anything! He wants to brush it all under that carpet and for all his inconsistencies and hypocrisy and double standards "nonsense" to just disappear and pretend it never happened and they have all gone away and he has woken up from a terrible nightmare.. HERE>>>#31 & HERE>> #32 Timid8967
Lets not forget this piece of attempted slight of hand;
I would like to think that I am open to learning new things and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas.#31 Timid8967
and my response>>
Yes, you will be a christian of sorts before too long,is my prophesy. <<<<<<<<<<<TAKE NOTE #33 Stephen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.
And I have simply highlighted "pedophiles and evolution" as being YOUR reasons that you believe their is no god. ("among other things") is all I am asking?
So are you saying that because of those two highlighted above reasons (and others) proves to you there is no god in your eyes? That is a yes or no question.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I would like to think that I am open to learning new things and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas.
Yes I can see you now. You will be recanting everything you have said previously under a new guise and trying to deny everything past said by your old self.
You must think everyone here is so fkn dumb. I showed you that you had left yourself absolutely no avenue to argue because of all your inconsistences. And this is now your "new" self emerging like a moth from a chrysalis, just like that.
and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas.
Yes, you will be a christian of sorts before too long,is my prophesy. <<<<<<<<<<<TAKE NOTE
When I read some of my posts, I think I do come across a little or a lot contradictory. So thanks Stephen for pointing that out.
Oh ffs stop with your fraud. I exposed you for the that fake you are. And it wasn't " a little" or even a "lot" it was multiple times , one after the other, stark staring and obvious and only those that didn't want to agree with me chose not to notice.
And thanks Zed and others for noting my inconsistency for calling for people to stop giving air time to religious stuff when it is plain I am doing just that.
Yes indeed and you had boxed yourself in didn't you? With your hypocritical double standards and inconsistences . Yet, do you know, even when they were repeatedly exposed by me there were still some here that wouldn't even recognize you for what you are and chose to totally ignore your multiple inconsistences not to mention you "non theism".
I have decided I will stop calling for that for it does not make sense.
Just like that? Nice . How long were you a "non theist" for? I can't wait to see what now emerges from this cocoon.
I am going to simply request that everyone delete my previous comments since many of them are nonsense and unhelpful.
Of course you are. You wouldn't want old comments coming back to haunt you, now would you? Completely Expunged and redacted is what you are asking for.
A complete new leaf is what you are asking for and this doesn't surprise me one single bit! What you are really asking for is that I don't keep slapping you with your own stick. But don't hold your breath. If you say anything that I believe contradicts your "old self" beliefs I will be reminding that whatever it is that you say in your "new self" and asking you if you have now changed your mind of things past said as your "old self".
And I will try and start again.
Good. OK. Do you believe in god? And is Jesus a myth? Is Christianity a danger to my children? Should all bibles be thrown on the fire and eradicated from the face of the earth?
Do you believe Jesus was real? Do you think Christianity is a danger to children? Are you a Christian by the way?
And you have now - ALREADY!!!!! - gone into full Christian mode by answering questions with questions of your own.
My stance on the scriptures is well known on this forum. And if you had paid as much attention to my posts as you tell us did to tradesecrets, then you would know exactly what that stance is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I did not use the problem of evil argument because it is not a good argument against god. I used so called priests of god because if god's best people are like that [paedophiles]- then obviously he does not exist.
So simply put then, that fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of paedophile priests, that is enough to convince you that there is no god?
it is true that some religious people follow evolution - yet that is a matter for them. For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
So on which is your non belief of god based then? Is your disbelief in god based on or influenced by your personal feelings, tastes, or opinions , or by the fact that "many of god's good people" are paedophiles? Or both?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God?
Can you be a little more clear. Are you asking arguments for the existence of god? Or are you asking for arguments about the nature and personality of god?
Created:
Posted in:
So staying with the theme of my thread, Do you accept PGA 2.0's version of events concerning Jesus' return in 66-70 ADNope...................................... Comments David v. PeanutHut.Comments
That's more like it.
I too also mentioned the other signs that were supposed to accompany the second coming #1 Stephen " “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened Matthew24:25-34.
But of course you didn't pick up on that point simply because it was me that pointed it out in my first post. I also mentioned Mathew 24:6-7 as further signs that we "are also look for" as told by the Christ, but that too you have over looked simply because it was I that brought it this argument.
And I like YOU , I too was stating only and exactly that which the Christ in THE BIBLE STATES himself! But you couldn't come onto this tread and agree with me could you? Even though I have stated not just directly from the BIBLE , but what I have said also appears to be in agreement with the author in your own link, the Comments David v. PeanutHut.
Like I have said. You are a coward of the highest hypocritical double standards that will cut off your nose to spite your own fkn face. They type that is willing to throw fellow man under the fkn bus as long as you believe it would save you face 9 one of many that you have) or embarrassment.
And that is what I have and will protect.
But rather than condemning or even challenging Timid8967 for his zealous aspirations of wanting to eradicate your own Christ Jesus and your own holy scripture from the face of the earth, you would rather argue with me. Someone that does actually accept swaths of the bible to be true and to contain much historicity. I believe there was a Jesus and that all the other biblical characters actually existed.
I don't want to eradicate Christianity. I don't want your holy book committed to the flames. And I don't believe Christianity is a danger to my children either. But you know who does, don't you , you 19 faced coward?
Yes I can see your willingness and readiness to fight the good fight to "protect" your faith and your religion and your Christ that sacrificed himself for you while giving a clean bill of health to the over zealous "non theist"Timid8967, he that belies the "Christian religion is a danger to our children" .
And with the cowardly double standards and hypocrisy that you have displayed just recently he may well have a good point and could well be onto something.
Fauxlaw : #329
Theist arguing with theist about "context".. You couldn't make it up! Hahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhaha!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@fauxlaw
@zedvictor4 wrote: I think that what you are trying to sayfauxlaw wrote: I don't try to say; I say it: "the Bible must be read; following clues..." It must be read. But it must be with a sincere heart, and real intent, having faith in Christ. Doing so, the truth of it will be revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by that power, the truth of all things will be revealed.
So then there is absolutely no reason one has to be a student of the Greek language #28 fauxlaw just as long as one has "sincere heart, and real intent, having faith in Christ" this alone will help us "follow clues" and able to "read and understand the bible".
Marvelous.
And what is it that you believe that you have had revealed to you via the power of the Holy Ghost?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
But he is more than entitled to his opinion. And haven't criticised it.No? From your #275:dimtim couldn't hold himself together too long could he?
I said I hadn't criticised him for his beliefs (as zealous and radical as they are), which is what you accused me of, and what I was referring to. FFS keep up.
And he is thick and stupid if he believes I fell for his introductory soft soap arse licking bull shit. I notice you over looked his post calling me a "freak faced, that likes animal pussy". But I am not surprised that you did when you have given a pass on everything that goes against even your own devout beliefs. Like I have said ; Cutting off y'all's nose to spite the face, leaps off the page. How fkn childish. How cowardly.
So, where you get that I've been around for 18 months must be from your imagination, alone.
Yes my mistake. It was 13 months of the 14 months that you have been here which is one year and one month. 10/10 for maths. Shame you don't pay as much attention to scripture...in any fkn language.
So staying with the theme of my thread, Do you accept PGA 2.0's version of events concerning Jesus' return in 66-70 AD. Or are you of the belief that Jesus failed to return when he promised or are you of the belief that his return is imminent?
THB that a story declared as a myth is attempt to strip its portection. If you don't want to bear the burden of protection, best not strip it, because we will protect it.
Protect what exactly?
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I am still waiting to hear your own propositions and ideas about how " we" and "us" go about not "giving religious movements air time & oxygen". without speaking about it?
I mean, you have clearly displayed many times to us now your total abhorrence for religion & " religious movements" and your own zealousness for its eradication I can't help wondering why you hadn't shared any thoughts of your own.
I personally think you are crazy to believe the Christian religion that you believe is and singled out as a "cancer" and see as a "danger to our children"can be " cancelled"#18. I don't agree that the bible that you have found to be "confusing and contradictory"#186 and to be "all over the place"#6 should be put to the flame either #8, because I believe the bible to have as substantial historicity to it.
You can tell us all day long about your "non theistism" but simply telling us that you have only read the bible once , don't believe in god and that Jesus is a "myth" and all the above, goes nowhere in offering any solution to what appears to be only your own dilemma.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Timid8967 Religion is one of those institutions which cause inequality and ought to be stamped out.Whatever Timid's religion is, is his to settle. That you criticize it is an obvious insult to him.
Does he have a religion? I ask YOU this specifically because I recall he told YOU directly that he certainly wasn't a christian#111. Yet he knew how Christians "think"#139
Obviously y'all have been giving him a pass on his opinions and what he believes about YOUR religion in particular. He calls it among other things " a cancer"#153 . That aught to be "cancelled"#18 that should never be give a single atom of "oxygen". Is that a religion then?
And I don't doubt for a second that you will ignore this from our "new" member:
"Timid8967 wrote: History shows how dangerous it is. Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity?"#153"Timid8967 wrote: No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. "#141"Timid8967 wrote: I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books #8
But he is more than entitled to his opinion. And haven't criticised it. And you cannot shown me where I have. If fact I believe dimtim8967 to be overly anti anything religious especially the Christians and the Christian religion. He went as far as to suggest Marx was correct yet wishes me "good luck in my witch hunting"#215
Didn't Marx say that religion was ""the soul of soulless conditions" or the "opium of the people"
But y'all prefer to ignore Timid8967 's zeal for the eradication of your religion that he abhors totally simply because you don't want to disagree with him while he is arguing with me. Cutting off y'all's nose to spite the face, leaps off the page. How fkn childish. How cowardly.
Why? It is his to embrace or reject. You have naught to say about it, and should not.
I have criticized him for many things, but having a religion as you believe he does have, isn't one of them.
Because everything he proposes is anti religion, anti bible, anti Christ and anti god.. You need to get your boneheaded facts correct and all your ducks in a row before you start to defending such an anti religious Marxist as dimtim8967. You are simply a hypocrite that can't defend your scriptures,your god, your belief , your faith or your own corner.
a bad cowardly habit that I picked up directly from YOU!A habit, you will notice, I recognized was a wrong attitude, And I corrected. Tag.
Indeed it took you almost 18 months and a spell of being ignored to realise your attitude was cowardly and uncalled for. At least I had a good reason.
And I still believe it to be wrong and cowardly,but bad habits, as you should know, are hard to shake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
THB that a Why is attempt to strip its portection. If you don't want to bear the burden of protection, best not strip it, because we will protect it.Protect what exactly? Against what or whom?Why bother asking me a direct question when you refuse to receive a direct answer?
I see. So you are just talking shite for the sake of talking shite. I should have guessed.
And you speak of "myth" above . At least our "new "member is clear on what his own intentions are.
Timid8967 Religion is one of those institutions which cause inequality and ought to be stamped out.This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival. #153So why give air to a subject that ought to be closed down? It seems to me - the more you bring this sort of stuff up - the more air time and the larger the myth becomes. #16
Yes, you have found a lovely tolerant "non theist" to share your faith and beliefs with haven't you. And if he gets his way and all atheists and "non theists" agree with his opinions, religion will be on the way to being eradicated.
But you have no problem with him and will put up his aggressive stance against the Christian religion as long as he is here disagreeing with me while he displays all being constantly inconsistent, contradictory , and displays all the tendencies of a compulsive liar.. You will make for good theological bedfellows, I'm sure.
Why bother asking me a direct question when you refuse to receive a direct answer?
Yes terrible isn't it? And all rather cowardly isn't it? You have yourself to thank for that. Because it is also happens to be a bad cowardly habit that I picked up directly from YOU!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
THB that a story declared as a myth is attempt to strip its portection. If you don't want to bear the burden of protection, best not strip it, because we will protect it.
Protect what exactly? Against what or whom?
Created:
-->
@janesix
@Timid8967
->@Timid8967What do you want? To eradicate religion?
Well this is what he is saying he believes about religion, the bible and Jesus and god;
Religion is one of those institutions which cause inequality and ought to be stamped out.This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival. #153
So it appears then that if he had his way that is exactly what he aims to do. And all the while he is also suggesting that it is for the atheist that they should bare the burden of proving that god doesn't exist he's also categorically stating that it is the "theist that carries the burden of proof". #61
And it is this that is hypocritical, and it is this that is inconsistent. Indeed he says it/religion should be "cancelled"#18 and
And when you think it couldn't get any more inconsistent or anymore hypocritical he tells us the Jesus story is a "myth"#240 and that the bible, a book that he says in a mess of confusing contradictions, #186should be destroyed by fire #8.
And he doesn't stop there. For while I am doing exactly what he appears to be wanting people to do, he slams them/me for exposing those very "confusing mess of contradictions" the bible actually is while he "wishes" that I would be more agreeable with the bible". #25
One simply couldn't be more inconsistent or more contradictory!
He's a fraud. And I say that for all of the points I have raised above.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I have explained to you "agreeable with the bible" before.
No you haven't. You totally ignored this - - your inconsistency.. Show me the link where you addressed that particular point if you can't do that then explain it again.
My point was and remains the same - the things you say about the bible are NOT in the bible in any way that anyone else understands them.
That is all besides the point and you wouldn't know either way. You read it only once according to you. And how do you you know how "anyone understands" the bible.
Do you not know how many millions of people read the bible differently . There is a perfect example of that going on right now on this forum. One lot of Christians believe Jesus has been and gone while another lot believe he is due next week. So your argument on that score is bullshit.
It is difficult to have a discussion with you because you make out the bible is saying something entirely different to what it is saying.
That should be no concern of yours considering they YOU TELL US that you don't believe the bible or believe in god and the Jesus story is a "myth"anyway. You are being hypocritical again and inconsistent, AGAIN!
You are up a creek now because you can't discuss that which you do not believe in, don't understand, find confusing and find contradictory, and believe all to be a "myth" anyway, can you? That is where you shot all your of your fkn toes clean off , princess.
That is why you are "disagreeable" with the bible. And why it would be better if you were more agreeable.
Stop with you bullshit.
It should be of no concerns to you that I am in total opposition to what the pastors and priest have been preaching and teaching about the Jesus story and the bible.
In fact you should be agreeing with me and supporting me because I have been "proactive" and that I have "taken the bull by the horns" , or have you forgotten that that is another one of your recommended ideas for combating what you have called a "dangerous religion that is threat to our children"#20 Timid8967
Everyone disagrees with you. Neither the Christians, nor the Muslims, nor the Jews, nor the atheists. NO ONE agrees with your disagreeableness.
You cannot know that. I know many people that do agree with me, hundreds in fact. And I wouldn't expect the devout christian to agree with with me. I didn't come onto this forum to convert anyone. I wouldn't be so stupid to even think I could. But you do don't you? How fkn stupid can one be to believe they could eradicate religion altogether.
I have come here to highlight , scrutinise and question the scriptures and you protest so much against me doing that... far to much me thinks.
I only have to read it once - and as I said - for me it is not a matter of believing the bible anymore than me having to agree with Plato or Aristotle or any particular myth.
So again, what business is it of yours how I read these scriptures that you don't believe and call "mythical"?#16 It should be no concern of yours whatsoever, but here you are protesting that I believe and tell a slightly different story to the one "we" non believers and and "us" atheists have had rammed down our throats for over 2000 years!
If we cannot agree with what the bible says - then it is pointless having a discussion with you.
Then don't. But I know perfectly well what the bible says and I think it is a `miracle ` that you know what the bible says, a bible that YOU say you found "confusing and contradictory"#186 and all after only one reading.!? Like I have said you complain far too much about me and what I write for my liking . You are a nine faced contradictory hypocrite.
You are someone who "knows it all"
No, just a little more than you will ever live to know.
And someone that "knows it all" doesn't continually ask questions. You are desperate to shut me up and stop talking about my own opinions theories and ideas concerning the these unreliable and ambiguous half stories that make up these scriptures. And I see that in every single fkn post you make.
and cannot be taught.
Taught what?
You are what people refer to as "unteachable".
You really are desperate, ain't you princess?
It was put to me that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question.Yes and put to you by me, here>>>> #154Ahhh - So now you are bragging about yourself? How delightful.
My you really are desperate .
but no.. I am Just making it clear who it was you are referring to when you spoke of a "he" and didn't mention who. Or have you forgotten your own shite again?
here you are
->@Timid8967 wrote: It was put to me [no name] that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question. And perhaps, he [no name] is correct in his assessment.
Yes,it was me . I called you inconsistent and a hypocrite on this thread here>>#154 and yes I am correct in my assessment.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
It was put to me that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question.
Yes and put to you by me, here>>>> #154
And not just concerning the above question, which I will address next. You have been inconsistent in almost everything you have said.
You have repeatedly told us that you don't even believe the bible#18 and in the next breath you have said to me personally that you "wished" what I had to say was
"more agreeable with the bible"#25. And then failed to tell me why it is that you, and non believer of the scriptures, of which you say "should be put on a book burning pile" #8 would "wish" such a thing?
You have also told us here that:
Timid8967, wrote: " As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory. #186
So I ask you again. WHY would YOU want what I have to say be more "agreeable" with something that you find "quite confusing & contradictory" and a book that you tell us you do not believe in anyway? <<<<<<<<<<<<THAT is inconsistent and hypocritical.
More examples available on request.
And perhaps, he is correct in his assessment.
I am, and you are.
How do we stop giving religious movements airtime and oxygen without talking about them?
In your case, you simply stop talking about them. As I explained to you already when I highlighted yet another of your hypocritical inconsistences here:#154 Stephen
Timid8967, wrote; Yes, I have responded to others - so yes I am guilty as well. And perhaps I should stop. [ and created a thread about the proof of god]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that?Oh, I don't ignore them. I just think they're pseudepigraphal. Which is the consensus among historical scholarship.The Gospels are written in highly proficient Greek. It's very unlikely that Jesus's immediate followers, being lower-class Jews from rural Galilee, could read or write well in even their own language, much less be so fluently literate in another.It's estimated that fewer than 3% of Jews in Roman Palestine could read and write well enough to compose texts like this, and the ones who could would've all been urban elites, with the wealth and leisure to afford the education. Scholars think the Gospel authors most likely came from urban areas outside Palestine.And of course, there's the fact that all of the Gospels are written anonymously, and none of them are written in the first person.
A+1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
We are standing in a unique time in history where we can cut the cancer out if we take the right strategies. You are giving them airtime.
And that is why you came onto a forum that is purposely created to discuss religion and have resurrected over thirty - 30! - threads all discussing religion. I see. So that is not giving it " oxygen" and air time, is it? Do you see what a complete and utter fkn hypocrite your are.
But you didn't stop there did you,? NO. YOU decided that YOU wouldn't be giving religion and Christians "oxygen" at all by created your own thread about the atheist and the "non theists" baring the burden of proof as to if or not god exists. I see , " no airtime and oxygen " to be gained from you then.
You are giving them hope. You are giving them oxygen.
NOPE! And that is only your opinion.
I don't believe for one single second that a single one of my threads has given "hope nor oxygen" to anyone at all. You see ALL of my threads concerning religion oppose totally the accepted story of the Christ and the bible and in no way promote it.
Yes, I have raised this topic, so I am guilty as well.
Yet here you are, lecturing me me on what I should or shouldn't be doing and decrying what I do as "giving oxygen" to the bible and Christianity. Don't make me fkn laugh. You are an out `n`out hypocrite!
Yes, I have responded to others - so yes I am guilty as well. And perhaps I should stop.
Perhaps? No what you should do in your position and because of your concern over "giving oxygen" to the bible and Christians, is simply stop! But that call is all your own princess.
But I do take the view that the ends justifies the means - I don't have to be consistent.
You are attempting to excuse yourself for all the inconsistences in your own varying and contradictory comments and statements that I am highlighting and that I will continue to highlight.
This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival.
Eradicate religion? So that is your goal is it? Good luck.
Yet it seems you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.
That will be dismantling the accepted story of the Christ as handed down to us by the pastors and the priests of the world that haven't a clue about it themselves but simply pass it on and make a lucrative living from repeating and regurgitating what they have been taught to repeat and regurgitate. You should be supporting me for the reason that I have taken the "bull by the horns" and because I am and have been "proactive".
you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.
So you don't even know what it is that I am doing but tell me that I shouldn't be giving religion, the bible, god and Jesus "oxygen and airtime". Don't make me laugh.
What will be the theme of your next thread in this forum created to discuss religion? Or won't you be bothering at all now? I mean you wouldn't want to give religion and Jesus anymore "oxygen and airtime" while lecturing others about the wrongs of doing so, now would you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.
`Stephen` is actually claiming that Jesus didn't return when he promised that he would return.
`Stephen` is claiming that THE BIBLE claims " that every eye will see him" (Jesus) return. Revelation 1:7. There is not a single eyewitness account of Jesus returning.
`Stephen` is also claiming that THE BIBLE claims that Jesus will return "the same way he went" . Acts 1:11. That will be physically. He hasn't done so yet although billions of Christians believe his return is "imminent".
And `Stephen` is also claiming that PGA2.0 hasn't produced a single scrap of evidence that proves that the corpse of man said to have laid stinking and rotting in his tomb for three days was raised from being dead to being physically alive again, had his physical wounds physically poked and prodded, physically shared a meal with friends, physically ascended into heaven, came back down and appeared at the fall of the city of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 in physical form or in the form of a ghost.
And I am also saying until PGA2.0 can come up with something other than unreliable and ambiguous cherry picked verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous source I will not engage with him any further than I have or have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Timid8967, the half-assed member that does not have a biography,In answering you being an alleged non-theist in your post #16,YOUR DIRECT QUOTE IN WANTING TO BE A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN: “I have to admit that for the first time in my entire life, i have been embarrassed to be non-theist. Your words make me want to worship Jesus and to call him God Almighty. Everything you say makes perfect sense and suddenly i am confused about what to do.” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5961-earliest-mention-of-jesus-christ?page=2&post_number=37Talking about “memos” that you are going directly against, is your own when your quote above stipulates that you want to be, and are a pseudo-christian by now, get it? Huh? Maybe? 2+2=4.Therefore using simple math that even you can understand relative to your quote above, YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN since the faith made sense to you, therefore you need a biography to tell us what DIVISION of the faith you are following, and to tell us more in how you are to spread the word!
Of course he's a christian pretending not to be, Brother. See here. He's a sly christian attempting in a roundabout way to push the burden of proof onto the atheist in this link Brother>>>>> #151 And notice he won't explain why he believes that "we" and "us" atheists should shoulder the burden of proof.
And by denying that he even believes in god and believes the bible should be burned he has shot himself in the foot, but is far too simple to realise it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
If and when I want to talk about what I believe is a matter for me.
It is but you seem to be telling the "us" and the "we" what it is the "we" & "us" aught to be doing.
Why do we the atheist have to "take the bull by the horns"? Why have we "to be more proactive"? And why do YOU believe that is we have to shoulder the burden of proof, when you categorically state that it is the theist that has the burden of proof #20 Timid8967
So why do you feel you have to "rationalise your non belief in god?
I don't believe in god and I certainly don't believe I owe you any explanation over and above what I have already given.
But you are speaking for others here aren't you? HERE>>>>
" We give a three pronged approach - to try and imitate some kind of rationale for why we reject god". . #20 Timid8967
Why do you say that?
Stop harassing me.
Stop being silly and hysterical.
Talk about the subject.
I am. I am responding to exactly to what YOI have said ON THE SUBJECT! it is you that are refusing to clarify your statements and comments?
Don't ask me to have to repeat myself. I won't.
I won't do that. But YOU still haven't cleared anything of your own comments and statements have you?
Such as here;
We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns. We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why? Because we have the truth. #20 Timid8967
That is YOU clear as day telling us the atheist and the non theist the "we" should take the burden of proof on our shoulders.
WHY ? what "truth".
What control do you think "we" have lost to have to take it back? And what rules are you talking about?
If you do not wish to be questioned stop making comments that warrant a inquisitive and probing a response.
You can't just tell to people what they and "we" and "us" should be doing without explaining why.
Why should we shoulder the burden of proof when you clearly accept that it is for the atheist to prove the existence of god?
here>>
Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.............#61
It is for this and a few more reasons why I am calling out both you and this thread for the bullshite it is.
You are simply trying to get away with saying the atheists do have the burden of proof.
The BOP subject has been discussed on the forum many times and it always boils down the theist insisting that it it for the atheist to prove god does not exist.
ONE GOOD EXAMPLE>>>>
"What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist". #1
Would you like more of those examples?
You have simply approached the subject in sly way and you are trying to play us all for complete and utter twats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Good! Then deal with them and stop your whining. Start with the "new us" answering those few questions raised by your own comments, here>Duh! I have answered this on more than one occasion. Just because you don't like my answer does not change the facts.
Now you are at the lying stage. You haven't told me why it is that "YOU WISH" that I was more agreeable with the bible that you don't even believe in?
Once again you have shown your contradictions and hypocrisy. You haven't even explained to "us" what it is that you believe "we" should be "taking back"?
Why do you believe it is up to the atheist and to you - the pretend non theist to prove that god doesn't exists?
"we" again! I have never met anyone that doesn't believe in god that feels he has to rationalises why he doesn't believe.
Ok so why don't you explain how YOU try to rationalise YOUR rejection of god and why you believe that you have to rationalise your own beliefs of his non existence?
I don't think we should use strawman arguments - why? Because we have the truth - and the truth will win.#20 Timid8967
Great. Now just explain which "truth"you are talking about? The "truth"that god does not exist? Or the truth that theists cannot prove that god exists?
And here is you telling the "us and the "we" that it is "us" and "we" that :
We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns. We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why? Because we have the truth. #20 Timid8967
That is YOU clear as day telling us the atheist and the non theist the "we" should take the burden of proof on our shoulders.
WHY ?
We need to be smarter - we need to take back control - we need to walk first - speak first - take on the presumptions - and write the rules ourselves. #20 Timid8967
What control do you think "we" have lost to have to take it back? And what rules are you talking about?
But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof,
But you say YOURSELF that the theist has the burden of proof; Here ;
Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.............#61
And where is our natural place? And how and when did we give it up?
for the billionth time, take what back?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
So what? In fact I embrace contradiction and inconsistencies.
Of course you do - except when those contradictions and inconsistences are someone else's
You are the one continuing to point out these things
I do simply because YOU are continually contradicting YOURSELF!
The only measure I need to live by is myself. And I change my position as new evidence or the wind arises.
OK, So what new evidence has arisen in such a short time for to have giving "us" and "we" what you think or know, or believe about Christians, HERE>>>
Timid8967 wrote:If they [Christians] agreed with that definition - then they really have little understanding of their god.#47Timid8967 wrote: If Christians think they are being persecuted without good reason, they tend to get all passionate about their Jesus. #47Timid8967 wrote: I have never met a theist who believes just in a three prong god. Most Christians I know reject the three prong approach. #143
to now telling us
Then what is it that "we" & "us" atheists and "non theists" should be "taking back"?
The theist runs around the atheist.
The theist will do that at every given chance and particularly if he believes the atheist is BIBLE ignorant. This enables the theists to make shite up as he goes if he is relying on the total bible ignorance of the atheist. That has been happening for millennia, Pastors and Priests have been dictating their version of what they say the gospels, and Jesus and god are telling us and means.
But they don't like being challenged on their version or interpretations , yet here YOU are, telling "us & "we" that we shouldn't be discussing this subject at all by giving it "air time". WHY!!!!???
AND WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25! WHY?
. I just want the truth to be heard.
Which in your own opinion, is what?
And YOU - want to hide the truth behind subterfuge and innuendo.
What is it that you believe that I am hiding?
I say the atheist's truth is better than hiding behind a lie.
Which is what according to you?
You want to hide behind a lie.
What lie would that be?
Well I am one of those who have been let down by your kind of behaviour and talk and wont put up with it anymore.
Instead of telling me what you believe and think about me why don't you start putting your version of "the truth" to us and start answering questions raised by your own comments?
Your generation is DEAD. Or dying at least.
Can you explain that? You appear very annoyed because I have shown you to be a contradictory individual that doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he actually sits .
Us, in the new - have new ways of dealing with these things.
Good! Then deal with them and stop your whining. Start with the "new us" answering those few questions raised by your own comments, here>
WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25! WHY???
Timid8967 wrote:Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense.......But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Can you prove god is a lie or can you prove god is real?It’s not fair to ask me that, just because I’m a believer doesn’t mean I argued in favor of that belief in this thread.
Then that should have been your response to the OP and not ask him a question instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The question - YOUR QUESTION - contains your belief.True but that doesn’t change the fact that a question and a claim are two different things period.
The claim was in the question FFS you said " TO PROVE HE IS ALL LOVING". You have furthered that by admitting that YOU BELIVE that your god is "all loving". are you now saying that he is NOT "all loving"? Because you'd be correct as attested to by the bible itself.
Now address have some respect and address the OP .
Can you prove god is a lie or can you prove god is real?
And who has the burden of proof, the theist or the atheist and the "non theist"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Timid8967
But it seems that he is quite ready and able to speak on "how Christians think" elsewhere:
Timid8967 wrote:The Christians I have met seem to think that suffering is necessary for them to grow in faith or in character. #143Timid8967 wrote:If they [Christians] agreed with that definition - then they really have little understanding of their god.#47Timid8967 wrote: If Christians think they are being persecuted without good reason, they tend to get all passionate about their Jesus. #47Timid8967 wrote: I have never met a theist who believes just in a three prong god. Most Christians I know reject the three prong approach. #143
He really is a man of contradictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why would I? This thread is about the Christian god of the christian bible.Because that’s what you did in regards to the Christian Bible
YES!!! because you made a claim on a thread concerning the christian god and the christian bible. Don't you understand your own shite? You didn't make that claim about Muslims and the Quran or the others that YOU mention.
and it became something more once I mentioned the other religions.
It became nothing more because you have not shown me that those other followers of the other religions are claiming that their god is "all loving". Only YOU have claimed that about your own god.
Have "one" what?A religious text.
Ok and does their religious text make the same claim the you claim about your own god that he is "all loving"?
It was you that first mentioned an "all loving god", not me.Actually it was the creator of this forum, I just responded.
Nope. It was YOU that has said: " Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?"#2
So stop trying to palm your shite off onto others. I told , you pissed in your own cornflakes with that comment. The "creator "of this thread didn't mention god being "all loving",
what he clearly wrote was :
"It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving", he didn't say that god was "all loving" .#1 Timid8967. Although, there is every chance of him denying writing that at a later date. And he does appear to have moved from all loving to all benevolent.
as you appear to be claiming.Although that’s what I believe, I said no such thing in this forum so far.
But you have. The question - YOUR QUESTION - contains your belief. Otherwise if you didn't believe that god was " all loving" you would have raised the point with the op, as I did with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because I do not know if or not the followers of the Muslim, or the Pagan or the Jew god claim that their particular god "all loving" as you have done.#2So for sake of discussion what if they did? Are you gonna go searching for contradictions in their religious texts too?
Why would I? This thread is about the Christian god of the christian bible. If you would like to start a thread on say the Muslim god Allah, I will be glad to join you and discuss your opinions of Muhammad and the Quran.
Well I got news for you not all of them have one.
Have "one" what? It was you that first mentioned an "all loving god", not me. I have said that nowhere do the scriptures claim that god is "all loving" as you appear to be claiming. You pissed in your own cornflakes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
-->@Timid8967So the strawman definition of God is the one you yourself used in the OP. Why use what you consider to be a strawman?
Why indeed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And do they, as you have done, ask " Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?"#2
Whether or not they asked the same question I asked is irrelevant, fact of the matter is discovering contradictions in The Bible makes no difference in their regard.
You are the one that asked what about others and their gods, here>>>> " So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?" . If you cannot tell me one way or the other, then your question is mute. Because I do not know if or not the followers of the Muslim, or the Pagan or the Jew god claim that their particular god "all loving" as you have done.#2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
But you do also know that the earth does not return to the same place after every elliptical orbit that it makes, don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?Any examples?
I see. So you are referring to Pagans, Muslims and Jews.
And do they call there gods "all loving"? And do they, as you have done, ask " Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?"#2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
What a deluded little person you are. I have no agendas. I have nothing to gain..............................#20 " Let's take it back "
What have we to "take back" and why?
. I just want the truth to be heard.
Which in your own opinion, is what?
And YOU - want to hide the truth behind subterfuge and innuendo.
What is it that you believe that I am hiding?
I say the atheist's truth is better than hiding behind a lie.
Which is what according to you?
You want to hide behind a lie.
What lie would that be?
Well I am one of those who have been let down by your kind of behaviour and talk and wont put up with it anymore.
Instead of telling me what you believe and think about me why don't you start putting your version of "the truth" to us and start answering questions raised by your own comments?
Your generation is DEAD. Or dying at least.
Can you explain that? You appear very annoyed because I have shown you to be a contradictory individual that doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he actually sits .
Us, in the new - have new ways of dealing with these things.
Good! Then deal with them and stop your whining. Start with the "new us" answering those few questions raised by your own comments, here>
WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25! WHY???
Timid8967 wrote:Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense.......But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
none of those verses indicate a flat earth, only a fixed earth.
Which we now know isn't fixed in its position but has a massive elliptical orbit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ok, Stephen, found a theory for you. Check out Jesus and the Rainbow Body. The theory is your body at the right vibration becomes a worm hole to other dimensions. Jesus learned this skill from the Buddhists, a skill Enoch has as well. I found it last night perusing the Gaia channel. Cool stuff. Also explains the Shroud of Turin.
Can't get it to play, Witch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't think Josephus ever claimed Jesus resurrected
Correct. He didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Stop trying to find a conspiracy behind every comment you come across.
Do you mean pointing out that you say one thing ,and then completely change and state the opposite, and then you deny it? No that is not conspiracy.
That is simply showing you for what you are and your intentions. No that is not conspiracy.
I am a non-theist who has consistently reflected this on this forum.
Yet, you tell us that it is "we" and "us" that should bare the burden of proof, then deny saying it and then say completely the opposite.
I called you out and you did not like it. Get over it.
You called me on nothing to my knowledge princess. I exposed you and your intentions particularly the intention behind this thread. YOUR thread.
I do think that non-theists and atheists give too much airtime to theists.
So here you are again, telling "us" & "we" in a veiled fashion that "we" and "us" shouldn't be giving the scriptures, Jesus or god the time of day. This is simply you telling us & "we" that you would like us" and "we" to stop discussing the bible & Jesus & god .
I do think that theists hold the B. of P.
Then what is it that "we" & "us" atheists and "non theists" should be "taking back"?
Or have to forgotten you said that too? The last three words of your pepe talk here>> #20 " Let's take it back " .
What did we have, or lose, or give away in the first place to have to " take it back"?
YET - I also think that if atheists and non-theists continue to hold to this ridiculous standard that we are going to continue to go around and around in circles.
[A] Well you may think that . But let me state the bleedin' obvious to you. There are those that believe and those that don't. And this may well be one of the many reasons that theological arguments do end up circular. And sometimes people will agree to disagree.
EVERY forum in this world - does that. WHY?
See [A] above
because despite the fact that athiests and non-theists hold the truth in relation to reality - they want to continue to do the dumb thing and say- it is theist who needs to prove it.
Well I can only speak for myself. I don't even care if or not there is a god or not. I simply highlight and question the ambiguous half stories in the scriptures. As for my own belief about these scriptures, I have said many times that I cannot prove a single thing I say or believe about them. All of my questions are raised because of the scripture. All of my opinions, theories and ideas spring from the scriptures themselves. You see, wrongly or rightly, I can think for myself.
The theist runs around the atheist.
The theist will do that at every given chance and particularly if he believes the atheist is BIBLE ignorant. This enables the theists to make shite up as he goes if he is relying on the total bible ignorance of the atheist. That has been happening for millennia, Pastors and Priests have been dictating their version of what they say the gospels, and Jesus and god are telling us and means.
But they don't like being challenged on their version or interpretations , yet here YOU are, telling "us & "we" that we shouldn't be discussing this subject at all by giving it "air time". WHY!!!!???
So call me a fraud
You are a fraud. You don't want "us " or "we" or ME giving these scriptures "air time" because the real "us's " and the real "we's" show how unreliable and ambiguous and at times silly the scriptures are.
AND WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25!?????
So yes, that shows for me that you are a fraud.
and this little prep talk to atheists and "non theists" didn't go missed by me either. It clearly shows your intentions. You haven't even tried to explain to "us" & "we" why it that YOU believe that it is "us" & "we" atheists and non theists should even consider baring the burden of proof?
Timid8967 wrote:Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense.......But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back.
Every reader that is interested should take a good look at your prep talk above.#20 for in my opinion, your true objective was exposed.
And I will keep highlighting and "giving air" to these anomalous and ambiguous scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway. Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise. And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays?Is that the best you can come up with? Seriously.
It shows you for what you are as does the comment you deny even making.
Here have another look at your own fkn comment.
You say " I have never talked about the burden of proof," yet here you are clears as day :
Timid8967 wrote: But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1326-how-atheists-debate-religion?page=1&post_number=2020
I did not deny that the theists have the burden of proof.
Yes you have . The whole of that comment - YOUR COMMENT! - is saying the burden of proof should be on "us and "we" the atheists./non atheist. Stop taking people for complete twats. If it according to you the burden of proof should be on "us" & "we" <<< then that means not on the theist. You have been caught out.
I said we need to stop being so bloody up ourselves all of the time.
"we" again. bloody minded about what, exactly?
I do think we need to take it back.
Take what back? What is that we have given away or lost or had but don't have now, to have to take it back.
I think we do non-theism and atheism a disservice by always putting it on the theist.
So again you ARE saying that "we & "us" should shoulder the burden. You really are full of shite!
Yes Theists do have the b. of proof.
Yes they do, but you keep flipping from them to "we " & "us"
Yet, non-theists have the truth.
What truth?
We don't need to be on the back foot.
I have never felt on the backfoot. I have ALWAYS found it is the theist to be on the back foot.
It is not me who is the fraud.
I have just shown you to be a complete fraud . "I have never talked about the burden of proof, " is what you said. just as I knew you would. I have shown you to be a liar and afraid.
I want to see a better dialogue between religious people and non-religious people - and it is persons such as yourself - who give atheists a bad name - dogmatic and stupid.
That is only your opinion, and it counts for nothing .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway. Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise. And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.
How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays?
Timid8967 wrote:Butby suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and thatthey have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place inthings. Let's take it back.
You must think everyone here was born just minutes ago. There is a lot more to that comment of yours clearly saying that "we" and "us" i.e. theist and non theist, should carry the burden of proof..
I told you, you are a fraud. I seen where you were trying to go with this thread the second you posted it and said so at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Who are you referring to when you say _ "those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible" ?The people that applies to.
Any examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I have put the challenge out there - and hopefully some will attempt to do so - so that others like you and me are able to remind them that proof is proof.
So are you now saying then that the theist do indeed have the burden of proof? Or are you just discussing here what counts as proof according to only YOU?
Listen. the BIBLE makes the claims about the existence of god. Christians believe what the BIBLE says about god and all of his wonderous works. The burden of proof is on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
. The moment they ate, they were subject to a death penalty.
And that is my point., Rosi. As I have said, It is hardly "free will" when it came with a death sentence , in my own opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
I thought death imposed from God's sentence ain't sitting well with your understanding of free will.
Did you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ok so do you think they would have wasted time and money on wrapping a man alive.
Now there's a thought. Why wrap a man that had been brutally beaten from head to toe, back and front for hours and nailed to a cross. It depends what they were wrapping him for and what all those oils and potions were actually intend for doesn't it, Witch?
So would you wrap a mans wounds ? A man that had been beaten to within inches of his life , Witch? Do you think that you would use some kind of antiseptic oils and wrap his wounds ?
Also, John 19: 34 states: Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Yes. This wouldn't necessarily cause death .https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320797 And if he was unconscious/passed out at the time, the flow would have been minimal.
So his lung was pierced. If he didn't die on the cross from asphyxia he would have when his lung was punctured.
Again not necessarily. See link above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
in what sense you pose the question.
I mean it in the Genesis 2:17 sense. “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Sound reasonably clear. Thing is neither of them did die " that day" if the BIBLE is to be believed? Adam we are told in the bible lived to nearly 1000 years!
Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died Genesis 5:5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
His loved ones put him in the grave after wrapping him right?
How do you know that?
The scriptures say that his secret disciple Joseph of Amaranth asked for the body John 19:38 and the scriptures say that Joseph of Arimathea and another secret disciple Nicodemus attended him and placed him in a private tomb in a private garden owned by Joseph of Arimathea. John 19:39-40 Indeed, it all seemed a very private and secret affair altogether.
No mention of family. Or any of the 12 that had deserted their master in his hour of need so didn't witness him die or his body being removed from the cross.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus may have simply just passed out from the scourging and the crucifixion. Didn't the Romans use a type of smelling salts?And wasn't Hyssop offered to Jesus while he hung there on the cross? This would have caused him to pass out. Was Jesus saying " I thirst" a signal asking for the Hyssop to be administered that would cause him to pass out giving only the appearance of being ' dead' only to be resuscitated some time after he was taken down and why his legs were not broken?“Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled,saith, I thirst.Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop,and put it to his mouth.When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished:and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost”. John 19:28-30.NKJV“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs”.John 19:32-33.KJVWell... if the only problem was dying of dehydration, but he'd die via blood loss before that ever happened. and I did say the " I thirst " was maybe just the signal to administer the Hyssop to put him under.
Not if they had put him under before he lost copious amounts of blood. He was talking right up until he lowered his head and said " it is finished". Still, speculation, dontcha just love it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No idea is they used smelling salts not sure they would care if criminals were dead
The Romans wouldn't care , Witch. But his buddies would. And I said passed out, not dead. And if the Romans used smelling salts there would be no reason to believe that Jesus' close circle and supporters couldn't get their hands on it too.
Created: