Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[sooda]

The disciples Gospel authors, recounting what they lived or learned through their investigations (i.e. Luke). No doubt the resurrected Jesus was a good source of information, as was the Holy Spirit (note John 14:26).

All of that is supernatural hearsay.. Has to be taken purely on belief. Do you think God incapable of making the case?

 

[sooda]

Why do you find it more convincing than the various other miracle accounts from other scriptures? Like the Qur'an, as an example.
The ancient world is full of this sort of thing. Frankly, I find the Bahai scriptures far superior to any of the other Abrahamic stuff. The NT strikes me as the weakest, in terms of historical accuracy.
Tom

Many of Grimm's fairy tales are 2000 years old .. I mean they change over the centuries but they still all have that "Once upon a time" quality... so does the Bible.

I think its not history .. its a cultural teaching narrative... or an identity thing... or both.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually, it isn't...

Who is writing these conversations down contemporaneously? I mean who recorded what Pilate or Herod or the mob said? Who are the witnesses and scribes?

So true.
Matthew wasn't a disciple or he would not have needed to copy Mark, Q and another writing in to his gospel. And the idea that a Galilean peasant handworker knew his family tree is delightful.

Luke wasn't there. Copied Mark, Q and another work, and his 'nativity timeline' is embarrassing.

John wasn't there, and built his bundle of anecdotes in to a jumbled timeline early in the 2nd century.

I do like G-Mark for partial testimony once it's been shredded of the Christian fiddling, editing and additions.

And every book after that has no evidence of Jesus' life or mission, just stories about the building of Christianity, which is no evidence at all.

I can acknowledge Christian's faith, but I get bored with any certitude that they chuck at me.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, it isn’t. Killing a person isn’t always murder, because murder is a legal term that is pretty tightly defined, and not an action. Killing a person is an action. That action may be defined legally as murder, and it may not.

Besides that, there’s no indication that a fetus is a “person.” There’s a whole lot of grey area surrounding that issue that cannot be resolved through legal means.

Actually, it is. One does not accidentally kill someone, with premeditation. One does not kill someone in self defense, with pre meditation.

Except for combat, where another legal code applies, one cannot think about, plan, then kill someone without it being murder.

You say there is no indication that the unborn child is a person, really ? Then what makes a person a person ?

If it looks like a person, has virtually all the living functions of a person, what is it, a duck ?

Legal means is the only way it will be resolved. Abortionists used legal means to give them the ability to kill these babies, they think it is resolved. Have you told them that it can never, therefore was never resolved by legal means ?

Persons have full protection and rights under the Constitution. Roe offered that at some point after the decision 43 years ago, the personhood of the unborn might have to be revisited based upon advances in medical knowledge and technology.

The time has come.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The disciples Gospel authors, recounting what they lived or learned through their investigations (i.e. Luke). No doubt the resurrected Jesus was a good source of information, as was the Holy Spirit (note John 14:26).

You appear to be a bit confused. The "Luke" that was thought to be the author of Luke was not a disciple. He was a follower of Paul. The start of Luke itself tells you that it is hearsay.

This may help:

Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia

"Many scholars believe that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch, Turkey in Ancient Syria, although some other scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[4][5] Bart Koet, a researcher and professor of theology, has stated that it was widely accepted that the theology of Luke–Acts points to a gentile Christian writing for a gentile audience, although he concludes that it is more plausible that Luke–Acts is directed to a community made up of both Jewish and gentile Christians because there is stress on the scriptural roots of the gentile mission (see the use of Isaiah 49:6 in Luke–Acts).[6][7] Gregory Sterling, Dean of the Yale Divinity School, claims that he was either a Hellenistic Jew or a god-fearer.[5]

His earliest notice is in Paul's Epistle to Philemon—Philemon 1:24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two works commonly ascribed to Paul.[8][9][10][11][12] The next earliest account of Luke is in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, a document once thought to date to the 2nd century, but which has more recently been dated to the later 4th century.[citation needed] Helmut Koester, however, claims that the following part, the only part preserved in the original Greek, may have been composed in the late 2nd century:

Luke, was born in Antioch, by profession, was a physician.[13] He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. He died at the age of 84 years. (p. 335)"

Of course that does not mean that Luke is the author of Luke. That is only church tradition. The authorship of Luke and Acts is anonymous.

 

[Riders]

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

The bible is not evidence.You have not proved anything.

 

[usfan]

You have been given at least one very important and specific change to the Bible, the ending of Mark. And of course the Bible is full of errors. But we may disagree on what an error is.

In your opinion what would an error consist of? If you can't give a clear definition then of course no one can meet your demand.

Here's the drill:

1. Make the claim of 'error!', 'change!', or whatever.
2. Present evidence.. not links, or arguments by proxy.

Nobody has given any examples or evidence, just implications, allusions, and aspersions. Give me specifics, and I'll rebut them. Make assertions, and I'll dismiss them. I am consistent in this.

Presence in the archeological record is one of the most compelling (and relied upon) pieces of corroborating evidence for the historicity of a story. The archeological record does not support the story.

It’s not a “prejudicial smear” — it’s the scholastic opinion of Markan scholars. Nothing after Mark 8 is found in the earliest manuscripts. It makes sense that they were later additions to Mark.

1. Nor does the archaeological record refute the story. Lack of corroborating evidence does not compel a conclusion of 'error!'
2. Are there theories of 'additions?' Yes. Are they 'facts!'? No.

Declaring a theory as a 'fact!', with the intent to discredit, is a prejudicial smear.

Have you ever read Sherlock Holmes? It is presented as if it were fact by "Dr. Watson". There really is no difference in the approach between the author of Luke and the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Besides the author of Luke made some clear errors that tell us his "investigation" was not all that thorough. Just like a made up story would be likely to have.

People can believe whatever they want. Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.

Variant implies change. Genetic variation is a change in the gene pool. A variable in an algebraic equation is the value that changes or can change. The variety pack contains things different from one another.

That is not what a variant is, in an historical manuscript. But you can believe whatever you want.

Propaganda is simply repeating oneself over and over without providing evidence in the hope that one will eventually be believed

Yes. Great examples, here.

We don't need evidence to refute claims.

That is my point. The accusations against the bible have not been supported with evidence, so are dismissed as prejudicial smears, from hostile ideological competitors.

There is no burden of proof for the reason and evidence-based thinker conversing with a faith-based thinker.

..easy to dismiss all xtians with this additional false narrative. So Pasteur's experiments with bacteria, that refuted the belief in spontaneous generation, were bogus? Copernicus? Newton? All of them liars and evil xtians with an agenda to deceive?

/shakes head/

"Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder" are variants with very different meanings.

Those are translations, not variants.

I gave you evidence with my initial reply to your OP, and you ignored it. I pointed t

you made assertions, which i pointed out, and dismissed, without evidence .

I have answered several of your posts, and you ignore those answers.

hardly. You bluff and bluster, with no arguments or evidence, just assertions and fallacies.

Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. We reject the Exodus story

Obviously. Expect whatever you want. Demand that history and science meet your preconceived beliefs.

If Bible is purified from the imported Pagan-Christ concept, one would ascertain the real and truthful Jesus. Right, please?

A false accusation, with no evidence.

Did they wash the body of Jesus and offer the funeral prayers of Jesus? If yes, then give the evidence, please.
So Jesus was very much alive he did not die on the Cross. Right, please?

no. The only accounts clearly convey a literal death, not a 'swoon theory!'

You don;t have evidence to back up the bible as perfect truth.

Nobody is claiming, 'perfect truth!' That is a misrepresentation. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to evidence your claims of 'error!', or 'change!'

So true.
Matthew wasn't a disciple or he would not have needed to copy Mark, Q and another writing in to his gospel. And the idea that a Galilean peasant handworker knew his family tree is delightful.
Luke wasn't there. Copied Mark, Q and another work, and his 'nativity timeline' is embarrassing.
John wasn't there, and built his bundle of anecdotes in to a jumbled timeline early in the 2nd century.
I do like G-Mark for partial testimony once it's been shredded of the Christian fiddling, editing and additions.
And every book after that has no evidence of Jesus' life or mission, just stories about the building of Christianity, which is no evidence at all.
I can acknowledge Christian's faith, but I get bored with any certitude that they chuck at me.

Such a pile of unbased assertions and unevidenced accusations.

You illustrate the false narratives very well, and the success of propaganda.

 

[sooda]

Here's the drill:

1. Make the claim of 'error!', 'change!', or whatever.
2. Present evidence.. not links, or arguments by proxy.

Nobody has given any examples or evidence, just implications, allusions, and aspersions. Give me specifics, and I'll rebut them. Make assertions, and I'll dismiss them. I am consistent in this.

1. Nor does the archaeological record refute the story. Lack of corroborating evidence does not compel a conclusion of 'error!'
2. Are there theories of 'additions?' Yes. Are they 'facts!'? No.

Declaring a theory as a 'fact!', with the intent to discredit, is a prejudicial smear.

People can believe whatever they want. Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.

That is not what a variant is, in an historical manuscript. But you can believe whatever you want.


Yes. Great examples, here.


That is my point. The accusations against the bible have not been supported with evidence, so are dismissed as prejudicial smears, from hostile ideological competitors.

..easy to dismiss all xtians with this additional false narrative. So Pasteur's experiments with bacteria, that refuted the belief in spontaneous generation, were bogus? Copernicus? Newton? All of them liars and evil xtians with an agenda to deceive?

/shakes head/

Those are translations, not variants.
you made assertions, which i pointed out, and dismissed, without evidence .
hardly. You bluff and bluster, with no arguments or evidence, just assertions and fallacies.

Obviously. Expect whatever you want. Demand that history and science meet your preconceived beliefs.

A false accusation, with no evidence.
no. The only accounts clearly convey a literal death, not a 'swoon theory!'

Nobody is claiming, 'perfect truth!' That is a misrepresentation. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to evidence your claims of 'error!', or 'change!'

Such a pile of unbased assertions and unevidenced accusations.

You illustrate the false narratives very well, and the success of propaganda.

Not unbased assertions.. Years of hard study. You simply refuse to study or think and that's fine. That's your right.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, it is. One does not accidentally kill someone, with premeditation. One does not kill someone in self defense, with pre meditation

Sometimes premeditated killing is deemed “wrongful death.” Again, murder is a legal term, not a descriptive term.

You say there is no indication that the unborn child is a person, really ? Then what makes a person a person ?

IMO at first breath. That’s what the Bible says. When God breathed into the man’s nostrils, man became nephesh.

Legal means is the only way it will be resolved.

. No. Because then, only criminals will have abortions. Imposing legality doesn’t keep them from happening. Only education and community support will solve the issue.

 

[sojourner]

Nor does the archaeological record refute the story.

It does, actually. Lack of evidence means it didn’t happen. In fact, all archaeological evidence shows that there was no influx of new cultural anything.

Are there theories of 'additions?' Yes. Are they 'facts!'? No.

Declaring a theory as a 'fact!', with the intent to discredit, is a prejudicial smear.

I said it was opinion, because opinion is all there is. But there is also such a thing as an informed opinion, using the best evidence available. The intent isn’t to discredit, the intent is to shed light. Which it does.

 

[columbus]

Such a pile of unbased assertions and unevidenced accusations.

You illustrate the false narratives very well, and the success of propaganda.

There's something I don't think that folks like you and @Spartan realize.

It's not the "lies and false caricatures" from non-Christian sources that leaves folks like me convinced that Christianity has nothing important to do with God. It's the weak apologetics from sincere Christians like you that mostly does that.
Tom

 

[oldbadger]

Such a pile of unbased assertions and unevidenced accusations.

You illustrate the false narratives very well, and the success of propaganda.

No no.......... afraid not.
The fact that both Matthew and Luke copied G-Mark (word for word in places), the book known as 'Q', and other reports is the reason why all three gospels are called the synoptics.

Matthew was no witness, and not one of the disciples, usfan.

And we all can see that John did not even know where to place the Temple Demonstration and assaults in his time line.

The evidence for these simple findings is there for any objective reader to see for themselves, usfan.

Now I do believe that there was a Jesus, one Yeshua BarYousef, son of Mary (BartaHeli?) and that he joined the Baptist's mission and took it on after the Baptist's arrest. And historical research (what there is of it) suggests that the whole campaign was against Temple and quisling Priesthood corruption, greed and carelessness, especially over the poor laws.

Now I can debate this with you if you like, offering what evidence is available.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But nobody beyond a tiny band of followers notices this. At least not to the point of leaving any records of even knowing about it. (At least a record of a Passover marked by the portents described, that everyone had to be aware of.) I find that vastly, vastly, less plausible than the premise that the legends were created later for the purposes of the remaining followers.

That's your belief, but I don't see any evidence to back that up.

You have the same problem as many other Christians posting on Religious Forums - you don't see the evidence that is shown to you. People often do not see what they have a stake in not seeing.

The mathematically improbable fulfillment of numerous Messianic prophecies is the signature of God.

The Messianic prophecies have never been fulfilled. Biblical prophecy is what is called low quality prophecy, a topic I already covered for you.

High quality prophecy is specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed. High quality prophecy must be accurate, it must be verified that it came before the event predicted, and that it was fulfilled completely.

Low quality prophecy, such as that from biblical scripture, horoscopes, psychics, and the like, is relatively vague and nonspecific, predicts trivial or predictable events, and may be self-fulling or written after the fact. That describes the messianic prophecy pretty well.

I gave you an example of what kind of prediction would be convincing from a movie some years back called Frequency, in which Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts his father from his father's future by ham radio. To convince his father that he, the son, really is calling his father from his father's future - from 1998 back to 1969 - the son discusses the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series, which the father is watching live in 1969 on TV in a local pub

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watches it happen on TV.

That's what high quality "prophecy" of future events would look like, only it wouldn't be fiction. This would be a convincing demonstration of knowledge of future events, once fraud such as a tape-delayed broadcast of an already played game is ruled out. It's extremely specific and unexpected, preceded the event predicted, not self-fulfilling, and accompanied by no error. Biblical prophecy just can't compare to that, which is why it doesn't convince skeptics.Believers offer it as evidence of something profoundly unlikely, but what I see is something different.

The multiple, independent, historical accounts of the resurrection are the fatal chink in the skeptic's armor.

Hearsay.

The weight of the evidence in the Gospels and epistles is more than sufficient to support the resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence makes resurrection extremely unlikely, and it is not found in the Bible. Look around you. Are dead people revivifying? This just doesn't happen. Against that are words in an ancient manuscript, which imitate those in other manuscripts featuring similar stories of virgin births and resurrections attributed to many other legendary gods and heroes.

Matthew wasn't a disciple or he would not have needed to copy Mark, Q and another writing in to his gospel. And the idea that a Galilean peasant handworker knew his family tree is delightful. Luke wasn't there. Copied Mark, Q and another work, and his 'nativity timeline' is embarrassing.

I told him all of that a few weeks ago when he wanted evidence of embellishment in the gospels, complete with comparisons of Luke and Matthew to Mark, and reference to the Q document. Not surprisingly, he said he didn't see any evidence.

You bluff and bluster, with no arguments or evidence, just assertions and fallacies.

Another faith-based thinker that can't see evidence.

Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias can form that allows in only that which seems to support the faith-based idea. Nothing else can be seen. No contradictory evidence gets through. I find this phenomenon endlessly fascinating. It also goes by the names antiprocessing, and Morton's demon.

As counterintuitive as this may seem, there is an excellent description of this phenomenon from geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), of his own experience encased in such a confirmation bias. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating it to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:

"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."​

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And this is how I now view most religious apologists telling me that they see no evidence for biological evolution, for example, even when it is handed to them. I count you and @Spartan among them.

Neither of you sees evidence that the demon doesn't want you to see. From their distorted vantage point, such people find the rational skeptic's position unbelievable and insincere. They think were just intransigently resisting God, inventing contradictions that aren't there, refusing to see a god that is so obvious to them.

This is why I don't call you people liars. If Morton is right, that is an unfair description of what is going on in the apologist's head. He simply doesn't see evidence that is there, and also find evidence in support of his faith-based beliefs that isn't there.

We don't need evidence to refute claims. The claimant has the burden of proof, assuming that he wants to be believed.

That is my point. The accusations against the bible have not been supported with evidence, so are dismissed as prejudicial smears, from hostile ideological competitors.

Not needing evidence is not the same as not having any. You can't see evidence, but there is plenty that supports dismissing Christianity.

There is no burden of proof for the reason and evidence-based thinker conversing with a faith-based thinker. To convince anybody of anything, they must be willing and able to examine the available relevant evidence and the argument applied to it impartially and with a willingness to recognize and be convinced by a compelling argument. If you don't bring that to the table, the reason and evidence-based thinker has no way to reach you. Teaching is a cooperative effort.

easy to dismiss all xtians with this additional false narrative.

I dismiss any idea based in faith.

So Pasteur's experiments with bacteria, that refuted the belief in spontaneous generation, were bogus? Copernicus? Newton? All of them liars and evil xtians with an agenda to deceive?

No. I told you that I reject faith-based thought and anything derived from it. Only scientists that do not believe by faith, or those that do who can learn to compartmentalize their religious beliefs and exclude them from their professional work are able to make lasting and useful contributions to science.

As soon as gods creep into the thinking, you get pseudoscience, as with the ID people. Their work is sterile. It has produced no evidence of an intelligent designer, but has been repeatedly embarrassed by making claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye, the flagellum, the hemostatic cascade, and the immune system, each of which has been shown to be a false claim.

Newton only thought clearly when he left his faith-based assumptions out of his work. His work in areas like mathematics, optics, celestial mechanics, and gravitation, which employ's no faith-based assumptions, was as useful then as it is now.It's exactly the same science an unbeliever would do.

But living on the cusp of modernity, Newton also had a foot in medieval traditions like alchemy, a faith based system. His work there is only of historical interest, and never had any other value. Faith is the enemy of reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the drill:

1. Make the claim of 'error!', 'change!', or whatever.
2. Present evidence.. not links, or arguments by proxy.

Nobody has given any examples or evidence, just implications, allusions, and aspersions. Give me specifics, and I'll rebut them. Make assertions, and I'll dismiss them. I am consistent in this.

Here's the drill:

1 Properly define your terms. What do you mean by "error", "change" or whatever. Examples of error and change have been given. You have not discussed them.

2. You need to be willing to discuss the errors and changes to be able to demand evidence. You have not done so. Your argument technique is to use the Gish Gallop.

Examples have been given. You have not discussed them.


Let me ask a question:

Is the fact that Genesis is a book of myth, that means that practically none of it happened, an example of the Bible being in "error"? If not what would be an error in your mind.

 

[oldbadger]

@usfan .... Hi ..... still waiting for you to respond to my proposals.

G-Mark was littered with what could be called 'evangelical additions' and the first copies did not show the end verses (about resurrection etc) nor first phrases such as 'Son of God'.

But Luke's Nativity Timeline is clearly either ignorance or deception, but either way we can see that it can not be true.
Luke tells us that in Herod the Great's lifetime (before 4BC) Mary became pregnant. But Luke also tells us the Joseph and Mary had to undertake a journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census, which we know took place in 6AD. This means that Mary was pregnant for about ten years, usfan.

This is your problem, I think, that when folks try to show what they've found in objective research you just cannot objectively consider the findings. It's called 'Denial' usfan.

Like some of the items on your OP list, when confronted with the truth of these selected ones you don't want to come back........ you just deny it.

If you think that Paul's (and others') Christianity is the way for humanity, you've got to ask yourself why history shows so many Christians as having been greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers? Do you need examples?

 

[usfan]

The fact that both Matthew and Luke copied G-Mark (word for word in places), the book known as 'Q',

Asserted without evidence.

Matthew was no witness, and not one of the disciples, usfan.

False assertion. The historical evidence clearly points to Matthew as being a disciple and an eyewitness. There is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, just pejorative speculations.

Now I can debate this with you if you like, offering what evidence is available.

I have asked for that all along. But all i see are unbased assertions..

@usfan .... Hi ..... still waiting for you to respond to my proposals.
G-Mark was littered with what could be called 'evangelical additions' and the first copies did not show the end verses (about resurrection etc) nor first phrases such as 'Son of God'.
But Luke's Nativity Timeline is clearly either ignorance or deception, but either way we can see that it can not be true.

Unbased assertions. You do not quote the offending passages, nor show how they were allegedly changed. What? When? By whom?

This is your problem, I think, that when folks try to show what they've found in objective research you just cannot objectively consider the findings. It's called 'Denial' usfan.

No 'objective research!' has been presented. ..just unbased smears and false narratives.

I do (and have, and will), dismiss and expose unbased assertions and false accusations. That is all you can do with them.

Like some of the items on your OP list, when confronted with the truth of these selected ones you don't want to come back........ you just deny it.

Truth? Hardly. Lies and smears, repeated as a propaganda meme, is more like it.

why history shows so many Christians as having been greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers?

Ah, good. Repeat the narrative, and slip in a straw man..
1. Humans are UNIVERSALLY 'greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers!' That is hardly exclusive to your hated 'Christians!'
2. Christianity, as an ideology, does NOT promote, 'greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers!', but quite the opposite. So how does someone acting in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, denigrate those teachings, and the entire ideology?
3. This is an illustration of the OP:
"2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression." It is a smear.. a false narrative attempting to correlate the evils of humanity with Christianity.
4. I have not portrayed Christians as anything but normal human beings, who are called to a High Standard of action and thought. Failures or charlatans do not demean the basic ideology, nor the Standards established by the Founder.

Anytime a 'new!' religious view begins to overcome the 'old' religious view, there is often a lot of collateral damage during the transition. I see that during the growth and expansion of Christianity, Islam, the French revolution, the Russian revolution, and even Spain and Germany, last century.

So the new religion of Progressivism is actively smearing and demeaning Christianity, as a competing worldview.

False narratives, lies, & propaganda are all favorite tools of the progressives, to attain the goal of cultural dominance.

 

[usfan]

Lack of evidence means it didn’t happen.

LOL! Whatever floats your boat!
Everybody gotta believe something. .

It's not the "lies and false caricatures" from non-Christian sources that leaves folks like me convinced that Christianity has nothing important to do with God. It's the weak apologetics from sincere Christians like you that mostly does that.

The lies and false narratives, from hostile, irrational enemies of Christianity do that for me. Sorry my arguments are not convincing..

I'm not sure how that provides fuel for hostility, though..

I dismiss any idea based in faith.

..except yours, of course..

You can't see evidence, but there is plenty that supports dismissing Christianity.

/scratch head/
How does that work? You can't see it, but it is there? Is that one of your 'faith based!' ideas?

This is why I don't call you people liars. If Morton is right, that is an unfair description of what is going on in the apologist's head. He simply doesn't see evidence that is there, and also find evidence in support of his faith-based beliefs that isn't there.

Nice backhanded insult! Its always easier to address the poster, than the post.
Psycho babble analysis is a favorite ad hominem among the anti-christian propagandists!

Another faith-based thinker that can't see evidence.
Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias can form that allows in only that which seems to support the faith-based idea. Nothing else can be seen. No contradictory evidence gets through. I find this phenomenon endlessly fascinating.

Pot. Kettle. Black. I can see evidence. Evidently, it takes great faith to see the 'evidence!' presented by the anti-christian detractors. I don't have that much faith, to twist lies into truth, and revise history into an agenda driving propaganda meme..

I told him all of that a few weeks ago when he wanted evidence of embellishment in the gospels, complete with comparisons of Luke and Matthew to Mark, and reference to the Q document. Not surprisingly, he said he didn't see any evidence.

You asserted and accused.. with no evidence. How many times do i have to point this out?

Is the fact that Genesis is a book of myth, that means that practically none of it happened, an example of the Bible being in "error"

Fact?
How about 'unevidenced assertion?

You cannot base your conclusions on unproved assumptions... well, you can, and do. But that is promoting smears and false narratives. It is NOT 'established fact!'

 

[usfan]

Unfortunately, progressive indoctrinees do not operate by reason, nor can they 'debate' with facts, logic, civility, and decorum.

This is true of some older conservatives, who are only partially indoctrinated, not like some of the full bore millennials who parrot ALL the tenets of progressive faith.

The Narrative

That is all that matters. Evidence, reason, history, facts... these are irrelevant to the Narrative. It must be repeated, loudly and often.. that is the agenda. Not Truth. Not balance. Not understanding.
No.
Only the Narrative matters, and they repeat it with zealous dedication. Here are a few favorites:

• The bible is full of errors!
• Christians hate education & science!
• Christians are bigots, and want to make a theocracy!
• Christianity is responsible for all human evils!
• Slavery, genocide, conquest, and killing are from Christianity!
• Hitler was a Christian!
• America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who wanted to keep Christians from controlling everyone!

There are, unfortunately, more. These are constantly promoted in the public discourse. Correcting any of these lies in a progressive setting will bring howls of indignation, and cries of, 'Kill the infidel!' 'This blasphemer should not live!'

We are in a time of post Christian transition. Since the 1960s, the trend has been away from judeo/Christian values, and American, Enlightenment principles of governance, toward a socialist/progressive fantasy. Capitalism, America, Christianity, and other bulwarks of human freedom are being dismantled for the new religion of Progressivism. The propaganda drums pound constantly, and few escape their Indoctrination

 

[usfan]

'Christians are all hypocrites and are more evil than non-christians!'

I have heard this before, but it is flawed on the surface:
1. Christians are human beings, with the same propensity toward hypocrisy and evil as other humans.
2. The sucess or failures of keeping the ideals of an ideology do not invalidate the ideology.
3. The lofty standards of Christianity are impossible to keep, as the Founder has taught. They are goals and aspirations to reach for, however imperfectly.
4. Be careful how you judge. For the measure you use, will be used for you. Noting the failures of others should give us pause, and be reminders of our own failings, not incite self righteous condemnation for those we do not know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all i see are unbased assertions.

That's all you can see.

I explained that to you. Morton's demon, remember? As usual, you had no comment on that, which I interpret to mean that you had no effective rebuttal and chose to evade the matter instead. Whatever transpired, a plausible argument unanswered is the last word on the topic.

You can change that by identifying any part of the argument that you find fault with and explaining what that fault is any time you like. Absent that, I have no reason to change my opinion, and all of your cries for evidence are interpreted in that light.

I do (and have, and will), dismiss and expose unbased assertions and false accusations. That is all you can do with them.

What you are doing is not exposing unbased assertions or false accusations. You're making them by asserting that others are offering unevidenced claims and lies about Christianity when evidence has been presented to you by the boatload. The message you are sending is not the one you intend.

Truth? Hardly. Lies and smears, repeated as a propaganda meme, is more like it.

And what has been your approach to this thread if not to simply repeat a handful of memes over and over and over without supporting evidence or argument. You simply repeat "false narrative," "no evidence," "progressive indoctrinees," "unbased assertions," "lies and smears," "bobbleheads," and "Christian persecution."

Indoctrination is only effective with those who don't think critically, which is why you are having such a rough go of it here on this thread and becoming visibly frustrated at your lack of progress. These are not the kind of people who are going to believe something just because it is repeated over and over and over. I don't see anybody here being convinced of any of your claims.

how does someone acting in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, denigrate those teachings, and the entire ideology?

Many judge the efficacy of the ideology by the people it generates. The believer doesn't want us judging his religion by its performance, but rather by the glowing words in a book. It's pretty easy to tell people to love one another. That's not enough. Let's see how loving Christianity makes Christians. Remember the Duggars? That was a real nice illustration of the failure of that very rigid Christian upbringing, as was the Palin girl's pregnancy. Those are two very public examples of the failure of that model. Did they denigrate Christianity? I'd say so.

I understand that Christians want to separate themselves from these failures, and usually do so by saying that these weren't true Christians, that if they had listened to Jesus, everything would have been OK. Well, they didn't and they don't despite a Christian upbringing.

3. This is an illustration of the OP: "2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression." It is a smear.. a false narrative attempting to correlate the evils of humanity with Christianity.

No, this is an illustration of your smear and false narrative. His words were, "why history shows so many Christians as having been greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers?" and you want to offer that as evidence to support your assertion that your religion is being smeared with claims that "Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression." He said nothing like that.

Many Christians have been greedy, thieving, deceiving, careless killers. That's a fact. How does pointing that out support your false narrative that people falsely claim that "Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression"

The church is responsible for much war and other forms of human suffering. History records many of the excesses. You don't make that go away by exaggerating the claim and then attacking your straw man and calling it a smear of Christianity.

So the new religion of Progressivism is actively smearing and demeaning Christianity, as a competing worldview. False narratives, lies, & propaganda are all favorite tools of the progressives, to attain the goal of cultural dominance.

You're projecting. It's exactly the opposite. The religion is yours. I have no religion, and I have no idea what progressivism has to do with any of this. You are the one smearing sincere critics of Christianity who have made compelling arguments by calling those arguments smears and false narratives, which is exactly what this campaign of yours is - a false narrative delivered as a series of unsupported memes repeated endlessly intended to smear others for legitimate criticism.

• Christians hate education & science!

• Christians are bigots, and want to make a theocracy!

• Christianity is responsible for all human evils!

Here's your hyperbole again. Take legitimate criticisms, rephrase them in the extreme, then ridicule the straw man. Fact. Many Christians disesteem science and education. Fact. Many Christians are bigoted, especially against homosexuals and atheists. Fact. Christianity has theocratic strains such as the Dominionists. Fact. Christianity is responsible for much to be ashamed of.

Be careful how you judge. For the measure you use, will be used for you. Noting the failures of others should give us pause, and be reminders of our own failings, not incite self righteous condemnation for those we do not know.

Ditto. Your judgment of others spreading falsehoods has been reflected back at you.