Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[Subduction Zone]

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

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..
..except yours, of course..

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


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!


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..



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

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!'

I see, you have just demonstrated that you are completely without education in any of the sciences. Nor have you followed through with a reasonable request. Seriously do you only have a fifth grade level of education? The Ark myth alone tells us Genesis is a book of myths. Where did over five vertical miles of water come from? Where did it go to? How did a vessel that would have been unseaworthy survive the worst storm by several orders of magnitude ever? Why is there no evidence of this myth? The questions are endless. You are looking like a troll at this point.

 

[usfan]

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

Your 'Morton's Demon!' is just ad hom, and likely a projection. It is psycho babble deflection, to demean a debating opponent. You have no evidence that someone is evading evidence with some preconceived bias filter, you just accuse it.

I will address any evidence presented, and am waiting for any valid criticisms, not just prejudicial smears, and psychobabble ad hom.

I could more easily make the argument that you are projecting your biases on me, since you cling irrationally to your anti-christian beliefs.. when all evidence validates Christianity as a positive in human society, and history corroborates the unbroken line of scholarship and scrutiny for the biblical manuscripts.

Don't believe that? No problem. Believe whatever you want. But promoting lies and false narratives is not an expression of belief, it is a propaganda smear from a competing ideology.

 

[usfan]

I see, you have just demonstrated that you are completely without education

Ah, yes. When reason fails, ad hominem is a handy evasion tactic..

 

[columbus]

I see, you have just demonstrated that you are completely without education in any of the sciences. Nor have you followed through with a reasonable request. Seriously do you only have a fifth grade level of education? The Ark myth alone tells us Genesis is a book of myths. Where did over five vertical miles of water come from? Where did it go to? How did a vessel that would have been unseaworthy survive the worst storm by several orders of magnitude ever? Why is there no evidence of this myth? The questions are endless. You are looking like a troll at this point.

And then people like him are shocked, shocked I tell ya!, that their social and political agendas are met with anger and hostility.
Tom

 

[usfan]

The Ark myth alone tells us Genesis is a book of myths. Where did over five vertical miles of water come from? Where did it go to? How did a vessel that would have been unseaworthy survive the worst storm by several orders of magnitude ever? Why is there no evidence of this myth? The questions are endless. You are looking like a troll at this point.

In spite of the devolving discussion, I'll address a couple of points:
1. The accuracy (or not) of the flood account has not been breached, nor has it been presented with evidence as an example of 'error!'
2. There are different opinions and interpretations of this story. Some literal, some not. An accusation of 'error!' seems prejudicial.
3. There is evidence of a global (seeming) flood, or a literal global flood. There is not conclusive proof that it did not happen.
4. Whether interpreted literally or allegorically, the global flood story does not automatically invalidate Genesis as "Myth!' That is a belief, with no compelling evidence.
5. Your dependence on ad hom does not improve your arguments.

 

[Audie]

Ah, yes. When reason fails, ad hominem is a handy evasion tactic..

Such a display of confusion about constitutes an ad hom
just makes a poster look ridiculous.

 

[Spartan]

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.

Q is a myth.

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

Well it sure beats what you have.

 

[usfan]

And then people like him are shocked, shocked I tell ya!, that their social and political agendas are met with anger and hostility.
Tom

.. people like me..

A bit of groupthink Indoctrination there, seems to me..

'social and political agendas!' ROFL!!

Yes, all i have done, in this thread is push a fundamentalist 'social and political agenda!'

You sure shot some arrows in that straw man! He better not show his contrived face around here, or he'll get more of the same!

 

[columbus]

In spite of the devolving discussion, I'll address a couple of points:
1. The accuracy (or not) of the flood account has not been breached, nor has it been presented with evidence as an example of 'error!'
2. There are different opinions and interpretations of this story. Some literal, some not. An accusation of 'error!' seems prejudicial.
3. There is evidence of a global (seeming) flood, or a literal global flood. There is not conclusive proof that it did not happen.
4. Whether interpreted literally or allegorically, the global flood story does not automatically invalidate Genesis as "Myth!' That is a belief, with no compelling evidence.
5. Your dependence on ad hom does not improve your arguments.

You're doing a good job of illustrating his point.
There is mountains of evidence on the subject of a global flood within recorded history.
You just refuse to see it.
That's not at all the same as it not being there and available to anyone who wants to look at it.
Tom

 

[Audie]

And then people like him are shocked, shocked I tell ya!, that their social and political agendas are met with anger and hostility.
Tom

And contempt. Don't forget that. Though it
would be hard to match his attitude toward
those not of his cult.

As for shock, though, not so much. They read
where there will be "scoffers" and "persecution",
so the more they can promote the more it
proves they and their bible are right, and most
virtuous.

 

[usfan]

Such a display of confusion about constitutes an ad hom
just makes a poster look ridiculous.

'To the man', rather than 'to the topic', is an ad hominem fallacy.

..just like you do here..

Whether i look ridiculous or not is not the debate...

 

[Audie]

'To the man', rather than 'to the topic', is an ad hominem fallacy.

..just like you do here..

Whether i look ridiculous or not is not the debate...

We do not expect you to show the capacity to learn
where you get it wrong.

 

[usfan]

There is mountains of evidence on the subject of a global flood within recorded history.
You just refuse to see it.

I refused nothing, and i do see that evidence. That supports my position, it does not refute it.

This, 'You refuse!', 'Ignorant!', 'Look ridiculous!!', and other such ad hom deflections only show the desperation of posters who have lost reason..

 

[usfan]

Ok, if nobody wants to address topical points, but just have a dogpile of ad hom, I'll retire for the morning and let you have your fun. When you get it out of your system (or if!), we can return to the subject..

1. Make the charge of 'error or change, or anything you consider damning toward Christianity.
2. Provide evidence for your accusations.

What is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In spite of the devolving discussion, I'll address a couple of points:
1. The accuracy (or not) of the flood account has not been breached, nor has it been presented with evidence as an example of 'error!'
2. There are different opinions and interpretations of this story. Some literal, some not. An accusation of 'error!' seems prejudicial.
3. There is evidence of a global (seeming) flood, or a literal global flood. There is not conclusive proof that it did not happen.
4. Whether interpreted literally or allegorically, the global flood story does not automatically invalidate Genesis as "Myth!' That is a belief, with no compelling evidence.
5. Your dependence on ad hom does not improve your arguments.

Any "devolution" is your fault. You have not clearly stated what you would consider an error in the Bible. Is that because you know that the Bible is full of them? That is why I asked for a clear definition.

And no, there is no evidence of a global flood at all. Only those completely ignorant of the sciences, or severely deluded, or severely dishonest make that claim. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. To state that there is no conclusive evidence against it only tells us again that you have no education in the sciences. And the flood myth is only the beginning. We know that the creation story was a myth, the tower of Babel. In fact you do not seem to know what a myth is since the whole book is a myth.

And please, do not lie about me. I made no ad hom. You do not appear to understand the concept.

Can you please clearly indicate what you mean by an 'error'? What do you mean by a change in the Bible? If you are too afraid to define your terms that indicates that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, if nobody wants to address topical points, but just have a dogpile of ad hom, I'll retire for the morning and let you have your fun. When you get it out of your system (or if!), we can return to the subject..

1. Make the charge of 'error or change, or anything you consider damning toward Christianity.
2. Provide evidence for your accusations.

What is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.

Define what you mean by an error or change, since examples have been given.

By the way, the burden of proof is upon you. Since you are claiming that there are no such errors you need to show how clear examples given to you are not errors. We don't need to prove your book of myths right, you need to do that. Without any evidence there is no difference between your book of myths and the Harry Potter series.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, yes. When reason fails, ad hominem is a handy evasion tactic..

That was not an evasion. That was an observation. Please learn the difference. You are the one evading here.

But since you do not understand the sciences at all tell me your version of the flood myth and I will tell you why we know that it did not happen. Then we can begin to go over the other errors in the Bible.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Ok, if nobody wants to address topical points, but just have a dogpile of ad hom, I'll retire for the morning and let you have your fun. When you get it out of your system (or if!), we can return to the subject..

1. Make the charge of 'error or change, or anything you consider damning toward Christianity.
2. Provide evidence for your accusations.

What is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.

Error or change in what? Manuscripts, doctrine, historical account?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lack of evidence? Not so. There's a wealth of evidence for the historical Jesus.

Recommended reading:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

You keep listing these, without listing any actual evidence though.

I mean, if we think the existence of books that favour your claim means that your burden of proof has been met, then all I have to do to disprove that Jesus was divine, is to list a bunch of books on the subject, right?

"Christ Myth Theory" by Tobias Goldrich
"Misquoting Jesus" by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman
"The Christ Myth" by philosopher and historian Arthur Drews
"Jesus Christ is not God with a Capital G" by Jesse Acuff
"Jesus Christ is not God" by theologian Victor Paul Wierville

There! Now can I claim that Jesus didn't exist and/or wasn't divine? That's all it takes, right?
Or should we maybe take a look at the actual evidence being presented?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Incredulity is not 'evidence!'

Always good to have labels handy to dismiss any arguments. They make poisoning the well so much easier!

Pot, meet kettle.

You didn't even bother attempting to respond to his point. And now you're projecting this twaddle.