A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Your usual posts I ignore, lately, with good reason--but this one is highly provocative, due to its particularly uninformed question of yours:

THERE IS NO REASON IN CHRISTIANITY AS TO WHY JESUS DIED AND RESURRECTED?

Yet you claim to understand the Bible?!

You can't name a reason for it. You can only come up with a weak excuse. It is hardly uninformed. In fact it is quite the opposite. Can you come up with a valid reason? No excuses. you need to remember that your God is supposed to be just, all knowing and all powerful. Of course those claims are negated by the Genesis myths, but let's see how you do with the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[ecco]

I'd respond to you here, except I can't discern a question, only rhetoric. I don't believe as you've parodied me, here.

There was no question. I posted in response to ...

You skeptics are fond of cherry picking what is allegory (Genesis!) and what is literal (Exodus!). Please explain.

I explained.

To quickly recap, I don't cherry pick. I know both Genesis and Exodus are stories just like I know that the Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a story.

 

[ecco]

For someone claiming to be informed in these matters, I find it remarkable that you are unaware that the giants of Roman and Jewish historians wrote of the Christ and His followers prior to Constantine, and often by CENTURIES. Some names may help:

* Flavius Josephus
* Celsus
* Tacitus
* The Talmud
* Pliny the Younger
* Thallus
* Suetonius
* Mara Bar-Serapion
* Etc.!

That is indeed a long list. So let's cut it down a little.
What, exactly did the giant of Roman and Jewish historians, Flavius Josephus write of the Christ and His followers? One paragraph. That's all. He wrote tens of thousands of words. But regarding Jesus and the spread of Christianity, there is one paragraph. A paragraph that some scholars dispute.

I mind less that you are being intolerably vile and rude about God and Mary on a related post

I suppose Bill Cosby thinks his accusers are vile and rude. But it is what it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, that's different! It sounds like you missed, for one example, the opening verses of Luke (describing Luke as a fellow eyewitness of Christ, and Luke as an interviewer and avid chronicler of other eyewitnesses of Christ). And it sounds like you missed reading the whole book of Acts (attributed to Luke, describing in dozens of places things like "Paul and we went here at this time, did this, said this, experienced this).

Luke does not describe himself as an eyewitness in the opening versus of the book. We've been through this more than once. Why do you keep asserting that he was?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke does not describe himself as an eyewitness in the opening versus of the book. We've been through this more than once. Why do you keep asserting that he was?

Not only that, the author of Luke, which was still an anonymous work, made one of the largest errors in the Gospels when he had Jesus born both roughly 4 BCE and 6CE when he created his version of the Nativity tale. Not exactly the most reliable source.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Don't blame Christians doing Christian things. Just convince yourself they were atheists or Muslims or Pagans pretending to be Christians.

How deep does the indoctrination have to be to result in such utter blindness?

Yes, how deep does the indoctrination have to be to convince oneself that someone doing non-Christians things like killing thousands is still actually a Christian and thinking he’s really doing Christian things.

That statement right there did indeed show the depths of your indoctrination....

But then when one starts with a belief that a wolf and a sheep both come from the same unknown ancestor, one usually has trouble differentiating between a wolf and a sheep.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow!

Not only you are displaying ignorance of Christian history, trying to deceive us and yourself that evolutionists are to blame for genocides that are never found in the theory of evolution, you are demonstrating hypocrisy.

Repeating the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” mantra, may work in your delusion, but you are not being honest with yourself, in regarding to a person or people are not accountable for their own actions, if you can shift the blame on someone’s else.

None of the past wars and past genocides that I mentioned in my previous reply (eg Charlemagne, Crusade, Thirty Years’ War, the Roman Inquisition, etc) were the works of atheists, whom you have portrayed as “the wolves”; they were all works of Christians - Christian leaders.

Christians, good or bad, should be held accountable for their own actions, and not shift the responsibilities of atheists.

I am not denying that there are good Christians, but there are also bad Christians, just as there be good and bad atheists, as well as good and bad Muslims, Hindus, etc, but apparently you cannot find faults with bad Christians.

Right, you are scapegoating atheists for the actions of what Charlemagne, the crusaders, the Catholic and Protestant leaders have done - all of them Christians.

You are being a hypocrite. Sorry, but I am afraid that you are the one who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Justatruthseeker, because clearly you are not interested in the truth or being truthful.

And btw, justatruthseeker, I am agnostic, not atheist. If anyone displaying hatred here, is you, with you blaming “evolutionists” for genocides, when the theory don’t talk of genocide, because evolution is just biology, not politics, not social justice, not wars, with you equating evolution with atheism.

Look in mirror, you want to see who is hating whom.

They sure were not the works of Christians.....

But then you can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep because you think both shared some common ancestor.

It’s usually atheists that think someone killing thousands — a totally non-Christian action — is actually the results of Christians.... simply because they can’t accept the truth that those committing such acts were anything but Christians.....

I’m not equating evolution with atheism, that’s Richard Dawkins who stated evolution leads to atheism... blame your own atheists for that.....

I’m not scapegoating anyone. Unlike you I’m just being realistic in saying those killing thousands are not Christians, regardless that you might try to scapegoat them by labeling them as such..... because actions speak louder than words......

 

[Subduction Zone]

They sure were not the works of Christians.....

But then you can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep because you think both shared some common ancestor.

It’s usually atheists that think someone killing thousands — a totally non-Christian action — is actually the results of Christians.... simply because they can’t accept the truth that those committing such acts were anything but Christians.....

I’m not equating evolution with atheism, that’s Richard Dawkins who stated evolution leads to atheism... blame your own atheists for that.....

I’m not scapegoating anyone. Unlike you I’m just being realistic in saying those killing thousands are not Christians, regardless that you might try to scapegoat them by labeling them as such..... because actions speak louder than words......

And this is merely a long winded No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Polymath257]

They sure were not the works of Christians.....

But then you can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep because you think both shared some common ancestor.

It’s usually atheists that think someone killing thousands — a totally non-Christian action — is actually the results of Christians.... simply because they can’t accept the truth that those committing such acts were anything but Christians.....

I’m not equating evolution with atheism, that’s Richard Dawkins who stated evolution leads to atheism... blame your own atheists for that.....

I’m not scapegoating anyone. Unlike you I’m just being realistic in saying those killing thousands are not Christians, regardless that you might try to scapegoat them by labeling them as such..... because actions speak louder than words......

The main problem is that there is such a long tradition of people calling themselves Christian (including those who collected the books to form the Bible) that also go out and kill those who disagree with them, that it is natural to both call such people Christian and to condemn Christianity, as it is historically, for those actions.

The alternative is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. The basic definition of 'Christian' has been acceptance of the Nicene creed. And many people who have accepted that creed have done atrocities. Furthermore, they have found justification for their actions in the very writings that you hold to be defining of Christianity and their proclaimed *intentions* were to promote Christianity. Finally, they often had the backing of the institution of the Christian Church.

So, yes, I do see killing thousands as a characteristically Christian thing to do when looked at through the lens of history.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not equating evolution with atheism, that’s Richard Dawkins who stated evolution leads to atheism... blame your own atheists for that.....

Well, Dawkins believes that being honest and looking at the available evidence would lead one to be an atheist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The main problem is that there is such a long tradition of people calling themselves Christian (including those who collected the books to form the Bible) that also go out and kill those who disagree with them, that it is natural to both call such people Christian and to condemn Christianity, as it is historically, for those actions.

The alternative is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. The basic definition of 'Christian' has been acceptance of the Nicene creed. And many people who have accepted that creed have done atrocities. Furthermore, they have found justification for their actions in the very writings that you hold to be defining of Christianity and their proclaimed *intentions* were to promote Christianity. Finally, they often had the backing of the institution of the Christian Church.

So, yes, I do see killing thousands as a characteristically Christian thing to do when looked at through the lens of history.

Ahh, you hit upon the key and didn’t even realize it.....

Calling themselves Christian..... wolves in sheep’s clothing call themselves sheep in order to take advantage of the sheep for their own ends. Doesn’t make them sheep.....

You thinking people calling themselves Christians doing totally non-Christian works are actually Christians is the problem to begin with.....

Just shows you can’t even admit to yourself the truth..... Every criminal says he is innocent, so you agree that all criminals are innocent, because they say they are?

Or do you judge by their actions as to whether their claims are true or not?????

 

[Polymath257]

Ahh, you hit upon the key and didn’t even realize it.....

Calling themselves Christian..... wolves in sheep’s clothing call themselves sheep in order to take advantage of the sheep for their own ends. Doesn’t make them sheep.....

You thinking people calling themselves Christians doing totally non-Christian works are actually Christians is the problem to begin with.....

Well, since the vast majority of people calling themselves Christian have supported the institutions that have called themselves Christian. And since those institutions defined what was to go into the sacred texts for Christianity, yes, I do think that it is legitimate to say they are actually Christians. What is 'non-Christian' was *defined* by these people, after all.

Just shows you can’t even admit to yourself the truth..... Every criminal says he is innocent, so you agree that all criminals are innocent, because they say they are?

Or do you judge by their actions as to whether their claims are true or not?????

Criminals are not usually the ones writing the laws and thereby defining who is and who is not a criminal. But, those who *defined* what it means to be Christian and who selected the books that would go into the Bible seem to be legitimately called Christian.

To deny this only leads to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. You get to deny anyone is a Christain if they have ever done something you disagree with. How convenient.

 

[Polymath257]

Or do you judge by their actions as to whether their claims are true or not?????

Oh, I do. I think they were quite sincere in their beliefs that they were Christian. I think they were quite sincere in thinking that their actions were necessitated by their faith. And, as opposed to wolves in sheep's clothing, I think there were really Christians in Christian clothing.

It's just that your faith is historically not as peaceful and wonderful as you seem to hope it would be.

Now, as opposed to asking if I think they were Christians, if you asked if I think they were *moral*, then i would have no compunction in saying they were not. And that is, in part, *because* they were acting as they believed their faith in Christianity required.

 

[gnostic]

They sure were not the works of Christians.....

But then you can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep because you think both shared some common ancestor.

It’s usually atheists that think someone killing thousands — a totally non-Christian action — is actually the results of Christians.... simply because they can’t accept the truth that those committing such acts were anything but Christians.....

I’m not equating evolution with atheism, that’s Richard Dawkins who stated evolution leads to atheism... blame your own atheists for that.....

I’m not scapegoating anyone. Unlike you I’m just being realistic in saying those killing thousands are not Christians, regardless that you might try to scapegoat them by labeling them as such..... because actions speak louder than words......

So Charlemagne ordering mass execution of the pagan saxons who don’t convert, isn’t a Christian?

Pope Leo praised Charlemagne for doing Jesus’ and the Church’s, wasn’t a Christian too? The same Leo, the pope who awarded Charlemagne with the title of “Emperor” of the Holy Roman Empire.

A German Empire that would later followed by wars in the Renaissance Counter-Reformation and the early modern period of the Thirty Years’ War, between Catholic and Protestants?

The witch-hunt of Roman Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, all have to do with Christians playing politics.

So all these belligerents were atheists, not Christians?

Either you are utterly ignorant of history of Western/Central Europe, or you are fricking lying to me and lying to yourself.

European Christians have a long history of not only fighting non-Christians eg Muslims), they also don’t played nice with each others.

None of these events have to do with atheists.

Shifting the blame upon atheists for these events is scapegoating atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh, you hit upon the key and didn’t even realize it.....

Calling themselves Christian..... wolves in sheep’s clothing call themselves sheep in order to take advantage of the sheep for their own ends. Doesn’t make them sheep.....

You thinking people calling themselves Christians doing totally non-Christian works are actually Christians is the problem to begin with.....

Just shows you can’t even admit to yourself the truth..... Every criminal says he is innocent, so you agree that all criminals are innocent, because they say they are?

Or do you judge by their actions as to whether their claims are true or not?????

Do you realize by these standards many would consider you to be a "wolf"?

 

[gnostic]

Well, that's different! It sounds like you missed, for one example, the opening verses of Luke (describing Luke as a fellow eyewitness of Christ, and Luke as an interviewer and avid chronicler of other eyewitnesses of Christ). And it sounds like you missed reading the whole book of Acts (attributed to Luke, describing in dozens of places things like "Paul and we went here at this time, did this, said this, experienced this).

You need glasses. Reread Luke 1:1-4.

No where does it state Luke was an eyewitness, not to Jesus’ ministry, and certainly not to Jesus’ birth.

As to the Acts, the only time it referred to as “we” is in the later half of the book, and the author was never named once. “Luke” only appeared a couple of times in Paul’s somewhat suspicious epistles: 2 Timothy and Philemon. A third epistle, Colossians, might be authentic as Paul’s letter, but not Timothy and Philemon.

Second, the identity of Theophilus (in both Luke and Acts) was never given, so it is definitely cannot be determine whether Paul was alive when either books were composed. Most likely they were after Paul’s death.

 

[ecco]

Yes, how deep does the indoctrination have to be to convince oneself that someone doing non-Christians things like killing thousands is still actually a Christian and thinking he’s really doing Christian things.

That statement right there did indeed show the depths of your indoctrination....

But then when one starts with a belief that a wolf and a sheep both come from the same unknown ancestor, one usually has trouble differentiating between a wolf and a sheep.

Your wolf sheep analogy is a great cop-out.
See something good - it's gotta be good Christians. See something bad - they're not really Christians. They are probably atheists disguised as Christians because that's what Satan told them to do.

• If you told the Spanish Inquisitors that they were not Christians, they would have wasted no time convicting you of heresy and executing you.
• If you told the thousands of Protestants killing Catholics that they were not Christians, they would have wasted no time convicting you of heresy and executing you.
• If you told the thousands of Catholics killing Protestants that they were not Christians, they would have wasted no time convicting you of heresy and executing you.
• If you told the witch hunters that they were not Christians, they would have wasted no time convicting you of being a witch and executing you.

 

[gnostic]

Do you realize by these standards many would consider you to be a "wolf"?

I already have considered him to be one.

I find it funny that he named himself justatruthseeker, and yet have no interests in the truth.

 

[gnostic]

Well, since the vast majority of people calling themselves Christian have supported the institutions that have called themselves Christian. And since those institutions defined what was to go into the sacred texts for Christianity, yes, I do think that it is legitimate to say they are actually Christians. What is 'non-Christian' was *defined* by these people, after all.



Criminals are not usually the ones writing the laws and thereby defining who is and who is not a criminal. But, those who *defined* what it means to be Christian and who selected the books that would go into the Bible seem to be legitimately called Christian.

To deny this only leads to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. You get to deny anyone is a Christain if they have ever done something you disagree with. How convenient.

Oh, I do. I think they were quite sincere in their beliefs that they were Christian. I think they were quite sincere in thinking that their actions were necessitated by their faith. And, as opposed to wolves in sheep's clothing, I think there were really Christians in Christian clothing.

It's just that your faith is historically not as peaceful and wonderful as you seem to hope it would be.

Now, as opposed to asking if I think they were Christians, if you asked if I think they were *moral*, then i would have no compunction in saying they were not. And that is, in part, *because* they were acting as they believed their faith in Christianity required.

I am afraid that justatruthseeker has his head buried in the sand.

He refused to recognize that Christian kings and the churches have history of causing violence and wars, and trying to shift the blame on atheists and atheism.

That sort of persistence only highlighted his indoctrination. He has no interests in any truth or any fact.

Instead he tried to use scapegoats, just as past Christians used Jews as scapegoats, persecuting them, stealing or destroying their properties, force-converting them, and killing them - and they have been doing since Constantine. Throughout the Middle Ages and modern era, Christians have been persecuting Jews, and these events occurred long before the Nazi and the Holocaust.

Tens of thousands and hundreds of Jews were forced to leave Spain, Germany, Hungary, etc, and many have migrated to Poland, which is why there was a large Jewish presence before WW2. Why did you think Hitler hit Poland so hard before WW2 started?

Yes, polymath257, justatruthseeker is not only a bigot and ignorant, he is also trying to rewrite the history book, his version of history, trying to distort it as he see fit. And if it meant blaming every genocides upon atheists, he has clearly done so. He is such a hypocrite.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is indeed a long list. So let's cut it down a little.
What, exactly did the giant of Roman and Jewish historians, Flavius Josephus write of the Christ and His followers? One paragraph. That's all. He wrote tens of thousands of words. But regarding Jesus and the spread of Christianity, there is one paragraph. A paragraph that some scholars dispute.




I suppose Bill Cosby thinks his accusers are vile and rude. But it is what it is.

So... you've personally redacted your nonsense statement, "Christianity popular only after 325 CE," to "But-but-but the major historians of the world only wrote a few paragraphs to show Christianity was a world phenomenon before 325".