Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, you add 'abusive!' to try to dodge the exposė of ad hominem..

Nevertheless, in any debate, directing 'arguments' toward the 'man', is fallacious. Address the topic. The intelligence, education, understanding, hat size, race, creed, gender, or any personal traits are irrelevant, and to bring them up is an ad hominem fallacy.

But redefining that is a good dodge!

No, that was a clarification. There was no dodge. You do not know what an ad hominem is, this has been observed and commented on by many. You cannot even show how your many claims of ad hominmen were ad hominems of any sort.

Yes, i want to learn.. teach me, Obi Wan, PLEASE!!


..so your 'style' of instruction is to post a link.. like that says anything..
It tells me you do not have any points, reason, or arguments, and rely on somebody else to debate for you, by proxy.


1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
I'll then examine it, and offer a rebuttal.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.[/quoite]

Please do not lie. I have offered to give evidence but you constantly Gish Gallop. Do you know how to have a proper discussion? You need to cover one concept at a time. As long as you Gish Gallop all that we need to do to refute you is to say "wrong". If you want details I will gladly give them. Debate properly and you will get all of the evidence that you can handle and then some.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence. This is just a prejudicial smear of someone who was closer to the words and events than most. You have no evidence for this biased projection on Irenaeus' psyche, just offer revisionist psychobabble to discredit him.

Again, this is a lie. You have not been able to debate properly and blame others for your sins.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Then present it, if you dare.. assertions and accusations are not evidence.

1. Education & knowledge is not a competition.
2. They should be demonstrated, not asserted.
3. Re: John.. So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Evidence this assertion, if you dare. You accuse and assert, but present NOTHING to examine or rebut.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
the propagandists are going fast and furious today. Phony narratives and assertions are NOT evidence..
um.. the biblical manuscripts, extant writings, and accounts from eyewitnesses?

What I cannot accept is false narratives, pounded repeatedly like propaganda, with NO EVIDENCE, this is just your biased, anti-christian opinion. It has no basis in fact.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
no, i care about Truth. I would rather be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling lies.

How does this reply apply to the topic? It is an ad hom deflection.
people see what they want to see. The juggling of distortions, false narratives, innuendo, and allusion makes it pretty clear, what the agenda is..

I'm still waiting for evidenced accusations. Ive quoted and referenced the historical, scholarly position of Christianity. And, I've exposed the false narratives and demeaning propaganda against Christianity.

I'll repeat the challenge:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

All these narratives.. FALSE NARRATIVES.. are pounded over and over, as if loud repetition will convince people. Evidently, it does. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance every time the propaganda meme is mentioned.. no critical thinking.. no evidence.. just loud, repeated narratives, masquerading as 'fact!'

Open minded inquiry, reason, and systematic discovery are lost and dying concepts in a world built upon mandated belief and propaganda.

Believe what you wish. That does not make it true.

And continues to lie and to Gish.

If you want to debate properly I will gladly give you the evidence that you demand. Let's set some ground rules. When a term is used if the other side demands a clear definition it must be given. You tend to use terms improperly or without definitions. Second no excessive breaking up of posts. You tend to do this. It is far too often an attempt to lie by interrupting a point. Let's limit the number of breaks in a post to three.

Can you debate properly and honestly? I will go by the same rules. Until then your errors will simply be corrected. Evidence need not be given. Only corrections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a bluff to post a link, asserting it 'proves!' some accusation, when the reference does the opposite..

That is wrong. Links are used as supporting evidence that one is correct. You are trying to put an impossible burden of proof upon others and contradicting yourself. You demand evidence and when it is given you deny it. It is becoming obvious that you are just a denier and not a debater.

 

[Riders]

Ah, you add 'abusive!' to try to dodge the exposė of ad hominem..

Nevertheless, in any debate, directing 'arguments' toward the 'man', is fallacious. Address the topic. The intelligence, education, understanding, hat size, race, creed, gender, or any personal traits are irrelevant, and to bring them up is an ad hominem fallacy.

But redefining that is a good dodge!

Yes, i want to learn.. teach me, Obi Wan, PLEASE!!


..so your 'style' of instruction is to post a link.. like that says anything..
It tells me you do not have any points, reason, or arguments, and rely on somebody else to debate for you, by proxy.


1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
I'll then examine it, and offer a rebuttal.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence. This is just a prejudicial smear of someone who was closer to the words and events than most. You have no evidence for this biased projection on Irenaeus' psyche, just offer revisionist psychobabble to discredit him.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Then present it, if you dare.. assertions and accusations are not evidence.

1. Education & knowledge is not a competition.
2. They should be demonstrated, not asserted.
3. Re: John.. So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Evidence this assertion, if you dare. You accuse and assert, but present NOTHING to examine or rebut.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
the propagandists are going fast and furious today. Phony narratives and assertions are NOT evidence..
um.. the biblical manuscripts, extant writings, and accounts from eyewitnesses?

What I cannot accept is false narratives, pounded repeatedly like propaganda, with NO EVIDENCE, this is just your biased, anti-christian opinion. It has no basis in fact.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
no, i care about Truth. I would rather be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling lies.

How does this reply apply to the topic? It is an ad hom deflection.
people see what they want to see. The juggling of distortions, false narratives, innuendo, and allusion makes it pretty clear, what the agenda is..

I'm still waiting for evidenced accusations. Ive quoted and referenced the historical, scholarly position of Christianity. And, I've exposed the false narratives and demeaning propaganda against Christianity.

I'll repeat the challenge:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

All these narratives.. FALSE NARRATIVES.. are pounded over and over, as if loud repetition will convince people. Evidently, it does. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance every time the propaganda meme is mentioned.. no critical thinking.. no evidence.. just loud, repeated narratives, masquerading as 'fact!'

Open minded inquiry, reason, and systematic discovery are lost and dying concepts in a world built upon mandated belief and propaganda.

Believe what you wish. That does not make it true.

You have your mind made up before you put this post up, if you are the OP.The Op is obviously a statement meant to attack anyone who does not agree with conservative Christianity and meant to stay up without any debating or challenging. Its just a judgement against anyone who follows any belief outside yours.

But sense your mind is made up there's no real reason to even debate, I think I've wasted too much time on someone who's mind is closed to accepting any kind of a real debate or challenge.

 

[Riders]

You've read Josephus? Ha!

I read Josephus sayings in WIki and WIki says most of Josephus sayings are questionable and so are the other sources you provided.

 

[Spartan]

I read Josephus sayings in WIki and WIki says most of Josephus sayings are questionable and so are the other sources you provided.

I'm pretty sure he gets more right than you do.

 

[Spartan]

The last ten verses of Mark are a fraudulent addition.

Not necessarily. It could well have been an oral tradition dating from the time of Christ that finally made its way into the Gospel of Mark. Oral traditions were a big thing back then.

 

[Spartan]

Yah, Keith Thompson is founder and board chair of Ravi Zacharias Ministries International. He is associated with Reformed Apologetics Ministries. IOW, he's a fundamental apologist with biased viewpoints.

Now the truth is biased? And better an associate of the brilliant Ravi Zacharias and a fundamental apologist than a left wing, Biblically-challenged loon like so many of his critics.

 

[oldbadger]

Not necessarily. It could well have been an oral tradition dating from the time of Christ that finally made its way into the Gospel of Mark. Oral traditions were a big thing back then.

So the key information that Christians cling to, the very foundation of their faith somehow just got left out in all original manuscripts and needed to be plonked in later on? OK, if you wanna believe that.

Christians sure did need to plonk an awful lot of additions in to G-Mark, and Josephus, and ......

 

[oldbadger]

One of the many negatives left out of @usfan 's list is the problem about how totally self-centred Christianity is.

A long time ago I asked a really kind, sweet benevolent Christian if he would be prepared to give up his own place in Heaven to save all of his family from Hell, but he would not answer directly..... he gave all kinds of wishy washy replies, and when I pushed him he became angry at me. I was only about 8yrs old at that time.

And so, over the years I have extended the list of saved to all humanity, and never yet received a 'Yes, I would give up Heaven and suffer for ever for all mankind to be saved'.

Guess what? The whole Christian thing is about 'I'm going to be alright'.

I look forward to any civil and polite replies.......

 

[oldbadger]

Another negative left off of @usfan 's list in the OP is the disgusting fact that extreme Christian's have supported slavery in the past and could do so again.

Christian's believe that everything thatr Paul wrote down (as shown in the bible) was a direct message from God, as if Paul were the Prophet himself.

Well, Paul not only supported slavery but demanded that slaves be content with their lot and to respect and obey their masters.

No wonder that many rich Christians today are so hard upon the poorer classes, clinging to their money rather than willingly pay for benefits, good education and free medicare for all..

Here is a short list of bible quotations. There could be more......
1. Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

2. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (Ephesians 6:5)

3. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything (Colossians 3:22)

4. Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them (Titus 2:9)

5. Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. (1 Timothy 6:1)

 

[usfan]

That is wrong. Links are used as supporting evidence that one is correct. You are trying to put an impossible burden of proof upon others and contradicting yourself. You demand evidence and when it is given you deny it. It is becoming obvious that you are just a denier and not a debater.

You forgot 'Hater!'

No problem. Post all the links you want. Pretend they destroy my arguments. Feel victorious and superior to the 'haters!', and 'deniers!' who obsess you so...

You have your mind made up before you put this post up, if you are the OP.The Op is obviously a statement meant to attack anyone who does not agree with conservative Christianity and meant to stay up without any debating or challenging. Its just a judgement against anyone who follows any belief outside yours.

But sense your mind is made up there's no real reason to even debate, I think I've wasted too much time on someone who's mind is closed to accepting any kind of a real debate or challenge.

Attack! Attack!

ROFL!!

I made a list of perceived caricatures (and lies) about Christianity, that are commonly promoted in the public discourse, and visibly in this forum and this thread.

How does projecting these feelings on me justify them?

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

Blaming me for the impotence of the accuser's evidence isn't fair. I've presented a challenge, and exposed the phony narratives as being prejudicial and bigoted.

I read Josephus sayings in WIki and WIki says most of Josephus sayings are questionable and so are the other sources you provided.

Then believe wiki, if you choose to.

One of the many negatives left out of @usfan 's list is the problem about how totally self-centred Christianity is.

yes, i omitted that one. I have not heard it before. Historically, almost all xtians must be motivated by selfishness, in their founding of hospitals, care for the poor, leading the abolitionist movement, and other such selfish and greedy actions.

Another negative left off of @usfan 's list in the OP is the disgusting fact that extreme Christian's have supported slavery in the past and could do so again.

I didn't miss that! I had it under a more general category of 'oppression!'

2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.

But i do appreciate examples given, presented as 'self evident' Truth, even though they are biased generalizations.

 

[Spartan]

So the key information that Christians cling to, the very foundation of their faith somehow just got left out in all original manuscripts and needed to be plonked in later on? OK, if you wanna believe that.

The additional "key information" you refer to at the end of Mark chapter 16 is not "key". The resurrection was the key and it was confirmed earlier in Mark 16. As for what occurred after the resurrection, that is conveyed nicely in the other Gospels and the Book of Acts, etc.

 

[oldbadger]

You forgot 'Hater!'

No problem. Post all the links you want. Pretend they destroy my arguments. Feel victorious and superior to the 'haters!', and 'deniers!' who obsess you so...




Attack! Attack!

ROFL!!

I made a list of perceived caricatures (and lies) about Christianity, that are commonly promoted in the public discourse, and visibly in this forum and this thread.

How does projecting these feelings on me justify them?

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

Blaming me for the impotence of the accuser's evidence isn't fair. I've presented a challenge, and exposed the phony narratives as being prejudicial and bigoted.

Then believe wiki, if you choose to.
yes, i omitted that one. I have not heard it before. Historically, almost all xtians must be motivated by selfishness, in their founding of hospitals, care for the poor, leading the abolitionist movement, and other such selfish and greedy actions.

I didn't miss that! I had it under a more general category of 'oppression!'

2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.

But i do appreciate examples given, presented as 'self evident' Truth, even though they are biased generalizations.

Oh no you don't!

Your prophet, with direct communication with God, has supported slavery in several writings.
That is disgusting.

And don't play down the ultimate selfishness of your religion, you would not give your place in Heaven, now, would you?

Leading on to other truths about Christianity, it puts down women.

 

[oldbadger]

1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

We offer evidence, but you don't dare to try and answer honestly.

yes, i omitted that one. I have not heard it before. Historically, almost all xtians must be motivated by selfishness, in their founding of hospitals, care for the poor, leading the abolitionist movement, and other such selfish and greedy actions.

Care for the poor?
Most Christians in the USA are totally against free medicare, free education and family support for the poor.
More untruths, right there.

And please name five new hospitals founded in the last twenty years by US Christians, then we can look more closely.

I didn't miss that! I had it under a more general category of 'oppression!'

Hiding again!
So you knew about your God's approval of slavery, which you could quote and use again at any time in the future, true?

So please tell us that Paul's support of slavery was EVIL and that Christianity has redacted the bible words.

If you dare.


Next we'll be looking at Christianity's interference in people's individual sexuality.
You even rant against Gays.
Wicked............. wicked, and without any words on it from Jesus.

What hypocrisy!

 

[oldbadger]

The additional "key information" you refer to at the end of Mark chapter 16 is not "key". The resurrection was the key and it was confirmed earlier in Mark 16.

Not true.
Stone rolled away. Tomb empty. Jesus alive and gone.

I don't think that Jesus died. Crucifixion was a death lasting 2-3 days of agony. For an earlier deeath they broke the convicts legs so that he could not push up to breath.
Not only did they NOT do that but they lanced Jesus's lower lung to clear it of fluids. They did that to me in 2016 so I am aware about that.

As for what occurred after the resurrection, that is conveyed nicely in the other Gospels and the Book of Acts, etc.

Rubbish! Acts is concerned with what happened AFTER JESUS.
The other gospels offer no direct, primary or even secondary evidence about that.

The Resurrection is not certain, which is why there are thousands of Christian FAITHS.
I can acknowledge any Christian's Faith, but cannot acknowledge any claims of certainty.

 

[usfan]

Your prophet, with direct communication with God, has supported slavery in several writings.
That is disgusting.
And don't play down the ultimate selfishness of your religion, you would not give your place in Heaven, now, would you?

We offer evidence, but you don't dare to try and answer honestly.

More untruths, right there.

Hiding again!
So you knew about your God's approval of slavery,

You even rant against Gays.
Wicked............. wicked, and without any words on it from Jesus.
What hypocrisy!

My, my. A lot of pent up hostility, there.. or maybe not so 'pent up!'

Feel better? I don't mind being a scape goat for all the false narratives and caricatures you believe are true. Discussing things like this rationally and evidentiary is no easy task.. all these emotions to deal with..

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

My, my. A lot of pent up hostility, there.. or maybe not so 'pent up!'

Feel better? I don't mind being a scape goat for all the false narratives and caricatures you believe are true. Discussing things like this rationally and evidentiary is no easy task.. all these emotions to deal with..

A conservative man who likes flags once ate my bag of potato chips while I listened to "World So Cold" by Three Days Grace. I suppose I would blame your side for that, while you would blame me for not having better choices in music.

 

[sojourner]

Now the truth is biased? And better an associate of the brilliant Ravi Zacharias and a fundamental apologist than a left wing, Biblically-challenged loon like so many of his critics.

They aren’t facts; they’re opinions. Zachariahs may be “brilliant,” but he's biased, because he’s an apologist and not an exegete. People like Rhoads, Kloppenborg, Scott, Funk and Harris know more about the ancient texts than any apologist. Apologists get their information from these people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You would know if you did your homework.

Here's INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for who wrote the Gospels.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Bible scholars have done the homework and most agree with what I said. Where do you think I got it from? My own Bible says right in it that the Gospel writers are unknown.

 

[sojourner]

A good excerpt, from that link:

With respect to Gospel titles such as “the Gospel of Matthew” there is no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were ever circulating without them. Scholars have asserted that the titles emerged sometime in the beginning or mid 2nd century but other scholars challenge this by noting that this presupposes anonymous Gospels to begin with as well as the works of early to mid 2nd century church writers representing the earliest stages of author attribution. This is an assumption one can not prove, however. Scholars also point out that when early New Testament churches began reading multiple Gospels around A.D. 100 it would be necessary that they be distinguished referentially from one another in the service to avoid confusion. Likewise noted is the fact that there is no recorded 1st or 2nd century competing hypothesis regarding who wrote Matthew. This lends credibility to the case for Matthew always having that title for if it were anonymous even after Gospel collection with no title and circulating as such up until the time of the early to mid 2nd century then there would emerge competing authorship theories. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any such competing theories indicating that the title "the Gospel of Matthew" is very primitive and that Matthaean authorship was affirmed in the earliest strands of Christian thought.

You’re forgetting the part about the late dating of the texts and the likelihood that the apostles were illiterate, based on cultural anthropology.