Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "christ" actually "sacrificed" NOTHING

ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 5:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the Bible were nothing more than a pile of trash, as your despising ignorance would say, then why with a world with a million writers are good books not as common as the idiots insulting the greatest book ever assembled? In this is the miracle. We feel no hallowed presences to anything other than the Bible.

Try it! Attempt to tell a story to mimic the liquid eloquence of such moral simplicity, and you will inevitably fail. Yet more advantages have you, such as advancements to writing technology, as computers with a spellchecker, and many other advantages, yet you and I and everyone writes as children compared to the best selling book of all time.

You are a fool to insult something written to superior fashion over the intellectual impediments hindering your understandings. I could say more but you're too far gone at this juncture to your life. The honest truth is, is that you've been subconsciously and consciously manipulated through a variety of outlets. Get some help. Start" thinking for yourself. Good luck.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 7:37:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 5:49:28 PM, Serato wrote:
If the Bible were nothing more than a pile of trash, as your despising ignorance would say, then why with a world with a million writers are good books not as common as the idiots insulting the greatest book ever assembled? In this is the miracle. We feel no hallowed presences to anything other than the Bible.

Because so many stunted minds are willing to accept the absolutely ridiculous, on faith. There is no miracle. The god within its pages does not exist, and its compilation (at the hands of the catholic church) was the greatest atrocity the mystics ever perpetrated against humanity. And there are HUNDREDS of millions who "feel hallowed presences" to other books, as well as that trash. They are equally deluded, in the learned opinions of those who THINK.

Try it! Attempt to tell a story to mimic the liquid eloquence of such moral simplicity, and you will inevitably fail.

Liquid eloquence? The bible Fails. Moral simplicity? The bible Fails. Aesop's Fables tells far better stories with far better and more consistent morality.

Yet more advantages have you, such as advancements to writing technology, as computers with a spellchecker, and many other advantages, yet you and I and everyone writes as children compared to the best selling book of all time.

No, we don't. We write as geniuses, compared to such falsehood, error, and vicious atrocities (of which the authors appear to be proud).

You are a fool to insult something written to superior fashion over the intellectual impediments hindering your understandings.

Nothing impedes my understanding. I have read it, cover to cover, and understand that it is quite worthless. Even the greatest teaching within its pages (the Ethic of Reciprocity) is not original to the author of the book. The Ethic of Reciprocity predates the bible by several centuries, and the bible is not required, for its understanding or implementation. The deity-commanded behavior betrays and violates the very morals and commandments within it, and the sickness of the doctrine of "vicarious redemption" is laid bare, in its worthlessness. All that is required is a touch of reason, and a smattering of logic, and even those of feeble understanding and cognitive capacity can view the worthlessness of that which is portrayed as the greatest of all "loving" acts.

I could say more but you're too far gone at this juncture to your life. The honest truth is, is that you've been subconsciously and consciously manipulated through a variety of outlets. Get some help. Start" thinking for yourself. Good luck.

Thinking for myself is what caused me to drop the biblical garbage I had been spoon-fed all my life. Thinking for myself is what drove me away from christianity. I have not been "manipulated." The only people being "manipulated" are those that accept ANY "holy" text, based on faith, and the interpretations of the mystics who claim to speak on behalf of a non-existent deity. I don't need luck, but it appears that you, who have drunk the "kool-aid" need it, desperately.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 8:12:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:


Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

Since when my brother is a sacrifice a pile of trash? You know the meaning yet you are rejecting it. Sacrifice is what God is capable of, to a degree you and I will never know in this flesh.

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

Jesus, Jesus is the face of God the Father. There is nothing Jesus went through that God the Father did not bear. Actually it could be argued that God the Father had to bear much more, as any of us with a child would know what that means. Jesus is the right hand of the Father.
When you are in unity with someone, we feel the pain of their pain, sometimes it could be worse for the person that is observing. A quick example would be like watching your spouse or kid dying before your very eyes.


In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

If you took on the fullness of all the evil that has been dispersed in this life you would be devastatingly shocked. You have no idea the amount of evil that has piled up as the result of Human free will. To say Jesus sacrificed nothing is a complete shame on your part.
All our actions resonate in eternity, they go on into the atmosphere where they cause rippled effects. The majority of these actions go without justification, we see only a fraction of what is happening.
These actions have to account for retribution because God sees it all and they do not go unnoticed. God bears this continually and mercifully without just completely annihilating us.
These action and residual effects have to have justice, they absolutely have to be accounted for and paid for.
God in His mercy and all encompassing love has made a way for these things to be absorbed.
God took a step ahead of us and cleaned it up, that is what Jesus did, we have a chance to have a clean slate, despite what all of humanity has done.


NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on here, so I do what I can.
I would like to spend some time here on your inquiries at every level but for the sake of time I want to run over a few things.
I sense your urgency in this post and I actually am quite impressed, although you seem quite annoyed I applaud you reaching out.
To start here is a simple passage.

Philippians 2
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Okay so here in this passage is a simple insight that is very clear and easy to understand.

What is the Trinity, and what does that mean??

The trinity is three aspects of the Godhead, these three aspects make up the completeness of what God is.
How?? How can three equal one? It is in unity, all three aspects work as one in their will, purpose and actions.
God the Father is the peak of the "Trinity", Jesus is the "face" of God and the Holy Spirit is our guide and relation on this earth.
If you were to see the Godhead, you would see a tremendous amount of energy and light, you would collapse at the sight of God long before you got close in a material body.
In that mass of energy, sound and light you would see Jesus coming out of that in a form we can look at.
This is the face of God that we can relate to.

I know some of this is vague but I wanted to say these things while I have a few minutes, don't be mad my friend. We are all in this together and I would prefer to be in unity with you. God bless and sorry if I missed a bunch of things in your post.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:45:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Supposing Jesus died knowing he would pop up again three days later, he wasn't in the same league as people who have died saving others knowing they would stay dead!
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 8:12:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 8:12:55 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

Since when my brother is a sacrifice a pile of trash?

Not just the "sacrifice," brother. The entire collection of books.

You know the meaning yet you are rejecting it. Sacrifice is what God is capable of, to a degree you and I will never know in this flesh.

Yes, I reject it in its entirety. Seriously? That deity character might be all about sacrifice, but not its own...

Jesus, Jesus is the face of God the Father.

According to one of many "holy" texts. Even the trinity was borrowed from other religions.

There is nothing Jesus went through that God the Father did not bear.

Not even a drop in an ocean, comparatively.

Actually it could be argued that God the Father had to bear much more, as any of us with a child would know what that means. Jesus is the right hand of the Father.

Humans don't have the power to give life right back. How painful could a loss be, if you could turn around and IMMEDIATELY replace it? There was no "loss."

When you are in unity with someone, we feel the pain of their pain, sometimes it could be worse for the person that is observing. A quick example would be like watching your spouse or kid dying before your very eyes.

You are describing the feelings of a supposed triple-omni "spiritual" being, in human terms. Do you realize that? Just how painful could it be for someone who could simply THINK their "loss" back into existence?

If you took on the fullness of all the evil that has been dispersed in this life you would be devastatingly shocked.

No, I wouldn't. Most especially knowing that some of the most heinous evil happened at the hands of religious believers.

You have no idea the amount of evil that has piled up as the result of Human free will. To say Jesus sacrificed nothing is a complete shame on your part.

Neither one of us has any idea the amount of evil that has been committed by humans. I don't even care to venture a guess. Saying that the "christ" sacrificed nothing is not shameful, it's factual. His "perfect" human form suffered no pain (if "perfect" after the fashion of Adam), his "death" lasted all of three days (out of how many billions of years?), and the net result was ZERO. Imagine being "dead" each time you blink. Would you REALLY consider that such a "sacrifice?"

All our actions resonate in eternity, they go on into the atmosphere where they cause rippled effects.

And you have some evidence/data to support this assertion? It's a lovely poetic thought, but not really true...

The majority of these actions go without justification, we see only a fraction of what is happening.

You have absolutely no way of KNOWING this. It's evident that you believe it, but belief is not truth. It's not a fact, as you are attempting to state it.

These actions have to account for retribution because God sees it all and they do not go unnoticed. God bears this continually and mercifully without just completely annihilating us.

Again, this is poetic. You have no way of knowing it.

These action and residual effects have to have justice, they absolutely have to be accounted for and paid for.

Paid to whom? What price? According to what accounting system? Why? Everything you state ONLY makes sense within the context of bible belief. I am not among the believers.

God in His mercy and all encompassing love has made a way for these things to be absorbed.

Poetic/unfounded.

God took a step ahead of us and cleaned it up, that is what Jesus did, we have a chance to have a clean slate, despite what all of humanity has done.

Poetic/unfounded

I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on here, so I do what I can.
I would like to spend some time here on your inquiries at every level but for the sake of time I want to run over a few things.
I sense your urgency in this post and I actually am quite impressed, although you seem quite annoyed I applaud you reaching out.

Urgency? No. I reach out only to try to help people understand that the contents of the bible actually STUNTS rational and logical thought processes. Critical thinking is the one thing that biblical belief cannot tolerate.

To start here is a simple passage.

Philippians 2
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Biblical quotes are meaningless. I've read the bible (actually pretty well versed in it). It has a few useful things in it, but have to drink a sea of 5h!t to get to a single "cultured pearl" isn't worth swallowing all the 5h!t. The garbage you just quoted might actually have been believed by the author. The author also, however, likely thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it.

Okay so here in this passage is a simple insight that is very clear and easy to understand.

There is no insight -- only assertion of belief of fantasy.

What is the Trinity, and what does that mean??

The trinity is three aspects of the Godhead, these three aspects make up the completeness of what God is.

It is a borrowed belief, from religions that came before christianity. It is nonsense, and false.

How?? How can three equal one?

They can't. Nowhere in the bible is that ever even hinted at.

It is in unity, all three aspects work as one in their will, purpose and actions.

The "holy" spirit is not even granted a name, making the personage nothing but speculation. "The Comforter" is not a name... it's a title. The trinity is not even biblical. It's catholic.

God the Father is the peak of the "Trinity", Jesus is the "face" of God and the Holy Spirit is our guide and relation on this earth.

A very esoteric view of something completely irrational and a stupid doctrine introduced by the catholic church in order to attract pagan followers that already believed in some other triune godhead.

If you were to see the Godhead, you would see a tremendous amount of energy and light, you would collapse at the sight of God long before you got close in a material body.

Poetic, but stupid.

In that mass of energy, sound and light you would see Jesus coming out of that in a form we can look at.

Poetic, but stupid. Nice picture formed from ancient and ignorant beliefs.

This is the face of God that we can relate to.

This is a fantasy of what people WANT their god to be.

I know some of this is vague but I wanted to say these things while I have a few minutes, don't be mad my friend.

I'll not really angry, except for when I think of what humanity could become, if only humans would relinquish their psychological and emotional dependency upon such stupidity for their continued existence.

We are all in this together and I would prefer to be in unity with you. God bless and sorry if I missed a bunch of things in your post.

We are not "all in this together." We are born, individually, and choose our allegiances and associations through our life experiences. I know you mean well, but the "blessing" is without impact. I don't believe.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 10:00:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christ sacrificed nothing because nothing was lost. If the story of true and Christ is still alive then he did not lose his life. And if he is part of an all powerful deity then he could have is human form back should he so choose so he didn't lose that either.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 12:38:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 5:49:28 PM, Serato wrote:
If the Bible were nothing more than a pile of trash, as your despising ignorance would say, then why with a world with a million writers are good books not as common as the idiots insulting the greatest book ever assembled? In this is the miracle. We feel no hallowed presences to anything other than the Bible.

Try it! Attempt to tell a story to mimic the liquid eloquence of such moral simplicity, and you will inevitably fail. Yet more advantages have you, such as advancements to writing technology, as computers with a spellchecker, and many other advantages, yet you and I and everyone writes as children compared to the best selling book of all time.

You are a fool to insult something written to superior fashion over the intellectual impediments hindering your understandings. I could say more but you're too far gone at this juncture to your life. The honest truth is, is that you've been subconsciously and consciously manipulated through a variety of outlets. Get some help. Start" thinking for yourself. Good luck.

"Elegance? Morality? Beauty?"

LOL. In the bible?

You mean stuff like this?

http://www.evilbible.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 12:44:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

Excellent point you make.

And I agree with all of it, and would also add another point that furthers your idea of what a trifling sacrifice Jesus' alleged Passion really was, in the grand scheme of things.

And it is this: that it was actually all orchestrated by Jesus. He know full well, riding into Jerusalem on his donkey that day for the Passover celebration, what was going to happen. He even mentioned it to his disciples.

So, basically, his crucifixion was the culmination--nee, the achievement--of a PLAN, an AGENDA, that he and his dad cooked-up.

Poor Christians. Science and logic just continue to mercilessly hack away at their dogma to the point that thee is so little of it left that is worth anything.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 12:51:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 12:44:19 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?



Excellent point you make.

And I agree with all of it, and would also add another point that furthers your idea of what a trifling sacrifice Jesus' alleged Passion really was, in the grand scheme of things.

And it is this: that it was actually all orchestrated by Jesus. He know full well, riding into Jerusalem on his donkey that day for the Passover celebration, what was going to happen. He even mentioned it to his disciples.

So, basically, his crucifixion was the culmination--nee, the achievement--of a PLAN, an AGENDA, that he and his dad cooked-up.

This is a point I considered adding, originally. However, stating it assumes the veracity of the bible, and I cannot bring myself to do this...

Poor Christians. Science and logic just continue to mercilessly hack away at their dogma to the point that thee is so little of it left that is worth anything.

I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson's estimation, above all others: "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:03:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
^^^^^^^^^^ thanks for the Tyson quote. I will use it in the future. Probably right here at DDO when debating with Christians and Muslims. LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:52:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:03:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^ thanks for the Tyson quote. I will use it in the future. Probably right here at DDO when debating with Christians and Muslims. LOL

My pleasure!
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 5:34:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 7:37:17 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/28/2015 5:49:28 PM, Serato wrote:
If the Bible were nothing more than a pile of trash, as your despising ignorance would say, then why with a world with a million writers are good books not as common as the idiots insulting the greatest book ever assembled? In this is the miracle. We feel no hallowed presences to anything other than the Bible.

Because so many stunted minds are willing to accept the absolutely ridiculous, on faith. There is no miracle. The god within its pages does not exist, and its compilation (at the hands of the catholic church) was the greatest atrocity the mystics ever perpetrated against humanity. And there are HUNDREDS of millions who "feel hallowed presences" to other books, as well as that trash. They are equally deluded, in the learned opinions of those who THINK.

Try it! Attempt to tell a story to mimic the liquid eloquence of such moral simplicity, and you will inevitably fail.

Liquid eloquence? The bible Fails. Moral simplicity? The bible Fails. Aesop's Fables tells far better stories with far better and more consistent morality.

Yet more advantages have you, such as advancements to writing technology, as computers with a spellchecker, and many other advantages, yet you and I and everyone writes as children compared to the best selling book of all time.

No, we don't. We write as geniuses, compared to such falsehood, error, and vicious atrocities (of which the authors appear to be proud).

You are a fool to insult something written to superior fashion over the intellectual impediments hindering your understandings.

Nothing impedes my understanding. I have read it, cover to cover, and understand that it is quite worthless. Even the greatest teaching within its pages (the Ethic of Reciprocity) is not original to the author of the book. The Ethic of Reciprocity predates the bible by several centuries, and the bible is not required, for its understanding or implementation. The deity-commanded behavior betrays and violates the very morals and commandments within it, and the sickness of the doctrine of "vicarious redemption" is laid bare, in its worthlessness. All that is required is a touch of reason, and a smattering of logic, and even those of feeble understanding and cognitive capacity can view the worthlessness of that which is portrayed as the greatest of all "loving" acts.

I could say more but you're too far gone at this juncture to your life. The honest truth is, is that you've been subconsciously and consciously manipulated through a variety of outlets. Get some help. Start" thinking for yourself. Good luck.

Thinking for myself is what caused me to drop the biblical garbage I had been spoon-fed all my life. Thinking for myself is what drove me away from christianity. I have not been "manipulated." The only people being "manipulated" are those that accept ANY "holy" text, based on faith, and the interpretations of the mystics who claim to speak on behalf of a non-existent deity. I don't need luck, but it appears that you, who have drunk the "kool-aid" need it, desperately.

Your cattled determinations may think as ends to predicates of originality, but freed from the infinitude of barbed invisible fencing (?) no, you're slopping from the community troughs placed before your snout. Your ideas are not free ranging. You're mooing from the artificial insurance of the cozy insides of barn doors; confiding hereby to be slaughtered, you're simply another cow grazing amongst the pacified herds of society. So you cannot hear what I can say. Yet truly I say, it is you in whom free will is reined inspiringly, unknowingly, as higher a society you cannot see, yet they see your ego and knows always its castle it craves endlessly for new marbles.

This society everywhere sits wily to conspiracy. While evolution to all particulars its greatest lie so high no skies its limit, this is where I'd begin to reground your education. I'd absolve you to yourself some truths, as these truths told but unheard to the conformist. Be not afraid, yet wholly profane the world lashes with a bitter face, to the nonconformist. So become again as an infant, as an infant conforms to nobody. As is the Bible, the mind of an infant is also pure in heart.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

Whoso expounds now the Truth, asks for Truth, shall begin now to revere above all travesties to truths told alike as lies, shall then speak within the dwelling intuitions to the soul. As now one key opens a door, as two keys given opens more, as one more becomes ultimately three. Therein this the trinity to me becomes this to you the goal, becomes this to you and I as the predominations to life; and to all those that still strife, I promise, never is there an expiration to our faith.
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 5:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 12:38:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/28/2015 5:49:28 PM, Serato wrote:
If the Bible were nothing more than a pile of trash, as your despising ignorance would say, then why with a world with a million writers are good books not as common as the idiots insulting the greatest book ever assembled? In this is the miracle. We feel no hallowed presences to anything other than the Bible.

Try it! Attempt to tell a story to mimic the liquid eloquence of such moral simplicity, and you will inevitably fail. Yet more advantages have you, such as advancements to writing technology, as computers with a spellchecker, and many other advantages, yet you and I and everyone writes as children compared to the best selling book of all time.

You are a fool to insult something written to superior fashion over the intellectual impediments hindering your understandings. I could say more but you're too far gone at this juncture to your life. The honest truth is, is that you've been subconsciously and consciously manipulated through a variety of outlets. Get some help. Start" thinking for yourself. Good luck.

"Elegance? Morality? Beauty?"

LOL. In the bible?

You mean stuff like this?

http://www.evilbible.com...

Before I respond to you, would you please post something of disfavor from the NT Bible. I'll address those, if anything these misunderstanding ignorances. And then we'll talk about its necessity and how it became possible to be written. There is much to say, and my time here is becoming short, but I will help you if I can.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 6:10:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:03:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^ thanks for the Tyson quote. I will use it in the future. Probably right here at DDO when debating with Christians and Muslims. LOL

How about something more original? God is not going anywhere lol, actually we will see the opposite in the future, and not that far off. (All the atheists squeal)
There is nothing that is shrinking about the concept of God, just because the little pack of modern day atheists is gaining a few zombies means and does nothing about the legitimateness of God. Sorry to break it to ya, but spirituality is gonna topple right over all of them and that is because spirit is truth, you can't eliminate the truth it will prevail.

And don't be so hasty to get rid of God, you may not like what replaces Him, you may be quite surprised.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

Well, how much something means to someone depends on their preference. Christ could have "sacrificed" some things if he actually did mind dying.
You can call me Mark if you like.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 6:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 6:10:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:03:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^ thanks for the Tyson quote. I will use it in the future. Probably right here at DDO when debating with Christians and Muslims. LOL

How about something more original? God is not going anywhere lol, actually we will see the opposite in the future, and not that far off. (All the atheists squeal)
There is nothing that is shrinking about the concept of God, just because the little pack of modern day atheists is gaining a few zombies means and does nothing about the legitimateness of God. Sorry to break it to ya, but spirituality is gonna topple right over all of them and that is because spirit is truth, you can't eliminate the truth it will prevail.

And don't be so hasty to get rid of God, you may not like what replaces Him, you may be quite surprised.

But if I'm wrong to assume that's what you're thinking I apologize lol, I don't really want to put words in your mouth so I take this back if I was wrong.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 6:59:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

Only one of the three persons died, correct. This death was not spiritual (as you seem to mistakenly believe), but was bodily death. Jesus (The Son) did not cease to exist - he just ceased to be alive in bodily form. In terms of sacrifice, it's fairly obvious what was sacrificed if you actually read the Bible. Jesus (The Son) was forsaken by God (The Father) and bore the weight of all sin. That in and of itself constitutes a fairly significant sacrifice. There's also the fact that, as fully human, he felt all the pain of crucifixion (a very painful way to die) and, being fully God, lived his entire human life knowing of this fate.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

Once again, Jesus did not cease to exist. That's nonsense no one anywhere would get from any basic understanding of scripture or theology.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

I doubt you've actually read the Bible, or at least the gospels. Jesus was both fully Man and fully God. Due to the sin of Adam and Eve, the whole world is affected by sin; being sinless yourself does not stop that. He did indeed feel pain and was indeed fully part of the world. For example, his body failed him to the point he was unable to speak his final words without accepting a vinegar drink.

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

see earlier.

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

You lack any basic understanding of scripture or Christian theology. It does not surprise me, then, that your entire argument is ridiculous.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:44:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 5:34:34 PM, Serato wrote:

Thinking for myself is what caused me to drop the biblical garbage I had been spoon-fed all my life. Thinking for myself is what drove me away from christianity. I have not been "manipulated." The only people being "manipulated" are those that accept ANY "holy" text, based on faith, and the interpretations of the mystics who claim to speak on behalf of a non-existent deity. I don't need luck, but it appears that you, who have drunk the "kool-aid" need it, desperately.

Your cattled determinations may think as ends to predicates of originality, but freed from the infinitude of barbed invisible fencing (?) no, you're slopping from the community troughs placed before your snout. Your ideas are not free ranging. You're mooing from the artificial insurance of the cozy insides of barn doors; confiding hereby to be slaughtered, you're simply another cow grazing amongst the pacified herds of society. So you cannot hear what I can say. Yet truly I say, it is you in whom free will is reined inspiringly, unknowingly, as higher a society you cannot see, yet they see your ego and knows always its castle it craves endlessly for new marbles.

The "herds" believe the religious pabulum... I hear what you say. It is simply unimportant to me, while you try to sound overly enlightened (and fail). You try to speak esoterically, piping in "new and improved" metaphors, slightly more eloquently spoken than your fellow delusional colleagues, but you fail to achieve your intended purpose of sounding superior. Your pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble is a thin veneer of "ten dollar words" attempting in vain to cover the fact that you have thrown many words at the text editor of the interwebs and what you said adds up to a cumulative sum total of ZERO.

This society everywhere sits wily to conspiracy. While evolution to all particulars its greatest lie so high no skies its limit, this is where I'd begin to reground your education. I'd absolve you to yourself some truths, as these truths told but unheard to the conformist. Be not afraid, yet wholly profane the world lashes with a bitter face, to the nonconformist. So become again as an infant, as an infant conforms to nobody. As is the Bible, the mind of an infant is also pure in heart.

You have no means of "educating," given that the information you seek to share is of no practical value. While you might someday make an accomplished poet, you are certainly out of place within earshot of the Ivory Tower. The infancy of which you babble is best suited to the acceptance of biblical garbage, given that only the naive mind, hungry for intellectual substance, will accept anything from those it trusts to feed it. Once capable of formulating its own intellectual extrapolations of truth from the curious inquiries that have come before it, your "spiritual" jargon falls away from it like the dead or dying foliage from autumn tree branches. Neither you nor any of your psychologically stunted fellow believers who venerate intellectual laziness have anything of value with which to conduct yourselves in a manner befitting free thinking individualists.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity. Again, I must remind you that word count does not equate to thought quality, and syllable count does not equate to intellectual veracity. I lost faith, yes. What I gained, in exchange, was a hunger for reality, and thirst for intellectual honesty, and a passion for the rigorous adherence to knowledge of significant value. Lacking the room for such things as a theistic believer, the unwaivering ignorance of tenacious faith had to be purged in order to accommodate that which would ultimately supersede the rigor mortis of the mind, caused by superstitious faith, and blind adherence to the deceptive eloquence of flowery words, devoid of practical value, completely empty, once dissected with the scalpel of rational inquiry.

Whoso expounds now the Truth, asks for Truth, shall begin now to revere above all travesties to truths told alike as lies, shall then speak within the dwelling intuitions to the soul. As now one key opens a door, as two keys given opens more, as one more becomes ultimately three. Therein this the trinity to me becomes this to you the goal, becomes this to you and I as the predominations to life; and to all those that still strife, I promise, never is there an expiration to our faith.

Perhaps you should concentrate less on stringing together tons of esoteric-sounding, polysyllabic words, and a little more on making simplicity your goal, where each word (a concept of its own) has greater value, conveys a greater significance, and leaves the reader fulfilled, rather than exasperated. In short, you used a lot of words to sound poetic and "fluffy." In the end, you have actually said absolutely nothing. It is expected that you will return with the assertion that I was simply incapable of understanding, and make some diminutive allegation about my reading comprehension or "spiritual understanding." Those empty accusations, as well, will fall on the deaf ears that fill a mind infinitely superior to your own.

I know your attempts at sounding superior have likely left you spent and weary. Rest, now, child. Try again, when you are refreshed and have less burden on your mind. Your intellectual challenges are best reserved for people with smaller vocabularies and eloquence inferior to your own. I am not among them.

Faith is what is left when intellectual failure refuses to start anew any worthy pursuit. It is that which becomes paramount, when laziness is superimposed upon a weak thought process. It is the only substitute available to those who prefer to be led, than to exist in a manner of their own choosing. Run, now... follow the mystics into the "land of milk and honey." For it is only there that your abdication of the individual responsibility for accountable thought might be rewarded with accolades, perpetually thrust upon the undeserving, in exchange for a petulant and stubborn insistence upon the divine authority of delusional fantasy.

Peace.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:49:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 6:11:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

Well, how much something means to someone depends on their preference. Christ could have "sacrificed" some things if he actually did mind dying.

Honestly, how much would you mind "dying," for the amount of time it takes for you to blink, if you knew that you would be alive, in the following instant? If the "christ" actually minded, I can see only a fleeting resistance, granted the foreknowledge that "death" would not be permanent, and that nothing would ever have been actually "sacrificed." It is not a sacrifice, when you get it right back, knowing that you would never be without it long enough to miss it. Honestly, can you tell me anything that was actually "sacrificed," or are you simply attempting to argue for the sake of defending a desired position?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:06:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 6:59:33 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

Only one of the three persons died, correct. This death was not spiritual (as you seem to mistakenly believe), but was bodily death.

No, I am fully aware of the fact that it was a physical death. Since I don't believe in the "spiritual," and none among believers seems to be able to define it, it is an insignificant descriptor. For an eternal being, what is three days, compared to the billions of (Earth) years it had supposedly lived prior, or even the thousands of years that have passed since the telling of this tale?

Jesus (The Son) did not cease to exist - he just ceased to be alive in bodily form.

Understood. This makes the "death" nothing but metaphorical, and therefore eliminates any concept of sacrifice.

In terms of sacrifice, it's fairly obvious what was sacrificed if you actually read the Bible.

I have read the bible. It is obvious what was sacrificed: Nothing.

Jesus (The Son) was forsaken by God (The Father) and bore the weight of all sin.

If the "son" was "forsaken," why was he resurrected (according to the mythical tale)?

That in and of itself constitutes a fairly significant sacrifice.

Only if it had not been returned, IMMEDIATELY.

There's also the fact that, as fully human, he felt all the pain of crucifixion (a very painful way to die) and, being fully God, lived his entire human life knowing of this fate.

Sorry, no. If he was "perfect," he would have felt no pain. Adam and Eve, according to the myth, did not even begin to feel pain until their perfection was withdrawn. You may not redefine at leisure and convenience, in order to justify a conflicting concept. Either he was "perfect," or he felt pain. The two are (biblically speaking) mutually exclusive.

In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

Once again, Jesus did not cease to exist. That's nonsense no one anywhere would get from any basic understanding of scripture or theology.

That is the way it is presented. It's funny that reinterpretation has to happen at every turn, in order for your precious book of myths to make sense, and remain coherent...

In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

I doubt you've actually read the Bible, or at least the gospels.

You may doubt it all you wish. I have read it, more than once. I still read parts of it, today.

Jesus was both fully Man and fully God.

Like "fully alive and fully dead?" Or like fully sighted and fully blind? Or like fully awake and fully asleep? Or like fully real and fully fictional? I get the concept you are attempting to convey. It is an inherent paradox, and I reject it. The "christ" was not "fully man and fully god." The "christ" was a made up legend. Nothing more.

Due to the sin of Adam and Eve, the whole world is affected by sin; being sinless yourself does not stop that.

You may accept that. I do not. Sin is a useless concept.

He did indeed feel pain and was indeed fully part of the world.

Then he was not perfect.

For example, his body failed him to the point he was unable to speak his final words without accepting a vinegar drink.

Meaningless and useless "information."

Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

see earlier.

Wow... how profound!

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

You lack any basic understanding of scripture or Christian theology.

What I lack is not "understanding," but ACCEPTANCE. What I lack is blindness and the faith that only naive blindness can produce. Typical theist response: Accuse the detractor of failing to understand whenever a retarded concept is either rejected or disproved.

It does not surprise me, then, that your entire argument is ridiculous.

My entire argument is only ridiculous to those that are incapable of grasping that which is painfully obvious to any rational being.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:30:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:44:30 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/29/2015 5:34:34 PM, Serato wrote:

Thinking for myself is what caused me to drop the biblical garbage I had been spoon-fed all my life. Thinking for myself is what drove me away from christianity. I have not been "manipulated." The only people being "manipulated" are those that accept ANY "holy" text, based on faith, and the interpretations of the mystics who claim to speak on behalf of a non-existent deity. I don't need luck, but it appears that you, who have drunk the "kool-aid" need it, desperately.

Your cattled determinations may think as ends to predicates of originality, but freed from the infinitude of barbed invisible fencing (?) no, you're slopping from the community troughs placed before your snout. Your ideas are not free ranging. You're mooing from the artificial insurance of the cozy insides of barn doors; confiding hereby to be slaughtered, you're simply another cow grazing amongst the pacified herds of society. So you cannot hear what I can say. Yet truly I say, it is you in whom free will is reined inspiringly, unknowingly, as higher a society you cannot see, yet they see your ego and knows always its castle it craves endlessly for new marbles.

The "herds" believe the religious pabulum... I hear what you say. It is simply unimportant to me, while you try to sound overly enlightened (and fail). You try to speak esoterically, piping in "new and improved" metaphors, slightly more eloquently spoken than your fellow delusional colleagues, but you fail to achieve your intended purpose of sounding superior. Your pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble is a thin veneer of "ten dollar words" attempting in vain to cover the fact that you have thrown many words at the text editor of the interwebs and what you said adds up to a cumulative sum total of ZERO.

Then I'll speak brief. The sum total of that paragraph does add up to something. It says you've been brainwashed. Nobody knows they've been brainwashed, because then they would not be brainwashed. You think you know something, but what you know is his-story, and what you see and hear is their vision, as they tell-a-vision, with their "programing". You are brainwashed.

This society everywhere sits wily to conspiracy. While evolution to all particulars its greatest lie so high no skies its limit, this is where I'd begin to reground your education. I'd absolve you to yourself some truths, as these truths told but unheard to the conformist. Be not afraid, yet wholly profane the world lashes with a bitter face, to the nonconformist. So become again as an infant, as an infant conforms to nobody. As is the Bible, the mind of an infant is also pure in heart.

You have no means of "educating," given that the information you seek to share is of no practical value. While you might someday make an accomplished poet, you are certainly out of place within earshot of the Ivory Tower. The infancy of which you babble is best suited to the acceptance of biblical garbage, given that only the naive mind, hungry for intellectual substance, will accept anything from those it trusts to feed it. Once capable of formulating its own intellectual extrapolations of truth from the curious inquiries that have come before it, your "spiritual" jargon falls away from it like the dead or dying foliage from autumn tree branches. Neither you nor any of your psychologically stunted fellow believers who venerate intellectual laziness have anything of value with which to conduct yourselves in a manner befitting free thinking individualists.

If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species. I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

Again, I must remind you that word count does not equate to thought quality, and syllable count does not equate to intellectual veracity. I lost faith, yes.

Of course you lost faith. Jesus said you would lose faith because He knew of all the brainwashing to follow. Much of what Jesus spoke to the apostles, was not for their time, or their benefits, it was for the future; it was for now.

What I gained, in exchange, was a hunger for reality, and thirst for intellectual honesty, and a passion for the rigorous adherence to knowledge of significant value.

If you truly wish for intellectual honestly, well I c

Lacking the room for such things as a theistic believer, the unwaivering ignorance of tenacious faith had to be purged in order to accommodate that which would ultimately supersede the rigor mortis of the mind, caused by superstitious faith, and blind adherence to the deceptive eloquence of flowery words, devoid of practical value, completely empty, once dissected with the scalpel of rational inquiry.

Whoso expounds now the Truth, asks for Truth, shall begin now to revere above all travesties to truths told alike as lies, shall then speak within the dwelling intuitions to the soul. As now one key opens a door, as two keys given opens more, as one more becomes ultimately three. Therein this the trinity to me becomes this to you the goal, becomes this to you and I as the predominations to life; and to all those that still strife, I promise, never is there an expiration to our faith.

Perhaps you should concentrate less on stringing together tons of esoteric-sounding, polysyllabic words, and a little more on making simplicity your goal, where each word (a concept of its own) has greater value, conveys a greater significance, and leaves the reader fulfilled, rather than exasperated. In short, you used a lot of words to sound poetic and "fluffy." In the end, you have actually said absolutely nothing. It is expected that you will return with the assertion that I was simply incapable of understanding, and make some diminutive allegation about my reading comprehension or "spiritual understanding." Those empty accusations, as well, will fall on the deaf ears that fill a mind infinitely superior to your own.

I know your attempts at sounding superior have likely left you spent and weary. Rest, now, child. Try again, when you are refreshed and have less burden on your mind. Your intellectual challenges are best reserved for people with smaller vocabularies and eloquence inferior to your own. I am not among them.

Faith is what is left when intellectual failure refuses to start anew any worthy pursuit. It is that which becomes paramount, when laziness is superimposed upon a weak thought process. It is the only substitute available to those who prefer to be led, than to exist in a manner of their own choosing. Run, now... follow the mystics into the "land of milk and honey." For it is only there that your abdication of the individual responsibility for accountable thought might be rewarded with accolades, perpetually thrust upon the undeserving, in exchange for a petulant and stubborn insistence upon the divine author
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species. I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.

Your criteria sounds an awful lot like measuring 4 inches without including 1, 2, or 3.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

I wasn't aware that the OT ceased existing as a means of Biblical testimony, or that His will was not constant. Else, why would there be a need for an OT/NT line in the sand?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 1:05:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:40:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species. I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.

Your criteria sounds an awful lot like measuring 4 inches without including 1, 2, or 3.

I get what you're saying. You wish to call evolution a scientific fact that takes more than faith to believe millions of years, from fossil to fossil, adding the ones and two's and three's, while many of these fossils are doctored and fake, and take enormous imagination to construct their appearance from fragments of lies. But let's go ahead and make up a story that says fossil x had sex with another fossil x, and out popped a baby fossil B. And while we're living in the land of imagination, let's call this scientific fact and just ignore its true definition, consisting of observable evidence that can be tested. And when we test legitimate fossils, let's pretend the carbon dating proves they're no older than 100,000 years. C'mon now, I can go on and on with this and that. Evolution is a lie, and the Bible explains why there are those seeking to brainwash you.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

I wasn't aware that the OT ceased existing as a means of Biblical testimony, or that His will was not constant. Else, why would there be a need for an OT/NT line in the sand?

There is an order to things for you to understand things. First learn the truth to evolution, and then we can discuss something complex.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 1:08:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 1:05:24 AM, Serato wrote:
At 5/30/2015 12:40:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species. I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.


Your criteria sounds an awful lot like measuring 4 inches without including 1, 2, or 3.

I get what you're saying. You wish to call evolution a scientific fact that takes more than faith to believe millions of years, from fossil to fossil, adding the ones and two's and three's, while many of these fossils are doctored and fake, and take enormous imagination to construct their appearance from fragments of lies. But let's go ahead and make up a story that says fossil x had sex with another fossil x, and out popped a baby fossil B. And while we're living in the land of imagination, let's call this scientific fact and just ignore its true definition, consisting of observable evidence that can be tested. And when we test legitimate fossils, let's pretend the carbon dating proves they're no older than 100,000 years. C'mon now, I can go on and on with this and that. Evolution is a lie, and the Bible explains why there are those seeking to brainwash you.

I call Poe's law on this one.


The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

I wasn't aware that the OT ceased existing as a means of Biblical testimony, or that His will was not constant. Else, why would there be a need for an OT/NT line in the sand?

There is an order to things for you to understand things. First learn the truth to evolution, and then we can discuss something complex.

Your dodge is noted.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 1:24:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 1:08:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/30/2015 1:05:24 AM, Serato wrote:
At 5/30/2015 12:40:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species. I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.


Your criteria sounds an awful lot like measuring 4 inches without including 1, 2, or 3.

I get what you're saying. You wish to call evolution a scientific fact that takes more than faith to believe millions of years, from fossil to fossil, adding the ones and two's and three's, while many of these fossils are doctored and fake, and take enormous imagination to construct their appearance from fragments of lies. But let's go ahead and make up a story that says fossil x had sex with another fossil x, and out popped a baby fossil B. And while we're living in the land of imagination, let's call this scientific fact and just ignore its true definition, consisting of observable evidence that can be tested. And when we test legitimate fossils, let's pretend the carbon dating proves they're no older than 100,000 years. C'mon now, I can go on and on with this and that. Evolution is a lie, and the Bible explains why there are those seeking to brainwash you.

I call Poe's law on this one.


The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

I wasn't aware that the OT ceased existing as a means of Biblical testimony, or that His will was not constant. Else, why would there be a need for an OT/NT line in the sand?

There is an order to things for you to understand things. First learn the truth to evolution, and then we can discuss something complex.

Your dodge is noted.

No dodge. I'm pecking away on a cell phone, and my answer will be something of extraordinary nature. I'm about to turn out the lights and get some rest. There are conspiracies everywhere, and if you cannot understand something simple as the lies to evolution, I'd rather not waste time. You must pass a simple IQ test first. First understand the truth to evolution, because it's related in a rounding way. So one conversation at a time. If you cannot provide proof of evolution, then please list specific fossils for examination. When they are found, they are given a file name. Many are proven fakes to fill fraudulently evolutionary gaps. And that should tell you something. It says they're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, they are concocting these lies for a purpose, and this purpose is religious in nature. There is always an ongoing war of information, and the public is the victim. I'm out. Check back tomorrow.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 1:32:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No dodge. I'm pecking away on a cell phone, and my answer will be something of extraordinary nature. I'm about to turn out the lights and get some rest. There are conspiracies everywhere, and if you cannot understand something simple as the lies to evolution, I'd rather not waste time. You must pass a simple IQ test first. First understand the truth to evolution, because it's related in a rounding way. So one conversation at a time. If you cannot provide proof of evolution, then please list specific fossils for examination.

I would, but you previously discredited many fossils as doctored or a hoax, which makes me wonder exactly why some one is going around in my back yard faking a variety of various sized fossil and fossil remnants. It makes me wonder why some one is planting shark's teeth in the fresh water springs around my state. I am sure you have an answer for that, though.

When they are found, they are given a file name. Many are proven fakes to fill fraudulently evolutionary gaps. And that should tell you something. It says they're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, they are concocting these lies for a purpose, and this purpose is religious in nature.

"They"?

There is always an ongoing war of information, and the public is the victim. I'm out. Check back tomorrow.

You can imagine I am waiting with baited breath. I also look forward to how you plan to exclude what no doubt will be a series of well vested and credible arguments with the same lens that you... to put it politely, "misrepresent" other aspects of scientific record.

"consisting of observable evidence that can be tested". I am sure we can exclude anachronistic accounts of "that thing that guy once said or saw", right?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:30:10 AM, Serato wrote:

Then I'll speak brief. The sum total of that paragraph does add up to something. It says you've been brainwashed.

And that assessment would be completely incorrect. The only brainwashing that has happened, in my life, is the brainwashing that occurred prior to my learning to think for myself. That would be the christian inculcation into the deluded beliefs that the bible is anything more than garbage.

Nobody knows they've been brainwashed, because then they would not be brainwashed.

Painfully obvious. Any dime store psychologist could have nailed that one...

You think you know something, but what you know is his-story, and what you see and hear is their vision, as they tell-a-vision, with their "programing". You are brainwashed.

Catch phrases are useless, unless one is joining a cult. Who is it that you believe has "brainwashed" me?

If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution.

You can look up the Italian Wall Lizard, and see the evolutionary adaptation of a species to new environs, and the changes that have occurred in its physiology in order to survive in a locale where its primary food source changed. This happened over the course of less than two decades...

Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species.

To my knowledge, we have not been witness to a "brand new species" as a result of evolution since the introduction of the theory of evolution. What does that matter?

I will win this debate.

What debate?

I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand.

Oh, I see... You're an even MORE pompous version of Ethang5... You believe yourself to be that well informed about the universe, do you? Your "GodDidIt" theory trumps everything, does it? You declare yourself the "winner" of a debate that hasn't even happened, and pat yourself on the back for your egocentric triumph rather easily, there, sport.

There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.

Again, you render poetic, say very little, and substantiate nothing. What process, what lies, and what truths are there of which you speak (more accurately, to which you allude)?

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

The bible is ripe with moral hypocrisy that subjugates always the WEAK mind, no matter the depth of its depravity.

I challenge you show provide one example of New Testament hypocrisy.

Why, specifically, do you insist that it be "New Testament?" The bible is the bible. You either take it in its entirety, or you shut your mouth. However, just to stuff a sock in it, for you, the "christ" gives a commandment that one love even their enemies. He also espouses the owning of slaves. Slavery is antithetical to love. There is no way you will ever be able to morally justify slavery, to me (or anyone else with a brain stem.). There's your NT hypocrisy, just for a start...

Again, I must remind you that word count does not equate to thought quality, and syllable count does not equate to intellectual veracity. I lost faith, yes.

Of course you lost faith. Jesus said you would lose faith because He knew of all the brainwashing to follow. Much of what Jesus spoke to the apostles, was not for their time, or their benefits, it was for the future; it was for now.

What I gained, in exchange, was a hunger for reality, and thirst for intellectual honesty, and a passion for the rigorous adherence to knowledge of significant value.

If you truly wish for intellectual honestly, well I c

You were, apparently, not paying attention, here... Furthermore, I will enlighten you about this site: If you delete the colon at the beginning of a line, you alter the quotation chronology.

Lacking the room for such things as a theistic believer, the unwaivering ignorance of tenacious faith had to be purged in order to accommodate that which would ultimately supersede the rigor mortis of the mind, caused by superstitious faith, and blind adherence to the deceptive eloquence of flowery words, devoid of practical value, completely empty, once dissected with the scalpel of rational inquiry.

Whoso expounds now the Truth, asks for Truth, shall begin now to revere above all travesties to truths told alike as lies, shall then speak within the dwelling intuitions to the soul. As now one key opens a door, as two keys given opens more, as one more becomes ultimately three. Therein this the trinity to me becomes this to you the goal, becomes this to you and I as the predominations to life; and to all those that still strife, I promise, never is there an expiration to our faith.

Perhaps you should concentrate less on stringing together tons of esoteric-sounding, polysyllabic words, and a little more on making simplicity your goal, where each word (a concept of its own) has greater value, conveys a greater significance, and leaves the reader fulfilled, rather than exasperated. In short, you used a lot of words to sound poetic and "fluffy." In the end, you have actually said absolutely nothing. It is expected that you will return with the assertion that I was simply incapable of understanding, and make some diminutive allegation about my reading comprehension or "spiritual understanding." Those empty accusations, as well, will fall on the deaf ears that fill a mind infinitely superior to your own.

I know your attempts at sounding superior have likely left you spent and weary. Rest, now, child. Try again, when you are refreshed and have less burden on your mind. Your intellectual challenges are best reserved for people with smaller vocabularies and eloquence inferior to your own. I am not among them.

Faith is what is left when intellectual failure refuses to start anew any worthy pursuit. It is that which becomes paramount, when laziness is superimposed upon a weak thought process. It is the only substitute available to those who prefer to be led, than to exist in a manner of their own choosing. Run, now... follow the mystics into the "land of milk and honey." For it is only there that your abdication of the individual responsibility for accountable thought might be rewarded with accolades, perpetually thrust upon the und
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:09:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."


And as usual, the majority are wrong, and completely against scripture.

Let's assume, for just a moment, that this pile of trash (bible) is true (atheists/agnostics: choke it down for just a minute...). What does this mean, in terms of just how meaningful the "sacrifice" was that the "christ" made...?

In terms of cost:

This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact, Further, if the two that remained intact were actually "one" with the one being "sacrificed," what (if anything) did they actually surrender, in that act? Less than half was actually "sacrificed" in order to "save" humanity, and it amounts to LESS than a willing human "sacrifice," in favor of another human.

The one who did the sacrificing was Jehovah's son, whom scripture describes as the first, and only solo, creation of Jehovah.

His spirit was implanted in the body of Jesus, and at that moment became 100% human.

Since the body of Jesus was a specially produced body, hence the necessity of the virgin birth, his body was identical in nature to that of Adam, before he sinned.

This was essential so that Jehovah's principle of "like for like" justice could be observed.

Because he had such a body, he also possessed, as had Adam before him, the right to eternal human life on earth.

That is what he sacrificed, to balance out the sin of Adam, and remove the curse of Adam's sin from all humanity, when the time is right to do so, and return to humanity the right to eternal life again.

This will happen in the promised resurrection, after Armageddon has purged the earth of all that Satan has caused us to create. When this has been done, the dead will be brought back to life, in bodies such as the Christ, and Adam, possessed, with all the same prospects before them.

That is what scripture describes despite the way Satan has had it corrupted.


In terms of time:

If this "triune" entity has existed since "before time," and continues to exist, today, that would mean that three days to this entity is comparable to a fraction of the time it would take you or I to BLINK. Three days, to this entity, would be NOTHING!!! In scope of comparative experience, the time it takes for us to blink is not an huge sacrifice for any human being to relinquish, in favor of another human life.

Only Jehovah has existed before time. Having said that holy spirit also did, though it was not, is not, and never will be an entity in it's own right.

However you certainly have an approximate grasp of how time is viewed by Jehovah, his son, the angles, and all, like me, who have learned to think of time in that way.

Scripture explains this when it tells us that to Jehovah "one day may be as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day". However, whilst Jehovah observes time in action, and experiences it vicariously, it does not affect him.

Thus a word like "soon" can mean thousands of years, since on the basis that a thousand years is but a day, the almost 2,000 years since Christ, has been like two days to him.


In terms of perfection/feeling:

Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?

I don;t know where you got the idea that perfect beings did not feel pain, it is certainly not a scriptural concept.

There should have been nothing to cause them emotional or mental pain, had they remained faithful, but a stubbed toe would still feel like a stubbed toe, it is simply a part of the warning system built into the bodies of humans and animals alike.

Adam and Eve, and therefore Christ also did not possess absolute perfection, nor were they intended to, in fact the word "perfection" when applied top all of Jehovah's creation should be viewed in one of it's alternate meanings "complete". In that they lacked nothing they needed.

It could also be said that they were "perfect for purpose".


Adding it all up:

If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death." And this is the act that is responsible for wiping out all sins ever committed by the whole of humanity?!

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

How many of you theists out there would even hesitate to have your finger pricked, if you were guaranteed that you would not even feel it, that healing of that finger prick would be INSTANTANEOUS, and that you would live in criminal luxury for the rest of your life, as a result? How is this act, in the face of these fact, even remotely meaningful? What did the "christ" actually "sacrifice," in favor of humanity?

NOTHING

Even if all of the superstitious fantasy contained within the bible is believed, it doesn't take any "love" to do what the "christ" did. If he was even just HUMAN, was the "sacrifice" described in the NT really even any "big deal?" What is the big hoopla, regarding the surrender of something that is so fleeting, so temporary, so superficial, and so incomplete as to amount to absolute INSIGNIFICANCE? I know the things I would be willing to suffer, on behalf of those I love. I'm realistic about the things that I would willingly surrender, on behalf of those I love. By comparison, the "sacrifice" made by the "christ," is actually quite mind-numbingly trivial.

Thoughts?

There is only one thought that it is possible;e to have. You have completely misunderstood most of what you have read, and have spent too much time listening to those who distort what the bible really teaches, rather than teaching the truth from it, as I, and the JWs do, May Jehovah be praised for the help he gives us.

Just because Apostate Christianity is a major force, despite now being divided into some 3,000 groups, and has been since the end of the 1st century, does not make it worth listening to.

Only Jehovah, Christ, and the Apostles are worthy of our consideration, as any moderately mature JW will tell, and show, any who ask.

Simple as.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:09:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:06:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I am fully aware of the fact that it was a physical death. Since I don't believe in the "spiritual," and none among believers seems to be able to define it, it is an insignificant descriptor. For an eternal being, what is three days, compared to the billions of (Earth) years it had supposedly lived prior, or even the thousands of years that have passed since the telling of this tale?

So, in other words, since you don't believe in something, you choose to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent. Got it. Real intellectually honest of you, "enlightened" atheist.

Understood. This makes the "death" nothing but metaphorical, and therefore eliminates any concept of sacrifice.

No, it does not, as explained earlier.

I have read the bible. It is obvious what was sacrificed: Nothing.

From your arguments, I doubt that. And saying something over and over does not repeat it.

If the "son" was "forsaken," why was he resurrected (according to the mythical tale)?

1. He was resurrected as the first fruit of mankind. In Leviticus, Israel could not harvest crops until they brought the first fruits to the priest to sacrifice to God. In the same way, mankind now can find forgiveness with God as Jesus was sacrificed to open the way.
2. It confirms his deity in two ways: from fulfilling what he told his disciples, and accomplishing a feat that is not humanly possible.

That in and of itself constitutes a fairly significant sacrifice.

Only if it had not been returned, IMMEDIATELY.

When has any Christian theologian even made 'length of death' an issue? That's an issue you imagine to be one when no Christian ever claims his sacrifice was great because he died. Dying in and of itself is not really that significant. It's how, why, and when he died, as well as who his death redeems, that is significant.

There's also the fact that, as fully human, he felt all the pain of crucifixion (a very painful way to die) and, being fully God, lived his entire human life knowing of this fate.

Sorry, no. If he was "perfect," he would have felt no pain. Adam and Eve, according to the myth, did not even begin to feel pain until their perfection was withdrawn. You may not redefine at leisure and convenience, in order to justify a conflicting concept. Either he was "perfect," or he felt pain. The two are (biblically speaking) mutually exclusive.

Classic straw man. You are using your wrong logic to disprove a claim no Christian makes. The exemption of Jesus from sin (which, depending on if you are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant can be from the Immaculate Conception, doctrine of original sin, or idea of ancestral sin) did not change the fact that he was fully human and, as consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve, was subject to the same pains we all face. The Bible itself notes the pains he went through. Your imaginary complaint is utter nonsense.

Once again, Jesus did not cease to exist. That's nonsense no one anywhere would get from any basic understanding of scripture or theology.

That is the way it is presented. It's funny that reinterpretation has to happen at every turn, in order for your precious book of myths to make sense, and remain coherent...

Interpretation happens with literally anything.

I doubt you've actually read the Bible, or at least the gospels.

You may doubt it all you wish. I have read it, more than once. I still read parts of it, today.

You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of it, so I doubt it. Disliking the Bible and not understanding it are not one and the same.

Jesus was both fully Man and fully God.

Like "fully alive and fully dead?" Or like fully sighted and fully blind? Or like fully awake and fully asleep? Or like fully real and fully fictional? I get the concept you are attempting to convey. It is an inherent paradox, and I reject it. The "christ" was not "fully man and fully god." The "christ" was a made up legend. Nothing more.

It is a paradox, and is difficult to comprehend. That is what makes it so impressive.

You may accept that. I do not. Sin is a useless concept.

That's fine for you to do. However, if you are trying to refute something, using your false logic and misinterpretations to do so gets you absolutely nowhere. If you were formally debating a halfway decent apologist, they would demolish your arguments. You fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and hence your arguments refuting it are worthless. Any good apologist of any religion (be it Christianity, Islam, or irreligion) understands the religion they seek to refute, and you do not.

Then he was not perfect.

See above.

For example, his body failed him to the point he was unable to speak his final words without accepting a vinegar drink.

Meaningless and useless "information."

How is that "useless"? It demonstrably demonstrates your argument is wrong. By the internal logic of the Bible (which you attempt to refute), Jesus felt pain and was afflicted with what humans are afflicted with. Ergo, your argument he could not feel pain is wrong.

With all of these things considered, together, how is the "sacrifice" even remotely MEANINGFUL, in any way that an human being would not be willing to commit? With the heroism that humans have displayed in countless cases where perfect strangers have laid down their lives, actually FELT PAIN in doing so, without getting their lives back (virtually instantaneously), how is this story supposed to be moving, in any significant way?

see earlier.

Wow... how profound!

I know, my arguments earlier were quite profound. I'm sorry you don't seem able to comprehend them.

You lack any basic understanding of scripture or Christian theology.

What I lack is not "understanding," but ACCEPTANCE. What I lack is blindness and the faith that only naive blindness can produce. Typical theist response: Accuse the detractor of failing to understand whenever a retarded concept is either rejected or disproved.

No, you lack understanding. You are making dumb arguments that can easily be refuted, with little effort, from the book you seek to refute. Because of that, your attempts to refute it fail outright and are of no value to any serious atheist seeking to rebut Christians. There are substantial issues to debate on (sin, the justness of God, the problem of evil, why hell exists) an you instead think you know more about Christian theology than 2000 years of Christian scholars, when you know basically nothing.

It does not surprise me, then, that your entire argument is ridiculous.

My entire argument is only ridiculous to those that are incapable of grasping that which is painfully obvious to any rational being.

No, it is ridiculous to anyone who has:

A. Read the gospels.
or
B. Has a basic understanding of Christian doctrinal teaching.

Your entire argument is of no value.