How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Vympel]

Strobel was a sceptic at the time of the interview. Why would he lie? He's an intelligent guy, so why assume he was fooled? Why not believe him when he says that what he was showed was logical? The evidence was enough to convince a sceptic. But people seem to think we can disregard his integrity and intelligence by labelling him a fundamentalist now. It's people disregarding the evidence because they don't want it to be true.

Lie? I didn't say that. He's just stupid. And since when does a claim to have once been a skeptic have to do with anything.

Here's your pig thing now:

Again fundamentalists have tried to rescue this. They point to an archaelogical find. The ruins of a small town called Khersa (or Kursa or Kersa) , on the east coast of the Sea of Galilee, that according to Craig Blomberg (quoted in Strobel's Case for Christ) could be the origin of the use of the name Gerasa. This explanation has two problems. Firstly there are no cliffs overhanging the lake in this small town! This would be required for the pigs to jump down from. Secondly as there was a town called Gerasa during the time of Jesus', Mark's use of this term, even if he had meant Khursa, would still imply that he was ignorant of Palestinian geography.

[Vympel]

Reading the text in the original language, taking into accounts the mountainous terrain and probable roads in the region...McRay traced a logical route on the map corresponding precisely with Mark's description.

1- How did the original language support that Jesus travelled through mountains to get to his destination?

2- By what logic does one plot a route that corresponds with Mark's description? Fundamentalist logic. It could've happened this way, therefore it did.

The man is an idiot. "Probable" roads? There were NO SUCH ROADS in the first century between Sidon and the Sea of Galilee.

[Vympel]

God it's late. Will be back ...

[Justforfun000]

I have just one thing to say.

IWOL, IWOL, IWOL

He's impossible. Truly impossible. We will never get through to him because he doesn't understand what the difference is between subjective and objective evidence.

[Coyote]

...I cannot refute the amount of bloodshed that has happened as a result of religion. And of religions, it cannot be denied that Christianity in particular has been quite bloodthirsty. Between Insquisitions and Crusades...[there]... is a good reason to cast a jaded eye on the intent of the faithful.

It can, has been and will be denied. There is a difference between what Christianity and says and what Christians do.

Read again, carefully, the above. Especially the last part of my sentence. You make another claim:

Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group.... So far, the bulk of comments have been ridiculing arguments I have not made and deriding attitudes I do not have.

I am explaining the bias you are up against. Secularist philosophy views religion as the sourve of many of mankind's past evils; it is an image that goes hand-in-hand with the mass of the Faithful. You cannot wish it away, regardless of whether you, personally, have committed these acts or feel misrepresented by them. Believers have an image problem that must be understood when dealing with non-believers. Secular humanists feel that they can argue from a standpoint of moral high ground because they have no mass slaughters or genocides to answer for.

You also state that it is important to make arguments based on objective and factual evidence, but the literalist belief in the Bible As Truth is Faith, not facts. Don't get me wrong, there are some facts in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that every word in the Bible becomes a fact by default. If you are indeed a researcher, don't you see the fallacy of declaring an Absolute Fact in the face of unverifiable evidence? Your statement that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" does nothing to support your pov; something that cannot be verified through "un-falsification" becomes a tautology...

If an atheist murdered a Christan for he beliefs, would all atheists stand condemned as bloodthirsty? Or atheism itself? Only if atheism preached that Christians should be killed.

But here's the dilemma, atheism has not done this whereas religion has. Religion has a displayed track record of intolerance which, despite your (and my own) best wishes, cannot be denied. Any attempt to whitewash this or ignore it is to be acquiescent to it.

Christianity says 'go and make disciples of all nations', rather than kill them. It says 'love thy neighbour', not hate him. It says to repay hatred with kindness, to serve rather than seek to command, to offer ourselves humbly, rather than dictate with pride. Do not condemn Christianity for Christians being cretins.

A difference between words and deeds makes all the difference. Christianity assumes, by staing an intent to convert everyone, that the Christian belief system is superior. Many have been forcibly converted and multitudes killed in the spread of this religion. The religion then claims 'moral superiority'. You are defending murder as morally superior and righteous-- so long as it is done in the name of the Christian cause, do you not see the image problem?

I myself, in modern Christian doctrine relating to the coming of the Messiah, will serve one of two purposes: to convert or die in the final battle of Armageddon, and by these paths I will be little more than a tool to usher in a Christian view of life. This is supposed to be an inspiring and friendly message to me? I am supposed to leap with joy at this prospect? Since I do not want to be a Christian, I will die so that you may get your thousand year Christmas? Explain to me why I am supposed to be cheerful at this prospect.

I would agree that sectarian violence causes a lot of problems... However, such violence is in direct contradiction with the message of the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 speaks out specifically against divisions.

Unfortunately, the evangelical way of avoiding diviions is to force everyone into the same club-- Christianity-- regardless of what they feel about the situation.

[Coyote]

In regards to the Bible being a source of accurate information, Jonathan, I would like to point out that what we can learn from archaeology is only that certain things (places & people) existed, or that certain events took place. Battles, discoveries, rulership changes and crop records are events that are verifiable by outside sources. But the Bible has many events that take place only in the Bible and nowehere else, such as the use of magic horns to blast the walls of Jericho. No other source reports the use of this wonder weapon.

But as for the veracity of the Bible, there are some oddities, and here I would like to paraphrase some posts I made before in other debates involving "Biblical Perfection". Bear in mind that the personage of Jesus (who exists as a historical figure, at least) as the Messiah rests on Hebrew prophesy, and many times Jesus's miracles (healing, loves & fishes, etc) are popinted to as evidence of his Divinity.

For example, the prophet Elisha also performed miracles, like pouring a vast amount of oil from a tiny vial (Kings II; 4:1-7), he also revived the dead (Mark 5:35-43) and ascended into heaven alive (Kings II; 2:9-14). Yet the Torah never claimed Elisha to be the Messiah or God, in fact it warns against the coming of false prophets who will perform real miracles and warns the Jews not to follow anyone who tries to lead them from the Torah's teachings (Deuteronomy; 13: 2-6).

Jesus's Davidic lineage, another claim to Messiah status, came under scrutiny. Here I was pointed to the work Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, a personal acquaintance of mine, who has done his own research in comparing the New Testament to the Torah. He found some discrepancies between Matthew and Luke-- Matthew 1:6-16 said that twenty-eight generations seperated Jesus from King David, whereas Luke 3:23-38 shows forty-three generations of seperation. It was even pointed out that the two apostles did not even agree on Jesus's paternal grandfather. How odd!

My friend Rabbi Kelemen also found an essay by Catholic theologian John P. Meier, which was endorsed by the Archbishop of Milan, who admits that the geneologies "are of questionable historicity". The essay was "Jesus of History: Origins and Ministry" by John P. Meier, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1319.

If the Bible is perfect and infallible, how can you explain these discrepancies?

[Durandal]

Here's Jon's reasoning...

Premise 1: The Christian God is all-loving based on my own personal experiences.

Premise 2: The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.

Conclusion: Since the Christian God is all-loving and perfectly just, the massive atrocities he commited in the Bible were not evil, as per premise 1.

Dizzy from going around in that circle, yet?

[data_link]

Actually it has. After a thourough analysis, I have concluded that the probability of me being wrong is one in 10^40.

And by what method did you arrive at this conclusion?

That is the probability of a system of logic that allows square circles. As for how I computed that number, it was through an extremely sophisticated process known as guessing.

Now I throw your own question back at you: has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

It has, however I consider the possibility remote, in the face of the evidence.

What evidence? You mean "The Case for Christ"? I'm sorry, but the fact that this evidence was enough to cinvince one skeptic does not indicate that all rational people will, when confronted with the evidence, believe in Christ. After all, skeptics have been convinced in the past that UFOs are alien spacecraft, that alternative medicine works, and that anime is not the greatest cultural achievement of mankind. Besides, most of the arguments can be surmised as follows: "It's not completely impossible for the bible to be true, therefore it is." Let's see what else this line of reasoning proves:

Shakespeare's plays were not fiction, and his depiction of major historical figures is completely accurate.

Star Wars is a true story about an ancient galactic civilization in another galaxy revealed through the prophet George Lucas.

John F. Kennedy was actually killed by his evil twin.

Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, and the whole thing was filmed in the Arizona desert.

Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Satanism are all equally valid systems of belief to Protestantism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That last line illustrates an important point: your system of belief has no more evidence supporting it than any of these other religions. I contend that we are both atheists, and that when you understand why you don't believe in any of the thousand other Gods that man has concieved, you will understand why I don't believe in yours.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer my rebuttal on page 16, as well as my list of biblical contradictions.

[Jonathan]

Here's Jon's reasoning...

Premise 1: The Christian God is all-loving based on my own personal experiences.

Premise 2: The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.

Conclusion: Since the Christian God is all-loving and perfectly just, the massive atrocities he commited in the Bible were not evil, as per premise 1.

Dizzy from going around in that circle, yet?

You're a liar, Damien and I'm disappointed in you. How many times do I have to point out to you where you're wrong about this? You keep parroting the same line, over in over, trying to convince yourself and everyone else that it's true, but it blatantly isn't. I have told you time and time again that those are notmy premises.

[haas mark]

Here's Jon's reasoning...

Premise 1: The Christian God is all-loving based on my own personal experiences.

Premise 2: The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.

Conclusion: Since the Christian God is all-loving and perfectly just, the massive atrocities he commited in the Bible were not evil, as per premise 1.

Dizzy from going around in that circle, yet?

You're a liar, Damien and I'm disappointed in you. How many times do I have to point out to you where you're wrong about this? You keep parroting the same line, over in over, trying to convince yourself and everyone else that it's true, but it blatantly isn't. I have told you time and time again that those are notmy premises.

Just jumping in real quick....so what ARE your premises?

[Jonathan]

Read again, carefully, the above. Especially the last part of my sentence. You make another claim:

The 'faithful' would be those who are following the faith. Anyone really following Christianity would not have committed the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisitions.

I am explaining the bias you are up against. Secularist philosophy views religion as the sourve of many of mankind's past evils; it is an image that goes hand-in-hand with the mass of the Faithful. You cannot wish it away, regardless of whether you, personally, have committed these acts or feel misrepresented by them. Believers have an image problem that must be understood when dealing with non-believers. Secular humanists feel that they can argue from a standpoint of moral high ground because they have no mass slaughters or genocides to answer for.

I have no mass slaughter to answer for. Christianity has no mass slaughter to answer for. Some who claim to be Christians do have that to answer, but that does not mean that I or Christianity do.

You also state that it is important to make arguments based on objective and factual evidence, but the literalist belief in the Bible As Truth is Faith, not facts. Don't get me wrong, there are some facts in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that every word in the Bible becomes a fact by default. If you are indeed a researcher, don't you see the fallacy of declaring an Absolute Fact in the face of unverifiable evidence?

How many times do I have to repeat this to you people?

There is historical evidence for the veracity of the New Testament. I believe that this evidence is sufficient to support the claim of the resurrection and of Jesus' teachings, therefore Jesus is who he claims to be - God. He said that all Scripture was god breathed, therefore any scripture which was on use at the time is correct, according to him. As long as our current Old Testament matches the Scriptures he studied, they are correct.

Please, for once on this forum, would people read and understand this, rather than falsely stating what my premises and reasoning are.

Your statement that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" does nothing to support your pov; something that cannot be verified through "un-falsification" becomes a tautology...

That was made in response to a single point about the lack of mention of the slaughter at Bethlehem, which I regard as an understandable omission by other historians.

But here's the dilemma, atheism has not done this whereas religion has. Religion has a displayed track record of intolerance which, despite your (and my own) best wishes, cannot be denied. Any attempt to whitewash this or ignore it is to be acquiescent to it.

Followers of a religion being intolerant and the religion itself being intolerant are two totally different things.

A difference between words and deeds makes all the difference. Christianity assumes, by staing an intent to convert everyone, that the Christian belief system is superior.

Christianity says that Christianity is right. That's why people should convert - because following anything else would be following a lie. Truth is always superior to falsehood.

Many have been forcibly converted and multitudes killed in the spread of this religion.

And these actions were not in keeping with what Christianity commands. Disciples are willing followers,, learners, not converts under threat of burning.

The religion then claims 'moral superiority'. You are defending murder as morally superior and righteous-- so long as it is done in the name of the Christian cause,

Given that i have repeatedly said that the Inquisitions et al were wrong and against the teachings of Christianity, I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion.

do you not see the image problem?

The problem I see is in some people being unable to distinguish between the actions of those claiming to follow a religion and the commands of the religion. You are too concerned about image and appearance and not concerned enough with the facts.

I myself, in modern Christian doctrine relating to the coming of the Messiah, will serve one of two purposes: to convert or die in the final battle of Armageddon, and by these paths I will be little more than a tool to usher in a Christian view of life. This is supposed to be an inspiring and friendly message to me? I am supposed to leap with joy at this prospect? Since I do not want to be a Christian, I will die so that you may get your thousand year Christmas? Explain to me why I am supposed to be cheerful at this prospect.

Why should you be cheerful at the choices offered by Christianity? Or why should you be cheerful about choosing to go against it? Well, to answer the second, you shouldn't be cheered by the thought of opposing God and turning out to have made an oopsie. In answer to the first however, God doesn't see us as tools. He sees us as individuals whom he loves and wants to have personal relationship with. Someone called me arrogant for thinking God would take time to talk to me personally. I think it's hard to comprehend the scale of God's love that he would want to take that time with everybody. It's one of those things that an unbelieving world finds unbelievable and that the believers themselves can not fully comprehend.

God's love gives us reason to be joyful.

Unfortunately, the evangelical way of avoiding diviions is to force everyone into the same club-- Christianity-- regardless of what they feel about the situation.

Not true. we don't force Christianity upon anyone. We make the consequences of rejecting God clear, but it is still up to individuals themselves to decide whether or not to follow God. No one can force you to love or to hate. If that was possible, God would have create robot instead of people.

[Jonathan]

Just jumping in real quick....so what ARE your premises?

Exactly what I have stated them to be on numerous occasions in the past. But thank you for asking rather than jumping to conclusions

There is historical evidence to support the New Testament. From this evidence, I draw the conclusion that the story of the Gospels is true. I therefore conclude that Jesus died and rose on the third day, is God, loves us all and offers us forgiveness of our sins. Because of this, I trust him to ell the truth and therefore believe him when he says that all scripture is God breathed, meaning that the scripture of his day are trustworthy. If our Old Testament corresponds to those scriptures, then it is also trustworthy.

Of course, we have niggling problems of translation and conveying concepts in a different language and different age, so there is bound to be some inaccuracy and misinterpretation in our English versions of the OT, but not on major points.Translational/conceptual issues also cause some inaccuracies in English versions of the NT, but these are again largely concerning minor points and the more recent the translation, the more accurate, generally speaking e.g. NIV is closer to original Greek & Hebrew than KJV.

[haas mark]

Just jumping in real quick....so what ARE your premises?

Exactly what I have stated them to be on numerous occasions in the past. But thank you for asking rather than jumping to conclusions

You're welcome.

There is historical evidence to support the New Testament. From this evidence, I draw the conclusion that the story of the Gospels is true. I therefore conclude that Jesus died and rose on the third day, is God, loves us all and offers us forgiveness of our sins. Because of this, I trust him to ell the truth and therefore believe him when he says that all scripture is God breathed, meaning that the scripture of his day are trustworthy. If our Old Testament corresponds to those scriptures, then it is also trustworthy.

1. Show me evidence.
2. A (being the historical evidence) therefore B (Jesus rose on the third day) fallacy. You cannot say that Jesus rose on the third day because there is historical evidence for the Old Testament. I assume you mean this evidence to show me of the events, but I defy you to show me anything that proves Jesus did in fact rise after three days.

Of course, we have niggling problems of translation and conveying concepts in a different language and different age, so there is bound to be some inaccuracy and misinterpretation in our English versions of the OT, but not on major points.Translational/conceptual issues also cause some inaccuracies in English versions of the NT, but these are again largely concerning minor points and the more recent the translation, the more accurate, generally speaking e.g. NIV is closer to original Greek & Hebrew than KJV.

Have you even looked at the Catholic Bible? Why is it that all the fundies we have here seem to have never looked at the Catholic translation...?

[Utsanomiko]

Yes, I believe the bible to be objective evidence because I believe it to be the word of God and that there is no more objective source than God.

Ah man, that's just rich. This is such a nicely packaged Idiot Statement, I wont even comment on it untill I stop snickering.

However, I do not start with 'it is the word of God' as my premise. I use the evidence of history, which I have posted in part, and the evidence of my own experiences, which are of course not admissible by your standards.

Doesn't matter where you start on it; it's still a circle. One stupid little circle.

Which reminds me,

1)Strange happen unexplainably at my parent's house (ice maker acts funny randomly, parents work relentlessly/devotedly on new addition all day long, phone rings constantly for an hour, then goes silent for the rest of the day, noises on the roof, bouts of good/bad luck, etc.
2)I read a book once that mentioned a Cockatrice.
3)I've found feathers in the back yard.

Therefore, they have a Cockatrice on their roof that makes things act weird. How I love vague cricumstantial evidence.

Can someone care to expalin why god isn't just some outdated meaningless bullshit concept, besides minor biblical evidence that supports the theory that all at the time the Bible was written, civilizations existed in the mideast, where people spoke Hebrew, and they had an invention known as 'books', including one almost identical to our modern Bible (wow, whoop-de-shit.), becasue I don't think there is any.

[Jonathan]

You cannot say that Jesus rose on the third day because there is historical evidence for the Old Testament.

Before I answer the rest, did you mean New Testament here? Because I said New Testament. This is just a typo, right?

[Darth Wong]

Yes, I believe the bible to be objective evidence because I believe it to be the word of God and that there is no more objective source than God.

God is not objective at all. Something is only objective if it can be observed repeatedly and independently. Your appalling ignorance of the very concept of objectivity is the foundation upon which you have built your towering wall of ignorance.

[Jonathan]

Yes, I believe the bible to be objective evidence because I believe it to be the word of God and that there is no more objective source than God.

God is not objective at all. Something is only objective if it can be observed repeatedly and independently. Your appalling ignorance of the very concept of objectivity is the foundation upon which you have built your towering wall of ignorance.

We are inside the universe and not capable of fully independent observations of it. God, if he exists is external to the universe. Independent of it. He is the only one capable of making truly objective observations and therefore any such observations relayed to us are objective. Whether or not a message comes from God or not is, however, a subjective matter.

[Durandal]

You're a liar, Damien and I'm disappointed in you. How many times do I have to point out to you where you're wrong about this? You keep parroting the same line, over in over, trying to convince yourself and everyone else that it's true, but it blatantly isn't. I have told you time and time again that those are notmy premises.

Oh? So when I challenged you to prove your assumption that God was all loving back on ASVS, you didn't appeal to your personal experience? Perhaps you need your memory refreshed.

Link

It's not in the slightest bot hypocritical. I've sen God move in my life, felt his presence, seem him at work in other people's lives, seen plenty of evidence for his existence.

Link

False assumption. You are assuming that that belief stems from that incident in the Bible. It in fact stems from my experiences and is reinforced by other events in the Bible.

There are a whole fuckload of other quotes from that exchange, but anyone with a web browser can look through your exchange with Mike, as well. You defend the atrocities of the Old Testament based on the Bible's claims of God being all-loving and your personal experience with him, do you not?

And, fine, I got Premise 2 wrong. It's actually "The Gospels' ludicrous claims of miracles and the dead rising must be true because there are some historical accuracies present in them which have nothing to do with said miracles." What a fantastic leap in logic.

I encourage everyone to check out this thread on ASVS to see more of Jon's hilarious religious antics.

[Durandal]

Yes, I believe the bible to be objective evidence because I believe it to be the word of God and that there is no more objective source than God.

God is not objective at all. Something is only objective if it can be observed repeatedly and independently. Your appalling ignorance of the very concept of objectivity is the foundation upon which you have built your towering wall of ignorance.

We are inside the universe and not capable of fully independent observations of it. God, if he exists is external to the universe. Independent of it. He is the only one capable of making truly objective observations and therefore any such observations relayed to us are objective. Whether or not a message comes from God or not is, however, a subjective matter.

In other words, you're saying that God is the best source of data because he's in a preferred reference frame? That's not allowed, according to special relativity.

[Coyote]

The 'faithful' would be those who are following the faith. Anyone really following Christianity would not have committed the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisitions.

Hold on a minute. Masses of people, during the Inquisition and Crusades, accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. They accepted him sincerely and with all their heart, according to the instructions of the Church-- that is, the teachings of Jesus as Christ. They were Christians. They then went out and forcibly converted or killed 'unbelievers', yet they still had 'Christ' in the hearts as they did this.

If, in the Christian gospel, individual faith is the basis for salvation and works are not a part of it, then these people were legitimately Christian. Their works matter not; their feelings do.

I have no mass slaughter to answer for. Christianity has no mass slaughter to answer for. Some who claim to be Christians do have that to answer, but that does not mean that I or Christianity do.

Do you say that the instant a Christian commits an evil act, he is automatically deleted from the book of the saved and becomes an apostate? Christianity has no mass slaughter to answer for? What are you saying!? Are you aware of history at all? Are masses of my ancestors "less dead" because the people that killed them were "not acting really Christian?" That makes it all right? People acting in the name of the Church have taken murder, rapine and plunder to new levels and that, sir, whether you like it or not, is the millstone you have been issued.

Other people judge you by these actions regardless of how you feel about it, and by insisting that it didn't happen or doesn't exist is, in the eyes of others, an attempt to whitewash history. When people hear the word "Christian" many images come to mind, some good, some bad, and obnoxious missionaries, scandalous preachers, and institutionalized murder are among those images. Just as I have to put up with people having certain images come to mind when they hear the word "Jew", some good, some bad.

Don't get me wrong, there are some facts in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that every word in the Bible becomes a fact by default. If you are indeed a researcher, don't you see the fallacy of declaring an Absolute Fact in the face of unverifiable evidence?

How many times do I have to repeat this to you people?

There is historical evidence for the veracity of the New Testament. I believe that this evidence is sufficient to support the claim of the resurrection and of Jesus' teachings, therefore Jesus is who he claims to be - God.

No, there is some historical accuracy in the Bible; you cannot therefore say that everything in the Bible is true. It is like reading the Tom Clancy novel "Red Storm Rising", about a world war involving NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Since the US, the USSR, London, Berlin, and Warsaw exist, that makes the novel true?

Bear in mind that no one saw Jesus rise from the dead. They saw his body put in the tomb, and later saw the tomb was empty-- but not one single witness actually saw him get up from the internment slab and walk away. Later witnesses claim to have seen him days later, but again, the actual rising and walking are not seen by anyone.

He said that all Scripture was god breathed, therefore any scripture which was on use at the time is correct, according to him. As long as our current Old Testament matches the Scriptures he studied, they are correct.

Then that makes my other post, about the Biblical discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments, that much more relevant. I do hope that your silence on this matter implies a research effort and not an attempt to duck the issue.

Please, for once on this forum, would people read and understand this, rather than falsely stating what my premises and reasoning are.

I am very patiently trying to explain to you why people do not accept your argument, I will do so again even as I hold my tongue about the comment that the Christian slaughter of thousands of Jews (among others) during the Crusades and Inquisition was essentially meaningless.

You say that "the Bible is backed by historical evidence".

We here on this board ask, "Really? What evidence might that be?"

You reply: "The Bible itself". You proceed to be stunned by our lack of ability to pick up on this.

Oh, we pick up on it alright. You are using the Bible as proof that the Bible is true. This is what I call "the Carousel Argument" 'cause it goes round and round. Can't you see the problem here? You cannot use one piece of evidence to back itself up. There are few other outside supporting structures.

Your statement that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" does nothing to support your pov...

That was made in response to a single point about the lack of mention of the slaughter at Bethlehem

But you are using it to defend many of your positions in this. When Vympel says "there was no road to Sidon" you respond with something rather like, "You can't prove there wasn't a road to Sidon, so there might have been!" This is stretching the 'benefit of reasonable doubt' beyond its elasticity.

Religion has a displayed track record of intolerance which, despite your (and my own) best wishes, cannot be denied. Any attempt to whitewash this or ignore it is to be acquiescent to it.

Followers of a religion being intolerant and the religion itself being intolerant are two totally different things.

But it is these intolerant actions, that so many people say are 'sanctioned by God', that people see and base their understanding of Christianity on. Are those people, who accepted Jesus as their personal lord and savior, in hell now? And is your answer based on Christian doctrine, or on Jonathanism? How do you, personally, feel about issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and the teaching of evolution in schools?

Christianity assumes, by staing an intent to convert everyone, that the Christian belief system is superior.

Christianity says that Christianity is right. That's why people should convert - because following anything else would be following a lie. Truth is always superior to falsehood.

Point 1-- Circular reasoning; ergo, unacceptable. Point 2-- An arrogant assumption. Point 3-- Then examine the dichotomies I pointed out regarding NT validity and OT prophesy being mismatched. What if you are the one following the mistake? What do you base your faith on, if the facts aren't matching up?

Why should you be cheerful at the choices offered by Christianity? Or why should you be cheerful about choosing to go against it?... God's love gives us reason to be joyful.

According to the Christian philosophy, the Jews will be cannon fodder in the final battle of Armageddon, those that do not die are to be converted to Christianity and be saved. And what of the Jews that didn't convert before spilling their blood on the fields of war for your Messiah? Are they unsaved? Taking the Hell express? The God I love says that "the righteous among all nations will find a place in the kingdom of Heaven".

... we don't force Christianity upon anyone.

As in holding people down, putting a sword to their throat and demanding "convert or die"? No, Christians don't do that (anymore). Of course, you just have to accept that fact that you'll be spending the rest of eternity being boiled in oil, raped by demons and having the flesh boiled from your living body.

Such love and tolerance! I stand in awe!

[Coyote]

God, if he exists is external to the universe. Independent of it. He is the only one capable of making truly objective observations and therefore any such observations relayed to us are objective. Whether or not a message comes from God or not is, however, a subjective matter.

You are an oddly self-contradictory fellow.

So... God's existance and meaning is entire up to individual perception and personal relevency?

Here's the problem, Jonathan, and the problem is that you are using a lot of "just because" arguments and appeals to Biblical authority (failing to recognize that the Bible is not sufficient authority by itself and we ask for further verification).

This is called "resting an argument on dogma" rather than facts. It is a primary ingredient of Fundamentalism; this dogged, one-minded and narrow approach to the situation. That there is only one answer, your chosen answer, and none others have any validity whatsoever.

How much personal experience do you have with others who do not share your beliefs? Have you spent much time listening to Buddhists, Muslims, Communists, Hindus, Secular Humanists, Wiccans, or any other group? And I mean really listening to them and paying attention to their philosophies in an objective manner? Just because you listen to what they have to say does not mean thtat you must subscribe to their beliefs or abandon your own customs or feelings. Just look at things through a different lens.

Check out some of the other stuff on this board. Open your mind a bit and see other ways of looking at the world; you'd be amazed.

[Darth Wong]

God is not objective at all. Something is only objective if it can be observed repeatedly and independently. Your appalling ignorance of the very concept of objectivity is the foundation upon which you have built your towering wall of ignorance.

We are inside the universe and not capable of fully independent observations of it. God, if he exists is external to the universe. Independent of it. He is the only one capable of making truly objective observations and therefore any such observations relayed to us are objective. Whether or not a message comes from God or not is, however, a subjective matter.

ROTFLMAO!!!

1. Objectivity does not require removal from the universe. Indeed, since observation requires interaction, it is impossible for God to be capable of observing the universe without being part of it. You still have no idea what objectivity is.
2. Even if God existed and could render independent observations of the universe (despite the impossibility of said condition), that does not make him objective. Anything he describes is from his unique viewpoint, and is therefore entirely subjective. It cannot be independently verified or measured in any way.
3. You've got the cart before the horse. You are supposed to conclude that a phenomenon exists because of objective evidence. You are not supposed to conclude that objective evidence exists because of a phenomenon that you believe in.
4. You are claiming that the Bible is "objective evidence". By acknowledging that it is "subjective" to say that a message came from God, you are admitting that this is not true; the Bible's connection to God is subjective, therefore, the Bible is subjective.

Concession accepted.

[haas mark]

You cannot say that Jesus rose on the third day because there is historical evidence for the Old Testament.

Before I answer the rest, did you mean New Testament here? Because I said New Testament. This is just a typo, right?

New Testament then.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Just because there was someone named Jesus, doesn't mean Jesus was the son of God, he performed any of the Biblical miracles, or rose from the on the third day.

[data_link]

Wow. Jonathan has now ignored THREE outstanding posts of mine. I guess I must be better at refuting fundies than even Lord Wong. BTW Jonathan, this is an ultimatum: ANSWER MY POSTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!