Mr_Anony:
....so much for "logic and reason"

Mr_Anony:
For starters, Luke was a historian. There are many writings about Jesus Christ written from eye witness accounts as well as many references to Jesus Christ not as a mythical figure but a living man. Most modern historians do not dispute the fact that Jesus actually existed as a man on earth. In fact if Jesus did not exist, Christianity wouldn't have grown because at the core of Christianity is that the Son of God came in the flesh.

Luke was a historian who copied heavily from other early historians, right or wrong?
His writings are not eye-witness accounts. Neither was he a 1st century writer.
He is known to have copied heavily from early jewish and christian writers like Josephus and Mark, true or false?
You talk of eye-witness accounts but historians find it difficult to get references or evidence of these eye-witnesses besides the fairy tales of church men and historians.
Christianity grew because of Paul not some Jesus Christ. Paul is the originator of Jesus's death and ressurection. Luke was a great admirer of Paul and was influenced too by paul.

Mr_Anony:
For starters, Luke was a historian. There are many writings about Jesus Christ written from eye witness accounts as well as many references to Jesus Christ not as a mythical figure but a living man. Most modern historians do not dispute the fact that Jesus actually existed as a man on earth. In fact if Jesus did not exist, Christianity wouldn't have grown because at the core of Christianity is that the Son of God came in the flesh.


Perhaps you may want to tell us of these pre-christian myths. Open a thread and link it here, I'll be willing to engage you on it.

Mr_Anony:
For starters, Luke was a historian. There are many writings about Jesus Christ written from eye witness accounts as well as many references to Jesus Christ not as a mythical figure but a living man. Most modern historians do not dispute the fact that Jesus actually existed as a man on earth. In fact if Jesus did not exist, Christianity wouldn't have grown because at the core of Christianity is that the Son of God came in the flesh.

Luke was a historian who copied heavily from other early historians, right or wrong?
His writings are not eye-witness accounts. Neither was he a 1st century writer.
He is known to have copied heavily from early jewish and christian writers like Josephus and Mark, true or false?
You talk of eye-witness accounts but historians find it difficult to get references or evidence of these eye-witnesses besides the fairy tales of church men and historians.
Christianity grew because of Paul not some Jesus Christ. Paul is the originator of Jesus's death and ressurection. Luke was a great admirer of Paul and was influenced too by paul.

Later on today, I shall open up a thread and show these similarities that I talk of.

Kay 17: By self definition, I didn't mean selfishness. Just saying purpose emanates from the individual.

I also do not mean selfishness, that's an extreme. What I am saying is that if morality emanates from the individual, it then follows that self-preservation becomes the greatest good.

This also would mean that one's good works are done only to the extent that they ultimately benefit him i.e. A humanist based on your explanation can be nice but he must expect niceness in return. Where this niceness is not returned, then he would be justified in using cruelty to achieve his purposes.

The point is that the self here is ultimate. It is all about making man's life better but when it comes to situations where one has to risk his life for another person, the humanist has no answer.
.....unless of course you want to give me a logical reason why the life of someone else is worth more than yours in a worldview where morality emanates from the self.

This is why John Gray says that morality is an illusion employed during times of peace but thrown away in times of war. Do you agree?

rhymz: Luke was a historian who copied heavily from other early historians, right or wrong?
His writings are not eye-witness accounts. Neither was he a 1st century writer.
He is known to have copied heavily from early jewish and christian writers like Josephus and Mark, true or false?
You talk of eye-witness accounts but historians find it difficult to get references or evidence of these eye-witnesses besides the fairy tales of church men and historians.
Christianity grew because of Paul not some Jesus Christ. Paul is the originator of Jesus's death and ressurection. Luke was a great admirer of Paul and was influenced too by paul.Luke was a historian who copied heavily from other early historians, right or wrong?
His writings are not eye-witness accounts. Neither was he a 1st century writer.
He is known to have copied heavily from early jewish and christian writers like Josephus and Mark, true or false?
You talk of eye-witness accounts but historians find it difficult to get references or evidence of these eye-witnesses besides the fairy tales of church men and historians.
Christianity grew because of Paul not some Jesus Christ. Paul is the originator of Jesus's death and ressurection. Luke was a great admirer of Paul and was influenced too by paul.

Later on today, I shall open up a thread and show these similarities that I talk of.

Please open the thread

cyrexx:

1.the world around me is no proof of anything. it might have been created by Allah or Orunmila (my ancestor's God) or Brahma or any other myriads of non-Yahweh Gods.

I said, creator.

or better yet, it might have a perfectly natural scientific explanation as is being studied by experts in cosmogenesis and abiogenesis.

Crap! I said that the evidence that evolution is true is that things should still be evolving. Are they?

2. the bible is logically incoherent. i can show you if you want to see.

But of course you can, given your great talent for being logically coherent yourself.

3. the desire for better than i have now is no proof of yahweh any more than proof of my uncle Joe or flying spaghetti monster. come on stronger, dude. even your clone is better than this. learn properly from your master.

lol.......... What is it proof of then? Doesn't evolution hold that there's no better or any such thing? Isn't it mindless, purposeless and directionless? Where'd you get the standards by which you judge the better that you desire? If you invented them, how did you know which end was better or worse? Why can't the other end be better? How does a universe tending toward a state of entropy let species evolving in it determine better by greater preservation rather than quicker destruction?

4. i have provided answers to that hell bullcrap in religions in my earlier posts. no need to parrot myself here again.

Of course you have, that's why you keep asking us to take hell away for you, isn't it?

Ihedinobi:

I said, creator.

huh, and so what did i say?

Ihedinobi:

Crap! I said that the evidence that evolution is true is that things should still be evolving. Are they?



But of course you can, given your great talent for being logically coherent yourself.



lol.......... What is it proof of then? Doesn't evolution hold that there's no better or any such thing? Isn't it mindless, purposeless and directionless? Where'd you get the standards by which you judge the better that you desire? If you invented them, how did you know which end was better or worse? Why can't the other end be better? How does a universe tending toward a state of entropy let species evolving in it determine better by greater preservation rather than quicker destruction?

O, good to finally hear your original thoughts.

but what you raised here has been effectively handled on other threads. i dont need a religious man to tell me about evolution that he obviously knows so little about about, when experts have done that already. if i want discussions on theology or biblical studies i will let you know, but not about scientific facts. thanks.

Ihedinobi:


Of course you have, that's why you keep asking us to take hell away for you, isn't it?

liar, you would rather lie to defend your imaginary god than see things objectively.

i never asked you to take any imaginary hell of any imaginary god away from me.

cyrexx:


huh, and so what did i say?

Geez! You don't suffer from memory loss, do you? My words were, "the proof of a creator is creation", so going on about non-Yahweh gods does little, if anything at all, to invalidate my point.

O, good to finally hear your original thoughts.

but what you raised here has been effectively handled on other threads. i dont need a religious man to tell me about evolution that he obviously knows so little about about, when experts have done that already. if i want discussions on theology or biblical studies i will let you know, but not about scientific facts. thanks.

lol...... First you impute ignorance of Islam to me, now you assign incompetence in science to me too. You too much o. How did you figure out that I am so ignorant about these things? Have you tested my knowledge yet?

(Edit: post them threads here, if you don't mind, so I can disabuse myself of any ignorant notions I harbor about evolution)

liar, you would rather lie to defend your imaginary god than see things objectively.

i never asked you to take any imaginary hell of any imaginary god away from me.

Now, how did you not? By persisting in telling us how unfair God is to create hell? Or by fighting so hard to show how unreasonable the concept of hell is? Yeah, I'd be misled with all that.


Dude, you're getting less and less excuse by the minute.

Mr_Anony:
I also do not mean selfishness, that's an extreme. What I am saying is that if morality emanates from the individual, it then follows that self-preservation becomes the greatest good.

This also would mean that one's good works are done only to the extent that they ultimately benefit him i.e. A humanist based on your explanation can be nice but he must expect niceness in return. Where this niceness is not returned, then he would be justified in using cruelty to achieve his purposes.

The point is that the self here is ultimate. It is all about making man's life better but when it comes to situations where one has to risk his life for another person, the humanist has no answer.
.....unless of course you want to give me a logical reason why the life of someone else is worth more than yours in a worldview where morality emanates from the self.

This is why John Gray says that morality is an illusion employed during times of peace but thrown away in times of war. Do you agree?

If you noticed in your video, that John Gray condemns humanism for being very much similar to Christianity, for envisaging a perfect future. His conclusion that morality is an illusion shows his position is very much in conflict with Himanism. Except you support John Gray's conclusions, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

As I said earlier altruism is a value to humanists.

Kay 17:

If you noticed in your video, that John Gray condemns humanism for being very much similar to Christianity, for envisaging a perfect future. His conclusion that morality is an illusion shows his position is very much in conflict with Himanism. Except you support John Gray's conclusions, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

As I said earlier altruism is a value to humanists.

Are you reading my posts at all? I don't hold John Gray's position. I am just borrowing bits from his argument. The question I asked which you are yet to answer is:

How does altruism (a totally selfless quality) hold any value in a humanist worldview where all virtue emanates from self?

Mr_Anony:
Are you reading my posts at all? I don't hold John Gray's position. I am just borrowing bits from his argument. The question I asked which you are yet to answer is:

How does altruism (a totally selfless quality) hold any value in a humanist worldview where all virtue emanates from self?

The same foolish question again.....love starts from the self......how can you love other when you are no happy with yourself?

MacDaddy01:

The same foolish question again.....love starts from the self......how can you love other when you are no happy with yourself?

Love starts from God my friend, Only by reverence to God can a man truly love another.

Mr_Anony:
Love starts from God my friend, Only by reverence to God can a man truly love another.

Nonsense.

Ihedinobi:
Geez! You don't suffer from memory loss, do you? My words were, "the proof of a creator is creation", so going on about non-Yahweh gods does little, if anything at all, to invalidate my point.

Geez! You didnt flunk your SSCE English language summary and comprehension, do you? i think so, cos if you dont, you will have comprehended the fallacy behind the god of the gaps theory you are positing here.
moreso, the fact that there are gods similar to yahweh all competing for the position of creator in the hearts of men has effectively invalidated your point, except if you lack some basic comprehension skills.

Ihedinobi:
lol...... First you impute ignorance of Islam to me, now you assign incompetence in science to me too. You too much o. How did you figure out that I am so ignorant about these things? Have you tested my knowledge yet?

Yes. i have observed your ignorance of established scientific fact of evolution and found your knowledge wanting. MENE MENE TEKEL URPASIN, if you know what i mean.

Ihedinobi:
(Edit: post them threads here, if you don't mind, so I can disabuse myself of any ignorant notions I harbor about evolution)

go and employ some houseboy you can order around if you are too lazy to do your own search for yourself.

Ihedinobi:
Now, how did you not? By persisting in telling us how unfair God is to create hell? Or by fighting so hard to show how unreasonable the concept of hell is? Yeah, I'd be misled with all that.

go and have this conversation with a muslim about their hell and see how absurd what you are saying here sounds to a non-christian.

Ihedinobi:
Dude, you're getting less and less excuse by the minute.

Dude, i'm not looking for any excuse and it is anonyingly condescending to assume what i'm not looking for. you and senior clone's air of arrongance is getting redundantly repugnant.

cyrexx:

Geez! You didnt flunk your SSCE English language summary and comprehension, do you? i think so, cos if you dont, you will have comprehended the fallacy behind the god of the gaps theory you are positing here.
moreso, the fact that there are gods similar to yahweh all competing for the position of creator in the hearts of men has effectively invalidated your point, except if you lack some basic comprehension skills.






Yes. i have observed your ignorance of established scientific fact of evolution and found your knowledge wanting. MENE MENE TEKEL URPASIN, if you know what i mean.





go and employ some houseboy you can order around if you are too lazy to do your own search for yourself.




go and have this conversation with a muslim about their hell and see how absurd what you are saying here sounds to a non-christian.




Dude, i'm not looking for any excuse and it is anonyingly condescending to assume what i'm not looking for. you and senior clone's air of arrongance is getting redundantly repugnant.

Bros don vex Na wa o.

You alluded to threads that showed me up for an ignorant person with respect to evolution, saying that the questions I'd raised had been addressed there. And I asked you to link me to the threads. How is that a problem for you?

I thought that as far as you were concerned God gave no proof of His existence and what He wants of man. I showed you various proofs and indicated that throwing them out amounted to seeking an excuse to reject God and His salvation. Have you proved that submission wrong? Dude, it matters not whether God stood before you in all His stark glory, you'll reject Him to His face. It's not evidence you want, I don't mind telling you. What you want is for Him to not exist. And I say, fine for you.

Why would I bother with Muslims? I couldn't care less about a Muslim hell! I like people generally and think very little of their religious inclinations. But if any of them engage me, I will make a proper defence of my faith. I never engage them because they have nothing concrete holding their faith. So for me it's pointless. See?

Your hanging out on Christian threads to find some wrong to accuse God of says simply that a Christian hell matters enormously to you. It sounds less like you believe it's not real and more like you're worried that it might be real. How does my stating that as my observation count for arrogance? Aren't you the one saying that we Christians are brainwashed and need redemption from "religion", whatever that is? Have I called you arrogant for trying to deliver me from my apparent dumbness?

Dude, gbara ọgwụ gị ñụọ o. Go take your meds and stop harassing me and accusing me of harassing you.

^^^





ki lo n se omo nna to sosokiso yii. go and take your meds and cure your paranoia of falsely thinking you are being harrased

MacDaddy01:
Nonsense.

There's a big difference between benevolence and love but then of course my friend, I didn't expect you to get it.

MacDaddy01:

Nonsense.

you do know that they do this mostly to reduce their tax bill at the end of the year right?

cyrexx: ^^^





ki lo n se omo nna to sosokiso yii. go and take your meds and cure your paranoia of falsely thinking you are being harrased

I left this section to eat, have a life and sleep last night. i have been hard at work for the last 5 hrs straight... only to log on here and still find you here?

For a man who says the christian God doesnt exist... you certainly spend way too much of your time bleating about Him no?
How is it you have time for a sky pixie? Did you dream about God last night?

davidylan:

I left this section to eat, have a life and sleep last night. i have been hard at work for the last 5 hrs straight... only to log on here and still find you here?

For a man who says the christian God doesnt exist... you certainly spend way too much of your time bleating about Him no?
How is it you have time for a sky pixie? Did you dream about God last night?

yes, i did. and he told me to tell davidylan he is doing a good job for him

i could say the same thing for you, you know. what are you doing here too.
i left this place to sleep yesterday, i went to work this morning with my smartphone with access to the internet and on my way home now checking my phone again only to find davidylan, for a man who says the christian God exist... you certainly spend way too much of your time bleating about those who say he doesn't no?
How is it you have time for a sky pixie? Did you dream about God last night too like i did?

davidylan:

you do know that they do this mostly to reduce their tax bill at the end of the year right?

Yes, Bill Gates is trying to cure malaria, something that your govt is not doing. Keep hating

MacDaddy01:


Yes, Bill Gates is trying to cure malaria, something that your govt is not doing. Keep hating

did you read my post or you just copied it and then went ahead to bleat brainlessly as usual? I said they do this mainly to lower their tax bills, its the cheapest way to do so in the US. Infact many tax advisors will tell you that the quickest way to pay lower taxes is to either set up your own "foundation" or give to "charity".

cyrexx:

yes, i did. and he told me to tell davidylan he is doing a good job for him

i could say the same thing for you, you know. what are you doing here too.
i left this place to sleep yesterday, i went to work this morning with my smartphone with access to the internet and on my way home now checking my phone again only to find davidylan, for a man who says the christian God exist... you certainly spend way too much of your time bleating about those who say he doesn't no?
How is it you have time for a sky pixie? Did you dream about God last night too like i did?

How does that make sense?
I spend my time on the religious boards because i do believe in the christian faith. That is not unsurprising... its like wondering why someone who loves science is spending too much time in the lab. A brainless comeback really. I dont bleat about folks like you, i'm only responding to a thread where trolls like you who allegedly do not believe He exists, spend too much time crying about His ways.

Mr_Anony:
Are you reading my posts at all? I don't hold John Gray's position. I am just borrowing bits from his argument. The question I asked which you are yet to answer is:

How does altruism (a totally selfless quality) hold any value in a humanist worldview where all virtue emanates from self?

I clearly told you, a couple of posts ago that self definition is not selfishness and you apparently agreed, yet you r going back to your same error!!

And also what is your position? A nihilist one??

Kay 17:

I clearly told you, a couple of posts ago that self definition is not selfishness and you apparently agreed, yet you r going back to your same error!!

And also what is your position? A nihilist one??

Perhaps, you may want to tell me exactly what you mean by "self-definition" because right now, I think you've lost me

mr anony: I also do not mean selfishness, that's an extreme. What I am saying is that if morality emanates from the individual, it then follows that self-preservation becomes the greatest good

I don't think it follows.

What if a man believes selfless is the best morality or all life is precious and his own life should be used to guard it, how self preservative is that?

davidylan:

did you read my post or you just copied it and then went ahead to bleat brainlessly as usual? I said they do this mainly to lower their tax bills, its the cheapest way to do so in the US. Infact many tax advisors will tell you that the quickest way to pay lower taxes is to either set up your own "foundation" or give to "charity".

lmao.......and curing malaria is just "charity".


Maybe should post the full picture;

Lord Lord, I love this thread. It's the best entertainment I've had today.

MacDaddy01:

lmao.......and curing malaria is just "charity".


Maybe should post the full picture;

Pat Robertson doesnt need to donate to avoid taxes. His religious organization is already tax-exempt (the only reason the rhc pretend to give).

Ihedinobi: Lord Lord, I love this thread. It's the best entertainment I've had today.

Now that makes two of us

The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)
 Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a “translation” of a
manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew 
did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:
The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts.
 
 The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the
interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the
church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The
appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the
violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter.

 It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the
alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, “In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)
Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a “translation” of a
manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew
did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:
The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts.

The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the
interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the
church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The
appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the
violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter.

It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the
alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, “In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth.”

davidylan:

Pat Robertson doesnt need to donate to avoid taxes. His religious organization is already tax-exempt (the only reason the rhc pretend to give).

I always said it that fundamental christains like yourself and MrAnony are the most hypocritical and wicked people ever.


First, you people say that Rich people only do charity because of the tax benefits. So what about those who spend months in Africa and Asia with poor children and the less privileged? Is their time also tax deductible? Furthermore, can you read their minds? How do you known that some of them are not doing it to help?


Secondly, Bill Gates is fighting malaria. This is something that goes beyond charity. This is somehting that can only come from a person wants to make humans live a better life. Malaria doesnt affect Americans because the mosquito cant survive their weather. Bill Gates is not a biologist and so, you should understand the time and resources needed for him to set up a foundation or project to find a way of stopping malaria. But no, it is only ax deductible "charity" for you.


Thirdly, you defend Pat Robinson. No need to further explain


Fourthly, you and Mr Anony foolishly believe that selflessness and altruism are sole properties of christainity and a belief in God. What kind of wickedness is that to atheists, agnostics and unbelievers of your religion? What kind of bigoted and brainmwashed heart thinks like that?- that nyone born outside a christian or god believeing home is automatically a person without a heart? Are you insane?