Athiest Billboard

[Roll the Bones 74]

The is no debate over whether Jesus was fully human and fully God.

Well, in your circles there isn't a debate, but there sure is in mine :)In mine, there is a rather large debate about whether he even existed at all. There really isn't evidence he did and alot of bible is conflicting on the facts, not that it's a big deal one way or the other.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, in your circles there isn't a debate, but there sure is in mine :)In mine, there is a rather large debate about whether he even existed at all. There really isn't evidence he did and alot of bible is conflicting on the facts, not that it's a big deal one way or the other.

Pretty sure every single Bible supports the notion that Jesus was real.No, I'm more than pretty sure, I'm mostly sure.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Pretty sure every single Bible supports the notion that Jesus was real.No, I'm more than pretty sure, I'm mostly sure.

Yeah, but I was saying like real evidence, like a diary, pictures, facebook page, you know, real evidence because no one seems to be able to find anything. Well, Father Guido Sarducci had the tab from the last supper I suppose..

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, but I was saying like real evidence, like a diary, pictures, facebook page, you know, real evidence because no one seems to be able to find anything. Well, Father Guido Sarducci had the tab from the last supper I suppose..

Hm..I guess you got me, for 2,000 years no one has been smart enough to ask if Jesus even existed...I bet those guys in the first church feel dumb now.I guess we can go back to telling time by using something other than the birth of Christ...

[Roll the Bones 74]

Hm..I guess you got me, for 2,000 years no one has been smart enough to ask if Jesus even existed...I bet those guys in the first church feel dumb now.I guess we can go back to telling time by using something other than the birth of Christ...

Would that be before 4 BC (when Herod the Great died) or in 6 AD (when the historical Census of Quirinius was undertaken)? The traditional date, 25 December 1 BC, is a combination between a symbolic choice (for the day of the year) and a calculation of Dionysius Exiguus (for the year itself).And ya' know, there is that whole when did he die thing as well. It's hard to pin down with so much conflicting evidence coming from that book. It's like they made a bunch of it up or something.

[brvheart 1,750]

That's what we were all talking about.I don't hate all Christians, just you guys.I wasn't making a case for the inclusion or exclusion of particular books, only pointing out that there was a process of inclusion or exclusion.I guess that depends on who 'we' are. I mean, the Mormons did. They self-identify as Christians, even if you don't agree. No True Scotsman? Perhaps they could have started with The Gospel of Thomas and determined that the Matthew's and Mark's didn't fit.

Counterfeit experts spend a huge amount of time meticulously studying the real thing, so that they can spot a fake quickly.

I've wondered about the books though myself. For many centuries the book of Hermes was included and Revelations was left out, (for 4 or 5 centuries). So, since one of those people were obviously doing it wrong, are they kind of screwed simply because of a poor managing editor?And, I always here this new/old testament debate, but didn't Jesus support the old testement, (I believe in Matthew)? If he validated it then who do you believe? Also, is heaven disfunctional with Jesus and his dad dissagreeing on so much? (kidding).

First, "the Bible" doesn't have a whole lot of importance for me, other than availability. I don't have a problem with other books that were written, as long as they don't skew the message. I do believe that they weren't including for a reason, but I don't think that makes they immediately incorrect.Secondly, you are still definitely not understanding Christianity, if you think that we are saying that the Old Testament doesn't matter. The OT is very important. In fact, it's one of the main reasons that I'm a Christian. Without the OT, Jesus is just some David Koresh that sprang up and said LOOK AT ME!The OT Law is what Jesus came to fulfill. Prior to Jesus, Jews had to follow the law exactly to be saved. This was a huge burden, since there are 600+ food laws alone. Since they would always inevitably fail, Jews had to make a sacrifice once a year at the temple, for forgiveness. This whole process was to show how holy God was, and how no matter how good we were, we wouldn't ever reach perfection. Jesus came for our final sacrifice. Now we aren't bound by those laws and don't have to sacrifice, because Jesus provided the only sacrifice that we need. This doesn't make the OT unimportant or irrelevant as a history. It makes it vital, just not followed. Our example is now Christ.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

confusing Christianity the religion with Jesus Christ the man and his message. For our purposes, I will use the term Christianity to mean a follower of Jesus and his teachings, not any religion or denomination.religion, which all of us should hate.Religion has definitely evolved. Jesus Christ and his initial message remains the same.

I'm a Christian.

Here, in a nutshell, you illustrate one reason why I dismiss the logic and critical thinking skills of most Christians. In one sentence you manage to say that Christianity both is and is not a religion and that it both does and does not include the entire group that follows Jesus. Then you say we should all hate religion, then you align yourself with it by at least one half of your definition.It's true here, and it's been true everywhere I've seen it done, that "religion" means anything you don't like and "Christianity" means anything you do. That's a bullshit distinction. A mature person would be able to either align with it, accepting that some parts of it are difficult to wrestle with, or choose not to align with it. However, doing that forces one to acknowledge that yeah, it is possible to disagree with parts of the bible and yeah, one does pick and choose which parts to follow -- two things Christians will never admit although it's patently obvious to everyone else that they practice it.

[brvheart 1,750]

Here, in a nutshell, you illustrate one reason why I dismiss the logic and critical thinking skills of most Christians. In one sentence you manage to say that Christianity both is and is not a religion and that it both does and does not include the entire group that follows Jesus. Then you say we should all hate religion, then you align yourself with it by at least one half of your definition.It's true here, and it's been true everywhere I've seen it done, that "religion" means anything you don't like and "Christianity" means anything you do. That's a bullshit distinction. A mature person would be able to either align with it, accepting that some parts of it are difficult to wrestle with, or choose not to align with it. However, doing that forces one to acknowledge that yeah, it is possible to disagree with parts of the bible and yeah, one does pick and choose which parts to follow -- two things Christians will never admit although it's patently obvious to everyone else that they practice it.

It's all about perspective SB. Christianity is a term I use to mean Christ follower, whereas the far majority of the general populace equates Christianity with a wide range of Christian denominations and beliefs. In this case, one word has two different meanings. But, I'm guessing you already knew that, and just enjoy the opportunity to say that you don't like the logic and critical thinking skills of people that believe in God.I should probably just stop using the word Christian or Christianity to describe my faith, since it seems to confuse everyone.I think almost all religions and religious sects are worthless, although the general public would define me as religious AND belonging to a religion. Also, I dare you to find something in the Bible that I disagree with. (I'm talking about doctrine here, not whether or not there was a fish that swallowed Noah, since that is unprovable.)

[vbnautilus 48]

Also, I dare you to find something in the Bible that I disagree with. (I'm talking about doctrine here, not whether or not there was a fish that swallowed Noah, since that is unprovable.)

You mean in the new testament only, right?

[brvheart 1,750]

You mean in the new testament only, right?

No, but almost everything in the OT will bring this conversation to a stand-still, since some of my answers will not be appreciated.For instance, I believe that if an all-powerful being who created the universe exists... he could probably part the Red Sea if he wanted to. This won't move our conversation forward.Plus, from a doctrinal stand-point, Christ followers follow Christ, who wasn't around until the New Testament.

[BaseJester 1]

Also, I dare you to find something in the Bible that I disagree with. (I'm talking about doctrine here, not whether or not there was a fish that swallowed Noah, since that is unprovable.)

Do you agree that women should not be allowed to speak in church?

[brvheart 1,750]

Do you agree that women should not be allowed to speak in church?

Why would anyone other than the pastor need to speak? I don't think other men should speak in church either, that would be fairly chaotic.

[BaseJester 1]

Also, I dare you to find something in the Bible that I disagree with. (I'm talking about doctrine here, not whether or not there was a fish that swallowed Noah, since that is unprovable.)

Exodus 21:20-21 (American Standard Version) 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

[BaseJester 1]

Why would anyone other than the pastor need to speak? I don't think other men should speak in church either, that would be fairly chaotic.

Your answer assumes that a woman cannot be a pastor, correct?

[brvheart 1,750]

Exodus 21:20-21 (American Standard Version) 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

I fully agree that if you kill someone, you should surely be punished, although I'm not sure why it's so hard to you to understand that I'm not Jewish. These rules haven't applied to non-Jews for 2,000 years.

Your answer assumes that a woman cannot be a pastor, correct?

The NT explicitly states that the pastor should not be a woman.

[Roll the Bones 74]

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:I don't want to play, but we could do this for ages since there are so many contradictions and anyone can find a meaning they like in about anything. But, like here, apparently Jesus thought the moon made it's own light and the stars were a few miles up in the air where heaven was.

[Balloon guy 158]

Do you agree that women should not be allowed to speak in church?

One thing I think we can all agree on..women speaking less is a good thing

[brvheart 1,750]

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:I don't want to play, but we could do this for ages since there are so many contradictions and anyone can find a meaning they like in about anything. But, like here, apparently Jesus thought the moon made it's own light and the stars were a few miles up in the air where heaven was.

That verse hasn't happened yet, it's the future. When it does, I'll be gone, but make sure you come back here and quote this post while adding, "Oops, who knew."Jesus didn't write Revelation.The author was John and he was alive around 50 A.D. He's sorry that he didn't understand that the light that the moon gives off is not self generated, but instead a reflection. Doesn't the moon still give off light though? I'm not totally sure that he needed to get into the science of what he saw happening in his dream. is going to happen.EDITED because I was talking about the wrong book.

[Balloon guy 158]

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:I don't want to play, but we could do this for ages since there are so many contradictions and anyone can find a meaning they like in about anything. But, like here, apparently Jesus thought the moon made it's own light and the stars were a few miles up in the air where heaven was.

Currently I say I enjoyed the sunrise ( not really since I get up at the crack of 8ish)Does that mean I believe the sun revolves around the earth?Or does the point that you know and I know what I mean make that statement acceptable?And when the sun is darkened, will the moon cast any light on us?

[BaseJester 1]

I fully agree that if you kill someone, you should surely be punished, . .

:-/That's the part you thought that I thought you might disagree with? wtf?

. . . although I'm not sure why it's so hard to you to understand that I'm not Jewish. These rules haven't applied to non-Jews for 2,000 years.

OK. You're not Jewish. Do you, as a Christian think that you should receive any doctrine from the Old Testament? If not, then there's not much point in discussing the Old Testament in the context of your question.

[timwakefield 68]

I guess we can go back to telling time by using something other than the birth of Christ...

We tell time by the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun.EDIT: And according to some very quick research, dividing the day into 24 hours and the hour into 60 minutes (etc) was devised in ancient Sumeria, Babylon, and/or Egypt.

[brvheart 1,750]

Do you, as a Christian think that you should receive any doctrine from the Old Testament? If not, then there's not much point in discussing the Old Testament in the context of your question.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[BaseJester 1]

That verse hasn't happened yet, it's the future. When it does, I'll be gone, but make sure you come back here and quote this post while adding, "Oops, who knew."Jesus didn't write Revelation.The author was John and he was alive around 50 A.D. He's sorry that he didn't understand that the light that the moon gives off is not self generated, but instead a reflection. Doesn't the moon still give off light though? I'm not totally sure that he needed to get into the science of what he saw happening in his dream.

That's from Matthew, you dumbass.

[BaseJester 1]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What?

[brvheart 1,750]

That's from Matthew, you dumbass.

I just assumed, I didn't look it up. My point doesn't change.