Perhaps, instead of so much energy directed at trying to run me off we could discuss;

How the error originated that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles instead of editing them to suit his purposes.

Or, how the error originated that Mithraism influenced Christianity when the opposite is clearly the case.

Anyone interested is referred to

A History of the Expansion of Christianity, The First Five Centuries, Volume 1, Latourette, Kenneth Scott, Zondervan, 1970.

Before you answer, Google, Kenneth Scott Latourette

Then google D. M. Murdock

Check out their Wickipedia biographies.

Who's attacking your family?

or by family, do you mean jesus?

at least that last part wasn't in all caps.

I drop a rock 1,000 times and 1,000 times it falls to the ground
If I say, "I believe that a dropped rock will fall to the ground," that belief is not true?

This analogy only holds up if the belief being equated is that the christianity exists, not about whether what they believe is true.

To more accurately depict your statement that the fact of christian related artifacts (meaning art, buildings and culture) point to the accuracy of the biblical narrative, yiour analogy should have looked like this:

"If i look at a rock a thousand times and believe it is made out of cheese, is that belief not true?"

And the answer is no it is not true. The rock is still made of rock.

Read the following very, very carefully, as it has already been breached in this discussion like 8 or 9 times but you haven't picked up on it.

The fact that people have made art about christianity, only shows that they were interested in it. That could mean belief, or satire or whatever. it does NOT mean that christianity is true.

The fact that people erected buildings for christian worship is ONLY proof that they had need of such buildings to practice their religion. Inferred proof, as well, that they were passionate about their religion and thought it was the truth. That does NOT mean that the story of christianity's myths is true.
did you follow that part? "Really, really, believing a thing does not equate to knowledge."

Really, really believing that stone is cheese does NOT make it cheese.
Really, sincerely believing the myths of christianity does NOT make it true.

the fact that christians have founded hospitols is proof that these christians were interested in health care. that is NOT proof that christian myths were true.

the fact that christians have founded colleges means they were interested in education. that is NOT proof that christian myths were true.

Take any one of these stipulations and remove christianity and insert hinduism and the EXACT same thing will be true of them.

acts done in the name of a belief do not in any way equate to the truth of that belief.

I went through and explained all that in as simple terms as i could muster at the moment. I hope this will help, but i know it has not.

Johnson, I know that 40 percent poll includes a wide variety of people, perhaps not all just like Stahrwe, but it's only 40 percent in anycase. So it's the minority right away being only 40 percent out of a hundred. Then when we factor in the people who do not believe just like this but were thrown in anyways, the percentage drops even more. And the high number will probably steadily decline to 30 and then 20 percent and so on.

I'm sure that with time there won't be very many people left who would even think the NT was written in the first century. Especially not with all of the evidence out there that GodAlmighty provided in the series which is out there and available. It's all there for the taking and I do hope that he can manage to write a book based on the evidence provided. The way he zeroed in on the possible explanation for Q was outstanding in my opinion. Hopefully this gets around the web and many people get a chance to see it and possibly use it as the basis to launch their own projects - books and videos. If GodAlmighty does't ever get around to making a book out of it I'm sure some one else will. It's just a matter of time.

Stahrwe
You object to the example because the answer is obvious and it is very relevant to the discussion. You are claiming that Scientilogy is as legitimate as Christianity. Scientology is the new company, Christianity is the established company. The answer is so obvious that you can't do anything but attempt to eject the question. Objection will not be sustained.

Actually stahrwe you are so off base it should embarrass you… the example is not relivant... the claims of a car company (sighting your example) are observable, documented, and confirmable… The fantastic claims made by both Christianity and The Church of Scientology are not observable, are both equally and badly documented as a single document claiming to hold ultimate wisdom and truth and neither claims are even remotely confirmable… on these grounds they are alike and comparable.

And the objection is sustained in the BT court of opinion…

Later

I have no problem with anything I have posted on BT, but I am embarassed everytime I remember browbeating that poor girl in my High School class for believing in Jesus.

It would be nice to see something original on BT instead of some video we can't even discuss. I suggest that any brave enough commit to discussing, Anselm's Discovery; A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God's Existence, Charles Hartshorne,* Open Court Publishing, 1991.


http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/article ... orne.html

Stahrwe
The answer is simple, many people on BT are saying untrue and baseless things about my family.

Who said what about your family?

Stahrwe
Those people are not willing to discuss those things rationally and reasonably and have taken extreme positions which are unsupportable.

This sounds more like you than anyone else here… in fact everyone who challenges the assertions made by you and the church nearly always supports their case with data… You on the other hand won’t even watch the videos you are trying to discredit… and your arguments consist of fallacies and unsupported attacks on peoples credibility more often than facts.

stahrwe
People certainly have a right to doubt and to question, but to reject the Bible, claim Jesus never existed, and charge nothing but evil and vileness to Christianity; that is a call to us to stand up to that.

Actually, we like you have the right to believe what we will… if that means that because of a lack of evidence we reject the Bible and the claims made within (Including the historic claim of the church for Jesus) than that is our right… and is a conclusion made on an intellectual level based off of the available evidence and knowledge of history, people and communication… you do not have to agree but attacking our position and blatantly derailing our discussions is immoral at the very least.

stahrwe
As long as people like Sam Harris are allowed to make outrageous statements about Christainity should we not have the right to answer those charges in the forums where they are heralded? As I write this there is an ongoing discussion of one of SH's books taking place on BT. A discussion I have been told not to participate in. Now, it is objected to that I participate here.

And I am the one who has been called a hypocrit?

You are a hypocrite; you do not see us disrupting your church service because we disagree with the creationist content… do you?

And make no mistake you do disrupt these conversations, you do not bring anything contrastive to the table in the vast majority of the topics that you post on... heck you will not even watch the video series of this very thread… yet you feel the need to comment on it (rather ignorantly I might add) in what appears to be an attempt to derail any constructive dialog.


Furthermore, you break the rules about preaching and quoting the whole of previous posts with apparently no respect for your fellow BT members, or the owner, who has warned you about such nonsense… furthermore you do not seem capable of learning, you keep regurgitating the same old, tired claims even when they have been refuted beyond all reason… you will not accept the intellectual/academic professional standards of evidence which everyone here but you subscribes to… showing us all that give and take discourse with you is impossible… you want us to accept your side of things but dismiss our information out of hand… even though our information is intellectually sound… unlike yours.

In short everyone here gives (at least) a little in their positions… except you… who apparently has the “ultimate truth”

Yes you are a hypocrite.

Later

tat tvam asi wrote:If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Good idea, I have resisted the temptation to address any more of the nonsense. He will think that means I have run out of arguments -- so be it. After all, to use Richard Dawkins' effective analogy, we wouldn't bother debating someone who insists they have a relationship with Thor, would we?

It's one thing to debate a reasonable theist, but a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible is infallible, all the while posting pages of crap from other sites? Worse than a total waste of time.

tat tvam asi wrote:
If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Good idea, I have resisted the temptation to address any more of the nonsense. He will think that means I have run out of arguments -- so be it. After all, to use Richard Dawkins' effective analogy, we wouldn't bother debating someone who insists they have a relationship with Thor, would we?

It's one thing to debate a reasonable theist, but a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible is infallible, all the whole posting pages of crap from other sites? Worse than a total waste of time.

Ok, I am on board… no more posts to stahrwe… I am done.

The bit about someone believing they have a personal relationship with Thor really drives it home. That really is the same utter nonsense we're facing here. That's the whole mythicist position in a nut shell - there's no reason to treat the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu, and Greek Gods and Godmen one way and give special pleading to the biblical myths. Especially considering how blatantly flimsy these gospel myths are in particular. The supernaturalism grew and evolved with time. The evidence shows as much. The editions to the texts completely give it away. And I really do think that there will come a day when people believing they have personal relationship with Jesus will become akin to those who would believe the same of Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, etc. This is a very pivotal time in history in my opinion. The evidence such as what we've seen in this video series (those who actually watched) should only gain in popularity.

I brought it here to BT because of the high level intellectual heavy weights that frequent these forums. Despite Stahrwe BT is a powerhouse in terms of comprehension and I'm glad that Robert turned me and the others from the FTN onto it. Stahrwe isn't strong enough to ruin the good thing you all have going. That's why I've quoted him as "Stahrweak". That about summarizes the arguments he brings. In the case of this thread he's been about the worst representation for the bible that I could imagine. These stupid apologies turn the youth away from the faith. That's what these liar's for the lord fail to understand. They hurt the faith far more than preserve and support it. Imagine some youths reading through this thread after having watched the video series first. What would Stahrwe look like to them? A powerhouse who represents the truth, the light, the strength, or some bumbling idiot blind as hell trying to act as a guide? The youth can see this for what it is. And it's hurting the fundamentalists cause. I was one of those youths whose eyes were opened by observing what happens to our apologists in debate and interogation. They are not wise, not strong, not powerful, and therfore not supported by any all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. It's the very opposite...

Frank 013 wrote:

Stahrwe
The answer is simple, many people on BT are saying untrue and baseless things about my family.

Who said what about your family?

Stahrwe
Those people are not willing to discuss those things rationally and reasonably and have taken extreme positions which are unsupportable.

This sounds more like you than anyone else here… in fact everyone who challenges the assertions made by you and the church nearly always supports their case with data… You on the other hand won’t even watch the videos you are trying to discredit… and your arguments consist of fallacies and unsupported attacks on peoples credibility more often than facts.

What data, what information? Lies and misinformation about Mithraism and Marcion? I don't even see much if any support for the gnostic position promoted by this discussion. We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on. On the other hand, I have provided references showing that the ideas about Marcion and Mithra promoted by Murdock et al, is false. You suggest I have not provided data, how many more citations would you like. I understand why Tat and RT expend effort defending Murdock but I don't understand why you do. Her position is so far from mainstream that supporters risk being ignored.

stahrwe
People certainly have a right to doubt and to question, but to reject the Bible, claim Jesus never existed, and charge nothing but evil and vileness to Christianity; that is a call to us to stand up to that.

Frank013 wrote:Actually, we like you have the right to believe what we will… if that means that because of a lack of evidence we reject the Bible and the claims made within (Including the historic claim of the church for Jesus) than that is our right… and is a conclusion made on an intellectual level based off of the available evidence and knowledge of history, people and communication… you do not have to agree but attacking our position and blatantly derailing our discussions is immoral at the very least.

Who is 'our'?
What a charmingly myopic chauvinistic attitude, awesome.

stahrwe
As long as people like Sam Harris are allowed to make outrageous statements about Christainity should we not have the right to answer those charges in the forums where they are heralded? As I write this there is an ongoing discussion of one of SH's books taking place on BT. A discussion I have been told not to participate in. Now, it is objected to that I participate here.

And I am the one who has been called a hypocrit?

frank013 wrote:You are a hypocrite; you do not see us disrupting your church service because we disagree with the creationist content… do you?

Many of you have expressed an opinion that you hate Christianity, long for the time when the world will be rid of it, and have expressed a desire to help that day come. In my view, that is reason enough to stand up ane point out your errors, and since when is doing so, in a discussion disruptive?

By the way, come on to church and disrupt if you wish. You would be welcome to stand up and say your piece.

frank013 wrote:And make no mistake you do disrupt these conversations, you do not bring anything contrastive to the table in the vast majority of the topics that you post on... heck you will not even watch the video series of this very thread… yet you feel the need to comment on it (rather ignorantly I might add) in what appears to be an attempt to derail any constructive dialog.

I don't know what to say to this. I have hundreds of pages where I have proposed contrasting information about creationism, epistemology, TEoG, Genesis, Exodus. I take exception to your statement and, in fact, most of my arguments are met not with contrasting argument but with, "is not," repeated over and over. This discussion is a good example. I posted two articles challenging the views expressed here about Marcion and the movie Zeitgeist. The response was not a discussion but another, 'is not,'

frank013 wrote:Furthermore, you break the rules about preaching and quoting the whole of previous posts with apparently no respect for your fellow BT members, or the owner, who has warned you about such nonsense… furthermore you do not seem capable of learning, you keep regurgitating the same old, tired claims even when they have been refuted beyond all reason… you will not accept the intellectual/academic professional standards of evidence which everyone here but you subscribes to… showing us all that give and take discourse with you is impossible… you want us to accept your side of things but dismiss our information out of hand… even though our information is intellectually sound… unlike yours.

You mean reproducing this post in its entirety? Fact is, I don't know how to respond other than point by point which requies the reproduction. And, once again, my claims have not bee refuted, in fact I have been told several times that it is up to me to produce evidence. When I produce evidence it is immediately deemed not acceptable evidence. That is not refutation it is EVASION especially when no explanation of what acceptable evidence would be is proffered though such a definition is requested.

frank013 wrote:In short everyone here gives (at least) a little in their positions… except you… who apparently has the “ultimate truth”

Yes you are a hypocrite.

Later

I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. I merely accused you of being one. I don't understand what about my participation in BT would qualify me for that appelation while in your case it is claiming to be a free thinker when you are not.