Jesus Christ is no myth part II

Remember, Jesus wants slaves.

 

Smith wasn't in prison for his faith. He destroyed a News Press that exposed his incest and polygamy. It is reported he shot three of his attackers. Polygamy was very important to his satisfaction. Of course he didn't recant..

 

So failure of people to recant their religious beliefs is not proof that those religious beliefs are true? Thank you for countering your own argument.

 

That is a stupid thing to say. No one ever asked Joseph Smith to recant his faith. They just asked him to obey the laws of the land. Polygamy and incest as well as statutory rape is something Americans would not condone. He destroyed a printing press (free speech) and that is what upset the populace.

 

When somebody introduces an all-powerful, all knowing being into a conversation - you damn right I need to be impressed - otherwise I can just compare it to the thousands of other geo-centric gods of every other religion.

It took over 1,500 years for the Bible to be printed in every language and distributed throughout the world.

A middle-aged housewife who became a writer in England was able to accomplish that same feat in less than two months with her Harry Potter books.

If you're going to claim the extraordinary - it's up to you to produce.

 

Christian bashers are a dime a dozen and you are one of them. Let me tell you what I don't like about you. I know some honest agnostics. Even have a couple atheist friends. Have had relationships with many people of beliefs opposed to my own. One thing I hold dear.... my liberty comes from someone far greater than you or me. I am accountable to that Someone. Your arrogant unbelief and willingness to attack those of belief makes you suspect. You are your own god. You were created by chance and by chance you might try and assemble a group of elitists like yourself to define the liberty of the rest of us. If nothing else, you will tag along with the godless elites in hopes you can find a niche in their power structure.
The Bible is still the most read book throughout history in spite of those attempts to shun and destroy it from elitists like yourself. Sorry if I stole from your" Harry Potter time'.

 

Name all of your "liberties" that your god gave you in your bible!

Freedom of speech? Nope!

Freedom of religion? Nope!

Right to privacy? Nope!

Right to vote? Nope!

Right to bear arms? Nope!

Right to be judged by your peers? Nope!

 

Be sure to enjoy your liberty.

Isaiah 14:1-2 (TLB) = "1 But the Lord will have mercy on the Israelis; they are still his special ones. He will bring them back to settle once again in the land of Israel. And many nationalities will come and join them there and be their loyal allies. 2 The nations of the world will help them to return, and those coming to live in their land will serve them. Those enslaving Israel will be enslaved—Israel shall rule her enemies!"

 

I love the Book of Isaiah!

 

My favorite is Zephaniah chapter 1.

 

Fallopians 4:28 is one of my favorite verses.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, to certain, unalienable rights."
I know for a fact you are opposed to this precept. That is why there is an element that wants to change America, however, we will make America great once again.

 

And heresy and blasphemy were part of the law of the land in Jesus's followers' time. They just asked them to obey the law of the land.

 

The liberties and rights that you have were given to you by the SECULAR authority of We the People, not your deity.

 

I was born with those rights as most Americans. The secularists are disillusioned if they think they can take them away.

 

That was written by a guy who held people in life-long racial slavery and denied them all of their rights. So it doesn't sound very sincere.

 

The culture of the times....His words did set in motion the basis to change that culture. The culture was held accountable by those that took the words to heart.

 

Mexico had slavery and abolished it without those fancy words and drama and did it decades earlier.

 

Yes, per the Law of the Land those who are "naturally born" inherit the rights granted by the secular Constitution of We the People.

Furthermore the secular We the People can deprive someone of their right to vote or to bear arms or to liberty if they commit a crime that violates the secular Law of the Land.

Should someone who committed a crime be allowed to have a gun while incarcerated? Should they have the liberty to leave prison whenever they feel like it?

Rights and liberties only exist because We the People decided to grant them to ourselves. And yes they are SECULAR rights because if they weren't you not enjoy your freedom from the religion of others.

 

The Founding Fathers only gave slavery 20 years before it could be repealed by a constitutional amendment.

 

So you are of the opinion it seems, that a man or woman is born without rights and they are only granted him by the collective that happens to hold power at the time. You call this "collective" the secular We The people". Problem is this....that collective changes from time to time. There is no constant. As you pointed out earlier, early Americans justified slavery. Those that wanted to take advantage of that system went so far as to twist the words of the Bible to condone it. Those that were "sincere" (or took the words of scripture at it's true value) eventually did away with that institution.
Without this precept, that we are only granted rights as the collective sees fit, opens us up to a multitude of changes. Even Sharia Law.
The Founding Fathers were wise in that they founded our Constitution on the premise that there is an unchanging constant. As individuals, we are given certain rights by an unchanging God. Sure, there are varying concepts of exactly Who that God is, but they united around that one premise. This is what makes all Americans equal in value. Jews, Quakers, Presbyterians, Deists, and every denomination were represented. This is what inspired Franklin to state that "our system of governing was intended only for a moral and religious People."
The reason we have Government and Law is only to make sure those unalienable rights are not "infringed" upon by others. Government and Law are a necessary entity only to protect those individuals unalienable rights.
The "collective" now wages a war to state that the Constitution is a "living document" designed to change at the whims of the "collective". If that is the case, our American System can become anything.

 

Yes, because that is what actually happened.

The constant is the social contract AKA "a more perfect union" formed by We the People when we ratified the Constitution.

Yes, it is entirely possible that a Trump regime could result in an Idiocracy that abandons the Constitution. However a MAJORITY of We the People would not let that happen.

Actually they were wise enough to KNOW that the Constitution would need to be changed in the future which is why they INCLUDED a process to AMEND the Constitution as the needs arise.

Assumes fundamentalist factoids NOT in evidence.

You were asked to provide the actual "rights" that you god had given you and you failed to mention a single one.

On the other hand I pointed out that your god is OPPOSED to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, privacy rights, voting rights, habeas corpus rights, etc, etc.

BZZZT Wrong!

The Founding Fathers EXCLUDED the concept of god(s) entirely from the SECULAR Constitution ENTIRELY.

What makes all Americans equal is the Law of the Land. This is basic Social Studies 101. You would fail a citizenship test if you gave the answer to that question as your "god".

Franklin was hardly the Founding Father to be preaching about morals. He was a well known womanizer in the mold of Clinton, JFK and Trump.

The Government OF the People and FOR the People upholds the Rights of We the People.

BZZZT Wrong!

The government of We the People was giving a lot more authority than just that one task.

The ORIGINAL collective of the Founding Fathers conceived it as a living document which is WHY they INCLUDED the Amendment process and USED it themselves.

We the People today have the exact same right to Amend the Constitution as the Founding Fathers did.

That is the genius of the Constitution that it can ADAPT to changes that occur amongst We the People. Those adaptions INCLUDE women and blacks being allowed to vote and gays being allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

None of those would have been "given" to We the People by your god.

We the People gave them to Ourselves because our Constitution grants us Individual Rights and Freedoms whereas your god doesn't.

 

I am quite used to discussing with the Godless and I know that before long it doesn't go anywhere. The rights that come from God are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Perhaps that is too general for you, but it just about covers them all.

This thread is about Jesus and it is amazing threads of these types attract mockers like a moth to the flame. I mostly ignore these for that reason.....not wanting to cast my "pearls before swine". You have a very standard misconception. Don't feel bad, a lot of so-called Christians do to. In your reference " Franklin was hardly the Founding Father to be preaching about morals. He was a well known womanizer in the mold of Clinton, JFK and Trump.The Government OF the People and FOR the People upholds the Rights of We the People.BZZZT Wrong!" You are more than willing to point out the sins of others. That is quite common among the Godless. What is dangerous is, and Jesus pointed this out, are those that think they are above sin or they do not even recognize there are absolutes. You probably don't understand that and it goes right over your head. You don't have to be perfect to desire the One that is perfect. You just need the desire. He takes care of the rest.

 

Then I think you should go to Mexico and join a cartel.

 

I seem to have struck a nerve there. And you can pretend outrage to deflect from the simple truth I pointed out and make personal attacks instead of addressing reality, I remain unimpressed. I'm married to a Christian for 24 years now, so trying to paint me as a "hater" is asinine on your part and assuming I'm out to limit your religious freedoms is equally ignorant. I merely pointed out one of the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. You flipped crazy town in your response.