... opposes homosexuality because of the Bible...

I am not even claiming the biblical literature is based upon Love. I am simply trying to do point out some commonsense.

Are there any serious peer-viewed historical scholars who support the Chist-myth theory? From my experience, those books are usually written by weird people who are more than willing to feed a hate-filled and hungry new atheist readership with their drivel. In my experience, they are typically of the 9/11-truther variety.

What about atheism? If you are going to make broad generalizations based on people's actions, it is equally true that the new atheist movement is predicated on hatred of religious people. It is predicated on people who want a bully-pulpit, and take every opportunity they can get to mock and spew hate at believers. I mean look at the tactics of Harris, Dawkins and the late Hitchens (may he rest in peace), they would make great pundits on conservative radio if they held slightly different ideologies. I could never stay on atheist forums, when I used to be a non-theist, because every other thread was just hate spewed at the religious.

 

Interesting reversal. It's the religious who resemble truthers, since they insist they KNOW an extraordinary, unreasonably claim is true despite a lack of evidence for it, and even a wealth of evidence contradictory to it.

I also have yet to see a denial of Christ being a myth that isn't a fallacious, brow-beating argument from authority, as in "all of these scholars agree that he was real, so there!" I can't help it if they're personally biased toward believing in Christ and choose to ignore the evidence which strongly suggests that he was made up. And that is exactly what they and their peers do.

It's like when Intelligent Design proponents "peer-review" each other's work

 

On and on you guys go when this question has been asked and answered. Next thread please.

​

 

I have to give you props for that attempted slight of hand, but sorry, I am not buying it. Intelligent design/creationism is a small group of utterly-biased "scholars" who manipulate data and such. You cannot compare the historical consensus on Jesus's historicity to such absurdity because: (1) the vast majority of historical scholars who study the issue come to the conclusion that Jesus was historical; (2) many of those who assert the historicity of Jesus are atheists and non-believers, history departments are know for being some of the most liberal. I mean look at Bart Ehrman who is a complete agnostic. New atheists are just as silly and in denial of reality as Christian fundamentalists are, for the most part.

 

When it comes down to it, the basis for accepting Jesus's existence always seems to be a few blurbs from historians who all lived and wrote long after the purported events, during a time when the Christians were repeating the claims.

The evidence for Jesus is no better than the evidence for Hercules.

 

And Your vs You're has absolutely nothing to do with my understanding of the two words or with this conversation.... you just seem to be stuck on that for some odd reason like it helps with making a point or something.
If you would have read, you would see that I said I don't usually type ampersands and only the words that are auto corrected get them... If I type it youre it puts the little red line under it.... Again GROW UP and get out of cartoon land.

You say a man of science doesn't need proof... Well I guess that means they do have faith after all since that is the meaning of faith... Funny how that works.. You think what you have faith in is "more correct" than what I have faith in... Again funny... Just because you think you can connect the dots how you want to and make a prediction about something doesn't mean its reality. (HEY LOOK I DIDNT USE THE AMPERSAND AGAIN... I must not know the difference between its and it's...) Be sure to point that out so everyone knows... Wow! sometimes I wonder why I bother....

 

The evidence for Jesus is no different than that for evolution.... People that have nothing more to do than set around and look for evidence of something all agree.

 

It is. Among other emotions and states of consciousness. It's made of language, after all. Beware of the absurdities with some of these.

You have it all figured out. It's like, this may seem somewhat off-topic, but it's like, the kids are taught that back in the old days, people thought the world was flat, so they think the ancients are foolish and they think they know better. But, they do not know better. They have merely wrapped the flatness around a sphere and called it a globe. You see?

Yeah, strange. So there is a God, I mean, you can go to a church and ask around, they'll all be pretty much in agreement about it, but the atheist say there is no God, they say it's all imagination or something, myth. Okay, fine, no argument there, however, even for the atheists, they are aware of there being a God in some way shape or form, or do they just imagine that millions of people other than themselves believe it?

 

Of course it does. You're has an apostrophe in it.

- - - Updated - - -

...

 

Ew, homosexuality and gay marriage. What about these, that should be supported because Holey Babble supports them too?

 

Oh look I made a REAL mistake.... I called it an ampersand instead of an apostrophe... Guess that means I don't know the difference between the two.... LOL!

Just wanted to point that out so you feel smarter. Be sure to go back and look at it then be sure to make at least 4 useless posts about it....

 

Just trying to help you out. So far you've apparently been deliberately writing like a halfwit.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, there are not always two sides to an issue.

 

You can't play this card anymore, homie. You showed your true colors in my transgender thread.

 

Oh, so your transgender thread where I support basic human rights for everyone even if I don't have a sexual interest in them?

That's cute.

 

Nothing worst that when people can't read. The bible does not encourage slavery but provides laws to the masters so they must treat slaves with DIGNITY.

On the other hand, the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination, this is to say, there is no dignity in such a sexual behavior.

Besides these two points from right above, this thread is suppose to be about jokes and laughs... I can count some homosexuals who are not having fun in this thread... and on the other hand, I didn't find yet any slave posting his opinion here... duh...

 

ALL historians live and write long after the events. That's why they are called historians and not news reporters. But you accept the claims of historians regarding other things, don't you? And do you actually think that non-Christian historians are going to just make things up because there were "Christians repeating the claims"? There are plenty of other religious claims out there. How come they didn't make it into the historical documents?

NO historian claims that Hercules was real, so you are dead wrong there.

 

Heh! How does historians not claiming Hercules was real prove me wrong? Hercules was real enough to our ancestors, yet now no one accepts that he lived. Why is that? It's probably because he's described as a demigod with various miracles attributed to him. The lack of evidence for his existence is like icing on the cake of doubt.

Exactly the same is true of Jesus. Jesus is only demonstrated as having existed by browbeating and repetition, not on the basis of evidence. As with Hercules, he's a legendary, superhuman character in stories full of miraculous claims that were written down long after the events they purport to describe. The evidence for his existence is, as with Hercules and other such figures, purely hearsay, and not terribly good hearsay at that.

 

Ignorance is not only lack of knowledge about something but also is about learning things wrong... by consequence... ignorance applies to your message in both ways.

Please search the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a.(ISBN 0-900689-88-9) This is about a particular court case where a man named YESHU (Yeshu when transliterated into Greek sounds Jesus) was hanged on the eve of the Passover. The charges were that this man practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. The penalty was to be be stoned but was "hanged" instead. The reason for this change from stoned to hanged happened because Yeshu was "connected with the government [or royalty, i.e. influential]"

There you have it, Yeshu (Jesus) is mentioned by a Jewish record, in this case, an official document.

Note: The Tractate Sanhedrin introduction defines itself as it follows: "... it designs the higher courts of laws which in the latter part of the period of the Second Temple administered justice in Palestine according to the Mosaic law in the more serious criminal and especially capital cases. The main subject of our tractate is the composition, powers, and functions of these courts..."

I have posted this part of the Tractate Sanhedrin introduction, in case someone tries to come with superfluous ideas that the Talmud is only about this and that...etc... you know... some people lean their knowledge limited on wikipedia and other web sites only...

Cheers.

 

Yep my thoughts exactly...... But oh well, its comedy after all so LOL!

 

Thanks for this! It's an interesting bit of historical information I've never encountered. Even sites attacking the Christ myth theory apparently often fail to mention it, relying instead on Josephus and so on.

Of course, what is said doesn't match up entirely well with biblical accounts in the details, but at least the name, the crime and method of execution all seem to line up pretty well. Perhaps this Yeshu was indeed real and served as the basis for the mythical messiah, at least in part.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the
execution], but not previous thereto. [5] [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On
the even of the Passover Yeshu [6] was hanged. For forty days before the execution
took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because has
practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his
favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought
forward in his favour he was hanged on the even of the Passover! [7] — 'Ulla retorted:
Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a
Me(*)(*)(*)(*)h [enticer, concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither
shalt thou conceal him.'

Notes. (1) Whether his statement has substance. (2) I.e., as soon as
he starts out for the place of execution, so as to avoid an unnecessary
return even the first time. (3) Therefore the first two times he receives
the benefit of the doubt. (4) V. Glos. (5) E.g., not forty days before.
The two passages that follow have been expunged in all censored
editions. [As to the historical value to be attached to them, v. Klausner,
Jesus, p. 27ff.] (6) Ms. M. adds 'the Nazarean'.] (7) A Florentine MS.
adds: and the eve of Sabbath.]

[1] With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government
[or royalty, i.e., influential].

Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni and Todah.
When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall
Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before
God? [2] Thereupon they retorted: Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written,
Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish. [3] When Nakai was brought in he
said to them: Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the
righteous slay thou not? [4] Yes, was the answer. Nakai shall be executed, since it
written, In secret places does Naki [the innocent] slay. [6] When Netzer was brought
in, he said, Shall Netzer be executed? Is it not written, And Netzer [a twig] shall grow
forth out of his roots. [7] Yes, they said, Netzer shall be executed, since it is written,
But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Netzer [an abhorrent offshoot]. [8]
When Buni was brought in, he said, Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my
son], my first born? [9] Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written,
Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born. [10] And when Todah was brought
in, he said to them: Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah
[thanksgiving]? [11] Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written,
Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me. [12]

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/judaism/sanhedrin43a-eng.pdf

 

Neither of these are quotes of Christ.

 

So you mean there is something out there that you didn't know about before you made your educated guess about what the world really is.... OMG Does that mean you have to back up and look at it again? Maybe, just maybe you and the ones you follow could be wrong about all this garbage about there never being a Jesus.... Hmmmm.... Well, at least now you know that one did exist... Its simply up to you to figure out the rest.
Good luck with it.

 

And besides the point, neither of those statements "support" slavery, and only a nitwit with a predetermined ignorant viewpoint would try to spin it to state that it does. Guess what, in that time (just like today), slaves existed, were oppressed, and were mistreated. What Paul is talking about in Ephesians is the continued theme of Christ's teaching, "turn the other cheek". The entire foundation of Christ's teaching is to love others and forgive others, even IF they don't love you, IF they oppress you, enslave you, whatever. The "new heaven" could only be attained should everyone engage in that type of love all the time. Guess what, if everyone engaged in that, then slaveowners would set their slaves free and wouldn't mistreat them. What is taught here is that even slaves must take the high road, even though they have every right to hate someone that mistreats them. If you don't think Christ practiced what he preached, he walked into Jerusalem and accepted being arrested, beaten and hung on a cross til dead without putting up a fight, talking down to his oppressors, and even forgiving them while in the throws of pain you nor I will ever experience. The short of that passage is, "control your reaction and show love and respect no matter what, regardless of the actions of people around you".

If you want to see how that type of practice plays out, look at the rise of the emancipation movement in the mid 1800's. Had slaves acted violently in revolt, constantly fighting against their "masters" and showing disrespect, I doubt they would have garnered much sympathy from non slave-owners. However, the fact that they remained humble and obedient actually furthered their cause in garnering sympathy. It turned the actions of the slave owners into acts of unmerited evil in the face of the slaves peaceful obedience. Its the same way Gandhi got rid of the Brits.

Context really matters when reading the Bible, and nitpicking scripture to prove stupid, wrong points is just as bad when atheists do it as when Christians do it (and yes, Christians probably do it more and it's more damaging when they do).

 

Some years ago I had a discussion about slavery and the bible.

While my opponents thought that slavery was against the bible or God's commandments, I insisted that slavery is a social issue and not so a religious one.

Slowly but surely I proved (using the bible) that God is NOT AGAINST SLAVERY... lol

This former discussion started because the son of Luther King said that his father fought for social equality and that such included homosexuals. (What a coincidence that this thread mentions both social issues as well).

My point was that Luther King was a religious person fighting for social issues, but that any use of religion (in this case the bible) to obtain such a social reform was incoherent.... because the bible never mentions for such a social equality.

As human laws can differ from God's laws, the issues like politics, economy, social status, etc. at a nation's level these are not under the jurisdiction of the bible. In most of it, the bible goes to the personal status, to the rules that a person as an individual must obey. From here, this person must act according to the acquired wisdom. Still, the bible goes to social issues only and solely when the integrity of the individual is compromised

I agree with the bible in this situation, because laws are made having safety as the primary concern, the protection of human life, goods, buildings, etc, is what laws try to keep with integrity. I don't see in homosexuality any indication that human life and the physical human body is respected, for this reason I oppose to such a sexual behavior. Besides the biblical background i also found that nature is violated as well, because humans are a two gender species, and that one gender couples physically with the other. Any other form of coupling, like male with male or female with female is simply anti-nature. If nature was to give us such a third option, our bodies should have been made to couple in such a different way. But, for example, to use the rectum as a female organ, it is like to drink orange juice or hot coffee using the orifices of our nose... completely out of question...

Of course Luther King never fought for homosexual rights, such is an extension that his son is making by his own, because his father was a religious person and fought against the ABUSES performed on blacks... not so to promote sodomy in our society.

It's sad and not laughable to witness how several people attack the bible without reading and understanding it, and see how they just follow the traffic ignoring where the road they have choose to take is going to...

My regards.