Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 06-04-2007, 07:38 PM   #11
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Lily wrote
you, like so many here, have created a caricature of an "evil" fundy and believe it to be true.
You mean this guy? Cause we sure as shit didn't create him, and he certainly exists.

We don't propose that all Jesus-junkies are seething fundies; the seething fundies are certainly the most dangerous, and the ones who need to be dealt with sooner than later. The real problem is that, when someone calls themselves a "Christian," in reality, that could mean anything. There is no standard body of belief beyond "some chap was the sonnagod and got hisself nailed to a cross to pay fer our sins." It's not the fault of the nonbeliever for having one thing in mind when they hear "Christian"; it's the fault of individual Christers for believing whatever the hell they want. Because if a certain group is going to call itself "Christians," then it's not asking too much that they have a certain commonality of belief. Otherwise, they're not all the same cult.

Quote:
Lily wrote
Well it is the raving atheists, as I have been told repeatedly. I just don't accept that as an excuse.
That's sort of like walking into "T&A Gentleman's Club" and getting pissed off when you see a pair of boobs, is it not?

Quote:
Lily wrote
The creation story, Noah et al. is pure mythology.
Certainly. And Jewish mythology at that.

Quote:
Lily wrote
I haven't concerned myself quite as much with the NT, mostly because I find the challenges to its historicity so silly.
So you finally have some kind of documentation that supports your assertion that the collected legends of your "New Testament" are in any way a reflection of factual history? Don't be stingy: share with the class.

The challenges to the historicity of your little storybook would be silly if:
1. archaeological evidence supported your fables.
2. your stories were written by actual historians.
3. any actual historians corroborated any of the events in your fables.
4. any of your fables were written during the events that they portray.
5. your fables did not claim that supernatural events had occurred.

But you apparently have no trouble accepting myths lacking in those areas of evidence. When the anonymous authors of certain texts claim to have been inspired by a supernatural agent, you simply take their word for it. Yet when pressed, you demand that questioning the texts is "silly." Apparently, that's fine for you; your standards are so low (in regards to the particular set of myths that you already believe, anyway) that you just accept what you're told without question (didn't your dearly departed Falwell once say that Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no question?). But you have to understand that some of us -- about 1.1 billion, in fact -- aren't going to simply take your word for it, nor the word of a handful of anonymous pre-scientific writers.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational