On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:39:46 -0800 (PST), skyeyes
<skyeyes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 6:15 pm, Mariachi <jpgarcia...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>> Apparently you have never thought outside the box calling Christians
>> delusional. I will not ridicule anyones religion, I will just present
>> Christianity as it is in the bible. Have you ever reviewed the
>> evidence?
>
>I grew up christian fundamentalist, and was a born-again christian.
>Starting with the year I turned 8, I read the bible through cover-to-
>cover, as I did every year thereafter until I turned 22.
>
>I have read several different translations of the bible, including the
>KJV, the RCC and several others. I have read the bible in German,
>Spanish, and Demotic ("Modern") Greek.
>
>And you know what? The more I read the bible, and the more I studied,
>the more I came to realize that the bible is nothing but a book of
>Bronze and Iron Age mythology. It has some half-assed and lugubrious
>poetry, some pretty decent soft ****, and a lot of blood-and-guts.
>What it *doesn't* have is anything like internal consistency, nor does
>it show any sign of having been "inspired" by an all-knowing
>supernatural being.
Most Christians don't read anything but the bits their preacher
recommends.
You would seem to be one of those dedicated ones who actually read the
thing. Which is the source of many deconversions.
>> Why are you so quick to say that Christianity does not have
>> a factual basis?
>
>Because it doesn't. Christianity was started by Paul of Tarsus, who
>was a Hellenized Jew and an epileptic (and probably a schizophrenic as
>well). He wanted a Jewish version of the Greek mystery cults, and he
>cobbled one together using some pretty esoteric stuff from the old
>testament. Several decades later, the Christ myth got conflated with
>the personality of one or more itinerant Jewish preachers, one or more
>of whom were named "Joshua" ("Jesus" is the Greek form of "Yeshua/
>Joshua"). A number of people wrote fictional histories of this Jesus
>character and named them after people who appeared in the Jesus
>myth. In the 300s, the embryonic RCC excluded all but four of them -
>the gospels bearing the names (but not written by) Matthew, Mark,
>Luke, and John - and discarded the rest - the gospels of Phillip,
>Thomas, Mary, and Judas among them (which I have read) - because they
>didn't sup****t the dogma that the young RCC was formulating.
Yes. Early Christianity was influenced was Philo of Alexandria's
attempts to fuse Greek philosophy (Stoic) although he never became
Christian. He came up with the Logos. Which Christianity eventually
turned into a human. Paul knows nothing about a human Jesus, that came
later.
As did the Gospels which retell earlier hero myths in the setting of
first century Palestine but got basic geographic and historical
details wrong.
Rather like some bad novels I have read that get British details
wrong.
I've also wondered why those who imagine the non-canonical Gospels you
mention, are somehow evidence for an historical Jesus, dismiss their
contents.
>Unfortunately for you, there isn't the *least* shred of actual
>evidence that the character known as Jesus Christ ("Joshua the
>Anointed One") ever actually existed.
Or even anybody called anything like Joshua ben Joseph.
>> If you are so open-minded, I would hate to see what
>> close-minded is. As it stands, the Holy Bible has been a guide for
>> billions of people throughout the years, yet you dismiss Christianity
>> as pure delusional fantasy.
>
>As the great scholar Joseph Campbell pointed out, *all* myths have a
>certain value, because they speak to the common human experience.
>Your problem is that you've mistaken the myth, which is a metaphor,
>for reality.
I've never understood the "open minded" and "closed minded" gambit. It
seems to mean "force yourself to accept it and everything can be
rationalised to fit".
>> Christianity is the only religion in which God came to earth to save
us.
>
>Save us from what? From being what he created us to be? From what
>he's going to punish us eternally for being?
It's also blatant question-begging. And stupidly rude because he
presumes it to people he knows don't already believe. Which means
there can be no mutual discussion. He knows and he doesn't care that
we don't believe. But he's going to presume it anyway. Stuff his
audience.
>What a crock.
Yep.
>Now before we go any further, can you please provide evidence that
>*any* god, anywhere, throughout *any* time in human history, *actually
>exists*? (And please note, quoting bible verses does *not* constitute
>evidence. I'm looking for verifiable data, not more indefensible
>assertions.)
He can't. Because there is none.
If there had been any a conversion religion like Christianity would
have provided it long ago. It would have been their silver bullet.
They would not have kept it quiet.
>Take your time, I'll wait.
But don't hold your breath.
>> It is not a quest to search for
>> God and the purpose of life, because it mentions what the purpose of
>> life is. You do not have to earn your way to God in Christianity, you
>> just have to believe what God did for you. I challenge you to have an
>> open mind and read the book of John in the bible.
More question-begging stupidity that boils down to "you already have
to believe in order to believe".
>Been there. Done that. Read it in several languages and
>translations. It's a *myth.*
>
>Brenda "Ex-born-again christian" Nelson, A.A.#34
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
|
