So he wasnt a Jew?

3 by ABass Mon, June 12, 2006 10:23 PM

hey Baker don't spoil the fun, I was kinda hoping he'd fall for it and make like a dead guy.

Now why don't you tell me I'm wrong, substantiate your point of view with reasoned argument and a selection of scripture to support your reasoning, and come to conclusions that can be debated.

That's what I would expect of the likes of BakerStreet. The rest of you will do what the frightened and insecure always do... which is run away. And as to Abass's 'challenge'... wasn't it Jesus that refused a sign to the Pharisees? If your God refused to prop up the faith of the faithless and the cowardly with signs why should I do anything else?

Abass. Go find a corpse and say to it the words that Jesus spoke to Lazarus. Then bring me the former corpse, walking, eating, breathing, and speaking. Then perhaps I'll believe you to be more than a fool who blasphemes.

The rest of you will do what the frightened and insecure always do... which is run away

I don't run that often. Actually, I don't call it running. I call it picking and choosing my fights. Granted, my choices haven't been all that great.

If your God refused to prop up the faith of the faithless and the cowardly with signs why should I do anything else?

Please?


Anywho...Me, I'm just happy how I am in regards to "religion," and all of that.

~L

To Lucas:

nothing wrong with being happy in your religion. But if you can't provide an account of why you believe then you're a lousy ad for that religion.

"Or I'll start believing what I've suspected for awhile now - that you're grossly overrated, both as a writer and an intellect. And again, if you refuse the challenge then your silence condemns you."

Oh, overrated without a doubt; writer, intellect, animal trainer, ballroom dancer... whatever you like. Such obvious things require no condemnation, do they? I think I'll go on warming my thumb.

To BakerStreet:

Do so. While you're at it, move your thumb around a little and give your brains a stir. Perhaps then you'll be able to come up with something on the topic and which furthers the discussion.

As you admit, you're grossly overrated.

Believing in something generally means, at the very least, being able to name what you believe in, along with being able to give an outline of the nature of your belief and why you believe what you believe

Not necessarily. To me, the idea that there is *no* supreme being, (Whatever it is) is illogical/impossible. I believe that, whatever your faith is, (THAT is what I call my case. Faith. NOT religion. Religion is a expedient of humans.) you do not need a church to preach to you. You can find your own way.

not caring for organized religion and believing in a supreme being does not mean you are part of no religion. It means you're part of the hoplessly confused lazy-ass religion - which is very nearly the same thing as saying you're a Christian, or at least what presently passes for a Christian.

It doesn't matter whether I am technically part of any religion. I don't consider myself to be. It is my will, that makes the big difference. I refuse to be associated with religion.

And if you can't manage that minimum then, Lucas, in your case it really would be better to keep silent and be thought a fool rather than opening your mouth and demonstrating to the world that you actually are a fool - as you have just done.

Have you been talking to your wife lately?


~L

To cactoblasta:

So historically Jesus was as much a Muslim as he was a Jew, or at least he's claimed as such by Islam.

Certainly there's a shared heritage between them, and a familial line, and in the interest of clear thinking that in itself is something worth pointing out - especially in our current circumstances. That's only a part of the point I was making however (a point made for the benefit of self-satified ignoramuses such as KFC) - which is that 'Jesus Christ', supposed God of the Christians, is actually an instance of idol-worship and a form of blasphemy. No such fabulous creature as the 'Son of God' exists now, or was ever required to exist.

"Simon had you blacklisted when I woke up this morning, and since we share a computer that would have rendered you unable to comment on my threads as well. While Im sure this would have caused you little (if any) consternation, I pride myself on the shortness of said list (there is only one person on it at the moment) so I've asked Him to lift the ban, which He has. However, any further comment by you on this thread will be deleted and result in your return to the blacklist, so I'd appreciate your cooperation."

Let him, I don't care. My remark wasn't any different than the ones you guys leave here and there. As for this article, there's not much to say. He's just rejecting what he considers to be a mythology in favor of what other people consider to be a mythology.

The idea that anyone is going to back any of this up is pretty silly. If he wants to believe it, fine. It doesn't effect my belief, nor does my belief require me to bait other people about theirs. If he wants to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, fine, but until someone can prove the existance of an angel to me, there's not much to debate about.

Arguing Jesus was this and Jesus was that when 90% of anything we say is unproven and basically made up isn't accomplishing anything. I have no doubt that a lot of the Christian tradition about Jesus is mythology. Held to that standard, I'm not seeing anything in EoIC's opinion that is more reliable.

P.S. I don't make assertions about my skill at writing or my intelligence, either. He's more than welcome to muse about my lack of either, and I'll continue not caring about his skills one way or the other and just judge what he writes.