Those aren't bad or undesirable laws.
Your fellow atheist made the claim we should fear a belief in Jesus and his teachings because it will cause undesirable laws to be passed.
Last edited:
Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Your fellow atheist made the claim we should fear a belief in Jesus and his teachings because it will cause undesirable laws to be passed.
I never said I read about it in the Bible.
You need to respond to what I actually wrote, not to what you wish I wrote
There’s only one, Paul, that supposedly knew any eyewitnesses. Nobody knows who wrote Mark, Luke, Matthew or John.
I’ll give you one thing. You’re consistent on this thread. Wrong, but consistent.
Stop lying about my point.
Margot
Verified User
Not remotely fact
Margot
Verified User
Non believers always assume believers have Blind Faith! That's where you make your mistake
Sure is. Why do you refuse to look it up? Are you afraid of what you’ll find? Here’s just one source, but they all say the same thing.
“The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.
Wallow in your ignorance.
He sure makes an effort to distort mine, as well.
Faith is blind. It is belief without evidence.
Margot
Verified User
You proved my point
You are functionally illiterate and willfully ignorant
Three distinct persons = your god.
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.
“Three Distinct Persons:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct individuals with their own consciousness and personal relationships.“
When speaking of whether or not any gods exist..."believing" is merely blind guessing. "Faith" on the other hand, is merely insisting that one's blind guess is correct.
You folk are absolutely sure your blind guesses that a god exists...and that you know what pleases that god and what offends it. Atheists are absolutely sure that their blind guesses that no gods exist (or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist).
You and those who guess as you do MAY be correct. The atheists MAY be correct.
I do not know which it is...and I would rather not make a blind guess about it.
Margot...THAT is where you make your mistake.
Not completely sure of what Cypress has supposedly distorted, but I do not distort any of your points, Domer...nor any of gmark77.
Both of you argue your "points" like amateurs.
If you have a specific...name it and we can discuss it. My guess is that you won't, because you just cannot sustain any of the points you make when challenged.
Margot
Verified User
Nonbelievers can't comprehend The Holy Spirit ,so they ASSUME we have Blind Faith
When you actually have evidence of such a being, let us know. Until then, it’s blind faith.
You openly compared Jesus and his teachings to some hypothetical guy named Joe Smith as an explanation for why we should fear belief in Jesus because his teachings would become law and policy.
I don't see how the sermon on the Mount or the commandment to practice universal love could become law. Those are moral principles which don't mean anything unless they are freely and willingly chosen.
Why can't you deal with points as they are made? You constantly build strawmen to knock down.
This debate stuff really isn't for you.
Debate isn't really his forte. Strawmen, appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, the fallacies just never seem to slow down.
There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark was Peter's companion and his gospel was based on Peter's teachings and testimony.
Luke was a companion of Paul. Luke openly states in the introduction to his Gospel that he talked to and investigated the eyewitnesses.
There is absolutely no propaganda value for the church to name two canonical gospels after obscure low-ranking Christians like Mark and Luke. That's a line of evidence for the authenticity of the authorship.
The is circumstantial evidence that Matthew's gospel is based on a Hebrew manuscript Matthew wrote and was later compiled and edited into a Greek edition.
John is the only one where I think authorship is truly questionable.
Early church bishops in the late first century and early second century were quoting from these gospels, so we know the gospels are first century transcriptions written when the eyewitnesses or people who knew the eyewitnesses were still alive.
You can say everyone is lying, but then you are getting into conspiracy theory land, and you would also have to explain why Peter, James, and Paul were willing to be executed for something they knew was a lie.