Reasoning with one who protests reason

[ArthurWilborn]

One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration.

Remember anything that requires faith may as well be labeled as a lie -because faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now,

Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion.

Remember, kiddies, anyone who is religious is worthy of ridicule, dishonest, disgusting, shameful, and violent. :roll:

These are your words. Notice how they are nothing like my words, like how they say completely different things than I did.

Color coded it for you. Those are your words, pal. :roll:

For example, while faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, most people don't realize that. There are plenty of honest believers who don't realize how dishonest faith is. Many believers don't even know how faith is even defined, so that's not at all surprising. Likewise religion is often dominionist, oppressive, manipulative, wholly corrupt, consistently counter-productive and among the most evil constructs in the human psyche, but that does not mean that everyone indoctrinated in this nonsense 'deserves' any of the type berratement that you want to pretend that I implied. I never said anything like that.

I know you're trying to pull the "attack the idea and not the person" angle, but it doesn't wash. Your contempt for the people involved is far too obvious. You refuse to grant them any amount of dignity or agency, instead seeking them out to either confront them or to attempt to compel them to conform to your ideas. To wit:

Uh-huh. So, why would you say that this kid, or, say, an adult atheist convert, would be (or become) a Christian?

In his case, I suspect it was an emotional dependancy coupled with extremely poor understanding of -well, pretty much anything.

No agency, no indication that a person might want to be a part of a religions for self improvement (which has been scientifically proven for some dimensions of health), for social reasons, or because of the lovely music, or even just plain old fear. Nope - he dares to disagree with your values, so he must be emotionally dependent and stupid (or some other cause of "extremely poor understanding".)

 

[scorpion9]

"One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration. IS Not same as "

"Remember, kiddies, anyone who is religious is worthy of ridicule, dishonest, disgusting, shameful, and violent. :roll:"

Aron is talking about an idea, a concept, not people. You are deliberately and knowingly generalizing his statement, and applying it to people.
Aron says, that the possibility for deity existing is ridiculous VS you saying that people are ridiculous.



"Remember anything that requires faith may as well be labeled as a lie -because faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. "
Is not the same as "all religious people are dishonest"

Again, Aron is talking about a position, idea, a way of figuring out the truth.....aka Faith, which does not care about truth, and as he said, it is dishonest by definition. Not religious people are dishonest, faith is. Religious people may believe for many reasons, to make money, or simply because they have been lied to. They themselves may be sincere and honestly believe everything they say.



"Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now"
Is not same as
"Religious people are disgusting and shameful"

Aron is talking about ex believers being disgusted about their previous position, faith, not that they or religious people are/were disgusting/shameful.
Faith is disgusting/shameful with its various attachments and conditions.


"Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion"
Is not same as
"all religious people are violent.

Peace ISN'T possible as long as there are opposing cults, promoting and demanding violence.
Weather religious people follow the violent practices or not, is a different story. Most dont.
But as long as religions exists, some do, and thats enough to generate terror and disrupt peace.

 

[bluejatheist]

""One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration.

Remember anything that requires faith may as well be labeled as a lie -because faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now,

Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion. ""

""Remember, kiddies, anyone who is religious is worthy of ridicule, dishonest, disgusting, shameful, and violent. :roll: ""

""These are your words. Notice how they are nothing like my words, like how they say completely different things than I did. ""

Color coded it for you. Those are your words, pal. :roll:

"One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration. IS Not same as "

"Remember, kiddies, anyone who is religious is worthy of ridicule, dishonest, disgusting, shameful, and violent. :roll:"

Aron is talking about an idea, a concept, not people. You are deliberately and knowingly generalizing his statement, and applying it to people.
Aron says, that the possibility for deity existing is ridiculous VS you saying that people are ridiculous.



"Remember anything that requires faith may as well be labeled as a lie -because faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. "
Is not the same as "all religious people are dishonest"

Again, Aron is talking about a position, idea, a way of figuring out the truth.....aka Faith, which does not care about truth, and as he said, it is dishonest by definition. Not religious people are dishonest, faith is. Religious people may believe for many reasons, to make money, or simply because they have been lied to. They themselves may be sincere and honestly believe everything they say.



"Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now"
Is not same as
"Religious people are disgusting and shameful"

Aron is talking about ex believers being disgusted about their previous position, faith, not that they or religious people are/were disgusting/shameful.
Faith is disgusting/shameful with its various attachments and conditions.


"Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion"
Is not same as
"all religious people are violent.

Peace ISN'T possible as long as there are opposing cults, promoting and demanding violence.
Weather religious people follow the violent practices or not, is a different story. Most dont.
But as long as religions exists, some do, and thats enough to generate terror and disrupt peace.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

"One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration. IS Not same as "

"Remember, kiddies, anyone who is religious is worthy of ridicule, dishonest, disgusting, shameful, and violent. :roll:"

Aron is talking about an idea, a concept, not people. You are deliberately and knowingly generalizing his statement, and applying it to people.
Aron says, that the possibility for deity existing is ridiculous VS you saying that people are ridiculous.

Like I said, I'm not buying it. Ideas don't exist as perfect forms isolated from people. At a certain point, an attack on an idea becomes a de facto attack on the person holding it. By saying , "the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration", he is saying that people believe something that is ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. To say that does not demonstrate animosity towards those people is to take a unrealistically sterile view.

"Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now"
Is not same as
"Religious people are disgusting and shameful"

Aron is talking about ex believers being disgusted about their previous position, faith, not that they or religious people are/were disgusting/shameful.
Faith is disgusting/shameful with its various attachments and conditions.

"I don't dislike you, I just dislike everything about you."

Seriously, this is some hardcore cognitive dissonance here. You can't separate people from the ideas they hold so neatly.

"Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion"
Is not same as
"all religious people are violent.

Peace ISN'T possible as long as there are opposing cults, promoting and demanding violence.
Weather religious people follow the violent practices or not, is a different story. Most dont.
But as long as religions exists, some do, and thats enough to generate terror and disrupt peace.

That's why America, with all of its many religions and religious people, is the world's top spot for religious violence, right? :roll:

An IDEA cannot prevent peace. An idea is intangible and commits neither peace nor violence. PEOPLE are either peaceful or violent. To say that religion prevents peace is to say that religious people cannot be peaceful. What superficially looks like speaking against the idea can have no other interpretation then speaking against the people holding it.

 

[Noth]

Color coded it for you. Those are your words, pal. :roll:

It surprises me that you - after having been explained the nuance you seemed to have blatantly missed at first - still pull this one...

I know [Aron] you're trying to pull the "attack the idea and not the person" angle, but it doesn't wash. Your contempt for the people involved is far too obvious. You refuse to grant them any amount of dignity or agency, instead seeking them out to either confront them or to attempt to compel them to conform to your ideas. ...

Emphasis mine.

You see, Arthur, I think the point is that you've convinced yourself that what you read into Aron's words is what is visible to most of us. It is not. In fact, the rest of us seem to have read just what Aron later had to clarify to you he actually wrote.
The position that an idea is worthy of ridicule does not necessarily mean the person holding this idea is worthy of the same ridicule does, very much, wash. I am entirely unconvinced that you don't practice this very thing you preach against, in fact.

Point in case from my own life: I have creationists in my family. I find creationism ridiculous. More than that, I will say creationism IS a ridiculous idea. I will now, by way of inclusion tactic, assume you find creationism equally ridiculous.
Did I say my family is worthy of ridicule? I can almost hear you saying 'YES!', but the answer is simply 'no'.

Why not, you ask? Well, consider me in a conversation on e.g. evolution with a family member of mine who believes the world is ~6000 years old.
Will I try to show them how I think they are wrong? Yes.
Will I explain why some of their ideas fly in the face of science and our understanding of the world as it has grown over the past 150 ish years? Yes.
Will I occasionally add how one of their arguments is skewed and, to me, laughable? Yes, I will.
Did they have the necessary information to understand why their position was untenable and often laughable? I doubt they did.
Are THEY, as a conclusion of all this, worthy of ridicule? No.

No, because they lack the understanding necessary to grasp the, admittedly quite extensive, theory of evolution.
No, because there are extenuating circumstances at work such as commonly held beliefs in their church community they feel they must maintain so as not to distance themselves from their social circles.
No, as indoctrination is a very powerful tool, more powerful the longer you're exposed to it.

Does this diminish the ridiculousness of the idea of creationism? Heck, no. It's as laughable as always. But then WE know that.

In short, just because a person holds an idea that, when examined with the right tools and from the right vantage point, can be shown to be ridiculous, does not mean that the person is worthy of the same ridicule him- /herself. THEY have not necessarily DONE anything to deserve ridicule. (Hell, it might even be their only bad quality.)

I think that equating showing an idea to be ridiculous with finding people who hold to that idea ridiculous is entirely unreasonable and unfeasible and I'm not sure how you would try to prove otherwise. But I'm quite sure you'll try

Remember: one idea does not embody a person. A person holds an idea.

 

[bluejatheist]

Like I said, I'm not buying it. Ideas don't exist as perfect forms isolated from people. At a certain point, an attack on an idea becomes a de facto attack on the person holding it. By saying , "the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration", he is saying that people believe something that is ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. To say that does not demonstrate animosity towards those people is to take a unrealistically sterile view.

Keep building strawmen, it's cute.


"Fuck christians, I hope all those crosses in the south will be put to proper use some day," is an example animosity. There is no strong hostility in Ra's statement, he is stating an opinion on the truth value of an idea. I guess I have raging animosity against flat earthers, because I don't treat their ideas as worthy of consideration. Or maybe you're just trying and failing to prove a point that you've already concluded as true without proper evidence, that seems more likely.

"I don't dislike you, I just dislike everything about you."

Seriously, this is some hardcore cognitive dissonance here. You can't separate people from the ideas they hold so neatly.

Actually you can, the fact you can't is the problem here. Also again you're building a (mediocre) strawman.

A more accurate version:
"I don't dislike you, I dislike the ideas that you accept and advocate, and here's why."
Sorry Aron isn't kissing their asses while he's at it, boo hoo.

That's why America, with all of its many religions and religious people, is the world's top spot for religious violence, right? :roll:

An IDEA cannot prevent peace. An idea is intangible and commits neither peace nor violence. PEOPLE are either peaceful or violent. To say that religion prevents peace is to say that religious people cannot be peaceful. What superficially looks like speaking against the idea can have no other interpretation then speaking against the people holding it.

Keep using emoticons, they make all the difference in the world.

Yeah, America, home to 9/11, abortion bombings, Matthew Shepard, Waco, Christian Identity, the Salem Witch Trials. The reason it isn't like the middle east is largely because living standards are higher, beliefs are less extreme and the government is stable and generally secular, also there's ALOT of space, whereas other areas of religious violence have much competition for land and territory.

The IDEAS of religions generally call for SELF SEGREGATION of oneself from DISBELIEVERS. SELF SEGREGATION leads to that us-or-them attitude, which is one of the major prerequisites to violence. In other words, the main way religion leads to violence is it's DIVISIVENESS, along with the IDEA of an afterlife and divine morality, which both make violence and conflict more tangible. So long as there is religion, there will then be ideas that cause people to be divided at a fundamental level. This doesn't directly lead to violence but it is an undeniable precursor.

Man the filter you use to view the world is so contrasted into black and white it's like staring at a solar eclipse.(<- What animosity looks like) People range from nonviolent to violent, and religion is a factor in this. The more extreme a religion or ideology, the more violence. Religion is one of many sets of ideas that lead to violence when given too much power. Please explain how religion has had no hand in Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, Gaza, Vietnam, Spain, among many others.

Here, let me cut your points down to the only thing you have to say:

Like I said, I'm not buying it.

You don't buy it, or more likely, simply wont.
Everything you use to support this is schlock.

 

[scorpion9]

Ideas and people are separated.
Idea can be justifiably stupid and ridiculous, while person holding it, can be genuinely decent and good person, not worthy of ridicule but education and better information instead.
Accept it and deal with it.
Stop repeating your mantra.


"I don't dislike you, I just dislike everything about you."

Please explain why did you added the word "everything"?
I know its a deliberate act of desperation, and you must know what you said is wrong.
Also, keep in mind, that you can attack an idea, without attacking or addressing any specific people at all.
Saying that eternal torture of people is stupid, evil and wrong, does not target anybody specific. It simply states an opinion, and possibly a fact. If someone feels related, and offended, then its totally their problem.

 

[AronRa]

This is what I am requesting: If this discussion will take place,, I WILL you use God's Word the Bible and will answer all questions from a biblical worldview. AronRa... what is your motive for this conversation?

Do you want to know the truth? do you have any desire to find proof of God?

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He sent His one and only Son s that whoever beleives in Him shall not persih but have everlasting life."


You don't have God's word; you only have the insane ravings of ignorant primitive superstitious savages pretending to speak for God. Your references to, and reverence of, bronze age folklore will never be relevant to this conversation. Remember what the challenge is. It is not for you to assert unwarranted assumptions of illogical nonsense, from Aesop's fables, but rather for me to show how your mentors lied to you, and how to know for certain that your current position is false.

I should add that your request is not a request. That was a statement of intent. You intend to preach, citing fables which you yourself do not understand either historically, logically or contextually. My motivation -as previously explained- is to attempt to reason with you, to break your programming and awaken your mind. I want to draw you out of the dark, delirium which Hovind and Comfort have you in. Remember how we first saw King Theoden in the Lord of the Rings? That's how you are now.

 

[evilotakuneko]

For he so loved the world, he condemned vast numbers of its inhabitants to eternal torture for no other reason than using the brains he himself gave them.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is what I am requesting: If this discussion will take place,, I WILL you use God's Word the Bible and will answer all questions from a biblical worldview. AronRa... what is your motive for this conversation?

Do you want to know the truth? do you have any desire to find proof of God?

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He sent His one and only Son s that whoever beleives in Him shall not persih but have everlasting life."


You don't have God's word; you only have the insane ravings of ignorant primitive superstitious savages pretending to speak for God. Your references to, and reverence of, bronze age folklore will never be relevant to this conversation. Remember what the challenge is. It is not for you to assert unwarranted assumptions of illogical nonsense, from Aesop's fables, but rather for me to show how your mentors lied to you, and how to know for certain that your current position is false.

I should add that your request is not a request. That was a statement of intent. You intend to preach, citing fables which you yourself do not understand either historically, logically or contextually. My motivation -as previously explained- is to attempt to reason with you, to break your programming and awaken your mind. I want to draw you out of the dark, delirium which Hovind and Comfort have you in. Remember how we first saw King Theoden in the Lord of the Rings? That's how you are now.

RA USED FLAME!

IT'S NOT VERY EFFECTIVE...

FAITH USED HARDEN!
FAITH'S DEFENSE SHARPLY ROSE!

Once again.
Is there anything wrong with noting that though he may be a man of faith that in scientific analysis Faith and bronze-age tales are useless when garnering in current knowledge instead of insulting his faith completely and utterly?
It's not impossible to lead a conversation into the honest admission that a measurement of "Miracles" and overwhelming evidence can't be used to a measurable and observable scale to count in the realms of measuring reality. Or to show that the a-priori admission of something as fact before the Evidence is scaled that it may, indeed, be fiction in parts is a terrible falsehood for scaling reality and observable evidence.

You focus shouldn't be deconversion - it should be education. If you're spitting around and your focus is to assimilate him into atheism via forceful coercion and bitter flaming instead of simply educating him, what makes you any different than the snake oil salesmen of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron aside from the obvious?
At least Cameron and Comfort have class.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

With all due respect, Aron, like others here, I'm concerned at how your approach and tone may be perceived, both by this young man and others watching/reading the discussion between the both of you.

Your "rant" in the video could be used as evidence of - and yet another example of - atheists' being "shrill and strident".

His last communiqué is evidence that his guard is up, following your criticisms of his beliefs: this is understandable, as the stronger our beliefs, the more of our egos are committed to them.

If his guard is raised too high, he won't take in anything you're saying.

I realise you'll deal with his beliefs from the scientific and critical-thinking perspective - if I may, let me give you some pointers from a Christian perspective. [I apply the term "Christian" to myself in the sense of "a follower of the compassion-based teachings of a man named 'Jesus' (Yashua/Yeshua/Joshus/etc)" rather than " a follower of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ".]

He's mentioned a number of things which would provide a starting point to help him relax and lower his guard.

He believes in the following:

1) Hell
2) The Bible
3) Jesus

It would be best to ask him non-leading questions, so as to allow him to open-up - rather than leading questions which would make him feel he's being corralled.

From everything we know about Socrates and his method, by asking questions of his audience, he got them to ask the questions of themselves and their beliefs/positions and, thus, free themselves of their opinions.

For example, what made him convert? What was he before? [In the video, I thought I heard "Mormon" being mentioned but I wasn't certain to whom this referred.]

Regarding hell, "How does he see hell?".

My point being, there are only two possibilities - "a place" or "a state of being".

The first is easily disproven:

Firstly, (if God exists!) God is Perfect, and - therefore - Immutable (unchanging).

These are inter-related and each cannot occur without the other. This is an important point of Christian theology

He cannot get any more perfect, nor can He be any less.

For example, those who claim that the God of the OT is/can be "jealous", "wrothful" and/or "vengeful" are wrong, since this would mean that God changes (is Mutable) and very definitely becomes less-than Perfect!

Secondly, if God has Created everything, then everything must exist within God.

This would mean that Hell (along with Purgatory, Limbo and Heaven(!)) - as "a place" - must exist within God's Being.

This is impossible.

It would mean that there would be three imperfections (Hell, Purgatory and Limbe) within God's Perfect Being and that - again - as a result, God would be Mutable.

Hell (along with Purgatory, Limbo and Heaven(!)) as "a state of being" is a more nuanced approach developed over the intervening centuries

With regard to his belief in the Bible, this too can be questioned - I've dealt with this elsewhere: here and here (with further posts explaining the points throughout the latter topic).

As for Jesus, any of Ehrman's books would be a good starting point for him to study how the authors of the Bible and the Gospels have altered what did/may have happened.

As an aside, during your video "rant" - er, debate - they (the older man and the two younger ones) argued that salvation was based "on faith alone", whether by the Grace of God or not is irrelevant, at this point.

It depends on whom one places (greater) credence: Paul (faith alone - Ephesians 2:8,9), James (faith and works - James 2:14).

That too could be a question for him to answer.

There's a interesting post on the meaning of "belief" versus "trust" - as it applies to the above - here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[bluejatheist]

RA USED FLAME!

IT'S NOT VERY EFFECTIVE...

FAITH USED HARDEN!
FAITH'S DEFENSE SHARPLY ROSE!

Once again.
Is there anything wrong with noting that though he may be a man of faith that in scientific analysis Faith and bronze-age tales are useless when garnering in current knowledge instead of insulting his faith completely and utterly?
It's not impossible to lead a conversation into the honest admission that a measurement of "Miracles" and overwhelming evidence can't be used to a measurable and observable scale to count in the realms of measuring reality. Or to show that the a-priori admission of something as fact before the Evidence is scaled that it may, indeed, be fiction in parts is a terrible falsehood for scaling reality and observable evidence.

You focus shouldn't be deconversion - it should be education. If you're spitting around and your focus is to assimilate him into atheism via forceful coercion and bitter flaming instead of simply educating him, what makes you any different than the snake oil salesmen of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron aside from the obvious?
At least Cameron and Comfort have class.

Implying trying to reason with a true believer is anything more than a vain endeavor, regardless of method. Ra is definitely taking an offensive here, but I can't be bothered to care since it wouldn't matter if he was being as tactful as Dragan Glas, nothing will change for the believer by the end of the discussion. Fun to watch though.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Implying trying to reason with a true believer is anything more than a vain endeavor, regardless of method. Ra is definitely taking an offensive here, but I can't be bothered to care since it wouldn't matter if he was being as tactful as Dragan Glas, nothing will change for the believer by the end of the discussion. Fun to watch though.

Bluejatheist, thank you for the compliment.

I think that he might be more inclined to change his opinion if a less confrontational approach is used.

Think of it in terms of a limpet.

The more you try and lever it off the rock, the more it clings.

If you can do something to it, which causes it to relax its grip and float away, then you'll succeed where brute force may not - or at least, not without it becoming a battle of wills.

The limpet-mentality is essentially what has been called the "Tortucan Trap", as posted about elsewhere.

I think if Aron can use Socratic questions, which the chap can then ruminate about - as I've posted above - these will do all the hard work for Aron, without his becoming "shrill and strident" in a effort to "de-convert" him.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[bluejatheist]

Greetings,


Bluejatheist, thank you for the compliment.

I think that he might be more inclined to change his opinion if a less confrontational approach is used.

Think of it in terms of a limpet.

The more you try and lever it off the rock, the more it clings.

If you can do something to it, which causes it to relax its grip and float away, then you'll succeed where brute force may not - or at least, not without it becoming a battle of wills.

The limpet-mentality is essentially what has been called the "Tortucan Trap", as posted about elsewhere.

I think if Aron can use Socratic questions, which the chap can then ruminate about - as I've posted above - these will do all the hard work for Aron, without his becoming "shrill and strident" in a effort to "de-convert" him.

Kindest regards,

James

I generally agree with the notion that what matters is the observer who's on the fence, not the believer being debated/talked with. Id like to defend him, but Aron is digging holes in water here as far as I can see. Even from the perspective of appealing to the fence-sitter, he's being too abrasive and the believer is the guy who comes off as most welcoming.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I agree completely with what you're saying, bluejatheist, and also want people to see the creationist to change - and be seen to change - his opinions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scorpion9]

Well, i can understand why Aron is taking such offensive. It is simply frustrating to listen to the same old quotes, lines and arguments, that you have heard hundreds of times. Its much easier to skip the preaching part and dive straight to the point. Do their arguments hold.

E.g listening the "god gave his only son ...bla bla bla", is sickening by now. Do the religious really thing, that we haven't heard it?
Seriously?

However, if they say that god 'gave' his only son, then respond with a question, WHY?
Why was it necessary to kill jesus, why did god demand+allowed this gruesome murder?
---Standard response is "god didn't demand it, but it was simply necessary because men 'became' bad"
To which a response would be
"why couldnt god forgive the sins without a gruesome murder"
to which a standard response is
" something something needed pure innocent blood, and only jesus was good enough"
To which you can respont
"who needed needed the pure blood, and why can a gruesome bloody murder make anything better"?
To which, a longer pause will follow, during which the kid will consult his personal preacher, and ....response could be quitting the conversation.

two wrongs don't make a right.
Men being rebellious and bad = Bad
Murdering a pure innocent being = Bad
Bad + Bad = Divinely good




Btw, i have a quick off topic question about the bible.
If god "Gave" his only son to us, and the gruesome murder was all his plan, and intention, then why is bible saying that jesus got betrayed. It wasnt a betrayal if it was the plan all along. Did Judas even have a choice in the matter, since god had already made up his plan. Judas only helped jesus to fulfill his goal, right? Jesus preached a prophesy of him getting betrayed, what if Judas didnt want to betray him? He would have screwed jesus , by not fulfilling the prophecy, and ....if he did betray, then he got faith worse then death. Screwed either way.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well, i can understand why Aron is taking such offensive. It is simply frustrating to listen to the same old quotes, lines and arguments, that you have heard hundreds of times. Its much easier to skip the preaching part and dive straight to the point. Do their arguments hold.

E.g listening the "god gave his only son ...bla bla bla", is sickening by now. Do the religious really thing, that we haven't heard it?
Seriously?

Laziness is no excuse for education and wit.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well, i can understand why Aron is taking such offensive. It is simply frustrating to listen to the same old quotes, lines and arguments, that you have heard hundreds of times. Its much easier to skip the preaching part and dive straight to the point. Do their arguments hold.

E.g listening the "god gave his only son ...bla bla bla", is sickening by now. Do the religious really thing, that we haven't heard it?
Seriously?

But to each new convert it's not old hat - it's fresh. The fact that most atheists have heard it all before doesn't register with the newbie.

Btw, i have a quick off topic question about the bible.
If god "Gave" his only son to us, and the gruesome murder was all his plan, and intention, then why is bible saying that jesus got betrayed. It wasnt a betrayal if it was the plan all along. Did Judas even have a choice in the matter, since god had already made up his plan. Judas only helped jesus to fulfill his goal, right? Jesus preached a prophesy of him getting betrayed, what if Judas didnt want to betray him? He would have screwed jesus , by not fulfilling the prophecy, and ....if he did betray, then he got faith worse then death. Screwed either way.

According to Ehrman, The Lost Gospel Of Judas Iscariot (Jude), Jude was the only one who "got" what Jesus was about - in order to free Jesus' soul from the "prison of the flesh", he had to "betray" him, at Jesus' behest. The fact that Jude was then seen - and portrayed - as the betrayer was part of Jude's complaint in his gospel. He was, according to him in fact, the first true Christian.

The above may seem strange, but Jude's gospel is part of the gnostic writings. To them, the world was made by evil beings and the body is a "prison" for the soul: this is partly why Islam sees the relationship of the soul to the body in a similar light - the nightingale (soul) in a cage (body), and why martyrdom (by whatever means) is seen as a victory of the spiritual over the mundane.

It is clear that Jesus' apparent prophecy/fore-telling of his betrayal wasn't such - since he was the one who'd planned it ahead of time(!)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[bluejatheist]

According to Ehrman, The Lost Gospel Of Judas Iscariot (Jude), Jude was the only one who "got" what Jesus was about - in order to free Jesus' soul from the "prison of the flesh", he had to "betray" him, at Jesus' behest. The fact that Jude was then seen - and portrayed - as the betrayer was part of Jude's complaint in his gospel. He was, according to him in fact, the first true Christian.

The above may seem strange, but Jude's gospel is part of the gnostic writings. To them, the world was made by evil beings and the body is a "prison" for the soul: this is partly why Islam sees the relationship of the soul to the body in a similar light - the nightingale (soul) in a cage (body), and why martyrdom (by whatever means) is seen as a victory of the spiritual over the mundane.

It is clear that Jesus' apparent prophecy/fore-telling of his betrayal wasn't such - since he was the one who'd planned it ahead of time(!)

Problem is I doubt many Christians acknowledge that gospel

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Indeed - as the NatGen article points out, for 2000 years, Judas has been the villain of the piece!

Yet another example of selective editing of the Bible.

The irony!!

Kindest regards,

James