Heathen haughtiness "Death Knell for Christian Orthodoxy"

[Electric Skeptic]

RICHARD DAWKINS made a surprise revelation to support the claim “Jesus was real” during his new book, stating the evidence was “convincing”.​

The outspoken atheist is well-known for his criticism of creationism and released a new book titled “Outgrowing God” last week. In the text, Mr Dawkins sought to persuade readers to stop believing in the almighty like he did when he was 15. However, during his attempts, the 78-year-old presented evidence to support the Bible.
He writes: “The Roman Tacitus offers more convincing evidence for Jesus’ existence, for the backhanded reason that Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christians.
“He was writing in Latin about an event during the persecution of the early Christians by Emperor Nero.”
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, considered by many to be the greatest historian of his era.
He wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.
“A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Mr Dawkins then gave his overall opinion on the whole matter, stating Jesus was most likely real, but doubting the stories of the New Testament.

He added: “The balance of probability, according to most but not all scholars, suggest that Jesus did exist.

Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins reveals 'convincing evidence'

RICHARD DAWKINS made a surprise revelation to support the claim “Jesus was real” during his new book, stating the evidence was “convincing”.

www.express.co.uk

Is this news? As he says, most scholars accept that Jesus existed. The opinion that he was God, or the son of God or in any way supernatural, is not as widespread and certainly not supported by anything Dawkins said.

 

[Manfred]

Is this news? As he says, most scholars accept that Jesus existed. The opinion that he was God, or the son of God or in any way supernatural, is not as widespread and certainly not supported by anything Dawkins said.

The other poster intimated that Jesus never existed.
I responded to that.

So I guess it is news to some.

What is interesting is his affirmation of the hatred toward Christians, or followers of Christ even in the first century. I am sure the atheists of the same had exactly the same arguments against God as they had back then.

Still Christianity is flourishing despite the persecution it endures.

 

[The Pixie]

...
What is interesting is his affirmation of the hatred toward Christians, or followers of Christ even in the first century. I am sure the atheists of the same had exactly the same arguments against God as they had back then.

Quite the reverse. It was the Christians who were regarded as atheists because they failed to worship other gods.

Why Did the Romans Persecute Christians?

So why did the Romans persecute Christians? Well, in my estimation, Roman attitudes towards Christ-believers highlight the incommensurability between

www.patheos.com

 

[Manfred]

Quite the reverse. It was the Christians who were regarded as atheists because they failed to worship other gods.

Why Did the Romans Persecute Christians?

So why did the Romans persecute Christians? Well, in my estimation, Roman attitudes towards Christ-believers highlight the incommensurability between

www.patheos.com

Do you think the Emperor Nero believed there was any other god to be worshiped but him?

You think Christians were regarded as Atheists...., perhaps you do not understand the meaning or you spoke to fast.

My assertion was that atheists of the time (Surely there were atheists back then) had the same old arguments against God that are around today.

 

[The Pixie]

Do you think the Emperor Nero believed there was any other god to be worshiped but him?

Yes. The Romans worshipped a shed load of Gods.

You think Christians were regarded as Atheists...., perhaps you do not understand the meaning or you spoke to fast.

Did you read the article I linked to? I guess not.

For a Roman resident to profess faith in Jesus as an alternative to Roman religion lent itself to accusations of atheism and hatred of the human race, and was interpreted as a rejection of the mos maiorum (ancestral customs) and committing maiestas (affronting the majesty of Caesar). Neglect of local deities and civic religious duties, especially those sponsored by imperial patronage, amounted to a charge of atheism.​

My assertion was that atheists of the time (Surely there were atheists back then) had the same old arguments against God that are around today.

What makes you think there were atheists back then?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

How many Believers killed by atheist crusades?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

The other poster intimated that Jesus never existed.
I responded to that.

With Dawkins? I mean as far as biblical scholarship goes, who cares? He's no expert and doesn't claim to be.

What is interesting is his affirmation of the hatred toward Christians, or followers of Christ even in the first century. I am sure the atheists of the same had exactly the same arguments against God as they had back then.

...except that he didn't affirm such a thing. I've never even heard him say such a thing.

Can you support your claim that Dawkins hates Christians?

Still Christianity is flourishing despite the persecution it endures.

Just like every other religion.

 

[Manfred]

Yes. The Romans worshipped a shed load of Gods.

Nero required worship of himself only.

Did you read the article I linked to? I guess not.

For a Roman resident to profess faith in Jesus as an alternative to Roman religion lent itself to accusations of atheism and hatred of the human race, and was interpreted as a rejection of the mos maiorum (ancestral customs) and committing maiestas (affronting the majesty of Caesar). Neglect of local deities and civic religious duties, especially those sponsored by imperial patronage, amounted to a charge of atheism.​

What makes you think there were atheists back then?

That does not make someone who believed in a God an atheist as it is defined.

Of course there were atheists in those days. Do you think every person believed there was a mythical power in a man made idol.

The silver smiths of Greece wanted Paul and two companions killed for preaching the gospel because they predicted their trade and therefore their income would cease due to people not buying idols from them.
Those guys knew that there was no power or life in hand crafted idols.

 

[Manfred]

With Dawkins? I mean as far as biblical scholarship goes, who cares? He's no expert and doesn't claim to be.

Ok, fine.

...except that he didn't affirm such a thing. I've never even heard him say such a thing.

He writes: “The Roman Tacitus offers more convincing evidence for Jesus’ existence, for the backhanded reason that Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christians.
“He was writing in Latin about an event during the persecution of the early Christians by Emperor Nero.”
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, considered by many to be the greatest historian of his era.
He wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Can you support your claim that Dawkins hates Christians?

Reading comprehension problems? I said he affirmed the hatred that there was for Christians. So stick your pride in your pocket.

Just like every other religion.

Clever retort. Can you point to a religion in Rome at those times that is still thriving today apart from Judaism?

 

[The Pixie]

Nero required worship of himself only.

Can you substantiate that claim? I find it very unlikely.

Nero (and Roman society) did require everyone to worship the emperor, but not exclusively.

That does not make someone who believed in a God an atheist as it is defined.

No. But they were perceived as atheists because they failed to worship all the normal gods.

Of course there were atheists in those days. Do you think every person believed there was a mythical power in a man made idol.

Can you substantiate that claim? I find it very unlikely.

I think virtually everyone back then believed in some sort of mythical power, though not necessarily in an idol.

The silver smiths of Greece wanted Paul and two companions killed for preaching the gospel because they predicted their trade and therefore their income would cease due to people not buying idols from them.
Those guys knew that there was no power or life in hand crafted idols.

That is a very cynical view! What makes you think they believed their goods were fakes? They would lose their trade either way.

Even if they think their goods were fakes, it does not follow that they were atheists. Everyone was raised in a culture that just accepted there were pantheons of gods. Everyone was expected to worship numerous gods. The Christians (and Jews) were very unusual for not worshipping numerous gods, and that is what got them in trouble.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

He writes: “The Roman Tacitus offers more convincing evidence for Jesus’ existence, for the backhanded reason that Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christians.
“He was writing in Latin about an event during the persecution of the early Christians by Emperor Nero.”
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, considered by many to be the greatest historian of his era.
He wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Yes, I know. I misread your statement and thought you were talking about his (Dawkins') hatred of Christians. Apologies.

Reading comprehension problems? I said he affirmed the hatred that there was for Christians. So stick your pride in your pocket.

Wow, over-reaction problems? I asked a civil question and you jump down my throat ranting about 'pride', which has nothing to do with it?

Clever retort. Can you point to a religion in Rome at those times that is still thriving today apart from Judaism?

Firstly...why 'apart' from Judaism?

Secondly no, but what difference does that make to my statement?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

LIst the names of all the atheists that watched God kill and mutilate just one unborn baby.

Waiting for scientific observation and all i observe is athe handwaving.

 

[Manfred]

Firstly...why 'apart' from Judaism?

Secondly no, but what difference does that make to my statement?

God made a covenant with Israel.
Israel like Christianity will never disappear

You really believe there were ZERO atheists in roman times.....

 

[Electric Skeptic]

God made a covenant with Israel.
Israel like Christianity will never disappear

Well, that remains to be seen.

You really believe there were ZERO atheists in roman times.....

I do not understand what this comment has to do with anything I've said.

Of course, in Roman times, Christians were considered atheists. But I don't know what this has to do with anytning I've said, either.

 

[Manfred]

Well, that remains to be seen.

Still true 2000 years down the line, and will remain so.

I do not understand what this comment has to do with anything I've said.

Of course, in Roman times, Christians were considered atheists. But I don't know what this has to do with anytning I've said, either.

You said that there were no atheists 2000 years ago because I said, the same arguments against Christianity has been used since then.
BTW claiming someone to be an atheist who obviously believes in a God, is obviously meant in a different manner.
These word games you guys love to play is really boring.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Still true 2000 years down the line, and will remain so

Still true 2000 years down the line, and will remain so.

You said that there were no atheists 2000 years ago because I said, the same arguments against Christianity has been used since then.
BTW claiming someone to be an atheist who obviously believes in a God, is obviously meant in a different manner.
These word games you guys love to play is really boring.

Again, that remains to be seen.

You said that there were no atheists 2000 years ago because I said, the same arguments against Christianity has been used since then.

Where did I say that?

BTW claiming someone to be an atheist who obviously believes in a God, is obviously meant in a different manner.

Which changes nothing about what I said.

These word games you guys love to play is really boring.

The word games you imagine people are playing might be boring. If that's a problem, try to imagine we're playing entertaining games.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Can you substantiate that claim? I find it very unlikely.

Nero (and Roman society) did require everyone to worship the emperor, but not exclusively.

When were you there?

 

[The Pixie]

When were you there?

It was nearly 2000 years ago, Authie. I would have thought someone with a medical degree would know that.

On the other hand, I am not surprised you do not.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

They don't, because no one has proved Jesus existed (let alone performed miracles).

You have spoken to everyone at the time of Christ?
Jesus proved He existed.

 

[J regia]

You have spoken to everyone at the time of Christ?
Jesus proved He existed.

So how did Jesus prove he existed, and does he mow your lawn or read your gas meter?