Why do people distrust atheists?

cjab

Well-known member
You started out by saying I sounded too intelligent to be an atheist, a clear implication that not being smart was a characteristic of atheism.
Because atheists are often bad characters and it's not smart to associate with bad characters because "Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”" 1 Cor 15:33.

So the proverb tells us that there is a danger of being infected with all kinds of fallacies and irrationality, along with deep cynicism, from associating with atheists (as well as religious hypocrites). Not quite sure why you do. It's not going to help you discover the truth about religion, if there is truth to be discovered, because atheists don't admit the truth about any religion.

You walked that back with your bit about worldly wise, but then you went back on that by saying that atheism is characterized by a lack of intelligence. Clever fellow, a lack of intelligence is the very definition of stupidity, not deception. So please, you have characterized atheism as stupid: do not be dishonest, and face yourself squarely.
I'm past arguing with you, but you're clearly not getting my gist.

1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

In Christianity there is the idea of being too puffed up and too clever for your own good. i.e. the one who is clever and who knows he's academically gifted may in the end prove to be unintelligent just because he trusts to himself and his own abilities too much, and so is deceived, as he never comes to that understanding of a subject that others with a more humble attitude attain.

If you're to learn anything of Christianity you have to humble and not "wise in your own eyes."


Thank you. I will reflect also that the person alluding to any belligerency saw fit to associate me with stupid "scum" as well, and wonder why they think they can convince anyone of anything other than their own poor self control.

Oh no: I discount the semantic content of your abuse as informative.

And at one point, in order to stave off an accusation of hypocrisy (you said) you actually provided a rationale for genocide. So again, you stated that a chief attack on Christianity was an accusation of hypocrisy, and you even pre-emptively made an argument to forestall a particular accusation, none of which I have engaged in. Why are you so anxious about being called a hypocrite? You have avoided this question several times.
I think I said there were different types of genocide, which there are. There are two types (a) attacks on captive native populations (Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Armenia, Cambodia, Stalinist Ukraine (famine), French Huguenots in 16th century, Albigenses in 13th century, etc, and (b) incidents of war (Israelite invasion of Canaan, Balkans theatre of war, Ghengis Khan invasions of especially the Khwarazmian dynasty, etc).

I also said you have to look at the whole history and have to be particularly careful when engaging with the latter (genocide incident to military actions). I don't have to be defensive personally as I've never killed anyone. However it's an academic/legal subject I find personally interesting. Obviously you don't.

Follow the conversation, please.

If there is no good evidence for God, there is no good evidence for a judge, and therefore death itself is a terrible reason to believe in God.
There is plenty of evidence for God. Creation and your own existence. According to the bible (Roms 1), this is reason sufficient of itself. That is to say, that you were created by happenstance is deemed by the bible an absurd thing to think. Also science cannot prove it to be so.


But this story, absent good evidence for its veracity, is not relevant.

No: that you are not me is obvious: you anticipated arguments from me that I would not make. That you are not "most atheists on this board" seems a n assertion painfully easy to evidence. Telepathy is not required.

I'm not sure why you think this is informative. Nothing in your current posts would seem to contradict such a past.

lol.

I didn't say anything about anyone becoming a philosopher. Please keep up.

Some philosophies are antithetical to the Christian religion. But I think it is possible that you are projecting what you would do with philosophy onto the field itself, absent your religion. The reason I say that is that a man who seriously thinks philosophy is the antithesis of religion is either ill-read in philosophy or has a wholly idiosyncratic definition of religion. In your case, the latter of course could also be true. On reflection, I suppose it is also possible that you don't really mean many of the things you say here, and perhaps that is the most charitable interpretation.
Philosophy is incredibly egotistical: it puffs up those who engage with it, even Christians. But on the other hand, there are some reasonable philosophers. It's difficult to generalize, but as you have testified, it led someone away from religion and has led many away from religion. The Emperor known as Julian the Apostate was a Hellenistic philosopher.

Christianity became corrupted by philosophers of the Greek schools, which is why the strong Trinity doctrine arose at all; but which never did it any favours as it rent Christendom asunder and allowed Islam to flourish.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Because atheists are often bad characters and it's not smart to associate with bad characters because "Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”" 1 Cor 15:33.
Meh. I had a Christian evangelical colleague. He was stripped of his licence to practice because of his incompetence and self serving deception. I can give you other stories like that. Clearly I should not associate with such religions that produce such stupid "scum" (your words and reasoning: not mine. I think evangelicals are simply people; some good, some bad. I judge bad character by the character of the individual.).
So the proverb tells us that there is a danger of being infected with all kinds of fallacies and irrationality, along with deep cynicism, from associating with atheists (as well as religious hypocrites). Not quite sure why you do. It's not going to help you discover the truth about religion, if there is truth to be discovered, because atheists don't admit the truth about any religion.
Unsurprisingly, cjab thinks that religious proverbs promote the superiority of religious folks like his good self and criticise associating with atheists. Who woulda thought it! Weird how that happens, isn't it?
I'm past arguing with you, but you're clearly not getting my gist.
No, I get your gist just fine. It's just I don't think you like the mirror I am holding up to your very fine self.
1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

In Christianity there is the idea of being too puffed up and too clever for your own good. i.e. the one who is clever and who knows he's academically gifted may in the end prove to be unintelligent just because he trusts to himself and his own abilities too much, and so is deceived, as he never comes to that understanding of a subject that others with a more humble attitude attain.

If you're to learn anything of Christianity you have to humble and not "wise in your own eyes."
So that's why you decided to tell me what I thought, and say that atheists were stupid? And you decided that all of philosophy was antithetical to Christianity, even though you you are clearly ignorant of philosophy? Because you're humble? Yeah, that works. I mean, you read Wikipedia, you know what's up.......Keep telling yourself that. Some day you'll convince somebody. Maybe even yourself. Who knows?
I think I said there were different types of genocide, which there are. There are two types (a) attacks on captive native populations (Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Armenia, Cambodia, Stalinist Ukraine (famine), French Huguenots in 16th century, Albigenses in 13th century, etc, and (b) incidents of war (Israelite invasion of Canaan, Balkans theatre of war, Ghengis Khan invasions of especially the Khwarazmian dynasty, etc).

You said a lot. You also wondered if it was REALLY genocide if one culture wiped out and enslaved the women and children of another. Clue for ya: it is. Live with it.
I also said you have to look at the whole history and have to be particularly careful when engaging with the latter (genocide incident to military actions). I don't have to be defensive personally as I've never killed anyone. However it's an academic/legal subject I find personally interesting. Obviously you don't.
No, you don't. You wouldn't know an academic argument if it crawled up your butt. You use arguments and history as a drunkard uses streetlamps: not to light your way forward, but to dissimulate instability (pace Housman).
There is plenty of evidence for God. Creation and your own existence. According to the bible (Roms 1), this is reason sufficient of itself. That is to say, that you were created by happenstance is deemed by the bible an absurd thing to think. Also science cannot prove it to be so.
There's evidence, sure. Is it GOOD evidence? To evaluate evidence, one must dispassionately evaluate contrary explanations, saying "There is evidence" isn't enough; there's "evidence" for everything, somewhere, even including perhaps the grey matter between your ears. How good is that evidence, in light of everything else, and contrary data and explanations?
Philosophy is incredibly egotistical: it puffs up those who engage with it, even Christians. But on the other hand, there are some reasonable philosophers.
Oh, there exist some reasonable philosphers? It is so perspicacious, so generous of you to say so, Mr Humble, after saying philosophy is "antithetical' to Christianity. Did it dawn on you how idiotic and ill informed your original assertion was? Did it penetrate your excellent skull that saying such things is perhaps not clever? So wise of you to walk it back now, so wise...
It's difficult to generalize,
Well, you already did, so clearly you don't find it THAT difficult. Why so modest all of a sudden? More of your famous humility?
but as you have testified, it led someone away from religion and has led many away from religion.
I actually didn't testify that. That's what you read into a simple sequential story, probably because you thought it sounded holy and pious to say that philosophy was antithetical to Christianity.

What lead the gentleman in question away from religion was grappling with the problems that life had presented him with. He read some philosophy after he realized that his religion didn't equip him to deal with the experiential problems he confronted as a physician/student. Philosophy simply confirmed that the problems he had were actual problems, that other real people had too, and not illusion, and not things easily answered with pat solutions. He might find his way back to religion, I don't know. If he does I wish him well, just as I do now. The study of philosophy, reasonably and honestly followed, clarifies and explores the issues one faces. Typically, modern (non political) philosophy presents the problems that solutions pose, rather than promoting solutions. People like you treat ideas as cudgels to beat people into a pre-determined position, but that is not how everyone sees it.

The Emperor known as Julian the Apostate was a Hellenistic philosopher.
Like you would even know what that implied....
Christianity became corrupted by philosophers of the Greek schools, which is why the strong Trinity doctrine arose at all; but which never did it any favours as it rent Christendom asunder and allowed Islam to flourish.
sure. Rando discussion board cjab-humble-dude has all the answers to major historical questions, because he's a big student of philosophy and its relationship to culture in the ancient world, and Oh-Yeah-Adam-Lived-for-Centuries-It's-Historical-Fact-You-Stupid-Scum-I'm-Humble.

Do you realize how you sound? People who talk like you encourage more people to leave religion than any 19th century syphilitic.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Well you do associate intellectually (not actually) with "that scum." I can't think why.
Try thinking first. It isn't hard.
Are you sure? It's his son who is a Catholic priest, not himself.
Yep. Nazis were opposed to abortion. Just like you. Why you would associate yourself with Nazis, I don't know (note: cjab logic, not mine).
 

cjab

Well-known member
I don't think it will be productive to focus on ghosts and spirits, as it is quite clear you have no evidence for them. It's also clear that you know next to nothing about Nietzsche and even less about Russell. You also seem intent on demonizing both of them, which comes across as very defensive. Are you willing to actually discuss their critiques of Jesus and Christianity? Without ad hominem attacks? I think trying to cover both at once will be too much, so if you're up to it let me know which you'd prefer to discuss first and we can get started.
You remind me of the sneering philosophers at the meeting of the Athenian Areopagus in Act 17:32.

The hypocrisy had reached ludicrous levels: Nietzsche and Russel spent their lives blaspheming Christ and Christians, and you accuse me of ad hominem attacks? If you atheist philosophers can't stand being critiqued, then don't spend your lives critiquing others. You rely on Russell's teapot analogy to give yourself a reason to repudiate the existence of God? You're not being asked to believe in a teapot in orbit round the sun but that the world and life forms didn't arise by accident. A big difference.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You remind me of the sneering philosophers at the meeting of the Athenian Areopagus in Act 17:32.

The hypocrisy had reached ludicrous levels: Nietzsche and Russel spent their lives blaspheming Christ and Christians, and you accuse me of ad hominem attacks? If you atheist philosophers can't stand being critiqued, then don't spend your lives critiquing others. You rely on Russell's teapot analogy to give yourself a reason to repudiate the existence of God? You're not being asked to believe in a teapot in orbit round the sun but that the world and life forms didn't arise by accident. A big difference.
Nietzsche and Russell provided reasoned critiques of Christianity. You're just attacking them as people, and your comments about Russell weren't even true. I didn't mention Russell's Teapot, and I notice again that you've ignored my question. I'm just looking for conversation here. If you don't want to discuss the topic just say so. YOU asked ME to provide criticism of Jesus, remember. I'm just trying to discuss what you asked for.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Nietzsche and Russell provided reasoned critiques of Christianity. You're just attacking them as people, and your comments about Russell weren't even true. I didn't mention Russell's Teapot, and I notice again that you've ignored my question. I'm just looking for conversation here. If you don't want to discuss the topic just say so. YOU asked ME to provide criticism of Jesus, remember. I'm just trying to discuss what you asked for.
It's my experience here that the Christians aren't interested in addressing reasoned critiques of Christianity. Perhaps my favourite example of this is the way that every time the problem of evil (or the allied problem of suffering) is brought up - and this is a problem that has tested some of the greatest Christian minds of all time - the response to it from Christians is invariably nothing but mockery. None of them will actually address it; just try to mock it into silence, as if it were not worthy of consideration. Perhaps they know something the greatest minds in Christian history didn't.

Or perhaps not.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Nietzsche and Russell provided reasoned critiques of Christianity. You're just attacking them as people, and your comments about Russell weren't even true. I didn't mention Russell's Teapot, and I notice again that you've ignored my question. I'm just looking for conversation here. If you don't want to discuss the topic just say so. YOU asked ME to provide criticism of Jesus, remember. I'm just trying to discuss what you asked for.
You can't expect me to read your mind. Nor can you expect me to read to be familiar with the enervating prolixity of your pet philosophers. There are thousands of philosophers in the world, many of whom are not vitriolically opposed to Christianity as they were. Just because you like their literature doesn't mean to say that everyone else must have the same penchant. They are dated and inevitably critiqued by others. If there is some aspect of what they say that you find pertinent, let me know. Otherwise I'll call it a day.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Meh. I had a Christian evangelical colleague. He was stripped of his licence to practice because of his incompetence and self serving deception. I can give you other stories like that. Clearly I should not associate with such religions that produce such stupid "scum" (your words and reasoning: not mine. I think evangelicals are simply people; some good, some bad. I judge bad character by the character of the individual.).
As I said, there's hypocrisy amongst Christians. It's especially prevalent in the USA and in the occident generally where there's money to be made from the gullible. Not so much in those countries where Christianity is actively persecuted because then they're easiler ways of making money than religious pretence. However in the USA and elsewhere, especially in nominally protestant denominations, there's also a lot of doctrinal intolerance. Pastors can be ejected even if they are competent just for holding the wrong views.

And as I also said, Christ's exposition of religious hypocrisy was of the highest order. So whilst hypocrisy is always to be deprecated, it's no reason per se to attack Christ or his religion.

Unsurprisingly, cjab thinks that religious proverbs promote the superiority of religious folks like his good self and criticise associating with atheists. Who woulda thought it! Weird how that happens, isn't it?
There is wisdom literature in many religions. And it's good stuff without a doubt. It's what people need to read and apply when they're young. So sad that so many are denied the privilege, thanks to militant atheism which would rather a young person gets corrupted by hedonism and vanity than allow the imparting of a moral education to youth. When that happens, you know society is on a downward trajectory.

When you look at the kinds of books that were being produced for young people 100-300 years ago, and compare it with what is being produced today, it's frightening.

No, I get your gist just fine. It's just I don't think you like the mirror I am holding up to your very fine self.

So that's why you decided to tell me what I thought, and say that atheists were stupid? And you decided that all of philosophy was antithetical to Christianity, even though you you are clearly ignorant of philosophy? Because you're humble? Yeah, that works. I mean, you read Wikipedia, you know what's up.......Keep telling yourself that. Some day you'll convince somebody. Maybe even yourself. Who knows?
I'm not entirely ignorant of philosophy, but my time for philosophy is limited by it being near the bottom of the list of worthwhile pursuits. In general philosophy is the friend of atheism, not religion. You don't need any philosophy to be godly, and the most wretched people have been steeped in philosophy (e.g. Nietzsche). Even Ronald Dworkin's last book was, "Religion without God" which although not necessarily one of the most anti-theistic books on the shelf, it would appear to be just another attempt at justifying usurpation God's rightful place in the governance of human morality.

You said a lot. You also wondered if it was REALLY genocide if one culture wiped out and enslaved the women and children of another. Clue for ya: it is. Live with it.
Not necessarily in times past. It may necessarily be that today, given overwhelming superior material resources available, and the willingness of countries to accept refugees, and having regard to the interconnectivity of nations.

In 1500-1400BC, there were no facilities for keeping prisoners of war, no means of controlling prisoners of war deciding to take up arms and rebel (as no guns), little excess production of food, no UN general assembly, and no super power that was prepared to take refugees. The world was a different place; and so to fail to acknowledge underlying realities would be perverse. Same applies throughout most of history.

Need to realize that times today are very different to what they were. In former days it was all about man-power. The best way to defeat a nation was to deprive it of its men. If you didn't do that, they would breed, return at a later date, and try to defeat you one more time, as happened with the Mongols who invaded Russia. The Russians re-grouped at a much later date after increasing in numbers, and defeated them.

No, you don't. You wouldn't know an academic argument if it crawled up your butt. You use arguments and history as a drunkard uses streetlamps: not to light your way forward, but to dissimulate instability (pace Housman).
I have a number of academic degrees, although I concede I'm not in love with philosophy, such being in general hostile to religion and also mostly a waste of time. I've done jurisprudence and that's quite interesting but also revealing in that the subject got hijacked by atheists back in the 19th century. The only people who make money from philosophy are those who teach it or write books on it.

There's evidence, sure. Is it GOOD evidence? To evaluate evidence, one must dispassionately evaluate contrary explanations, saying "There is evidence" isn't enough; there's "evidence" for everything, somewhere, even including perhaps the grey matter between your ears. How good is that evidence, in light of everything else, and contrary data and explanations?

Oh, there exist some reasonable philosphers? It is so perspicacious, so generous of you to say so, Mr Humble, after saying philosophy is "antithetical' to Christianity. Did it dawn on you how idiotic and ill informed your original assertion was? Did it penetrate your excellent skull that saying such things is perhaps not clever? So wise of you to walk it back now, so wise...
For instance there are philosophers who aim to justify certain positions on law. Legal philosophy is a branch of philosophy I find acceptable, because at least it has an objective end, which is the creation of a working legal system and expectation of justice. So I guess it really depends on what the end of a philosophy is, as to whether it might be valuable. Contrariwise many philosophers are devoted to promulgating atheist communist ideals independently of religious morality (Marx etc).

Well, you already did, so clearly you don't find it THAT difficult. Why so modest all of a sudden? More of your famous humility?

I actually didn't testify that. That's what you read into a simple sequential story, probably because you thought it sounded holy and pious to say that philosophy was antithetical to Christianity.

What lead the gentleman in question away from religion was grappling with the problems that life had presented him with. He read some philosophy after he realized that his religion didn't equip him to deal with the experiential problems he confronted as a physician/student. Philosophy simply confirmed that the problems he had were actual problems, that other real people had too, and not illusion, and not things easily answered with pat solutions. He might find his way back to religion, I don't know. If he does I wish him well, just as I do now. The study of philosophy, reasonably and honestly followed, clarifies and explores the issues one faces. Typically, modern (non political) philosophy presents the problems that solutions pose, rather than promoting solutions. People like you treat ideas as cudgels to beat people into a pre-determined position, but that is not how everyone sees it.
Since you're not giving me the actual detail but a gloss, I can't comment further. All I can say is it is likely he had a weak faith or an insufficient faith to begin with. The likelihood of falling away for some is of course anticipated in parables like that of the sower.

Like you would even know what that implied....

sure. Rando discussion board cjab-humble-dude has all the answers to major historical questions, because he's a big student of philosophy and its relationship to culture in the ancient world, and Oh-Yeah-Adam-Lived-for-Centuries-It's-Historical-Fact-You-Stupid-Scum-I'm-Humble.

Do you realize how you sound? People who talk like you encourage more people to leave religion than any 19th century syphilitic.
May be you should come down a few notches from your lofty position. As the apostles evidenced, there were few rich and well educated people willing to accept Christ, as they were too immersed in the world and reliant on their wealth to have any time for religion.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Try thinking first. It isn't hard.

Yep. Nazis were opposed to abortion. Just like you. Why you would associate yourself with Nazis, I don't know (note: cjab logic, not mine).
Nazi opposition to abortion wasn't on religious but on nationalistic and racial supremacy grounds. The Nazis of course conducted genocide on inferior races.

As for me, I haven't stated any "position" on abortion. My overall philosophy is "you can't stop pagans from being pagans." Taking a "position" on abortion with respect of those outside of the church isn't even incidental to Christian religion. It's not any part of Christian religion. I may take a view as to its "gratuitous" practice by confessing Christians, but that's another matter. Nazis weren't confessing Christians. In fact it's not a subject that interests me particularly.

And so I do not associate myself with Nazi "beliefs."
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yep. Nazis were opposed to abortion. Just like you. Why you would associate yourself with Nazis, I don't know (note: cjab logic, not mine).
The top-echelon Nazis were vehemently opposed to animal cruelty - Hitler, Himmler and Goring got rid of fox hunting, laboratory testing, and vivisection.

Why would an animal-lover and environmentalist associate themselves with the Nazis?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You can't expect me to read your mind. Nor can you expect me to read to be familiar with the enervating prolixity of your pet philosophers. There are thousands of philosophers in the world, many of whom are not vitriolically opposed to Christianity as they were. Just because you like their literature doesn't mean to say that everyone else must have the same penchant. They are dated and inevitably critiqued by others. If there is some aspect of what they say that you find pertinent, let me know. Otherwise I'll call it a day.
Who's asking you to mind-read? I'd just like answers to what I asked you in post #457. You don't need to read my mind to do that - you need only read the post.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Who's asking you to mind-read? I'd just like answers to what I asked you in post #457. You don't need to read my mind to do that - you need only read the post.
You said "I don't think it will be productive to focus on ghosts and spirits, as it is quite clear you have no evidence for them. It's also clear that you know next to nothing about Nietzsche and even less about Russell. You also seem intent on demonizing both of them, which comes across as very defensive. Are you willing to actually discuss their critiques of Jesus and Christianity? Without ad hominem attacks? I think trying to cover both at once will be too much, so if you're up to it let me know which you'd prefer to discuss first and we can get started."

Are you talking about Nietzsche's "The Antichrist," and Russel's "Why I am not a Christian?"

And if so, what aspect of Russel's circa 250 pages of "Why I am not a Christian" would that be, or what particular facet of Nietzsche's "Antichrist" would that be?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You said "I don't think it will be productive to focus on ghosts and spirits, as it is quite clear you have no evidence for them. It's also clear that you know next to nothing about Nietzsche and even less about Russell. You also seem intent on demonizing both of them, which comes across as very defensive. Are you willing to actually discuss their critiques of Jesus and Christianity? Without ad hominem attacks? I think trying to cover both at once will be too much, so if you're up to it let me know which you'd prefer to discuss first and we can get started."

Are you talking about Nietzsche's "The Antichrist," and Russel's "Why I am not a Christian?"

And if so, what aspect of Russel's circa 250 pages of "Why I am not a Christian" would that be, or what particular facet of Nietzsche's "Antichrist" would that be?
I haven't specified any text yet. I just need to know firstly if you're willing to discuss without ad hominems, and secondly which philosopher you'd prefer to start with.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The problem here is that Matthew doesn't reflect your premise. It portrays him as conceding that he is "The" son of God and the Messiah, just as in John.

Mat 26:63 "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy."
I don't think you understand that you actually just made my point for me. You need to know what certain terms meant to Judaism at the time of Jesus and not with the taint of what centuries of lazy layman understandings folded them into. What you have correct is that the prophesy is in 2 parts - 1) The Messiah of the nation of Israel, and 2) The son of man - the final cosmic judge.

The "son of man" of Daniel 7:13-14, as stated, was to be the final cosmic judge. The Messiah of Israel was not the same as the "son of man" in Jewish prophesy. The Messiah was to be an earthly christened king, a "Christ" of the Maccabean vein, but also deemed "A" son of God as such a Jewish hero would be bestowed as one sent to liberate Israel from bondage.- not the ONLY son of God. Many Jewish heroes get this distinction. Along with that distinction comes something else that no other Jew received - an afterlife. The hoi-polloi Jew just rested - yup, just ceased to exist upon their death. No eternal spirit, no eternal soul.

Mark was the first Gospel and in so being reflected the closest to the Jewish tradition. In Mark, in answer to the question Jesus posed "Who do you say that I am", the answer was simply what one would expect a Jew that thought the Jewish Messiah had finally arrived - "You are the Christ". That is to say that Jesus was simply the anointed one, a King of this world, not the Cosmic Judge - not the son of man.

Now Matthew completely changes this by asserting the question was in 2 parts, "Who do people say the son of man is", and when the apostles initial replies diminished Jesus then asks "Who do you say that I am" Matthew has completely changed the wording of Mark to imply that Jesus equated himself as the son of man also by using the term "son of man" and "I" interchangeably in his own self reference.

Now look at your quote above. "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,". This is the original prophesy, Jesus as only the Christ, the King of the Jews, the messianic earthly liberator, a son of God through tradition, not ontology, but NOT the son of man who would come hereafter. Even the editors of Matthew from Mark didn't keep the story straight in all the places it needed to be kept. Pretty sloppy stuff, but you can imagine that they were just picking on relevant isolated verses for the greatest effect.

Do you see the progression now?

Mark: The assertion that Jesus was merely the earthly Messiah of Jewish liberation, the anointed king, the Christ - the original pure prophesy;
Matthew: Now we will blend the Christ as also being the Son of Man, the final cosmic judge
John: Finally Jesus is written in as the ontos and logos of God Himself.

Now remember, Paul's epistles were written first, predating the gospels by 10 years. Mark being first would have had the widest audience by the time the Epistles were becoming popular as well and would be difficult to alter without protest of those who followed it. But after Mark, none of the gospels resembled the Jewish prophesy. They had to be altered to introduce new thinking, more than likely made up in a backwards reconciliation to the epistles. But in fairness, the original prophecy was made up too..
A lot of Matt 24 did come to pass. Not all of it though. It's a dual prophecy: a literal fulfillment and a more distant fulfillment in the future (quite common with traditional prophecies).
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until ALL these things have happened.
Actually there's a lot of evidence now for the sojurn of the Hebrews at Avaris in the Nile Delta, and in other places such as the copper / turquoise mines of Serabit el Khadim.
But alas, this history never made into the Canon.... why? Because it wasn't written by those that lived it.

There's an argument going on about whether Egyptian dating is correct. Putting the Exodus circa 1500BC seems to resolve a lot of the inconsistencies over a Ramses II date, which is not considered probable any more.
Yet no footprint in any history other than the OT Canon. Not likely, especially given Egypt had a much stronger written tradition of history than the Hebrew of the Levant.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
Atheism is NON PROVABLE.
Atheism is absolutely provable.

Here's what you do.

1) Take a piece of paper, needs to be along one like 17x11.
2) Fold it in half the long-way
3) At the top of the left hand side write in the title "Manifest Things"
4) At the top of the right hand side write in the title "Things of the Mind Alone"
5) Down the left hand side titled Manifest Things enumerate things like trees, stones, buildings, people, numbers and words (they describe Manifest things).
6) Down the right hand side of Things of the Mind Alone write down stuff like fairies, elves, Gods, etc....

There... you've done it. That is an actual written proof by virtue of what is written is actually true.

Now, try to falsify the proof by arguing things from the right side to the left side. Failing to do so successfully or credibly strengthens the original proof.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Atheism is absolutely provable.

Here's what you do.

1) Take a piece of paper, needs to be along one like 17x11.
2) Fold it in half the long-way
3) At the top of the left hand side write in the title "Manifest Things"
4) At the top of the right hand side write in the title "Things of the Mind Alone"
5) Down the left hand side titled Manifest Things enumerate things like trees, stones, buildings, people, numbers and words (they describe Manifest things).
6) Down the right hand side of Things of the Mind Alone write down stuff like fairies, elves, Gods, etc....

There... you've done it. That is an actual written proof by virtue of what is written is actually true.

Now, try to falsify the proof by arguing things from the right side to the left side. Failing to do so successfully or credibly strengthens the original proof.
I used the wrong kind of paper and ended up proving that elves reincarnate as buildings.

Now what?
 

cjab

Well-known member
fairies, elves, Gods, etc..
Atheism is absolutely provable.

Here's what you do.

1) Take a piece of paper, needs to be along one like 17x11.
2) Fold it in half the long-way
3) At the top of the left hand side write in the title "Manifest Things"
4) At the top of the right hand side write in the title "Things of the Mind Alone"
5) Down the left hand side titled Manifest Things enumerate things like trees, stones, buildings, people, numbers and words (they describe Manifest things).
6) Down the right hand side of Things of the Mind Alone write down stuff like fairies, elves, Gods, etc....

There... you've done it. That is an actual written proof by virtue of what is written is actually true.

Now, try to falsify the proof by arguing things from the right side to the left side. Failing to do so successfully or credibly strengthens the original proof.
It's just a trick to define what is material and real in terms of what is permanently manifest, and oppose it by what isn't its natural converse.

By definition spiritual events are transient events, otherwise they would be permanently manifest, but equally they are "not of the mind alone." That is they are manifested, frequently to other people and frequently on film, but impermanently. Even though impermanent, they are real and material.

This would include apparitions, ghosts, poltergeists, demon possessed (demon possessed speak in weird voices), premonitions come true, voice of God heard e.g. on Jesus' baptism, angels, miracles of healing, resurrected Jesus (he had flesh and was seen by up to 500 people), transfigured Jesus + Moses and Elijah, fulfilled prophecies (e.g. Matt 24 on the destruction of Jerusalem). All kinds of things.
 

5wize

Well-known member
It's just a trick to define what is material and real in terms of what is permanently manifest, and oppose it by what isn't its natural converse.

By definition spiritual events are transient events, otherwise they would be permanently manifest, but equally they are "not of the mind alone." That is they are manifested, frequently to other people and frequently on film, but impermanently. Even though impermanent, they are real and material.

This would include apparitions, ghosts, poltergeists, demon possessed (demon possessed speak in weird voices), premonitions come true, voice of God heard e.g. on Jesus' baptism, angels, miracles of healing, resurrected Jesus (he had flesh and was seen by up to 500 people), transfigured Jesus + Moses and Elijah, fulfilled prophecies (e.g. Matt 24 on the destruction of Jerusalem). All kinds of things.
Trees and people aren't permanent. They, like your example of transient events in the material, are transient as well. They die, rot, and disappear. They are manifest because despite them being transient in a singular form, they are a consistent manifestation in many forms and not merely anecdotal and mind bound such as an experience of God. Proof is still holding. Try again if you'd' like.
 
Last edited:
Top