Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Worth repeating. We need to agree to disagree. Enough with the childish attacks about Paul and mental hospitals. Grow up and realize that billions of people don’t find your reasoning convincing. Which is fine and on, if you can just grow up and do you without attacking everybody else.

The post below could also mention Josephus and Tacitus.

Anonymous wrote:

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

You can stomp out dramatically all you want, but the PP is correct.

And FYI a contemporaneous written account any one of Jesus' alleged and incredible miracles would be very persuasive indeed. The problem is, there isn't a single one, even though any one of the many would have been gigantic news.

You have a contemporaneous account in Paul, but you choose to imagine something about schizophrenia or epilepsy instead. And you have near-contemporaneous accounts—within decades—which is pretty amazing for events that are over 2,000 years old. But these aren’t good enough for you. Your choice. But as you know, a billion Christians find the New Testament more convincing than your imaginings about epilepsy.

And it’s more like sighing than stomping. What is it with atheists trying to imagine overreactions from other people, when they (the atheists) are losing a discussion? Next up: “I got under your skin, didn’t I, huh, huh?” Nah, you and your imaginings about Paul are simply boring.

Have a good afternoon.

Says the Christian who couldn't possibly be the one who is attracted to Christianity because of its message of love and charity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

No, I'm saying it is impossible to believe Jesus appeared to Paul. Period. I have no idea what his motives were for making up that story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Projection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: does the atheist org still pay you if you have a bad day trolling religious social media sites?

Depends. What are the “religious social media sites” that you frequent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Really? If that happened today, you really think someone would believe him?

You really are gullible, huh? No wonder you’re a “believer”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

No, I'm saying it is impossible to believe Jesus appeared to Paul. Period. I have no idea what his motives were for making up that story.

And yet you keep alluding to possible motives (Peter) or suggesting sheer insanity (mental hospital, epilepsy, schizophrenia). Be honest here.

In any case, it’s impossible for YOU to believe. Which is fine. You do you. But obviously millions of others DO believe. What I’m becoming curious about is, when there are millions of believers out there, why do you make in your mission, 24/7, to try to pick off DCUM believers one poster at a time? You’ve failed miserably today (as evidenced by your descent into stupid ad homonyms). I don’t see anybody (besides the atheist buddy) chiming in with, “wow, you’re right!” either. Can’t you see how futile your mission is, whether paid or self-annointed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: does the atheist org still pay you if you have a bad day trolling religious social media sites?

Just keep it up; it adds so much to the conversation.

Like calling a pp “full of crap” because she forgot what happened earlier in the thread? You lead the way!

“Forgot”?

If it’s too difficult for you gullible people to keep up maybe you should step out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

No, I'm saying it is impossible to believe Jesus appeared to Paul. Period. I have no idea what his motives were for making up that story.

And yet you keep alluding to possible motives (Peter) or suggesting sheer insanity (mental hospital, epilepsy, schizophrenia). Be honest here.

In any case, it’s impossible for YOU to believe. Which is fine. You do you. But obviously millions of others DO believe. What I’m becoming curious about is, when there are millions of believers out there, why do you make in your mission, 24/7, to try to pick off DCUM believers one poster at a time? You’ve failed miserably today (as evidenced by your descent into stupid ad homonyms). I don’t see anybody (besides the atheist buddy) chiming in with, “wow, you’re right!” either. Can’t you see how futile your mission is, whether paid or self-annointed?

Or pp’s “me too” theory about Paul trying to get in with the apostles. If pp can’t pick a single theory, why give her the time of day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worth repeating. We need to agree to disagree. Enough with the childish attacks about Paul and mental hospitals. Grow up and realize that billions of people don’t find your reasoning convincing. Which is fine and on, if you can just grow up and do you without attacking everybody else.

The post below could also mention Josephus and Tacitus.

Anonymous wrote:

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

At least we can all agree there is no actual evidence.
No archaeological artifacts.
No independent, first-hand account.

All of the “accounts” we have today were translated and transcribed and interpolated over the years. Not really credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

How so? PP makes rational points and comes across as an intelligently curious person. I guess I can see how you wouldn’t think that “reflects well”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

No, I'm saying it is impossible to believe Jesus appeared to Paul. Period. I have no idea what his motives were for making up that story.

And yet you keep alluding to possible motives (Peter) or suggesting sheer insanity (mental hospital, epilepsy, schizophrenia). Be honest here.

In any case, it’s impossible for YOU to believe. Which is fine. You do you. But obviously millions of others DO believe. What I’m becoming curious about is, when there are millions of believers out there, why do you make in your mission, 24/7, to try to pick off DCUM believers one poster at a time? You’ve failed miserably today (as evidenced by your descent into stupid ad homonyms). I don’t see anybody (besides the atheist buddy) chiming in with, “wow, you’re right!” either. Can’t you see how futile your mission is, whether paid or self-annointed?

Millions of people also think he’s the son of god. Can’t really trust their opinion on this.

The only failure here is you and your “ad homonym” attacks. You are clearly projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

How so? PP makes rational points and comes across as an intelligently curious person. I guess I can see how you wouldn’t think that “reflects well”.

PP is throwing darts or painted a wall and hoping something will stick. It’s pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM needs to upgrade its trolls. Or upgrade its atheists.

?? That's not really helpful. O.k., Jesus probably did live, but the Jesus myth was largely created by Paul. He became a convert when he was on the road to Damascus and had a "vision" in which he heard Jesus speak to him. No one else was there so we are expected to accept Paul's word for this. Of course if that happened today, the person might well be committed to a mental hospital. That assumes he didn't just make the whole thing up for his own purposes. He then wrote about the stories that had been floating around via oral traditions. Some of it may be true, some very unlikely - but the point is that none of it can be confirmed nor documented and Paul's writing is really advocacy for a point of view. If you believe, that's fine but there's no basis for believing any of it is truth.

There’s no reason for believing Paul made it up for the bizarre personal motives you’re giving him, either. In fact, between Paul and your weird conspiracy theories and allusions to mental hospitals, most people would probably choose Paul.

Based on what? Who said "bizarre" personal motives? What weird conspiracy theories? As you know Paul was a rival to Peter and started his own churches that were often at odds theologically with Peter. I don't know what motivated him. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims Jesus spoke to them must be regarded with bit of skepticism.

So now you’re half-claiming (because even you know this doesn’t pass the smell test) that Paul made up Jesus’ appearance to him because he (Paul) wanted to get up Peter’s nose. Whether you’re an atheist or the Jew who took a class or two on Christianity at Rabbinical school in NYC, you really need to get a grip. This doesn’t reflect well on you.

How so? PP makes rational points and comes across as an intelligently curious person. I guess I can see how you wouldn’t think that “reflects well”.

PP is throwing darts or painted a wall and hoping something will stick. It’s pathetic.

^^ darts or paint at a wall

Unlike you guys, I have something to do this Friday night. Have a good evening.