Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why must PP “pick” a single theory when there is clearly no way for us to determine the motivations of a character named Paul set in a place 2000 years ago?

Is that what you do? You “pick” something without any facts and then run with it without another thought? Is that how you “discovered” religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that how you picked your religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that how you picked your religion?

I’m selling white surrender flags. Want one? I’m thinking I could make a lot of $$$ from all the atheists with childish comments here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that how you picked your religion?

I’m selling white surrender flags. Want one? I’m thinking I could make a lot of $$$ from all the atheists with childish comments here.

LOL. Do you hear yourself? Projection at its finest.

[Anonymous]

I'd accept any first hand accounts, but when someone like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul claims that someone is the "son of God" and "died for our sins," how could they possibly know that? Its an assertion that can't possibly be proven. For the Church that's both its strength and weakness.

[Anonymous]

So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd accept any first hand accounts, but when someone like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul claims that someone is the "son of God" and "died for our sins," how could they possibly know that? Its an assertion that can't possibly be proven. For the Church that's both its strength and weakness.

Have you actually read all of the New Testament?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

Exactly. Not based on facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

Are you saying it's a "distortion" to conclude "religion is a matter of belief and faith"? I didn't expect that view to be controversial. How is it a distortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

Are you saying it's a "distortion" to conclude "religion is a matter of belief and faith"? I didn't expect that view to be controversial. How is it a distortion?

Broad statements like this aren’t helpful. There have been pages of disagreement on this thread about whether we can rely on the gospels and Paul—on the *text* itself, not whether you believe the content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

Are you saying it's a "distortion" to conclude "religion is a matter of belief and faith"? I didn't expect that view to be controversial. How is it a distortion?

Broad statements like this aren’t helpful. There have been pages of disagreement on this thread about whether we can rely on the gospels and Paul—on the *text* itself, not whether you believe the content.

and your conclusion is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

Are you saying it's a "distortion" to conclude "religion is a matter of belief and faith"? I didn't expect that view to be controversial. How is it a distortion?

Broad statements like this aren’t helpful. There have been pages of disagreement on this thread about whether we can rely on the gospels and Paul—on the *text* itself, not whether you believe the content.

and your conclusion is?

Oh please. Agree to disagree. Which was said several times several pages ago, before atheist pp chimed in with her spin.

What I don’t understand is atheist trolls who spend 24/7 on here and always, always have to have the last word. Even if it’s a dishonest last word and they don’t seem to get that people like me can go back and read what was actually said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when all is said and done, religion is a matter of belief and faith.

Some of religion's attractive features are the beauty of it's rituals and it's writings, its ageless moral lessons, its love and compassion and, in some religions, its promise of eternal life.

How immature do you have to be, to spend 14 pages on a thread and then write something like this, which ignores many pages of other people disagreeing with you? The DCUM bar for debate is admittedly low, but people who come on to cap with their own spin and even distortions, like this pp, kinda take the cake....

Are you saying it's a "distortion" to conclude "religion is a matter of belief and faith"? I didn't expect that view to be controversial. How is it a distortion?

Broad statements like this aren’t helpful. There have been pages of disagreement on this thread about whether we can rely on the gospels and Paul—on the *text* itself, not whether you believe the content.

and your conclusion is?

Oh please. Agree to disagree. Which was said several times several pages ago, before atheist pp chimed in with her spin.

What I don’t understand is atheist trolls who spend 24/7 on here and always, always have to have the last word. Even if it’s a dishonest last word and they don’t seem to get that people like me can go back and read what was actually said.

? But what's the dishonesty? I guess you don't want to say what your position is on the question you raised i.e. "whether we can rely on the gospels and Paul—on the *text* itself."?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh please. Agree to disagree. Which was said several times several pages ago, before atheist pp chimed in with her spin.

What I don’t understand is atheist trolls who spend 24/7 on here and always, always have to have the last word. Even if it’s a dishonest last word and they don’t seem to get that people like me can go back and read what was actually said.

Because some people care about what is true, with a similar standard of evidence that they require for other important issues, like the safety of vaccinations, climate change, teaching of intelligent design in schools, the moon landing, effectiveness of homeopathy... it's hard to have those standards for some things and not others.

With faith as a standard, which of those beliefs -- or any belief -- could not be justified?

Evidence matters. Proof matters. Not just what someone believes on faith.