African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[Phenomanul]

Just to give people and idea of how argumentation is actually done, you take an individual fact like his discussion of The Acts of Pilate. Now dip is obvious copying and pasting others works to a large degree.

Here is the description of it in the Catholic Encyclopedia: they have had and continue to have the copies of it btw.



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111b.htm

Sure does sound like my paradigm of addition and exclusion at whim. They have no idea where it really came from beyond to say Jerusalem and it quite obvious that the original texts were gathered by the catholics in the e enial councils becuase they didn't exist prior. They even admit it was embellished in the middle ages.

The first time it shows up is the 2nd century:



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

Prior to that nothing.

2nd century is still waaaaay before the e enical councils got involved in the 4th century. It's like you tried to make a point... but then failed to drive the nail deep enough to be fully convincing. You so subtly try to downplay anything that doesn't jive with your narrative. I could throw away the Acts of Pontius Pilate as having been authored by someone other than Pilate himself (even though the writings still predate the 4th century) - AND still the narrative about Jesus remains the same. The problem is that you all so willing to throw away all of the gospel accounts simply because you all reject the message. I haven't been able to validate if the manuscript from the gospel of Mark that was found on a mummy mask a couple of years ago has finally been published (I know the story leaked around this time last year) - but said manuscript was dated at 90 AD, which reveals that said gospel account was written originally within that first century (even though historical context already places it within that first century and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70).

YET

You say that "Constantine reinvented Christianity into his own image."

You then specifically asserted that JESUS' divinity was a 4th century creation.

I showed you specifically which scriptural passages point/allude to His divinity that exist in manuscripts that predate the 4th century. Your response, (a red herring) "JESUS didn't say that!" (even though I made no such claim - you just assumed or simply tried to detract).

In other words, your narrative still falls flat on its face.

To claim that you've googled nothing up til now is a bold face lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2nd century is still waaaaay before the e enical councils got involved in the 4th century. It's like you tried to make a point... but then failed to drive the nail deep enough to be fully convincing. You so subtly try to downplay anything that doesn't jive with your narrative. I could throw away the Acts of Pontius Pilate as having been authored by someone other than Pilate himself (even though the writings still predate the 4th century) - AND still the narrative about Jesus remains the same. The problem is that you all so willing to throw away all of the gospel accounts simply because you all reject the message. I haven't been able to validate if the manuscript from the gospel of Mark that was found on a mummy mask a couple of years ago has finally been published (I know the story leaked around this time last year) - but said manuscript was dated at 90 AD, which reveals that said gospel account was written originally within that first century (even though historical context already places it within that first century and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70).

YET

You say that "Constantine reinvented Christianity into his own image."

You then specifically asserted that JESUS' divinity was a 4th century creation.

I showed you specifically which scriptural passages point/allude to His divinity that exist in manuscripts that predate the 4th century. Your response, (a red herring) "JESUS didn't say that!" (even though I made no such claim - you just assumed or simply tried to detract).

In other words, your narrative still falls flat on its face.

To claim that you've googled nothing up til now is a bold face lie.

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

[RandomGuy]

Yet you use your free will to reject Him. It's still a choice. Your choice.

What I'm saying is that all choices have consequences.

And again, it's your choice to disagree with that premise.

As for Lucifer, ultimately that is why his wrongdoings couldn't be brushed off with a proverbial 'mulligan', because he knew better, he knew who GOD was and still rose up against Him. All the angels that followed Lucifer will suffer in his fate. Humans at least have been offered redemption, despite the fact that we didn't deserve it either.

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.

For reference:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]

[RandomGuy]

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

You might find this relevant as well (may have posted that before):



Goes over some of the rather striking similarities between the Jesus myth and other Mediterranean mythologies.

It also points out the rather large holes in the earliest of writings.

[RandomGuy]

folks like you would rather believe that it arose "out of nothingness..."

Again, you are telling me what I believe. You really should ask first.

You tell me I believe in something out of "nothingness" as if that is foolish somehow. Let's explore that idea.

First a couple of concepts.

spe·cial plead·ing
noun
noun: special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in cir tance(s) C.
Person A is in cir stance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S

.

Why is a universe "out of nothingness" not logical to you? I assume that was your implication, if not, please elaborate as to your precise meaning.

[Phenomanul]

You might find this relevant as well (may have posted that before):



Goes over some of the rather striking similarities between the Jesus myth and other Mediterranean mythologies.

It also points out the rather large holes in the earliest of writings.

I cannot see youtube links from my office at work.

[Phenomanul]

Again, you are telling me what I believe. You really should ask first.

You tell me I believe in something out of "nothingness" as if that is foolish somehow. Let's explore that idea.

First a couple of concepts.

Why is a universe "out of nothingness" not logical to you? I assume that was your implication, if not, please elaborate as to your precise meaning.

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

[Phenomanul]

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.

For reference:

I think this is your biggest mischaracterization of my position - and ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions (despite whatever brand of Catholicism you are familiar with that believes the opposite).

Namely that we're not "good," no matter how hard we try to be. I explained this earlier, "our good deeds are like garbage before GOD". We can't 'earn' heaven/eternal salvation by being 'good' because none of us are. That is why judgment of our brothers is futile, given that none of us are worthy - not one... Committing only one sin (however slight the infraction) is enough to separate us from GOD eternally. On those grounds, ultimately everyone falls short of heaven.

Only one human was perfect (never sinned), and because He didn't rely on His divinity to defeat sin, His triumph over sin ultimately allowed SIN to condemn us all. That same triumph however was enough for him to mediate on our behalf.

IF we accept JESUS' offer of atonement - a gift that none of us deserve (grace) to prevent sure death that we did deserve (mercy) THEN sin cannot condemn us.

All that to say, that Christ's perfect blood (payment of 'life' to defeat 'death') was enough to atone for the sins of all humanity. Except people still reject his gift. A choice. Their choice. So they must be held accountable for that choice --> which means that they will be judged according to their works (which we've established aren't good enough).

JESUS' grace on the cross also saves all children who weren't of age to make that choice.

Mental anguish...??? ¡Please..! None of that matters in the context of eternity. As I said before, I'm not guaranteed a peaceful death... none of us are. Death is only a process. Our eternal destination is the key. Look up the death of the martyr Steven. Or for that matter, any martyr of the early church - many of them died agonizing deaths at the hands of their persecutors (stonings / beatings / hangings / burnings / maulings by lions / crucifixions) - yet I can assure you that in the presence of GOD none of that matters to them (and they would do it all over again).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

Plank's constant is not a size. It's a ratio. The plank length is something but seeing how you phrased it you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll play the same game I play with WC because your ability is only slightly above his.: what 'natural laws' were broken?

[Phenomanul]

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

Wait, wait, wait... How can someone (thousands of early church believers in fact) believe JESUS is LORD if the premise of His divinity had not yet been 'created'??? Yet again, you are changing your position. You plainly said Constantine and his councils invented Jesus' divinity. Now you are saying (paraphrasing) "it was a pre-existing belief, they just made that belief the official state belief and banned all dissention".

If you can't see the intellectual dishonesty of the grotesque nature of such a change I really don't know why I'm discussing anything with you. You really think everyone else is that stupid..? That you can brush it off with a semantical dodge...?

The crux of your initial position was to suggest that the gospel's original language DID NOT allude to JESUS' divinity at all.

You were doing so to assert that this was the reason why you didn't believe their content at face value --> and to that end you tried to tie the creation of the NT as a product of the e enical councils in the 4th century --> not as a mere compilation of 'existing' works but as a reinvention of their content. Because hey... anything three centuries removed from the original works COULDN'T POSSIBLY have any credibility whatsoever.

You accepting JESUS' divinity was a pre-existing belief IS the crux of the argument. All the other gnostic beliefs which arose out of the 2nd century were rightfully banned given that they didn't originate with the source (JESUS) or anyone close to the source.

[Phenomanul]

Plank's constant is not a size. It's a ratio. The plank length is something but seeing how you phrased it you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll play the same game I play with WC because your ability is only slightly above his.: what 'natural laws' were broken?

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited.

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever. Your gloating is proof enough of your need for affirmation.

[Blake]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

So basically God made another gentleman's agreement with himself to break laws he created.

[Blake]

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited.

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever.

You've got more logical problems than grammar

[Phenomanul]

So basically God made another gentleman's agreement with himself to break laws he created.

He isn't bound to the laws of nature.

He is bound to the laws of His Nature.

[Phenomanul]

You've got more logical problems than grammar

Ooooooh the thought police is here.

But please feel free to enlighten me... go on and explain how EVERYTHING in the known universe came to be from nothing...?

[RandomGuy]

I cannot see youtube links from my office at work.

Ah. That was more addressed to Fuzzy.

For your benefit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go...Wasn%27t_There

[Phenomanul]

Until tomorrow. I have other tasks I must complete today.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, wait, wait... How can someone (thousands of early church believers in fact) believe JESUS is LORD if the premise of His divinity had not yet been 'created'??? Yet again, you are changing your position. You plainly said Constantine and his councils invented Jesus' divinity. Now you are saying (paraphrasing) "it was a pre-existing belief, they just made that belief the official state belief and banned all dissention".

If you can't see the intellectual dishonesty of the grotesque nature of such a change I really don't know why I'm discussing anything with you. You really think everyone else is that stupid..? That you can brush it off with a semantical dodge...?

The crux of your initial position was to suggest that the gospel's original language DID NOT allude to JESUS' divinity at all.

You were doing so to assert that this was the reason why you didn't believe their content at face value --> and to that end you tried to tie the creation of the NT as a product of the e enical councils in the 4th century --> not as a mere compilation of 'existing' works but as a reinvention of their content. Because hey... anything three centuries removed from the original works COULDN'T POSSIBLY have any credibility whatsoever.

You accepting JESUS' divinity was a pre-existing belief IS the crux of the argument. All the other gnostic beliefs which arose out of the 2nd century were rightfully banned given that they didn't originate with the source (JESUS) or anyone close to the source.

My original position was that Constantine picked and chose what to include and exclude, embellished, amended and redacted. You quote that. You cannot quote me to prove your assertion.

So far in this discussion we've seen this happen very clearly in the church held do ents of the Acts of Nicodemus. I don't care what you find repugnant. That is independent of the truth.

You just got going through admitting that the works from the second and third century is the best you have. Then you come back with certainty of where said beliefs came from. My sig quote is for you today.

[DarrinS]

14 pages of this ?

[Blake]

He isn't bound to the laws of nature.

He is bound to the laws of His Nature.

Which include the 10 commandments. He breaks those like they don't exist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited.

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever. Your gloating is proof enough of your need for affirmation.

What you meant to do. . . For the argument 'the Phenobarbital account doesn't know what the it is talking about' I will hold onto this. It reminds me of another Russell quote:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Plank's length is basically the smallest quanta where light wavelength can propagate. It's infinitesimally small but it is not zero. Then of course there is the entire nature of a theory and how unlike dogma is able to change with different observable phenomenon. I just asked a physicist at Cambridge who happens to be one of my best friends to describe what a plank length means to him and he said its a theoretical point where quantum effects become the dominant paradigm.

Anyway that takes a big ole on your 'something from nothing' argument because said length is greater than zero. The Russell quotes apply there as well. Then of course there is the complex plane and topology of Euler which has proven real in telecom and atomics over and again implying a multidimensional reality that were only scratching the surface of.

You quote scripture. . . .

[Blake]

Ooooooh the thought police is here.

But please feel free to enlighten me... go on and explain how EVERYTHING in the known universe came to be from nothing...?

Who said everything came from nothing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said everything came from nothing?

Read my post above. It will illuminate his failings.

[RandomGuy]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

Except natural laws didn't exist, if my understanding of the most current cosmology is correct. The equations that describe the nature of the universe breakdown when time=0

A couple of other things:
Plank's constant is not a "size". It is not a dimensional measurement.
6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
It is units mass/time/distance.

The rest of it is a condescending strawman. I'll pass, other than to note you have distorted what others believe, and attributed motivations without evidence.

You have attempted to ascribe the kind of "theory in search of evidence" motivations in others, trying to drag the scientific method down to your level. Shame.

Science does far better than faith in any aspect of determining things about our universe. That may bug the out of you, but that is no reason to lie about others.

[RandomGuy]

Who said everything came from nothing?

No one, actually.