I'm not Christian. Sent to Sunday School. Liked Jesus' parables. But as a Greek myth buff; saying Jesus was son of God or God itself, I kept thinking "Hercules". Studied other religions -- Judaism Islam Hinduism Buddhism etc. All have profound things to say, but none fit.
That said. I found ur film as inept as Christians trying to convert me. Gandhi used Jesus' "turn the other cheek" & freed India, yet remained Hindu. R u an atheist or merely against Christianity. Debunk the others too, then.
The creators of this video do not understand anything they are talking about. This is proof that posting a video on youtube doesn't make you any less of an idiot.
Humanism and Christianity are not at odds. Neither is science and Christianity. If you need further explanation, message me.
Interesting video this. I am struggling to list all the errors in the two parts but I shall do my best with just a few. Bronze Age Palestine? No, Palestine was not in the Bronze Age when Jesus walked there. Jesus never claimed that 'do unto others' was original, in fact he said that it was part (always atheists ignore the first part) of a summary of the Jews' ancient laws. And why does he insist on using the AV Bible when there are much more reliable translations out there? Poor basic research
I beLIEve it's pretty clear that death is a reality we can not dismiss. We know that we will die one day. The "Death" Jesus is speaking of here; is not a natural death, but a spiritual one. Which is somewhat invalid all together to some because there is no spiritual. Haha, I enjoyed this lesson all together, it has some valid points. However, I feel what is truly missing as with many subjects of this & ALL matters is proper CONTEXT.
Yes, please edit out the music during the narration! There was a plague of this kind of nonsense years ago with NOVA programs in the US, which got so bad it was impossible to hear what was being said at times; I was one of no doubt thousands who complained and they finally stopped doing it - but why would anyone do it in the first place, newbies just out of film school, perhaps? The production was exquisite in all other respects, however.
Great clip, been waiting for something like this, but music driving me nuts. too loud, distracting and insipid. Would love to play at atheist events but would need the music edited.
My high school psychology teacher, a great guy but a Christian, said that he wanted to write a book about all the people who are in asylums that claim to be the second coming of Jesus. He said that it's amazing how they know the Bible like the back of their hands and can just about read back the entire thing to you from memory. I always thought it was strange how a good Christian man thinks can distinguish a mentally impaired person from the real Jesus, when there really is no distinction.
There's a third possibility with the cancer diagnosis... that the doctor tells the patient they don't know what will happen to him, which is closer to the truth. This is what I'd prefer! Besides, there are cures to cancer that BIG PHARMA doesn't want you to know or they couldn't make any money off you...
By having the doctor tell the patient they only have a set amount of time to live, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not exactly moral...
Welll.... I guess it's the fucking wikipedia's generation, unable to write their own sentences, unable to make their own thinking processes, for their own youth was spent on world of warcraft and 5 minutes worth of work every day for school with the simple google followed by Ctrl C and Ctrl V. What a waste.
So you like to plagiarize other people's words and speeches just because you can, mr Madman smartass?
Why don't you people grow up and try to write your own speeches, instead of leeching like parasites to others, pretending that you do write so well?
To hear from your mouths instantly recognizable words, to even predict the exact sentences you are about to say next was really an amazing experience of dipshittism. Congratulations.
It is amazing that people still think Jesus was a real person. Even most atheists are ignorant of the high probability that the Jesus character is fictitious.
@judoyodan it most probably was a "real" person. There are many hints to this effect. For instance, the forgery of the census to catch baby jesus and kill him, which alledgedly was a law to kill all infants, never happened, and yet it was necessary to place jesus in Bethelem rather than his real birth origin, which is Nazare. This fabrication was necessary because the coming messiah was supposed to be born in Bethelem. But why the convoluted explanation and not fully lie? Because Jesus was real.
@yellowlynx "Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but it is a rather general word (from the same root that leads to "technical" and "technology") that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders. Beyond the New Testament accounts, the specific association of the profession of Jesus with woodworking is a constant in the traditions of the 1st and 2nd centuries and Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs."
Jesus (if he existed) seems to have spoken about something that most 'rational' people will never understand and that is the truth that we humans ARE LIFE and LIFE is eternal - not each individual 'form' (body) but that which is the observer in the form. No individual selfs, one life.
He also seemed to have been speaking about the fact of time in that there is only ever the present moment, and so holding onto the past is imagining something that is not real.
its pretty hypocritical when christians attack Islam for its immorality. if they knew anything about islam they'd realize it was a cocktail of judeo-christian morals, plus some extra arab paganism throne in for colour.
"(The threat of hell) ... is the equivalent of some new-age hippie threatening to punch us in the aura" - That's one of the best lines I've heard in ages, made me smile a lot. Bravo sir, bravo :-)
Wonderful videos. I'm looking forward to seeing more (hint). I do have one problem, however, and that is the volume of the music. Instead of being in the background, it oftens overpowers the narration, making it difficult to understand what's being said.
Use some trendy animations, a British spokesperson, mention irrelevant science , and lather it in pathos. Then you have a sound argument. Bloody brilliant.
@dcthanos Nope. This is just emotion-targeted, weakly constructed baby formula atheism. At best it is the sophistry of a narcissistic prick. Read some Freud, Marx and Nietzsche. They actually encourage and employ the rational thought process.
Great video you raise rather basic, but very important and effective points. I'm sure that apologists have numerous rebuttals to those points (untrue assumptions, morals of their time, you know their ilk), but those are only gonna work for the people whose moral compass and reason already were corroded by the religious teachings. For weak believers and fence-sitters such videos is just the right thing to get them thinking.
Also - I saw what you did there with the "meek and mild" phrase. XD
@dhadfield91 Sure, it just assumes that there is no life after this and claims that anyone saying different is lying. You cant just make empty claims without backing them up, especially if its the hinge point of your argument. Also, it assumes that God was ignorant of the first sin, Also that The cross only accomplished forgiveness and not also restoration..... etc. etc. etc. (very poor scholarship)
@thesamsin Christianity assumes that there is an afterlife. what was it you said about empty claims and no without backing? If god were all knowing, like is claimed, then he would have known that putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil would lead to Adam and Eve eating from it. If that were actually the case then god set up Adam and Eve to create sin and a means of punishing everybody that came after them. God scarificing himself to himself to forgive everybody for the..... cont
@lautz73 sin that he knew would happen when he placed the tree in the garden of eden. Any other items that you need explained to you about christian beliefs?
@thesamsin The fact that the mind arises from the physical brain is common knowledge in scientific circles. I can explain why for you if you like, but it really is quite basic stuff that is only disputed by the ignorant and devout.
@darkmiles22 That the mind is connected to the brain, yes. But there are still huge debates in scholarly circles as to the nature and extent of that connection. That is, it is not a necessarily logical step to then declare that the brain is nothing but the brain, nor is that assertion necessarily the consensus view.
@findo Drugs don't just affect behavior, they affect thoughts, they affect mind. Same for dementia and other brain diseases. Split brain studies show that one side can think different thoughts from the other. Specialized functions of mind are localized in various parts of the brain.
I'm sorry, but it is the consensus view among neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and biologists that dualism is discredited. At least, as much of a consensus as you get with anything in science.
@findo If by scholarly circles you mean humanities professors, theologians, and philosophers, yes there are huge debates, but the question is settled among scientists. In other words, academics who care about imagination have lots of imaginative ideas and academics who care about evidence all agree on reality.
@thesamsin What evidence is there for the existence of an afterlife? Obviously, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an afterlife given that it falls entirely outside the universe that is subject to empirical study. However, because there is no evidence for it, why should one live assuming that there is one? Would it be rational for me to assume that when I die I'll be reincarnated?
@thesamsin Maybe its rational, maybe its not, But I can't call you a liar for making that claim. When they call Jesus a liar for claiming there is an after life, they are operating under the assumption that there isn't one. Which (like it or not) is still up for debate. So again, I say, Poor Scholarship.
@thesamsin At what point does a claim become so unlikely that you are justified in calling it a lie even if you can't prove it? If I say the Dow Jones will rise exactly 1032 points one year from tomorrow is that a lie? What if I told your best friend to bet her life on such a thing happening? What if she believed me? Would you tell her I had lied? If "lie" doesn't apply to claims that lack justifiable evidence, then what word would you submit?
@darkmiles22 You are betraying your own argument since you're example is something that "falls within the universe that is subject to empirical study" You simply cannot call Jesus a liar because of his claims for an afterlife of which there is absolutely no evidence against.
These people don't want there to be an afterlife (and I imagine you don't either) so they simply assume it isn't true, base their argument on this, and thus commit the fallacy of assuming the consequent. (poor scholarship)
@thesamsin I disagree. The analogy hinges on whether or not there is any evidence for the claim, not whether the claim is supernatural or not. Whether you're a holy man selling people on heaven or a snake oil salesman selling a panacea, you have no evidence and you deserve a derogatory label. Maybe the con men have bought into their own delusion, so technically they aren't liars, but there's so little difference that one wonders if the technicality matters.
There is no evidence that the universe isnt ruled by Zeus either. There is no evidence that there isnt a god above Yahweh who has sent him to hell. I have no evidence you aren't a murderer. I have no evidence there aren't invisible unicorns flying through the air.
You have no evidence that I'm not god myself.
And why do you think that atheists wouldn't want to live happily forever with their loved ones (assuming they remained happy forever and didn't grow tired after an eternity)
There are an infinite number of things you cant prove, its not surprising that out of the infinite you honed in on the one that is most popular in your country.
@thesamsin The burden of proof would be on YOU to show that there is an afterlife. That's how these things work. If I tell you there's a purple kangaroo in my house you probably wouldn't believe me. Asking you to back up your claim that there is no purple kangaroo in my house would be silly to say the least, wouldn't it?
@thesamsin Maybe to state that he specifically lied about it. There are various reasons why he could have said something that was wrong. There are other options besides liar, lunatic or lord. Maybe he was just mistaken. If he really existed and really said these things we are not in a position to know what was going on in his head when he said them. So if the video said specifically that he was lying then I guess in that respect you could say it was mistaken.
@thesamsin If Jesus did exist and his words were recorded accurately in the Bible, I call him a liar and will show you why. John 14:11-14, "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these,[miracles]because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that (cont)
@thesamsin (cont) the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." That is plain as day. He asks you to consider the miracles he has done, then explains that those with faith in him will continue to perform those miracles, after he is gone, so that by you doing so he can bring 'glory' to his pop. In 55 years, I have never found a self professed Christian that could do as their god said they could. I guess they have no faith, or jeebus lied. ; )
@yeshuahfullofit You guys just look for the crappiest translations out there don't you? This video uses the AV which is a terrible translation and whichever one you used is crap too since the Greek there isn't miracle, but works. " will also do the works that I do" not miracles. Plus you are taking two separate quotes from Jesus and trying to mold them together into one when he was making 2 distinct points. (a commonly used attempt to mold the text into saying something it doesn't.
@thesamsin Call it what you will. Tell me that in your biblee in Ex.13:18; 15:4, etc., that it doesn't direct your to the bottom of the page to explain to you that the 'Red Sea' is a mistranslation of 'yom suph' and should be read as 'sea of reeds' (swamp/marsh), yet every xian still recites the story of 'god' parting the Red Sea. Tell me that all of the verses about the mesiah's 'virgin' birth, do not mistranslate the word 'alma', meaning young woman, into a 'virgin'. You know these things. XP
@yeshuahfullofit Really? because the Hebrew to which you are refereing "yam sup" is used in almost every other time the Red Sea is directly mentioned (e.g. 1 Kings 9:26 & Jeremiah 49:21) also, the only reason it is thought of as meaning reed or papyrus is because the egyptian word for reed is sup. (sup isn't even the word used, its SOP) so the Hebrew words Sop is much more likely (since the whole document is Hebrew) and Sop os Hebrew for end (sea of the End) the end of Egypt perhaps? Definitely.
@thesamsin This video is for people who are ambivalent toward or disbelivers in the divinity of Jesus, but still assent to the idea that he was a great moral teacher, and people who understand the story of original sin is mythological. If you are what you consider a true Christian believer, then this video really wasn't meant for you or to address your more fundamental beliefs.
@Arkalius80 yeah, They showed a complete failure in understanding the nature of the redemption of the Cross. The crucifixion started the redeeming of the entire creation, but they portray it as a much less significant, forgiveness only, event. The Bible simply doesn't teach that, so they are trying to tear down a Jesus that the Bible doesn't even talk about. Its a failure to understand what it is they are trying to critique. You can't attack what you don't understand.
@thesamsin Any failure in understanding on their part is based on the fact that the entire scenario is both amoral and nonsensical. We don't allow innocent people to accept the punishments for the crimes of the guilty because the whole idea is a perversion of justice and fairness. And, the fact that a supposedly all-powerful being couldn't find any other way around a rule that he himself created is logically inconsistent. Doing it in an illiterate corner of the middle east is even more silly.
@Arkalius80 I disagree. The Reason God can do that and others can't is because all sin is chiefly against him. So yes, in our context it would be a perversion of Justice, But if God is the victim of sin (which the Bible tells us he is, and people would know that if they read and understood it) then yes, he can forgive sin. Again, it's not that he couldn't find another way around it. The cross was the perfect event for situation and it was never a plan B. The cross was the plan from day 1.
@thesamsin I'm not sure how an all-powerful being can be a victim of anything. If person A kills person B, the second person is far more inconvenienced by it than any god. And, if your definition of "perfect" is moronic and stupid, then I'd agree with you. If that really was the plan from day 1, then I hope you're happy worshipping an incompetent god. And considering most people in that corner of the world couldn't read, not to mention actually write, I'd say it was pretty illiterate.
@Arkalius80 How would you know that? Are you God? We cant know how grieved God is by human sin, considering the amount of love he has for us, He is much more heart broken at death than anyone. And it's not idiotic, moronic, or incompetent if it brings him the most possible glory of any scenario is it? (which it does) And if it was illiterate, why are we even having this discussion? People who were there wrote it down. (and don't try the whole "it was written way after" crap cuz that aint true.)
@thesamsin Whatever God's supposed regard is for us, it isn't love by an meaningful understanding of the term I'm aware of. When you love someone, you don't allow them to suffer an eternity of torture for any reason when you can trivially prevent it. And if he's so heartbroken about death, why does he do and order so much killing? A majority of biblical scholars believe the earliest gospel authorship is around 70CE. But feel free to believe whatever makes you comfortable.
@Arkalius80 Again, are you God? No, so your view of how God feels for us is simply speculation. And He didnt have to die so that we could experience salvation from said torture, but he did, because he loved us. And he is not just perfectly loving, he is perfectly just. He doesn't allow injustice to go unpunished. And you are flat out wrong, the authorship of the earliest Gospel is about 70 A.D. yes. But the epistle of James is dated at about 47 A.D. a mere 14 years from the crucifixion of Christ
@thesamsin If God exists, I can't say I know exactly how he feels for us. I just know that, assumig he's willing to let people suffer and die for eternity, that whatever the feeling is, it can't qualify as love, much less perfect love. And the idea of infinite punishment for finite crimes is a perversion of justice, and certainly not a perfect form of it. On top of that, much of God's law is unjust, as are many of his own actions. Also, the dating of James varies quite a bit among scholars.
@Arkalius80 Well either way, you are making the arrogant assumption that you have a better sense of Justice than an infinite holy creator, God. Well, James died in 62. A.D. so it must be before that. And it makes no mention of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem which happened in 48-49 A.D. So it has to be in the early to mid 40's. Also, we know it was written by James because it is mutually attested in Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" and Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History" soooo yeah, about 14 MAX
@thesamsin There is much debate of which "James" it was who wrote it. Either way, it doesn't really describe Jesus' life, and is more about a code of behavior for Christians to follow. When evaluating a "sense of justice", I do so on its merits, not based on who it comes from. To be honest, this type of justice you revere so much sounds quite like what I'd expect from bronze age tribal culture, which is interesting, since that's where it came from.
@Arkalius80 No, theres really not a debate at all, not among bible scholars, its pretty unanimous that it was "James the Just" the half brother of Jesus. Yeah, it doesn't describe his life because its so close to the actual events, that it is assumed that they all remember what happened (it was written by Jesus' brother, the congregation were most likely all witnesses.) Really? Because our own judicial system is modeled in almost the exact same fashion.
@thesamsin I'd be curious to hear the statute in US law that makes it a capital offense for a woman not to be a virgin on her wedding night, or a capital offense for children to be disobedient of their parents, or illegal to work on the weekend. I know slavery in US law was defended quite a bit by some Christians with the Bible, but we outgrew that. I'm also curious of an example in US law that allows innocent people to take on the punishment of the guilty, while the guilty go free.
@Arkalius80 That's a fair point. However, The point of the Gospel is that man cannot attain to every letter of the Law, and that Christ did for us. Now as far as all of the laws that you just listed, They are no longer in effect due to their fulfillment in Christ. And that is NOT a cop out, it was the plan since the law was established in the Torah. And I will give you one, when someone refuses to press charges for the crime committed against them. That is what God does through the cross.
@thesamsin So when Christ said he wasn't going to change one jot of the law he was... not lying of course because that would be a sin. So I dunno how to characterize that. Perhaps he was only kidding when he said that? I like how Christians like to say the 613 commandments were all "fulfilled" by Christ's sacrifice EXCEPT for the first 10... If the laws I mentioned no longer count, then neither do the first 10. You can't have it both ways.
@Arkalius80 Again, you are just failing to understand the cross (which is exceedingly common in atheist circles) The Cross doesn't nullify the law, it fulfills it. There is a difference there (whether you want to ignore it or not.) The point is that we (Christians) are not under the law, but under grace. And you also have a very poor understanding of those laws, no where does it say that it was illegal to work on the weekends. That was human addition to the law. You also seem to ignore (cont)
@thesamsin So when God said to Moses in Ex 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." He was just kidding? Fullfillment and grace are all well and good, but the fact remains that these barbaric laws were put in place by the very god you claim has a "perfect" sense of justice.
@Arkalius80 No he wasn't kidding, but you are still doing this social commentary thing that simply assumes that your culture is less barbaric. At the very least we are no better. In fact it could easily be argued that we are much worse. Whats barbaric is that in the U.S. alone, from '73-'05 we have aborted over 45 million babies
@thesamsin If you really believe we are no better then you really have been brainwashed. Tell me that you'd be happy to live as a member of that society instead of this one. I sincerely doubt you would. I don't assume our culture is less barbaric, this is a conclusion based on a large volume of observed evidence. I'm not a moral relativist, and you, as a Christian, ought not be either, so I'm not sure why you appear to be arguing as one.
@thesamsin So... I have to personally observe 30AD to have any idea what society was like back then, but all you need is an ancient and perpetually edited text for which we have no original manuscripts to know that a man walked on water, turned water to wine, and came back from the dead? That's some kind of odd double standard you have there. We have a great deal of historical knowledge about the quality of life of various cultures of this time. You were lucky to make it to age 40 back then.
@Arkalius80 No, you don't have to be there, you just have to read about it from an ancient text with the greatest reliability, & what a coincidence, the bible is by leaps and bounds, far more reliable than any other historical document from the time period, (or any ancient time period for that matter) So essentially, you want to discredit the bible by using documents that have far far far less mutual attestation (23,000 manuscripts vs. the nearest, 15) than the bible to discredit the bible.
@thesamsin We have no original manuscripts for the Gospels. They were written by people who weren't alive yet to witness the events. Today, you can speak to thousands of living people who have witnessed supposed miracles (ncluding changing water to other substances and multiplying food) performed by guru Sathya Sai Baba. Yet I'm sure you'd disbelieve he performed those miracles. But copies of modified copies of 2000 year old non-eye-witness accounts is enough to believe Jesus did. OK
@Arkalius80 Dude, you are the king of assumptions. A news caster, may have never witnessed the account, but if they interview several eyewitnesses, the news is considered legitimate. Not to mention the fact that half of the Gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses.
@thesamsin So, since there are thousands of witnesses to Sathya Sai Baba's miracles today, his miracles must be legitimate. The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John are not known by majority biblical scholar viewpoint. There isn't a consensus about the author of Mark, which is a source for much of Matthew and Luke. These gospels were authored likely no earlier than 60-70CE. Given the average life expectancy of the time was less than 30, it's very unlikely any of the authors could have witnessed it
@Arkalius80 Yeah, I think he legitimately could have done some "miraculous" things. People eyewitness magic shows all the time. Plus, the bible itself shows that even pharoah's magicians could replicate (to some degree) the miracles of Moses. One thing no one has ever replicated though..... resurrection from the dead into eternal life. And now you are saying that if the average life expectancy was 30 (which earlier you said it was mid 40's) it is not possible for the authors to live til old age?
@thesamsin Magicians use conjuring tricks. There's no real "magic". So are you telling me you believe this Hindu guru could have performed actual miracles? If so then... I don't know how to respond to that, aside from mild amusment. The average life expectancy was less than 30, and before I actually said people were lucky to make it to 40. And no it's not impossible, but it seems quite tenuous to hinge your belief in unlikely events on more unlikely circumstances.
@Arkalius80 Precisely, Walking on water isn't a "conjuring trick" neither is rising from the dead in front of over 500 witnesses. Show me a Hindu guru that can do that. Cuz one just died in Mumbai this month because of a 115 day hunger strike. Guess what, he's still dead. And it seems kind of ridiculous to me that a document is written under the name of one of Jesus' disciples, within the feasible lifespan of the same person, about Jesus, yet you say that its unlikely he was still alive.
@thesamsin So, you're willing to dismiss the testimonies of thousands of living eye-witnesses of the guru's miracles as conjuring tricks, but when presented with 2000 year old texts written by unknown authors who were likely very superstitious as people were at the time describing incredible events they didn't witness that happened probably before they were born, for which we have no original manuscripts and which have been copied ad modified for 2000 years, you're right on board. Nice.
@Arkalius80 What is this Guru's name? What were his "Miracles" ...... The thing is, there is no guru. And its straight up false that the documents were modified, they weren't. And there are no original manuscripts for any historical documents. In fact the biblical documents are several thousand times more reliable than any account we have of Julious Caesar. You don't question his existence do you?
@thesamsin Sathya Sai Baba. He died a few months ago actually. He is reported to have manfested various objects, levitated, turned water into other substances, multiplied food etc. Thousands of people have reported to have seen these miracles happen. You can talk to these people today and they will tell you with full conviction that he performed these miracles.
@thesamsin Lots of wacky bald assertions here. The gospels have seen numerous modfiications over the centuries, as one would expect when they had to be hand-copied. Mistakes happen. In some cases, copiers would deliberately change something for whatever reason. Is the delcaration of independence in the smithsonian not the original then? Better let them know. And who's ass did you pull this arbitrary "several thousand times more reliable" nonsense? By what standard?
@Arkalius80 Sathya Sai Baba........ He's still dead right?
Also, The "changes" amount only to misspellings and grammar. The quantity and magnitude of the "changes" are both negligible.
It is several thousand times more reliable because it has several thousand more mutual attestations. And by the same standard that any historical document is to be judged. (oh, and sorry it took me a week to respond, I was in South Asia without internet.)
@thesamsin I'm not suggestiong the guru performed actual miracles. I'm just noting the inconsistency in your standards for evidence for miracles. And, no there were more than mispellings and grammar errors. A lot of scholarship exists devoted to this topic. Several thousand "mutual attestations"? Examples? We have nothing written by Jesus or about/to him by any of his contemporaries.
@thesamsin As far as Julius Caesar, unlike Jesus, we know what he looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries. With Jesus, we have nothing written by anyone who knew him or even lived at the same time he did.
@thesamsin Maybe, much of the impact you attribute to Jesus really should be laid at the feet of Constantine and his embrace of Christianity and subsequent decree to make it the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. At any rate, I wasn't attempting to argue that Julius Caesar was more influential, but that the historicity of his existence and life is far more well-established and well-documented than that of Jesus of Nazareth.
@Arkalius80 Constantine didn't do that for no reason, The persecutions werent working because the Church was growing so quickly that Constantine realized that he couldn't beat them so he joined them. That is evidence for the authenticity and sincerity of the belief of the Church. Jesus was already established as a historical figure before Constantine. 2 of the 4 Gospels were by contemporaries, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John was as well, as was 1st and 2nd Peter, and James.
@thesamsin I know he didn't do it for no reason. He did it because he was Christian. No one is arguing that the beliefs of the church were not sincere or authentic. Those that believed in the classical pantheon also had authentic and sincere beliefs. And if by "contemporary" you mean people who were most likely born after Jesus supposedly died, then sure. Prett much everything written about Jesus or his teachings was written at least decades after his supposed death.
@thesamsin But this is all missing the point. Whether or not Jesus really existed, while an interesting topic, isn't as important as whether or not the supernatural acts and claims attributed to him actually happened. And here's the thing: Even if there were 1,000 different written eye-witness accounts of these acts, that wouldn't be enough to convince me that anything supernatural happened, for the same reason that 1,000s of living eye-witnesses of Sai Baba's miracles don't convince me of his
@Arkalius80 Yes, decades, John was probably about 13-15 years old during the time. The rest of the disciples where young men as well, in or around their 20's. The writings are WELL within their lifetime. Also, you are correct in saying that there is scholarship on those topics, that doesn't mean that it unanimously supports your position. And if eyewitness accounts don't sway you, including your own witnessing (which I'm sure you would still be speculative of), then sir, nothing will.
@thesamsin We've gone over this. Matthew and Luke have anonymous authors and draw much of their material from Mark and a hypothetical as-yet-undiscovered document called Q (if they were eyewitnesses, why rely on other sources?). The authorship of Mark is debated but it generally isn't considered to be an eyewitness. John identifies the author as a disciple of Jesus, but majority view is that it wasn't an eyewitness and was just based on a Johannine tradition, and finished around 90-100CE.
@Arkalius80 See your sources are just wrong. The majority of biblical scholars don't align themselves with the "facts" you just proposed. And just because someone used a source doesn't mean that they weren't an eyewitness. That's quite a jump you are making there. But if you won't open your mind enough to seriously consider other points of view. Then I guess we are at an impasse.
@thesamsin This is stuff I learned in an upper division religion class in a Christian university, so if my sources are wrong then that's just odd. At any rate, my perspective is based on many years of consideration of various points of view. Much of the Bible and the gospels read like mythology. I'm not going to believe a man did all those magical things based on the writing of a few superstitious iron age authors with an agenda, eye-witness or not. That just seems absurd to me.
@Arkalius80 Just because it was a Christian university doesn't mean its any good. And what kind of agenda would they have had? One that made them look ridiculously incoherent? No one writes about themselves in such a negative light unless they are telling the truth with integrity.
@thesamsin I initially learned of this stuff at school, but I also reinforced that learning with plenty of outside research over the years. And your statement about people writing that way is funny. Was Anders Brievik's 1500+ page manifesto then written with truth and integrity? Sometimes people are convinced of stupid nonsense, and they write about it. If what you say is true, then every holy book must be based on truth and integrity. Why aren't you a Muslim? Mohammed can't be wrong, right?
@thesamsin You're funny. Brievik made himself sound like a raving lunatic, and a lot of what Mohammed wrote is morally repulsive. I find it odd that you think no one in the history of history has ever written things that they believed in that made them look bad to others. Modern day politicians say things with sincerity all the time these days that make them look like idiots. Intelligent Design proponents have done a great job making themselves look bad with what they write. It's quite common.
@Arkalius80 I'm talking about the times in the gospel where they admit to things like denying Jesus. If I were a disciple, I might have left the part out where Jesus called me Satan. I wasn't talking about things they thought to be true that made them look bad, I'm talking about things that they did that they probably would have left out if they were simply making the whole thing up. But they werent making it up they were telling the truth Btw I totally agree on the mohammed Breivek point u made
@thesamsin Sincerity of belief cannot be considered an accurate measurement of its truth. I'm not trying to claim the authors were lying, but that they were mistaken and/or delusional with regard to the supernatural claims made. Of course, they could be fabricating too. The point is, any of those three possibilities seem far more likely to me than the idea that their supernatural claims accurately reflect what happened.
@Arkalius80 I don't think they had any reason to fabricate, In fact they all died miserable deaths for their faith, so fabrication is basically out. No one gets skinned alive for a fabrication. They dpent three years with the guy, so being mistaken seems highly unlikely as well. And delusion? Well they just so happened to spread from about 3000 to 250 years later, about 30 million. They were also some of the first humanitarians in western culture,...... some delusion huh?
@thesamsin Well first of all there isn't any good evidence that any of the apostles suffered martyrdom for their beliefs. There's nothing in canonical scripture to suggest it either. Second, you're ignoring the powerful role of cognitive dissonance management among religious believers when facing disconfirmation of thier beliefs. It is not hard to imagine these men giving in to delusion as a way of coping with their entire worldview coming crashing down around them.
@Arkalius80 Multiple historians of antiquity attest to the fact that peter was crucified upside down. Also I find it hard to believe that Christianity would have spread as quickly as it did if its originators were merely suffering delusions.
@thesamsin Tradition holds that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome but there's virtually no evidence he ever went there. Also, this supposed crucifixion happened during Nero's persecution of Christians which had nothing to do with theology but his desire to scapegoat them for the massive fire in Rome that he caused. So, if this crucifixion did happen, it's unclear whether it really counts as martyrdom.
@thesamsin Also, if the originators were convinced of and convincing in their arguments (and remember an argument doesn't need to be true to be convincing), that's all it would take for people to pay attention. If speed of spread is a measure of correctness, then Scientology has Christianity beat, with several million adherents today, 60 years or so after it's foundation. It tookto 300CE for Christianity to get that many. So L Ron Hubbard can't be wrong, right?
@Arkalius80 Well, thats hardly true, Christianity has been the fastest growing religion in the world since its foundation. Even today it is still the fastest growing religion in the world. And dying for your beliefs is martyrdom, If Peter was killed for being a Christian it is martyrdom. Also, its not just tradition that holds that, its history.
@thesamsin "that's hardly true" What specifically, and why not? Christianity isn't the fastest growing by all metrics. Islam is growing faster percentage wise, as are a few other faiths. Also, "no religion" is the fastest growing religious affiliation by absolute numbers in various first world countries like the US. That's not all atheism of course, but isn't Christianity either. Growth rate isn't a determinant of truth anyway, and "Christianity" is an amalgamation of a lot of divergent beliefs.
@thesamsin Also, I define martyrdom a little less broadly. To count, the person must a) either have allowed themselves to die because they believe their faith demanded it, or were killed by a party because the party disagreed with the martyr's beliefs, and b) the martyr must have had the reasonable opportunity to avoid death by disclaiming the questioned beliefs. Assuming the Peter story was true, it seems neither of these conditions were met.
@Arkalius80 I was refering to the growth of scientology and the proposed implications you stated. Its not true because the percentages are far more exaggerated now than they where then. And Christianity is growing far faster and in much more populated areas now than Islam. It is exploding in Asia, Africa, and South America. China now has more christians than the USA Also, if they crucified Peter for being a Christian He could have denied being a Christian, thus both your own conditions are met.
@thesamsin I'm not interested in arguing over a story of crucifixion that may not be true and isn't even part of Biblical canon. There's an interesting 8 part video series on youtube that discusses the "wouldn't die for a lie" claim of apologists regarding the apostles. You can watch it if you like starting with watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I . I disagree with the premise itself. I do believe a person would knowingly die for a lie in the right circumstances and with the right mental status.
@thesamsin I've not witnessed any of the supposed miracles of Sai Baba, and certainly none of Jesus (nor have you). And you're right, at this point it's impossible to convince me that some guy in 1st century palestine performed miracles like walking on water or rising from the dead. There are a great deal of supposed historical accounts of miracles performed by both gods and god-enabled men running a whole gamut of time periods. I see no reason to single out the Jesus story as believeable.
@Arkalius80 (cont) that almost all of the abolitionists were Christians (i.e. William Wilberforce) Plus would it not be beneficial if people stayed pure to marriage? Or if children obeyed the wishes of their loving parents? Either way you are doing this arrogant thing again where you are basically saying that right now is the pinnacle of human morality and that you can judge the morality of the law of a different culture. its ethnocentrism at its best. Who are you to judge?
@thesamsin I never said no Christians were abolitionists. However, the pro-slavery christians had the Bible more directly on their side than the abolitionist ones. I'm much more concerned with the barbaric capital punishments prescribed for these things than the core ideas behind them. As an intelligent and educated member of modern society, I'm quite well-equipped to judge the moral concepts of past societies. Such judgements are an important ingredient for social progress.
2nd). They why are we in the most murderous, barbarous, treacherous, unforgiving, time period in history? Social progress? Despite "social progress" the world still fell into 2 global wars, then we developed the fire power to destroy the world several times over and have had the guns pointed at each others heads ever since. We "abort" our children, we abuse our relationships, and we don't give a damn about the kids who are dying of starvation on the streets
I'm not Christian. Sent to Sunday School. Liked Jesus' parables. But as a Greek myth buff; saying Jesus was son of God or God itself, I kept thinking "Hercules". Studied other religions -- Judaism Islam Hinduism Buddhism etc. All have profound things to say, but none fit.
That said. I found ur film as inept as Christians trying to convert me. Gandhi used Jesus' "turn the other cheek" & freed India, yet remained Hindu. R u an atheist or merely against Christianity. Debunk the others too, then.
WanderingLunartic 1 month ago in playlist Madman or Something Worse
@WanderingLunartic Non-violent resistance, which Gandhi practiced, is not the same as non-resistance, which Jesus taught.
Edifis 3 days ago
Keep making movies like this, kid. Brilliant!
leomcallister9 1 month ago
Brilliantly done piece of work. Very well done.
This should be shown in R.E classes as a balance to all the nonsence that is shown to our children.
At the very least it would show them that it is OK to question these myths and to use common sense to see them for what they really are.
000phill000 4 months ago 3
Religion....the greatest hoax ever pulled on humnakind.
Magginkat 5 months ago 5
@MadmanMovie, you should do a short film on the ethics of Muhammad's teachings.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
horrible biased video...
wowlightshadow 6 months ago
We "have one life - a short, insignificant, beautiful life. And one that is not to be wasted placating non-existent entities." I love this quote.
ballyhooization 7 months ago
Will be interesting to see what happens when we do die :)
better do some serious research to make your decisions people..
I knocked and got an answer..
zzzzzzzz0zzzzzzzz 7 months ago
The creators of this video do not understand anything they are talking about. This is proof that posting a video on youtube doesn't make you any less of an idiot.
Humanism and Christianity are not at odds. Neither is science and Christianity. If you need further explanation, message me.
50crowley 7 months ago
Interesting video this. I am struggling to list all the errors in the two parts but I shall do my best with just a few. Bronze Age Palestine? No, Palestine was not in the Bronze Age when Jesus walked there. Jesus never claimed that 'do unto others' was original, in fact he said that it was part (always atheists ignore the first part) of a summary of the Jews' ancient laws. And why does he insist on using the AV Bible when there are much more reliable translations out there? Poor basic research
flycakefan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 Corinthians 1:18
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God
hpeiserjr 7 months ago
I beLIEve it's pretty clear that death is a reality we can not dismiss. We know that we will die one day. The "Death" Jesus is speaking of here; is not a natural death, but a spiritual one. Which is somewhat invalid all together to some because there is no spiritual. Haha, I enjoyed this lesson all together, it has some valid points. However, I feel what is truly missing as with many subjects of this & ALL matters is proper CONTEXT.
DemonstrativeRanD 7 months ago
How many Christians even know that he wasn't called Jesus? Religion is simply blind ignorance...
LeadFarmer1597 7 months ago
Yes, please edit out the music during the narration! There was a plague of this kind of nonsense years ago with NOVA programs in the US, which got so bad it was impossible to hear what was being said at times; I was one of no doubt thousands who complained and they finally stopped doing it - but why would anyone do it in the first place, newbies just out of film school, perhaps? The production was exquisite in all other respects, however.
hznfrst 7 months ago 5
Great clip, been waiting for something like this, but music driving me nuts. too loud, distracting and insipid. Would love to play at atheist events but would need the music edited.
ohthatPetria 7 months ago
What song is played during the credits?
NVSBLmonstr 7 months ago
@NVSBLmonstr It's part of the specially-written score.
ProudToBeNerdy 7 months ago
Shouldn't that be Wikimedia Commons in the end credits? (I'm not sure there is such a thing as "Wikipedia Commons").
rtwvidz 7 months ago
My high school psychology teacher, a great guy but a Christian, said that he wanted to write a book about all the people who are in asylums that claim to be the second coming of Jesus. He said that it's amazing how they know the Bible like the back of their hands and can just about read back the entire thing to you from memory. I always thought it was strange how a good Christian man thinks can distinguish a mentally impaired person from the real Jesus, when there really is no distinction.
Ceenymeeny 7 months ago 6
There's a third possibility with the cancer diagnosis... that the doctor tells the patient they don't know what will happen to him, which is closer to the truth. This is what I'd prefer! Besides, there are cures to cancer that BIG PHARMA doesn't want you to know or they couldn't make any money off you...
By having the doctor tell the patient they only have a set amount of time to live, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not exactly moral...
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf Big pharma ranting and a 9/11 truther - you're quite the conspiracy theorist, aren't you?
dcthanos 7 months ago
@dcthanos simply researching the truth...
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf Yeah...now if only they'd stop covering up all the evidence you need to actually prove the conspiracies, right?
dcthanos 7 months ago
@dcthanos The evidence is there for those who wish to see...
kc0itf 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kc0itf Have you found the evidence to prove the moon landing was a hoax yet?
dcthanos 7 months ago
@dcthanos I would have thought if BIG PHARMA had a cure to cancer they would make themselves even richer.
gpwnedable 7 months ago
Welll.... I guess it's the fucking wikipedia's generation, unable to write their own sentences, unable to make their own thinking processes, for their own youth was spent on world of warcraft and 5 minutes worth of work every day for school with the simple google followed by Ctrl C and Ctrl V. What a waste.
LuisManuelLealDias 7 months ago
So you like to plagiarize other people's words and speeches just because you can, mr Madman smartass?
Why don't you people grow up and try to write your own speeches, instead of leeching like parasites to others, pretending that you do write so well?
To hear from your mouths instantly recognizable words, to even predict the exact sentences you are about to say next was really an amazing experience of dipshittism. Congratulations.
LuisManuelLealDias 7 months ago
It is amazing that people still think Jesus was a real person. Even most atheists are ignorant of the high probability that the Jesus character is fictitious.
judoyodan 7 months ago
@judoyodan it most probably was a "real" person. There are many hints to this effect. For instance, the forgery of the census to catch baby jesus and kill him, which alledgedly was a law to kill all infants, never happened, and yet it was necessary to place jesus in Bethelem rather than his real birth origin, which is Nazare. This fabrication was necessary because the coming messiah was supposed to be born in Bethelem. But why the convoluted explanation and not fully lie? Because Jesus was real.
LuisManuelLealDias 7 months ago
@LuisManuelLealDias, and you probably think 9-11 was an inside job and that the New World Order is planning it's takeover of this great country.
Puh-lease. Your nonsense rhetoric is not evidence of there ever being a "real Jesus."
No objective and educated person thinks this fairy tale has any validity to it, including the Jesus aspect.
judoyodan 7 months ago
@judoyodan 9/11 was an INSIDE-JOB...
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf, lol...thanks, I needed that :)
judoyodan 7 months ago
@judoyodan It's not a joke.... 9/11 was an INSIDE-JOB.
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf, lol...stop...please stop...you're killin' me...lol
judoyodan 7 months ago
@judoyodan the "official" government conspiracy theory is a JOKE! Some of the alleged hijackers are still alive... pretty neat trick if you ask me!
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf, ok, now you are officially deemed crazy. I make it a practice not to entertain the insane. Good bye.
judoyodan 7 months ago
"All those so afraid of death, that they do not freely live" Says it all :-}
CBTENGR100 7 months ago
"This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as determined by the video uploader."
Could you fix this? I wish to show this to my students who are under 18. I can't imagine why this would be inappropriate for anyone.
ynthrepic 7 months ago
A correction. Most tradition refers Jesus as a carpenter....not sure why the video say he is a blacksmith
yellowlynx 7 months ago
@yellowlynx "Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but it is a rather general word (from the same root that leads to "technical" and "technology") that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders. Beyond the New Testament accounts, the specific association of the profession of Jesus with woodworking is a constant in the traditions of the 1st and 2nd centuries and Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs."
ynthrepic 7 months ago
Very well done. Solid documentary.
Jesus (if he existed) seems to have spoken about something that most 'rational' people will never understand and that is the truth that we humans ARE LIFE and LIFE is eternal - not each individual 'form' (body) but that which is the observer in the form. No individual selfs, one life.
He also seemed to have been speaking about the fact of time in that there is only ever the present moment, and so holding onto the past is imagining something that is not real.
plattypuss 8 months ago
@plattypuss "Jesus (if he existed) seems to have spoken about something that most 'rational' people will never understand..."
Anybody can claim mystical, non-rational 'knowledge,' and that the other guy doesn't get it. So?
"and that is the truth that we humans ARE LIFE and LIFE is eternal - not each individual 'form' (body) but that which is the observer in the form."
Where is your evidence that life is some kind of eternal force, rather than a physical process with a beginning and an end?
Rabboleth 7 months ago
Interesting video, even though there's nothing really new in it. But who the hell did the sound mixing???
jjgdenisrobert 8 months ago
its pretty hypocritical when christians attack Islam for its immorality. if they knew anything about islam they'd realize it was a cocktail of judeo-christian morals, plus some extra arab paganism throne in for colour.
leptismagna10 8 months ago 2
Brilliant!
dwwolf2006 8 months ago
"(The threat of hell) ... is the equivalent of some new-age hippie threatening to punch us in the aura" - That's one of the best lines I've heard in ages, made me smile a lot. Bravo sir, bravo :-)
madaddies 8 months ago 12
"Lust for comfort suffocates the soul" - Bjorne, Wanderlust
ttthttpd 8 months ago
Amazing short movie! Seriously!
LittleTownInNorway 8 months ago
Wonderful videos. I'm looking forward to seeing more (hint). I do have one problem, however, and that is the volume of the music. Instead of being in the background, it oftens overpowers the narration, making it difficult to understand what's being said.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
14 people seems to be Mad or something worse.
cookgoose34 8 months ago
Use some trendy animations, a British spokesperson, mention irrelevant science , and lather it in pathos. Then you have a sound argument. Bloody brilliant.
thefaselerkid 8 months ago
Logic be damned... thanks Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens... for shitting on logic. Gross.
nathanismusical 8 months ago 2
@nathanismusical I really hope you're not referring to all the flawed logical proofs for god.
dcthanos 7 months ago
@dcthanos Nope. This is just emotion-targeted, weakly constructed baby formula atheism. At best it is the sophistry of a narcissistic prick. Read some Freud, Marx and Nietzsche. They actually encourage and employ the rational thought process.
nathanismusical 7 months ago
@nathanismusical What logic was supposedly damned then?
dcthanos 7 months ago
Fuck Jesus!!!
yourjunk420 8 months ago 3
What a wonderfully astute, and succinct, analysis!
mcathubodva 8 months ago 2
"We are only mammals, who remain only partially rational." Great quote.
SkysongMA 8 months ago
6:00 for an epic summary
darkmiles22 8 months ago
Great video you raise rather basic, but very important and effective points. I'm sure that apologists have numerous rebuttals to those points (untrue assumptions, morals of their time, you know their ilk), but those are only gonna work for the people whose moral compass and reason already were corroded by the religious teachings. For weak believers and fence-sitters such videos is just the right thing to get them thinking.
Also - I saw what you did there with the "meek and mild" phrase. XD
Kia044 8 months ago in playlist Madman or Something Worse
excellent movie thanks!
yuriythebest 8 months ago
Out grow the myth that the universe cares about us, that it was designed
for us in mind, that it is all about you and me. It is not. Look at the
beauty of science instead, think about the consolations of philosophy,
the glories of literature. Get a life, Get off your knees, and stop
groveling and stop waling.
nigelsenchez 8 months ago 7
I thoroughly assent to humanism, and this video is both emotional and brilliant at conveying the problems belief in an afterlife can cause.
BeyondJustThinking 8 months ago 2
This entire film is based on untrue assumptions and ignorance of true Christian belief.
thesamsin 8 months ago
@thesamsin Can you provide some examples?
dhadfield91 8 months ago
@dhadfield91 Sure, it just assumes that there is no life after this and claims that anyone saying different is lying. You cant just make empty claims without backing them up, especially if its the hinge point of your argument. Also, it assumes that God was ignorant of the first sin, Also that The cross only accomplished forgiveness and not also restoration..... etc. etc. etc. (very poor scholarship)
thesamsin 8 months ago
@thesamsin Christianity assumes that there is an afterlife. what was it you said about empty claims and no without backing? If god were all knowing, like is claimed, then he would have known that putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil would lead to Adam and Eve eating from it. If that were actually the case then god set up Adam and Eve to create sin and a means of punishing everybody that came after them. God scarificing himself to himself to forgive everybody for the..... cont
lautz73 8 months ago
@lautz73 sin that he knew would happen when he placed the tree in the garden of eden. Any other items that you need explained to you about christian beliefs?
lautz73 8 months ago
@thesamsin The fact that the mind arises from the physical brain is common knowledge in scientific circles. I can explain why for you if you like, but it really is quite basic stuff that is only disputed by the ignorant and devout.
darkmiles22 8 months ago
@darkmiles22 That the mind is connected to the brain, yes. But there are still huge debates in scholarly circles as to the nature and extent of that connection. That is, it is not a necessarily logical step to then declare that the brain is nothing but the brain, nor is that assertion necessarily the consensus view.
findo 8 months ago
@findo Drugs don't just affect behavior, they affect thoughts, they affect mind. Same for dementia and other brain diseases. Split brain studies show that one side can think different thoughts from the other. Specialized functions of mind are localized in various parts of the brain.
I'm sorry, but it is the consensus view among neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and biologists that dualism is discredited. At least, as much of a consensus as you get with anything in science.
darkmiles22 8 months ago 4
@findo If by scholarly circles you mean humanities professors, theologians, and philosophers, yes there are huge debates, but the question is settled among scientists. In other words, academics who care about imagination have lots of imaginative ideas and academics who care about evidence all agree on reality.
darkmiles22 8 months ago
@thesamsin What evidence is there for the existence of an afterlife? Obviously, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an afterlife given that it falls entirely outside the universe that is subject to empirical study. However, because there is no evidence for it, why should one live assuming that there is one? Would it be rational for me to assume that when I die I'll be reincarnated?
dhadfield91 8 months ago
@thesamsin Maybe its rational, maybe its not, But I can't call you a liar for making that claim. When they call Jesus a liar for claiming there is an after life, they are operating under the assumption that there isn't one. Which (like it or not) is still up for debate. So again, I say, Poor Scholarship.
thesamsin 8 months ago
@thesamsin At what point does a claim become so unlikely that you are justified in calling it a lie even if you can't prove it? If I say the Dow Jones will rise exactly 1032 points one year from tomorrow is that a lie? What if I told your best friend to bet her life on such a thing happening? What if she believed me? Would you tell her I had lied? If "lie" doesn't apply to claims that lack justifiable evidence, then what word would you submit?
darkmiles22 8 months ago
@darkmiles22 You are betraying your own argument since you're example is something that "falls within the universe that is subject to empirical study" You simply cannot call Jesus a liar because of his claims for an afterlife of which there is absolutely no evidence against.
These people don't want there to be an afterlife (and I imagine you don't either) so they simply assume it isn't true, base their argument on this, and thus commit the fallacy of assuming the consequent. (poor scholarship)
thesamsin 8 months ago
@thesamsin I disagree. The analogy hinges on whether or not there is any evidence for the claim, not whether the claim is supernatural or not. Whether you're a holy man selling people on heaven or a snake oil salesman selling a panacea, you have no evidence and you deserve a derogatory label. Maybe the con men have bought into their own delusion, so technically they aren't liars, but there's so little difference that one wonders if the technicality matters.
darkmiles22 8 months ago 2
@darkmiles22 Either way you are still forming your argument on an unproved assumption, in the philosophical world, we call that a fallacy.
thesamsin 8 months ago
@thesamsin
There is no evidence that the universe isnt ruled by Zeus either. There is no evidence that there isnt a god above Yahweh who has sent him to hell. I have no evidence you aren't a murderer. I have no evidence there aren't invisible unicorns flying through the air.
You have no evidence that I'm not god myself.
And why do you think that atheists wouldn't want to live happily forever with their loved ones (assuming they remained happy forever and didn't grow tired after an eternity)
Cha4k 8 months ago in playlist Madman or Something Worse
@thesamsin
There are an infinite number of things you cant prove, its not surprising that out of the infinite you honed in on the one that is most popular in your country.
Cha4k 8 months ago in playlist Madman or Something Worse
@thesamsin The burden of proof would be on YOU to show that there is an afterlife. That's how these things work. If I tell you there's a purple kangaroo in my house you probably wouldn't believe me. Asking you to back up your claim that there is no purple kangaroo in my house would be silly to say the least, wouldn't it?
gpwnedable 7 months ago
@gpwnedable No, the burden of proof shifts to you once you claim that Jesus is a liar. You have to show why he is a liar.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Maybe to state that he specifically lied about it. There are various reasons why he could have said something that was wrong. There are other options besides liar, lunatic or lord. Maybe he was just mistaken. If he really existed and really said these things we are not in a position to know what was going on in his head when he said them. So if the video said specifically that he was lying then I guess in that respect you could say it was mistaken.
rotcafarg 7 months ago
@thesamsin If Jesus did exist and his words were recorded accurately in the Bible, I call him a liar and will show you why. John 14:11-14, "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these,[miracles]because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that (cont)
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago
@thesamsin (cont) the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." That is plain as day. He asks you to consider the miracles he has done, then explains that those with faith in him will continue to perform those miracles, after he is gone, so that by you doing so he can bring 'glory' to his pop. In 55 years, I have never found a self professed Christian that could do as their god said they could. I guess they have no faith, or jeebus lied. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit You guys just look for the crappiest translations out there don't you? This video uses the AV which is a terrible translation and whichever one you used is crap too since the Greek there isn't miracle, but works. " will also do the works that I do" not miracles. Plus you are taking two separate quotes from Jesus and trying to mold them together into one when he was making 2 distinct points. (a commonly used attempt to mold the text into saying something it doesn't.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Call it what you will. Tell me that in your biblee in Ex.13:18; 15:4, etc., that it doesn't direct your to the bottom of the page to explain to you that the 'Red Sea' is a mistranslation of 'yom suph' and should be read as 'sea of reeds' (swamp/marsh), yet every xian still recites the story of 'god' parting the Red Sea. Tell me that all of the verses about the mesiah's 'virgin' birth, do not mistranslate the word 'alma', meaning young woman, into a 'virgin'. You know these things. XP
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit Really? because the Hebrew to which you are refereing "yam sup" is used in almost every other time the Red Sea is directly mentioned (e.g. 1 Kings 9:26 & Jeremiah 49:21) also, the only reason it is thought of as meaning reed or papyrus is because the egyptian word for reed is sup. (sup isn't even the word used, its SOP) so the Hebrew words Sop is much more likely (since the whole document is Hebrew) and Sop os Hebrew for end (sea of the End) the end of Egypt perhaps? Definitely.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin " almost; much more likely; perhaps?" Definitely. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago
@thesamsin This video is for people who are ambivalent toward or disbelivers in the divinity of Jesus, but still assent to the idea that he was a great moral teacher, and people who understand the story of original sin is mythological. If you are what you consider a true Christian believer, then this video really wasn't meant for you or to address your more fundamental beliefs.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 That's not an excuse for poor scholarship and misleading misinformation.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Can you provide an example of something said that demonstrates a failure in scholarship, or which was misleading?
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 yeah, They showed a complete failure in understanding the nature of the redemption of the Cross. The crucifixion started the redeeming of the entire creation, but they portray it as a much less significant, forgiveness only, event. The Bible simply doesn't teach that, so they are trying to tear down a Jesus that the Bible doesn't even talk about. Its a failure to understand what it is they are trying to critique. You can't attack what you don't understand.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Any failure in understanding on their part is based on the fact that the entire scenario is both amoral and nonsensical. We don't allow innocent people to accept the punishments for the crimes of the guilty because the whole idea is a perversion of justice and fairness. And, the fact that a supposedly all-powerful being couldn't find any other way around a rule that he himself created is logically inconsistent. Doing it in an illiterate corner of the middle east is even more silly.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 I disagree. The Reason God can do that and others can't is because all sin is chiefly against him. So yes, in our context it would be a perversion of Justice, But if God is the victim of sin (which the Bible tells us he is, and people would know that if they read and understood it) then yes, he can forgive sin. Again, it's not that he couldn't find another way around it. The cross was the perfect event for situation and it was never a plan B. The cross was the plan from day 1.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin I'm not sure how an all-powerful being can be a victim of anything. If person A kills person B, the second person is far more inconvenienced by it than any god. And, if your definition of "perfect" is moronic and stupid, then I'd agree with you. If that really was the plan from day 1, then I hope you're happy worshipping an incompetent god. And considering most people in that corner of the world couldn't read, not to mention actually write, I'd say it was pretty illiterate.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 How would you know that? Are you God? We cant know how grieved God is by human sin, considering the amount of love he has for us, He is much more heart broken at death than anyone. And it's not idiotic, moronic, or incompetent if it brings him the most possible glory of any scenario is it? (which it does) And if it was illiterate, why are we even having this discussion? People who were there wrote it down. (and don't try the whole "it was written way after" crap cuz that aint true.)
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Whatever God's supposed regard is for us, it isn't love by an meaningful understanding of the term I'm aware of. When you love someone, you don't allow them to suffer an eternity of torture for any reason when you can trivially prevent it. And if he's so heartbroken about death, why does he do and order so much killing? A majority of biblical scholars believe the earliest gospel authorship is around 70CE. But feel free to believe whatever makes you comfortable.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Again, are you God? No, so your view of how God feels for us is simply speculation. And He didnt have to die so that we could experience salvation from said torture, but he did, because he loved us. And he is not just perfectly loving, he is perfectly just. He doesn't allow injustice to go unpunished. And you are flat out wrong, the authorship of the earliest Gospel is about 70 A.D. yes. But the epistle of James is dated at about 47 A.D. a mere 14 years from the crucifixion of Christ
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin If God exists, I can't say I know exactly how he feels for us. I just know that, assumig he's willing to let people suffer and die for eternity, that whatever the feeling is, it can't qualify as love, much less perfect love. And the idea of infinite punishment for finite crimes is a perversion of justice, and certainly not a perfect form of it. On top of that, much of God's law is unjust, as are many of his own actions. Also, the dating of James varies quite a bit among scholars.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Well either way, you are making the arrogant assumption that you have a better sense of Justice than an infinite holy creator, God. Well, James died in 62. A.D. so it must be before that. And it makes no mention of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem which happened in 48-49 A.D. So it has to be in the early to mid 40's. Also, we know it was written by James because it is mutually attested in Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" and Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History" soooo yeah, about 14 MAX
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin There is much debate of which "James" it was who wrote it. Either way, it doesn't really describe Jesus' life, and is more about a code of behavior for Christians to follow. When evaluating a "sense of justice", I do so on its merits, not based on who it comes from. To be honest, this type of justice you revere so much sounds quite like what I'd expect from bronze age tribal culture, which is interesting, since that's where it came from.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 No, theres really not a debate at all, not among bible scholars, its pretty unanimous that it was "James the Just" the half brother of Jesus. Yeah, it doesn't describe his life because its so close to the actual events, that it is assumed that they all remember what happened (it was written by Jesus' brother, the congregation were most likely all witnesses.) Really? Because our own judicial system is modeled in almost the exact same fashion.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin I'd be curious to hear the statute in US law that makes it a capital offense for a woman not to be a virgin on her wedding night, or a capital offense for children to be disobedient of their parents, or illegal to work on the weekend. I know slavery in US law was defended quite a bit by some Christians with the Bible, but we outgrew that. I'm also curious of an example in US law that allows innocent people to take on the punishment of the guilty, while the guilty go free.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 That's a fair point. However, The point of the Gospel is that man cannot attain to every letter of the Law, and that Christ did for us. Now as far as all of the laws that you just listed, They are no longer in effect due to their fulfillment in Christ. And that is NOT a cop out, it was the plan since the law was established in the Torah. And I will give you one, when someone refuses to press charges for the crime committed against them. That is what God does through the cross.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin So when Christ said he wasn't going to change one jot of the law he was... not lying of course because that would be a sin. So I dunno how to characterize that. Perhaps he was only kidding when he said that? I like how Christians like to say the 613 commandments were all "fulfilled" by Christ's sacrifice EXCEPT for the first 10... If the laws I mentioned no longer count, then neither do the first 10. You can't have it both ways.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Again, you are just failing to understand the cross (which is exceedingly common in atheist circles) The Cross doesn't nullify the law, it fulfills it. There is a difference there (whether you want to ignore it or not.) The point is that we (Christians) are not under the law, but under grace. And you also have a very poor understanding of those laws, no where does it say that it was illegal to work on the weekends. That was human addition to the law. You also seem to ignore (cont)
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin So when God said to Moses in Ex 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." He was just kidding? Fullfillment and grace are all well and good, but the fact remains that these barbaric laws were put in place by the very god you claim has a "perfect" sense of justice.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 No he wasn't kidding, but you are still doing this social commentary thing that simply assumes that your culture is less barbaric. At the very least we are no better. In fact it could easily be argued that we are much worse. Whats barbaric is that in the U.S. alone, from '73-'05 we have aborted over 45 million babies
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin If you really believe we are no better then you really have been brainwashed. Tell me that you'd be happy to live as a member of that society instead of this one. I sincerely doubt you would. I don't assume our culture is less barbaric, this is a conclusion based on a large volume of observed evidence. I'm not a moral relativist, and you, as a Christian, ought not be either, so I'm not sure why you appear to be arguing as one.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 When exactly did you observe 30 A.D.?
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin So... I have to personally observe 30AD to have any idea what society was like back then, but all you need is an ancient and perpetually edited text for which we have no original manuscripts to know that a man walked on water, turned water to wine, and came back from the dead? That's some kind of odd double standard you have there. We have a great deal of historical knowledge about the quality of life of various cultures of this time. You were lucky to make it to age 40 back then.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 No, you don't have to be there, you just have to read about it from an ancient text with the greatest reliability, & what a coincidence, the bible is by leaps and bounds, far more reliable than any other historical document from the time period, (or any ancient time period for that matter) So essentially, you want to discredit the bible by using documents that have far far far less mutual attestation (23,000 manuscripts vs. the nearest, 15) than the bible to discredit the bible.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin We have no original manuscripts for the Gospels. They were written by people who weren't alive yet to witness the events. Today, you can speak to thousands of living people who have witnessed supposed miracles (ncluding changing water to other substances and multiplying food) performed by guru Sathya Sai Baba. Yet I'm sure you'd disbelieve he performed those miracles. But copies of modified copies of 2000 year old non-eye-witness accounts is enough to believe Jesus did. OK
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Dude, you are the king of assumptions. A news caster, may have never witnessed the account, but if they interview several eyewitnesses, the news is considered legitimate. Not to mention the fact that half of the Gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin So, since there are thousands of witnesses to Sathya Sai Baba's miracles today, his miracles must be legitimate. The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John are not known by majority biblical scholar viewpoint. There isn't a consensus about the author of Mark, which is a source for much of Matthew and Luke. These gospels were authored likely no earlier than 60-70CE. Given the average life expectancy of the time was less than 30, it's very unlikely any of the authors could have witnessed it
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Yeah, I think he legitimately could have done some "miraculous" things. People eyewitness magic shows all the time. Plus, the bible itself shows that even pharoah's magicians could replicate (to some degree) the miracles of Moses. One thing no one has ever replicated though..... resurrection from the dead into eternal life. And now you are saying that if the average life expectancy was 30 (which earlier you said it was mid 40's) it is not possible for the authors to live til old age?
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Magicians use conjuring tricks. There's no real "magic". So are you telling me you believe this Hindu guru could have performed actual miracles? If so then... I don't know how to respond to that, aside from mild amusment. The average life expectancy was less than 30, and before I actually said people were lucky to make it to 40. And no it's not impossible, but it seems quite tenuous to hinge your belief in unlikely events on more unlikely circumstances.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Precisely, Walking on water isn't a "conjuring trick" neither is rising from the dead in front of over 500 witnesses. Show me a Hindu guru that can do that. Cuz one just died in Mumbai this month because of a 115 day hunger strike. Guess what, he's still dead. And it seems kind of ridiculous to me that a document is written under the name of one of Jesus' disciples, within the feasible lifespan of the same person, about Jesus, yet you say that its unlikely he was still alive.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin So, you're willing to dismiss the testimonies of thousands of living eye-witnesses of the guru's miracles as conjuring tricks, but when presented with 2000 year old texts written by unknown authors who were likely very superstitious as people were at the time describing incredible events they didn't witness that happened probably before they were born, for which we have no original manuscripts and which have been copied ad modified for 2000 years, you're right on board. Nice.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 What is this Guru's name? What were his "Miracles" ...... The thing is, there is no guru. And its straight up false that the documents were modified, they weren't. And there are no original manuscripts for any historical documents. In fact the biblical documents are several thousand times more reliable than any account we have of Julious Caesar. You don't question his existence do you?
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Sathya Sai Baba. He died a few months ago actually. He is reported to have manfested various objects, levitated, turned water into other substances, multiplied food etc. Thousands of people have reported to have seen these miracles happen. You can talk to these people today and they will tell you with full conviction that he performed these miracles.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@thesamsin Lots of wacky bald assertions here. The gospels have seen numerous modfiications over the centuries, as one would expect when they had to be hand-copied. Mistakes happen. In some cases, copiers would deliberately change something for whatever reason. Is the delcaration of independence in the smithsonian not the original then? Better let them know. And who's ass did you pull this arbitrary "several thousand times more reliable" nonsense? By what standard?
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Sathya Sai Baba........ He's still dead right?
Also, The "changes" amount only to misspellings and grammar. The quantity and magnitude of the "changes" are both negligible.
It is several thousand times more reliable because it has several thousand more mutual attestations. And by the same standard that any historical document is to be judged. (oh, and sorry it took me a week to respond, I was in South Asia without internet.)
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin I'm not suggestiong the guru performed actual miracles. I'm just noting the inconsistency in your standards for evidence for miracles. And, no there were more than mispellings and grammar errors. A lot of scholarship exists devoted to this topic. Several thousand "mutual attestations"? Examples? We have nothing written by Jesus or about/to him by any of his contemporaries.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@thesamsin As far as Julius Caesar, unlike Jesus, we know what he looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries. With Jesus, we have nothing written by anyone who knew him or even lived at the same time he did.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Are you seriously suggesting that Julius Caesar had a greater impact on history than Jesus Christ? Please...........
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin Maybe, much of the impact you attribute to Jesus really should be laid at the feet of Constantine and his embrace of Christianity and subsequent decree to make it the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. At any rate, I wasn't attempting to argue that Julius Caesar was more influential, but that the historicity of his existence and life is far more well-established and well-documented than that of Jesus of Nazareth.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Constantine didn't do that for no reason, The persecutions werent working because the Church was growing so quickly that Constantine realized that he couldn't beat them so he joined them. That is evidence for the authenticity and sincerity of the belief of the Church. Jesus was already established as a historical figure before Constantine. 2 of the 4 Gospels were by contemporaries, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John was as well, as was 1st and 2nd Peter, and James.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin I know he didn't do it for no reason. He did it because he was Christian. No one is arguing that the beliefs of the church were not sincere or authentic. Those that believed in the classical pantheon also had authentic and sincere beliefs. And if by "contemporary" you mean people who were most likely born after Jesus supposedly died, then sure. Prett much everything written about Jesus or his teachings was written at least decades after his supposed death.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@thesamsin But this is all missing the point. Whether or not Jesus really existed, while an interesting topic, isn't as important as whether or not the supernatural acts and claims attributed to him actually happened. And here's the thing: Even if there were 1,000 different written eye-witness accounts of these acts, that wouldn't be enough to convince me that anything supernatural happened, for the same reason that 1,000s of living eye-witnesses of Sai Baba's miracles don't convince me of his
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Yes, decades, John was probably about 13-15 years old during the time. The rest of the disciples where young men as well, in or around their 20's. The writings are WELL within their lifetime. Also, you are correct in saying that there is scholarship on those topics, that doesn't mean that it unanimously supports your position. And if eyewitness accounts don't sway you, including your own witnessing (which I'm sure you would still be speculative of), then sir, nothing will.
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin We've gone over this. Matthew and Luke have anonymous authors and draw much of their material from Mark and a hypothetical as-yet-undiscovered document called Q (if they were eyewitnesses, why rely on other sources?). The authorship of Mark is debated but it generally isn't considered to be an eyewitness. John identifies the author as a disciple of Jesus, but majority view is that it wasn't an eyewitness and was just based on a Johannine tradition, and finished around 90-100CE.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 See your sources are just wrong. The majority of biblical scholars don't align themselves with the "facts" you just proposed. And just because someone used a source doesn't mean that they weren't an eyewitness. That's quite a jump you are making there. But if you won't open your mind enough to seriously consider other points of view. Then I guess we are at an impasse.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin This is stuff I learned in an upper division religion class in a Christian university, so if my sources are wrong then that's just odd. At any rate, my perspective is based on many years of consideration of various points of view. Much of the Bible and the gospels read like mythology. I'm not going to believe a man did all those magical things based on the writing of a few superstitious iron age authors with an agenda, eye-witness or not. That just seems absurd to me.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 Just because it was a Christian university doesn't mean its any good. And what kind of agenda would they have had? One that made them look ridiculously incoherent? No one writes about themselves in such a negative light unless they are telling the truth with integrity.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin I initially learned of this stuff at school, but I also reinforced that learning with plenty of outside research over the years. And your statement about people writing that way is funny. Was Anders Brievik's 1500+ page manifesto then written with truth and integrity? Sometimes people are convinced of stupid nonsense, and they write about it. If what you say is true, then every holy book must be based on truth and integrity. Why aren't you a Muslim? Mohammed can't be wrong, right?
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 You failed to understand my point. They wrote things that made themselves look bad. Mohammed didn't do that, and neither did Breivek.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin You're funny. Brievik made himself sound like a raving lunatic, and a lot of what Mohammed wrote is morally repulsive. I find it odd that you think no one in the history of history has ever written things that they believed in that made them look bad to others. Modern day politicians say things with sincerity all the time these days that make them look like idiots. Intelligent Design proponents have done a great job making themselves look bad with what they write. It's quite common.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 I'm talking about the times in the gospel where they admit to things like denying Jesus. If I were a disciple, I might have left the part out where Jesus called me Satan. I wasn't talking about things they thought to be true that made them look bad, I'm talking about things that they did that they probably would have left out if they were simply making the whole thing up. But they werent making it up they were telling the truth Btw I totally agree on the mohammed Breivek point u made
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin Sincerity of belief cannot be considered an accurate measurement of its truth. I'm not trying to claim the authors were lying, but that they were mistaken and/or delusional with regard to the supernatural claims made. Of course, they could be fabricating too. The point is, any of those three possibilities seem far more likely to me than the idea that their supernatural claims accurately reflect what happened.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 I don't think they had any reason to fabricate, In fact they all died miserable deaths for their faith, so fabrication is basically out. No one gets skinned alive for a fabrication. They dpent three years with the guy, so being mistaken seems highly unlikely as well. And delusion? Well they just so happened to spread from about 3000 to 250 years later, about 30 million. They were also some of the first humanitarians in western culture,...... some delusion huh?
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin Well first of all there isn't any good evidence that any of the apostles suffered martyrdom for their beliefs. There's nothing in canonical scripture to suggest it either. Second, you're ignoring the powerful role of cognitive dissonance management among religious believers when facing disconfirmation of thier beliefs. It is not hard to imagine these men giving in to delusion as a way of coping with their entire worldview coming crashing down around them.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 Multiple historians of antiquity attest to the fact that peter was crucified upside down. Also I find it hard to believe that Christianity would have spread as quickly as it did if its originators were merely suffering delusions.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin Tradition holds that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome but there's virtually no evidence he ever went there. Also, this supposed crucifixion happened during Nero's persecution of Christians which had nothing to do with theology but his desire to scapegoat them for the massive fire in Rome that he caused. So, if this crucifixion did happen, it's unclear whether it really counts as martyrdom.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@thesamsin Also, if the originators were convinced of and convincing in their arguments (and remember an argument doesn't need to be true to be convincing), that's all it would take for people to pay attention. If speed of spread is a measure of correctness, then Scientology has Christianity beat, with several million adherents today, 60 years or so after it's foundation. It tookto 300CE for Christianity to get that many. So L Ron Hubbard can't be wrong, right?
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 Well, thats hardly true, Christianity has been the fastest growing religion in the world since its foundation. Even today it is still the fastest growing religion in the world. And dying for your beliefs is martyrdom, If Peter was killed for being a Christian it is martyrdom. Also, its not just tradition that holds that, its history.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin "that's hardly true" What specifically, and why not? Christianity isn't the fastest growing by all metrics. Islam is growing faster percentage wise, as are a few other faiths. Also, "no religion" is the fastest growing religious affiliation by absolute numbers in various first world countries like the US. That's not all atheism of course, but isn't Christianity either. Growth rate isn't a determinant of truth anyway, and "Christianity" is an amalgamation of a lot of divergent beliefs.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@thesamsin Also, I define martyrdom a little less broadly. To count, the person must a) either have allowed themselves to die because they believe their faith demanded it, or were killed by a party because the party disagreed with the martyr's beliefs, and b) the martyr must have had the reasonable opportunity to avoid death by disclaiming the questioned beliefs. Assuming the Peter story was true, it seems neither of these conditions were met.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 I was refering to the growth of scientology and the proposed implications you stated. Its not true because the percentages are far more exaggerated now than they where then. And Christianity is growing far faster and in much more populated areas now than Islam. It is exploding in Asia, Africa, and South America. China now has more christians than the USA Also, if they crucified Peter for being a Christian He could have denied being a Christian, thus both your own conditions are met.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin I'm not interested in arguing over a story of crucifixion that may not be true and isn't even part of Biblical canon. There's an interesting 8 part video series on youtube that discusses the "wouldn't die for a lie" claim of apologists regarding the apostles. You can watch it if you like starting with watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I . I disagree with the premise itself. I do believe a person would knowingly die for a lie in the right circumstances and with the right mental status.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 Well then, I guess we will just let that be that.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin Yes indeed this conversation has gone on quite awhile... thanks for keeping it civil anyway.
Arkalius80 6 months ago
@Arkalius80 yes, several weeks. lol. And yes likewise.
thesamsin 6 months ago
@thesamsin I've not witnessed any of the supposed miracles of Sai Baba, and certainly none of Jesus (nor have you). And you're right, at this point it's impossible to convince me that some guy in 1st century palestine performed miracles like walking on water or rising from the dead. There are a great deal of supposed historical accounts of miracles performed by both gods and god-enabled men running a whole gamut of time periods. I see no reason to single out the Jesus story as believeable.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 (cont) that almost all of the abolitionists were Christians (i.e. William Wilberforce) Plus would it not be beneficial if people stayed pure to marriage? Or if children obeyed the wishes of their loving parents? Either way you are doing this arrogant thing again where you are basically saying that right now is the pinnacle of human morality and that you can judge the morality of the law of a different culture. its ethnocentrism at its best. Who are you to judge?
thesamsin 7 months ago
@thesamsin I never said no Christians were abolitionists. However, the pro-slavery christians had the Bible more directly on their side than the abolitionist ones. I'm much more concerned with the barbaric capital punishments prescribed for these things than the core ideas behind them. As an intelligent and educated member of modern society, I'm quite well-equipped to judge the moral concepts of past societies. Such judgements are an important ingredient for social progress.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 1st), no they didn't. lol
2nd). They why are we in the most murderous, barbarous, treacherous, unforgiving, time period in history? Social progress? Despite "social progress" the world still fell into 2 global wars, then we developed the fire power to destroy the world several times over and have had the guns pointed at each others heads ever since. We "abort" our children, we abuse our relationships, and we don't give a damn about the kids who are dying of starvation on the streets
thesamsin 7 months ago