Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Johnson]

I'll do you one better

Bring 'em On

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'll do you one better

Bring 'em On

Somehow I knew you would...

[Johnson]

Well, if you believe in psychic powers... Maybe you're psychic.

You believe in all sorts of other things that have mountains of evidence against them... Why not psychic abilities too...
or zeus... or allah, or vishnu, or judaism... ?

What physical evidence points to the correctness of Christianity any moreso that any other religion... thusly making Christian anarchy the answer...

and yes, I am commiting all my own posts to the pit of dispair.

[Johnson]

I know who else has the cause for ultimate suffering... those that wanted this thread to die...

I sort of know how you feel... probably a bit like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo53Krs7N2k

[ChristianAnarchist]

Well, if you believe in psychic powers... Maybe you're psychic.

You believe in all sorts of other things that have mountains of evidence against them... Why not psychic abilities too...
or zeus... or allah, or vishnu, or judaism... ?

What physical evidence points to the correctness of Christianity any moreso that any other religion... thusly making Christian anarchy the answer...

and yes, I am commiting all my own posts to the pit of dispair.

The only "evidence" is in testimony and historical writings.  If you look at old testiment prophesy regarding the messiah to come and compare them to the "testimony" in writing which we call the "New Testament", you have certian events that are unlikely to have occured by "chance".  Of course one has to look at whether the documents in question are reliable.  I have addressed in the past why I feel they pass the test of reliability.  It has to do with the "manuscript authority" index (and no, it's not the "question authority" type - it's a test of reliability of historical documents).  If you want me to explain further, I'll be happy to.  It's noteworthy here to point out that what we are refering to here is "evidence" and not "proof".  There is a difference and there is no "proof", only evidence.

[Johnson]

Events such as?

I mean, how do you account for the fact that the story of the divine Jesus is obviously based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Dionysus and Mithras or that Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks the theory that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage?

How do you account for the fact that the letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written prior to the Gospels, did not recount much of what is known as "the Jesus story", and only mentions the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension as happening in a mythic realm, rather than in an Earthly one?
 
Also - who is to say that the documents of the Koran, or the Torah do NOT pass muster? I'm sure there is ample testimony and historical writings there...

[ReverendRyan]

Why the hell you still slamming your head against the wall?






EDIT: Wouldn't that make the greatest YTMND ever?

EDIT^2: I was beat to it. http://stfupenn.ytmnsfw.com/

[Johnson]

Sometimes you slam your head into the wall and win... You simply have to properly direct your chi...

http://www.kungfurock.com/2006/08/19/qiqong-is-the-true-power-of-shaolin-kungfu/



(j/k) I don't believe asian bullshit either. (well, not the CHI part anyway)

[Johnson]

If that wasn't hardcore enough for you... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8fKib0aLEA&eurl=

I also think the closing line of this video applies well to this thread...    (WWJD?) (or pull)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Events such as?

I mean, how do you account for the fact that the story of the divine Jesus is obviously based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Dionysus and Mithras or that Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks the theory that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage?

How do you account for the fact that the letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written prior to the Gospels, did not recount much of what is known as "the Jesus story", and only mentions the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension as happening in a mythic realm, rather than in an Earthly one?
 
Also - who is to say that the documents of the Koran, or the Torah do NOT pass muster? I'm sure there is ample testimony and historical writings there...

O.K... excuse me for not responding in depth to every point you make as you have to understand that I respond when I have a minute or two to spare and don't have the time to research each point and get references to each answer but I'll try.

In the past I have explained how as far as historical documents go, the new testiment writings have a very high score in "manuscript authority".  This is determined by looking at the number of manauscripts that exist and how closely they are dated from the actual historical event they record.  If there are 5 manuscripts and they range from 200-300 years after the event, that's considered a pretty accurate record.  Most of our history is based on such.  In the case of the new testament letters, there are thousands of copies that date back to 100-200 years after the event which puts thier "score" higher than any other historical document that ever existed.  This does not establish the "truth" of what is recorded, just whether they are accurate "copies" of any "original" document or source.  There are, as I've addresed in the past, minor errors in transcribing and of course we have to translate from the original languages so errors are likley but considered minimal (by me at least). 

As far as the "manuscript authority" of the koran and other documents, they might likewise be quite high, I have not checked it but I have in the past stated as much.

I think that the "saviour figures" are common throughout history and may result from common historical "memory" or "cross talk" among cultures.  The Jews have waited for the "messiah" in the old testiment and are still waiting.  This is also something I have not taken the time to fully research and I only have so much time in a day, but if you have a reference that is not a tomb for me to read, I'll read it and let you know what I think.   I'll give you a hint though, I don't trust much of what I read, not even from "Christian" sources (which is why I often butt heads with other Christians)...

[Johnson]

O.K... excuse me for not responding in depth to every point you make as you have to understand that I respond when I have a minute or two to spare and don't have the time to research each point and get references to each answer but I'll try.

Take your time, you missed the one about Paul.

In the past I have explained how as far as historical documents go, the new testiment writings have a very high score in "manuscript authority".  This is determined by looking at the number of manauscripts that exist and how closely they are dated from the actual historical event they record.  If there are 5 manuscripts and they range from 200-300 years after the event, that's considered a pretty accurate record.  Most of our history is based on such.  In the case of the new testament letters, there are thousands of copies that date back to 100-200 years after the event which puts thier "score" higher than any other historical document that ever existed.  This does not establish the "truth" of what is recorded, just whether they are accurate "copies" of any "original" document or source.  There are, as I've addresed in the past, minor errors in transcribing and of course we have to translate from the original languages so errors are likley but considered minimal (by me at least). 

As far as the "manuscript authority" of the koran and other documents, they might likewise be quite high, I have not checked it but I have in the past stated as much.

Actually, from what I see, "manuscript authority" is actually not a comparison to actual events, but merely to other manuscripts written and carbon dated to the same era. (Interesting that Carbon dating is trusted in this case, and yet not when dating fossils or other evidence against creationism) Also, I cannot even find reference to the term "manuscript authority" other than it refers to the bible and the illiad. It seems to be another made up terminology by Christian "Scientists"

Even if this WERE right... It would only prove that portions of the bible match other documents written in that era... or assuming your definition of manuscript authority is correct, it would prove that some portions of the bible are historically accurate. It does not even approach the point of offering evidence for the complete truth of the bible, and hardly shoudl something like this be an excuse for believing in a magical higher power or a man with special powers who walked the earth performing miracles. There are many books out today based on real events that include fictional heros with inhuman abilities. In 3000 years, will these books also have "manuscript authority"?

I think that the "saviour figures" are common throughout history and may result from common historical "memory" or "cross talk" among cultures.  The Jews have waited for the "messiah" in the old testiment and are still waiting.  This is also something I have not taken the time to fully research and I only have so much time in a day, but if you have a reference that is not a tomb for me to read, I'll read it and let you know what I think.   I'll give you a hint though, I don't trust much of what I read, not even from "Christian" sources (which is why I often butt heads with other Christians)...

Do you think that is perhaps becuase these cultures are sharing stories from sources that predate the myth of Jesus? I agree that there is cross talk. I believe this is likely becuase many (if not most) of the stories of the bible are culled from myths that predate even the idea of Jesus. 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I guess I don't understand your point with Paul since by my readings, he seems to be pretty sure that Jesus is the Christ...

You are right, the "manuscript authority" index is only to show that the copies in existance are accurate representations of whatever the original was.  One then has to analize WHAT the documents say to determine what was the mindset of the original authors.  In some cases, we don't know for sure who the original authors were, but we have a good idea (by "we" I am refering really not to myself, but those who have analyzed these things in the past - I certainly do not have the time to go over ancient manuscripts with a magnifying glass). 

That said, I believe that the writers of the documents believed that the things they wrote were true.  If the occurances were even partially correct, then I have concluded that there was a "Jesus of Nazareth".  So now the question becomes "was he a liar, a lunatic, or God"?  Here is where the explanations start to get very involved so it will help me if you narrow down which you think he was or if you simply don't believe there was a historical character who claimed to be "Jesus of Nazareth".

[bonerjoe]

Johnson, you seriosly need to find a new hobby.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I've looked for another "Christ" like figure in other mythology and I can not find one that fits the bill of being "God" and becoming "man" as a sacrifice to save others.  In fact, I cannot find any other culture figure who claims to be God.  All the ones I find claimed to be teachers or phophets.  If you know of one that fits the bill, inform me.

[cerpntaxt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities