Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[revsdd]

Now your just being childish! After the above silliness I agree with you. Your point is absurd. Goodbye

LOL!!! I'm being childish. You're the one who wrote, "Why should your belief, groups, teams etc; Become what your child has if the child is not able to make a discernible choice." Teams? Seriously? Teams? I'm supposed to take you seriously when you bring "teams" into the discussion? I've simply responded quite rationally and logically to what you wrote, pointing out the absurdity of your "logical" approach. That you can't defend it except by dismissing me as "childish" is simply evidence of the weakness of your position. And you still choose not to address the issue of what values children should be taught - so I can only assume that you don't think children should be taught any values, since values are ultimately choices and not included within reading, writing and arithmetic. But since you think what I wrote is childish and silly, then enlighten me, O wise one. What values, then, are appropriate to be taught to children? What values can be taught to these "open books" that are children, whose right to choice is so precious to you. To what extent should we limit a child's choice? So do you think it's appropriate to teach children to be kind, generous, etc., etc. If so, then you must believe it appropriate to seek to take away their choice not to be kind and generous. Are you now saying it's OK for me to try to convince my child to be a Blue Jays fan? Or will it traumatize her that I 'm trying to influence her away from being a Yankees fan? The fact that you took a very firm position (only reading, writing and arithmetic - your words, not mine) and are now apparently trying to weasel out of that position by attacking the person who calls you on it by pointing out its absurdity doesn't really bolster your position. Ad homimen attacks are never very convincing. You've also not responded at all to my suggestion that it is impossible for you to be completely guided by logic, unless you have found a magical way to do away with things such as emotions, which are an integral part of being human. My comments about you being a "Vulcan" (above) - which you suggested were an insult - were not meant as an insult, but to point out that your approach is simply a denial of some of the most basic elements of being human. Humans are a combination of logic and emotion; rationality and feeling. Do you deny that emotion and feeling are part of human nature, and that all humans - including you - are sometimes guided by them rather than by cold, hard logic?

Oh. And I've had no trauma in my life. Well, being a Leafs fan has at times been traumatic, I concede, but aside from that ... A spiritual awakening, but no trauma. As to dismissing my claim to atheism, you yourself wrote in Post #138 that "technically we are all atheist at birth." So how you can now dismiss the possibility of me having been an atheist since I must have been an atheist at birth (particularly given that I was raised in a home and family without religious indoctrination, as you would put it)?

 

[revjohn]

No! But we are open to anything, however should we impose our beliefs on our children?

When we share what we believe, whether it be the existence of God or Gods or the non-existence of God or Gods we are imposing our belief on others. Particularly when it comes to a parent sharing with our children.

Taking as given that no parent deliberately seeks to stunt or damage the development of their child it is reasonable to conclude that everything the parent does to instruct their child imposes a worldview upon that child.

Which suggests that imposing upon a child is not fundamentally or even foundationally seen as being socially, culturally or morally problematic.

Problems arise when values are assigned to what it is that the parents seek to impose upon their child. And more often than not the values assigned are set by a subjective lens. That with which I agree I think best to impose upon my children and that with which I disagree I think worst to impose upon my children. I would be surprised if there was a lot of variation in that designation from individual to individual.

So then, if I agreed that teaching my children about God or Gods was a positive value I would teach my children about God or Gods and I likely would be critical of parents that refused to teach their children about God or Gods. Bearing in mind that if I decide that not teaching my children about God or Gods is of positive value then I will not teach my children about God or Gods and I will be critical of those parents that do teach their children about God or Gods.

What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself.

You would be conditioned to believe that there is no value to religious influence and most likely to continue to ignore or reject religious influence. Or, something about a religious experience might open your eyes to the possibility of there being something more to the atheism you believe is the default position of humanity.

Certainly, there are testimonies of individuals who have been atheist and have embraced theism of one kind or another, just as there are testimonies of individuals who have been theists and rejected that perspective to adopt atheism of one kind or another.

Unless we apply No True Scotsman fallacies to both sides and insist that Leopards simply cannot change their spots.

Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

Optically yes. It would be fairer. Parenting being what it is choice is not considered much of an option. Parents will tell their children what is good and what is bad and everything about parenting skews rewards towards choosing what is good and punishments towards what is bad.

The choice to be an atheist or a theist is not like choosing vanilla over chocolate unless we spend 13 or so years telling our children that chocolate is good and vanilla is evil. What happens when that child is finally given an opportunity to try what has been forbidden and is told that they are free to make a choice?

For starters they will be suspicious because if vanilla is as evil as their parents have been saying all these years there will be no way they dare try it. And if they work up the courage to try what has always been forbidden they will not admit to preferring vanilla to chocolate for fear of punishment from parents they love and try to please.

Such is the power of conditioning, even when it is not undertaken with deliberate and ulterior means.

Why, for example would your children think that you would freely let them choose religion when they know you equate it with child abuse and slavery? I gather you do not speak about either as being good in any way so how "free" are your children really going to be when you permit them to make that choice?

And what consequences would you visit upon them if they chose what you reject?

 

[revjohn]

LOL!!! I'm being childish. You're the one who wrote, "Why should your belief, groups, teams etc; Become what your child has if the child is not able to make a discernible choice." Teams? Seriously? Teams? I'm supposed to take you seriously when you bring "teams" into the discussion?

Well you are a Leafs fan.

If that doesn't constitute questionable judgment I don't know what does.

 

[revsdd]

Well you are a Leafs fan.

If that doesn't constitute questionable judgment I don't know what does.

John, I've already acknowledged the ongoing trauma of that choice. However, if a part of faith is finding hope even in that which appears hopeless, then being a Leafs fan is a very spiritual experience indeed, which seems to bring me closer to the cross at times!

 

[blackbelt1961]

Atheist means "Without God". Are we with god, No! But we are open to anything, however should we impose our beliefs on our children?What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself. Whether religion were true or not. But sadly you weren't given that choice. It isn't a good thing to claim you were baptised in the first year.
That is inculcation/indoctrination of an innocent, totally wrong! It is almost child abuse.
You were forced to be a slave to the system.
Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

if you think no child will grow up with external influences from there parents and society you are a big dreamer , what choices do they have if they are not taught them in the first place?

this is one of the more stupid atheistic arguments unless you want your child to grow up on mars completely isolated from human influence.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Atheist means "Without God". Are we with god, No!

actually your wrong, Atheism is a belief that there is no God and more sophisticated atheists would rather say a lack of belief this way they are not admitting, in there mind anyhow that atheism is indeed a belief faith .

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

[Jaebius]

What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself.

Decide what for myself exactly? Decide to belong to an organized religion or not? Yes Pavlos, I believe you to be correct on that one. I see that as a different thing, however, than the capability to decide to have faith or not.

Whether religion were true or not.

On what grounds would I be making that decision? On the grounds of my own limited human reason? If so, I would most probably choose not.

But sadly you weren't given that choice.

Sadly Pavlos, I feel you may be confusing religion with faith. I did not have a choice when it came to faith. It was a gift given to me by God. I did have a choice when it came to religion - if not in childhood, then in later years.

It isn't a good thing to claim you were baptised in the first year.

I accept that as your opinion Pavlos. Personally, I believe it's a truth I am to proclaim.

That is inculcation/indoctrination of an innocent, totally wrong! It is almost child abuse.

Almost child abuse - by whom? God?

You were forced to be a slave to the system.

Ah, but I believe we are all slave to someone.

Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

A choice of choosing my religion? I did have a choice - to leave organized Christianity or not. I have chosen to remain within it. In terms of being given faith, however, I did not have a choice. I did not have a choice as an infant. I would not have had a choice at age 13. I was dead in my trespasses and sins.

 

[Waterfall]

Look how crazy the world is through following the irrational and illogical. witch burnings in Africa, beheading in Syria, blowing up abortion clinic, skyscrapers and music venues.
The most sane places on the planet are those that have less religion. I wonder why that is.

I assume you are talking about Sweden and Norway? It seems to be the "go to" example for atheism.
To always say that religion is the cause of most of the worlds insanity is troublesome. Science has it's own share of "issues", after all it is science that invented the drone (used for good and evil), nuclear energy which contributes to warfare and also saves lives through nuclear power sources, medications produced with and without ethical thought, etc....Much the same as religion can be used for the good or to contribute to evil in the world. Do you really think that by erasing religion off the face of the map that evil will be eradicated? That money, greed, ambition and a lust for power will fail to exist? You are naive if you do.
You are an atheist, so be it, live and let live.....you say there is no God....and you are happy with that.
I am a theist and embrace all that God is.
Only one of us is right.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I'm being childish.

Agreed! Goodbye.

 

[Luce NDs]

actually your wrong, Atheism is a belief that there is no God and more sophisticated atheists would rather say a lack of belief this way they are not admitting, in there mind anyhow that atheism is indeed a belief faith .

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This cannot be true under the subtle understanding that god is in, of, with everything and thus not reject able, or oppression able ... unless subtle to begin with in the initiation of the big bust ... the coe over the moon icon?

Some misunderstood emotional sorts try to cabbage some strange believes out of the diversity though ... even duff is going on under the leaf ... as that is a fertile place for fun guise ... heh hoo likes to stir that odd wee jar (vessel of a unique type)!

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus please; if you are truly enlightened give some respect for the Shadow ei side ... it allows contrast but not conflict ...especially over small or wee things put down outraging by authority that are sword to not knowing as children of the ethereal ... and thus airless ...!

The Ariman might collect some more thoughts .... including some knowledge of concerns as recommended by "an" ... the initial Nous ...

 

[Waterfall]

Agreed! Goodbye.

Whoa, I'm guessing you lied on your profile and you're really.....hmmm, 18?

 

[revsdd]

Agreed! Goodbye.

No answer to my challenges, I guess. Apparently your much vaunted logic has failed you.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is that vaunted or vaulted ... as Loche dupe?

Don't sweat it ... its already whetted down there ... a sloe lyon rheid? Sometime known a creeping stones ... a hard plot to follow ... when the mutterings of god are Piscine ... and the slobber flies ...

 

[Mystic]

You simply cannot (apparently) comprehend that there are different sets of eyes looking at all that you look at and not seeing it exactly as you see it.

Mystic: Yes, as a former theology professor I can comprehend sloppy thinking and perspectives that are inconsistent with both Scripture and well documented experience.

Rev. John: These texts...do not communicate to me what they obviously communicate to you. .

Mystic: Wow, you actually presume that these texts do not imply what I say they obviously imply? Yet you offer no alternative explanation? I am seriously making the claim that you don't grasp how the grace of God works in His church and I will demonstrate the basis of this charge. But first I want to give you a chance to explain yourself.

 

[Delightful Life]

Agreed! Goodbye.

Your slip is showing :3

 

[Pavlos Maros]

No! But we are open to anything, however should we impose our beliefs on our children?

When we share what we believe, whether it be the existence of God or Gods or the non-existence of God or Gods we are imposing our belief on others. Particularly when it comes to a parent sharing with our children.

There is a huge difference between imposing and indoctrination. I've not said that children wont pick up what their parents believe in, but making them kneel and pray, or go to church, or saying grace at dinner, or telling them that a sky daddy is watching them is indoctrination and abuse. Children should be allowed to be children.

if I agreed that teaching my children about God or Gods was a positive value I would teach my children about God or Gods and I likely would be critical of parents that refused to teach their children about God or Gods.

Exactly, Because you yourself were indoctrinated into the cult you yourself do the same to your children such is the nature of indoctrination, it would be pretty poor indoctrination if the victim knew they had been indoctrinated.

What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself.

You would be conditioned to believe that there is no value to religious influence and most likely to continue to ignore or reject religious influence. Or, something about a religious experience might open your eyes to the possibility of there being something more to the atheism you believe is the default position of humanity.

Never said that the child should be brought up atheist, my point is there should be a neutral position, not simple either or.

Certainly, there are testimonies of individuals who have been atheist and have embraced theism of one kind or another,

No there are only people claiming they were atheist, Without a blow to the head or a major trauma in a atheists life, there is no way they would become theist. that is the only way it happens else it just doesn't make sense.

Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

Optically yes. It would be fairer. Parenting being what it is choice is not considered much of an option.

Especailly when the indoctrinated, are indoctrinating the children. but sadly they know no better.

The choice to be an atheist or a theist is not like choosing vanilla over chocolate unless we spend 13 or so years telling our children that chocolate is good and vanilla is evil. What happens when that child is finally given an opportunity to try what has been forbidden and is told that they are free to make a choice?

With children being able to decide for themselves the choice is to remain exactly as you are or become theist there is no either or. Neutral is the default position. It is only referred to as atheist by the theist. Which as I said in an earlier post is a negative label imposed on those who don't believe in your particular brand of god or any god for that matter. Tecnically we are born neutral and as such without god which means atheist to the theist. I'm only using the term to get my point across.

For starters they will be suspicious because if vanilla is as evil as their parents have been saying all these years there will be no way they dare try it.

This is exactly why indoctrination should not be allowed.

Why, for example would your children think that you would freely let them choose religion when they know you equate it with child abuse and slavery?

Because they would also know it was their choice and their choice alone.

I gather you do not speak about either as being good in any way so how "free" are your children really going to be when you permit them to make that choice?

This is the point of them not being indoctrinated, they would not need my permision, it would be solely their decision without any input for me to either or.

And what consequences would you visit upon them if they chose what you reject?

Nothing see above statement. just as if one of my children were gay or wanted to marry a different colour, creed, or nationality. It would not matter to me, it would be solely their choice. I would be happy that they were happy.

Atheist means "Without God". Are we with god, No! But we are open to anything, however should we impose our beliefs on our children?What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself. Whether religion were true or not. But sadly you weren't given that choice. It isn't a good thing to claim you were baptised in the first year.
That is inculcation/indoctrination of an innocent, totally wrong! It is almost child abuse.
You were forced to be a slave to the system.
Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

if you think no child will grow up with external influences from there parents and society you are a big dreamer , what choices do they have if they are not taught them in the first place?
this is one of the more stupid atheistic arguments unless you want your child to grow up on mars completely isolated from human influence.

I did not say they would not get influenced in some way but there is a huge difference between indoctrination and influence.

Atheist means "Without God". Are we with god, No!

actually your wrong, Atheism is a belief that there is no God and more sophisticated atheists would rather say a lack of belief this way they are not admitting, in there mind anyhow that atheism is indeed a belief faith .

You're wrong on both counts, from wikipedia "The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism And atheism is a belief system, like bald is an hair colour.

What would you be had you had no religious influences until you were say thirteen, (adolescence) then you would be able to decide for yourself.

Decide what for myself exactly? Decide to belong to an organized religion or not? Yes Pavlos, I believe you to be correct on that one. I see that as a different thing, however, than the capability to decide to have faith or not.

Doesn't follow.

Whether religion were true or not.

On what grounds would I be making that decision? On the grounds of my own limited human reason? If so, I would most probably choose not.

That would be the most reasonable conclusion. Given you're a human, well I hope so.

But sadly you weren't given that choice.

Sadly Pavlos, I feel you may be confusing religion with faith. I did not have a choice when it came to faith. It was a gift given to me by God. I did have a choice when it came to religion - if not in childhood, then in later years.

No! Sorry god had nothing to do with your faith, that was indoctrination.

That is inculcation/indoctrination of an innocent, totally wrong! It is almost child abuse.

Almost child abuse - by whom? God?

No! By your parents. but sadly they were indoctrinated too. and as such also victims. they know not what they do.

You were forced to be a slave to the system.

Ah, but I believe we are all slave to someone.

You may be. But I'm not.

Don't you think it would be much fairer to be given a choice?

A choice of choosing my religion? I did have a choice - to leave organized Christianity or not. I have chosen to remain within it.

And that is only because you had been indoctrinated.

In terms of being given faith, however, I did not have a choice. I did not have a choice as an infant. I would not have had a choice at age 13. I was dead in my trespasses and sins.

No! Exactly you were indoctrinated.

Look how crazy the world is through following the irrational and illogical. witch burnings in Africa, beheading in Syria, blowing up abortion clinic, skyscrapers and music venues.
The most sane places on the planet are those that have less religion. I wonder why that is.

I assume you are talking about Sweden and Norway?

No! not just them. Iceland, Denmark, Japan, there are several.

To always say that religion is the cause of most of the worlds insanity is troublesome.

Well you are welcome to show that it isn't

Do you really think that by erasing religion off the face of the map that evil will be eradicated?

No! When did I say we should erase religion of the map.

You are an atheist,

No I am not. I am a humanist.

[so be it, live and let live.....you say there is no God.and you are happy with that.

No! I don't say that at all that would be foolish, As I cant look under every nook and crannie in the universe to see if one is there. it is merely unreasonable and irrational to think that one exist. but I cant rule it out completely.

I am a theist and embrace all that God is.

You can believe in whatever you want to believe in.

Only one of us is right.

I know! Hence why I feel sad for you.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

No answer to my challenges, I guess. Apparently your much vaunted logic has failed you.

You said

"your position is extreme to the point of being simply absurd, and it's really not worthy of further comment."

I took you at your word. Unless of course your word is useless. Hence why I'm not giving you the time of day. If you wanted to continue to discuss or debate then do not make silly comments like the above. Goodbye.

 

[revsdd]

You said I took you at your word. Unless of course your word is useless. Hence why I'm not giving you the time of day. If you wanted to continue to discuss or debate then do not make silly comments like the above. Goodbye.

The reality is that you're acting like a child who's totally incapable of rational discussion and can only repeat the same talking points over and over again. It's actually kind of fun to have this discussion with you, but since you won't clarify your position (or more likely can't without revealing yourself more clearly to have no real idea of what you're talking about) it becomes rather pointless. Waterfall said you sound like an 18 year old. I'm not sure that isn't an insult to 18 year olds. You take ridiculous positions, backtrack when challenged on them and have no ability at all to rationally defend your position. So you try to overwhelm those you disagree with by the sheer volume of words you use, as above. No one's impressed.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Not Impressed