header photo

W  e  l  c   o   m   e        t  o     :

Conservative Atheist Community Center

Displaying all 5 comments


You actually make it seem really easy together with your presentation but I in finding this matter to be actually one thing that I feel I'd by no means understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I am having a look forward for your next put up, I'll try to get the cling of it!

Best Regards

Commenting on "What Jesus Said"

Your charge of credulity in the Christian belief of the Scriptures I find unfounded. The fact you do not accept the historical evidence of Jesus does not make the evidence invalid. The fact you do not accept the historical evidence the Scriptures were written by the original authors does not make the evidence invalid. It simply means you do not accept the evidence, that's all. The fact you suggest the words of Jesus could not be remembered accurately is not surprising, for you do not accept anything supernatural, therefore you would not accept John 14:26 ESV
(26)  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The very existence of God demands an element of supernatural, which you do not allow for, therefore, your reason is only acceptable to an unbeliever, and they are already most likely in agreement with you, so it is mostly a useless argument.

The fact that Jesus existed as a historical person is very well documented, you just don't accept the documentation as reliable, the fact you do not accept it does not make it unreliable. Even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person.

As far as the writings of Scripture themselves, they are to most reliable ancient documents in the world by any standard documents of antiquity are judged. To discredit them one must of necessity discredit all documents of antiquity.

Consider Caesar Augustus (Octavius) who died in 14 AD having reigned since 27 BC, and The Roman epic and elegiac poet and satirist Ovid who lived from 43 BC to 18 AD. Seneca the Younger, Stoic philosopher, statesman, born 4 BC died 65 AD, Livy 59 BC - 12 AD who was a Roman historian, also Pliny the Elder AD 23–79 Writer and natural philosopher, then Apollonius of Tyana AD 15–100. Greek orator, philosopher, and mathematician, Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian. 64BC -24 AD, Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, 20 BC - 50 AD, and Hero of Alexandria, engineer and mathematician 10–70 AD. According to your reasoning, we cannot be sure any of these people really lived, yet we accept they lived based upon far less historical record than what we have for Jesus.

Your argument is only meaningful to those who are already in agreement with you, there is nothing persuasive in your argument to change the mind of one who has already considered history in its context.

Scientific Theory vs Scripture: it appears I again did a very poor job explaining my position, for I was misunderstood in many facets. Let's see if we can correct some of them.

"David is incorrect when he says the scientific community says it is not wrong." That statement I made was only in light of the Grand Canyon and the age of the earth. Certainly, they think they are right or they would not have presented that theory. I certainly did not suggest they believe they cannot be wrong, for they often are and change their view accordingly.

"Humankind did not come from a monkey! Christians make that incorrect assertion all the time." I never intended to imply we came from monkeys, the use of the monkey was just for entertainment purposes, I am aware of the evolutionary view, it suggests not that we ascended from the monkey, he is only kin. We reverted down a different path, so no we did not evolve as a direct ancestor of the monkey, the missing link they refer to is the missing evolutionary path to which they refer. The use of the monkey metaphor was not to suggest otherwise.

"David claims I believe if Scripture were to present any truth whatsoever it would have to come from some other authority. That is not true. I have already acknowledged some Scripture is true." That is a surprise, are you sure of what you are saying? My point was the source of authority, are you saying that you believe the truth you accept in the bible is true because the Bible says it is and no other source accepted? If that is what you believe I stand corrected.

That will do for now, but I will have to come back later for them!

Like the new site Gene, there is a lot of helpful information for both the believer and none-believe to ponder. Although we are opposite sides of the issue, it will help me understand your perspective as we continue to debate. I noticed you seemed to have made a special effort to fair in your acknowledgments of certain issues. Many of the statements you made concerning the Constitution and religion I could agree with. Great to have you as a friend.