goodbye

January 28, 2006

Sadly, i cannot continue to post on this site. Despite my fascination i am becoming far too busy: between college and writing, i have no time to waste with you...

So, i’ve simply decided to go over all of your arguments, one by one, for my last post. I am rather disappointed that you didn’t post from my last post, but oh well.

======

Your attempted conclusion: Jesus Christ never existed.

You have to prove this true, using your own arguments. Like Galileo, you are standing athwart history. Thus, you have not only to prove your own case, but you have to disprove history; much like Galileo not only had to disprove geocentricity, but also prove heliocentricity. If you cannot do either of these things, then your belief is labeled as nothing but a personal fancy.

Here are your arguments:

---Argument #1: Jesus never existed because no writers of that era wrote about Him.

Refute #1: This is an argument from silence. Just because a tree falls in a forest and nobody writes about it doesn’t mean that the tree never existed. Because you can’t argue from silence, this argument has no clout whatsoever.

Refute #2: Furthermore, Christianity was a small group in its younger years. No writers were going to realize, "hey, one day this religion is going to rule all of Europe! We’d better document their beginnings." There were other, bigger topics to spend their time on. It didn’t help that Christianity came from Jerusalem, considered one of many worthless and mostly ignored provinces of the great Roman Empire.

Refute #3: Even if they had written about Jesus, they only could have done so by hearsay. None of them rushed down to Jerusalem to interview Him. Thus, their testimony is not really all that important.

Refute #4: We also have the Bible, the most historically documented book of all time, which is a veritable biography of Jesus. It was written, not by Paul, but by people who knew Jesus as part of His 3-year ministry. Nobody doubts the biographies of ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, even though the writers of such biographies considered the Pharaohs to be gods. Many ancient people were considered to be gods. We don’t discount their biographies. Why do we discount Jesus’ biography?

---Argument #2: There was a gigantic Church conspiracy that burned books. This means they also re-wrote some of them.

Refute #1: Just because the Church burned books doesn’t automatically mean they took the trouble to re-write some of them. Burning books and rewriting books are two different things. The Soviet Union, for example, burned and banned many books. But this doesn’t mean that the Soviets rewrote them. They may have, but just because they burned them does not automatically mean they rewrote them. Destroying and recreating are two different things.

Refute #2: The early Christians, if they burned books, were obviously fanatic. Thus, they believed that the Bible was the know-all end-all. The Bible was completely and utterly true. If you believed otherwise, *you* were burned alive... Why then did the early Christians re-write secular documents? They already had the Bible as proof. Why make the effort to re-write books you are busy burning?

Refute #3: Josephus had a "Jesus passage" in one of his works. Apparently this was actually consistent for him, since he went off many times in his writing to comment on things completely unrelated. That much fits. Despite this, many scholars say that this passage is forged; but many others refute this claim and stand by the passage. You cannot simply fall back on authorities when confronted with evidence, since authorities are just as likely to be personally motivated (on both sides), and are just as likely to be WRONG as we are. At best, this claim shows that neither side can argue for the Josephus passage as evidence for their view. Furthermore, even if it were rewritten, we would have no idea who rewrote it. Yet there is no way of telling, so this argument is moot and we will consistently disagree.

Refute #4: Again, the all-consuming question: If the Christians were busy rewriting books, why then did they only rewrite a few books, instead of everything?

If the theory is implausible, change it. If the shoe doesn’t fit, find another. In your case, however, apparently you shove your foot in anyway.

---Argument #3: I’m not sure i even want to comment on this one. You seem to be going off on a big spiel about how Christians are not as evil as they once were and blah blah blah...

All this really does is show your abject hatred for Christians. Some points should be mentioned:

-Christian nations did not start WWII. Hitler did. Hitler was a master tactician who used Christian symbols to his advantage, but was not a Christian himself. He even used pagan symbols to his advantage: the swastika is not a Christian symbol, it is a Hinduism symbol, but that didn’t stop him, did it? He also hated the Jews. This is contrary to Christianity--Jesus was a Jew! You are right, however, about millions of Christians perishing. Many Christians died as American, British, & Allied soldiers in the war, and many others were imprisoned in Nazi camps because they had...harbored Jews! You, in you blatant bigotry, do not honor their sacrifice, but rather heap hatred on them. Those Christians who died on the battlefield are why you are capable of sitting down and reading this right now.

-Please, if you have evidence of "certain foreign Churches" financing terror, provide it publicly. Otherwise, this just shows how willing you are to believe in wild conspiracy theories, simply because they agree with your hate...

-Are you aware that Christian organizations are one of the most prominent charities in the entire world? That if not for our aid, many people around the world would be dead from starvation and disease many times over? Apparently this has slipped over your head. How much have you donated to charity today? Churches all over the world receive donations from Christians every Sunday. Evidently, however, since we’re engaging in "illegal" conversions (last time i checked, wasn’t the right to freedom of religion a fundamental right of humanity? I guess i was wrong), it’s probably better for us not to exist and for all those people to have died. After all, its better to die than be helped by (shudder) a Christian.

-"Ongoing threat to our national well-being"--what a hokey denouncement. Oooooh! You’d better check under your bed tonight! There could be a CHRISTIAN there!!!!!!!

---Argument #5: Humanity can better itself.

Refute #1: First of all, this statement has no bearing over whether Christ existed or not. This is the point where you just start endlessly repeating yourself...

Refute #2: What, exactly, constitutes being "better tomorrow than you are today"? By what standard do we hold ourselves? And what, exactly, makes this standard the governing standard?

Refute #3: You say we should "protect the habitats of all other living creatures". Why so? After all, tigers kill people. And with today’s technology, we can certainly survive without them. By what authority do you have the right to deny other humans the right to kill tigers? Why should people listen to this authority? It seems you have provided only an example of "it sounds nice, so we should do it". Moral relativity is a stupid idea, and if you have any reasoning faculties you could reason out why. Plato, if i recall, reasons out vagueness like this very well. Try reading him sometime.

Refute #4: What evidence do you have that humanity can better itself? Here we are, 2,000 years past Christ's time, and we still are killing each other. If you see improvement, be sure to let me know.

Refute #5: You say: "Your character, conduct and actions should concern you more". Why? Suppose your own atheistic beliefs are right. When we die, that’s it. Why shouldn’t we let rip & live large? Furthermore, suppose you are wrong and Jesus is real, and He is of primary concern. I’ll bet you’d regret ever even saying things like this. JESUS is what makes our conduct and actions our concern.

FYI, to the Christian this statement is true. Why? Because God commands we do right by others. I myself feel i might have been wrong to you many times, so i apologize.

---Argument #6: Christianity is a plagiarist’s religion, made up of parts of other religions.

I have a question. Let’s suppose for the moment that this is true.

So what?

Suppose you and i are together in a room. Before us is a chair, which has a plastic-coated paper placard on it. The placard reads:

"Once, a wonderful little girl sat here. Then, she grew up and moved away. One day she’ll be back."

"Aha!" I say. "The girl exists. The placard says so."

"You’re wrong." You reply. "That placard is false because it’s made up of other materials, like paper, plastic and ink."

So what?

If Christianity is a plagiarist’s religion, that says nothing about whether Jesus existed or not. It only says that Christianity was made up of other religions. These two are exclusive. Just because p and q are related doesn’t necessarily mean than p follows q.

And i've already answered this charge. How boring is your reiteration! Christianity is a "done" religion. This is unchallengably unique. That you persist with this shows your willful ignorance.

======

Finally, from there on out you simply continue to spout out the same talking points, over and over, with little or no variation. You are the child that screams, "I’m not going to bed! I’m not going to bed!" No amount of reasoning convinces otherwise, and the child will not say anything else nor offer good reasons why she can’t go to bed. She just repeats herself, over and over.

I apologize for all the long posts. I even got emotional.

The simple truth is that the Christian religion IS the truth. Jesus came. He lived. He died. He rose again. He will come again. He is the ultimate testament to God’s love for squalling, stupid, hateful brats like us.

But this demonstrates why research is so very crucial. Living in a bubble only serves to make oneself unable to see outside it. Learning never hurt anybody. And what with all of your inconsistencies, and your wild fabrications, you certainly need it.

There is always the chance that you could be wrong. And, in matters of religion, this is the worst place to be wrong in during your lifetime. If you are wrong, then you go to Hell.

Shiv, for one moment, go back and read your original post on this forum. You have absolutely no idea about the relationship between Paul and the Church. Paul in no way communicated with some form of "spiritual Jesus" like a spirit medium. He met Him once, in a vision. Finally, Paul could not have changed the historical Jesus because Paul did not write about the historical Jesus. He said nothing about Jesus being a spirit he communicates with. It is the Gospels, who were written by contemporaries of Jesus while He was yet alive, who give us the picture of the historical Jesus. You need to do more research. Research never hurt anybody.

If there is one thing having this debate with you has shown me, it is this: some people go to Hell because they want to. Not because they didn’t ever get a full chance, or because they had a bad experience with a Christian, or because they misunderstood, but because they want to. They want to. You can’t speak with someone who won’t listen. How helpless is the man who tries to help his brother!

Jesus spoke about you. He said:

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

You believe what you believe because you want to. It’s as simple as that. Nothing will change your mind. You are blind and deaf.

I close with a parable:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine

linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a

beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to

eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came

and licked his sores.

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried

him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw

Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called

to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus

to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because

I am in agony in this fire.'

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime

you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad

things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has

been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you

cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to

my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him

warn them, so that they will not also come to this place

of torment.'

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets;

let them listen to them.'

'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead

goes to them, they will repent.'

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and

the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone

RISES FROM THE DEAD...' "

Not long after Jesus said this, Someone DID rise from the dead...

There. I have told you all i know. If you do not listen, it is on your own head. Go out and search for yourself; the truth does not simply come to you. Although i hope to see you one day i know this will probably never be. I wash my hands of you.

January 28, 2006

I,as a hindu who is a christ bhakta cant stop believing (just because someone says jesus never existed) that history begins with the most authoritative dating with Jesus christ.The events of the histories is calculated based on Before christ (BC) and Anna-domini (AD).was this dating a great forgery done by the scholars of that time?.If that is so then the whole world is a fool except for our few "wise" freinds who denies Jesus existence.both -those who forged and those who found it out ("wise mens") to be forged be nominated for an oscar.Rest watch the function.

If I wanted to forge a religion why should I use a criminal (The romans usually placed only criminals on the cross) who was mercilesly whipped ,spat,beaten and brutally killed with other criminals.I could have used a better person like superman or phantom or spiderman who triumphed over all evils.what gain is there to create and die a brutal death which I know it to be absolutely false?.history records the brutal killings of the followers of Jesus chirst that includes Thomas who came to India and was killed while spreading a "false religion".that sounds too absurd for me.I am sure he could have been better at home than to be killed (which he knew to be false) in the thick forests of India during that time.

Commenting against the two thousand years of well established ,verified ,scrutinised and authoritative history is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The whole problem today is that the ancient history is faultily placed into the modern context of seeing everything politically motivated.

When I look at hospitals,schools,colleges,printing press,railways,orphanages,old age homes,ramabai's mukti mission for the helpless girls,ashrams ,leprosorums etc started by christians ages back in India (for whatever reasons may be )bringing India into recent developments with other countries and also seeing lives of many christians who sacrificed their homes,comfort,family,relatives, wealth, status to work selflessly -requires of me a great faith to accept its a forged faith that is based on lie.

January 29, 2006

"There. I have told you all i know. If you do not listen, it is on your own head. Go out and search for yourself; the truth does not simply come to you. Although i hope to see you one day i know this will probably never be. I wash my hands of you. "

... the Truth and the ONLY Truth, then it seems to me you don't know much. While I don't dispute Christ's existence, I dispute the idea that Christianity is the only religion in which you'll find the Truth.

I believe all religions lead to the Truth, yet, the paths are different, and they are unequal in how quickly they can lead to Truth.

My belief is that Hinduism affords MYSELF the quickest path to realization of that Truth. It need not be so for anyone else, however. I think philosophical debates about religion and such provides very little fruit. To argue about which religion is right is a foolish endeavour as there can be no conclusion to such a debate. One should instead follow the religion he feels is best suited for him, and see if that leads to Truth. I believe it can be realized in this present life given one is sincere enough to seek it.

In any case, I'd like to point out ending a topic with a parable is somewhat ineffective in proving anything. Parables aren't used to prove anything, they exist to illustrate a point that may be hard to understand. There are a million parables out there, many of which conflict with one another and they would be an indulgence in a debate, nothing more as they don't prove anything.

Parables exist to help communicate higher ideals to lesser folk, to make them understand the way a mother would make a child understand. However, they cannot be taken to be the final word on anything.

January 29, 2006

Actually, this was an accident. I was trying to reply to another forum and accidentally put this in the wrong place. Silly me.

Oh well. I can't keep going to this site.

But all i can say is there really needs to be more research. The truth cannot hurt anybody. Jesus says, "Ask, seek, knock," and "If you seek the Truth, then the Truth will set you free...."

Sometimes even common sense is wrong. All we humans can do is search truth out with our muddled brains and hope for the best. If we ask God for guidance, He will lead us to His Truth:

"The Lord does not delay his promise, as some account of delay, but is longsuffering towards you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

II Peter 3:9

G'day y'all