I am in the process of writing a book that may be done in a few months. I love to read comments from people such as yourself as you know the bible in and out, and religious history both before and after Jesus. Part of my book will be on the reasons why people believe, and the lengths they will go to to protect those beliefs. In spite of the plagiarizing of beliefs before, in spite of the numerous errors (which people such as you painstakingly pull apart like the wings of a fly with tortured reasoning), and it spite of the fact that this god of yours is the most egotistical, maniacal, blood thirsty SOB in the cosmos, you still believe. An Apologist would have a stock answer as to why you do, so I won't even ask why. Suffice to say you live in a fairy tale world of your own making, and you believe because it gives you hope. It's a selfish and fiendish belief, but humans are that way, anyway. Am LMAO as to your explanation for why Paul didn't mention all of jesus's alleged miracles. Do your fellow believers look at you misty eyed when you give them these type of moronic explanations? In short, you are in need of psychological help. You believe because you need a savior to suckle on because you don't like the real world.

Cheers,

Mike

PS. My book will be a best seller. You watch.

10/14/09

Mike,

I can tell from your comments that your book will undoubtedly be completely fair and even-handed in its attitude towards religion and the beliefs of religious people. Best of luck.

David

10/14/09

David,

I give you credit for being a master wordsmith, and one that looks to put the other person on the defensive by making assumptions that would infer to a reader of your garbage that there is something wrong with the other person. Just what makes you think my book won't be fair and balanced? Because I think believers in the Christian god are delusional and can't handle reality and the fear of death? Are you suggesting that it is YOU that has the truth and I don't? Were I to believe a believer in bigfoot or the Heavens gate cult is delusional, would I also be accused of not being fair and balanced if I wrote otherwise. Forget those extremes, what if I decided to write about Islam or Mormonism instead because these religions have wide acceptance? Each of these groups has their own apologists, just like you. That only proves there are people who can find a defense for any belief system, no matter how ludicrous those beliefs may be. 30 people killed themselves for their Heavens Gate beliefs. All that proves is people will defend idiotic beliefs with their life. The questions I am dealing with is not that christianity is ridiculous, but more why people have beliefs in things such as "Mother Mary" apparitions, that Joseph Smith was given gold tablets, that Allah will give a martyr 72 virgins (not even in the koran), etc. What you are is simply a defender of your beliefs, ignoring and brushing aside evidence you don't like, such as the fact that Paul never reported any miracles. Apologists such as you don't deal in facts and logic. You deal in "could haves" and speculation, and outright dismiss logic and reason, in order to stay in the safety of your little cocoon....that bubble in which fellow believers exist and shut out the outside world and dissenters. Mormon apologists and Islam apologists have the same bubble as you, and also make the same spirited, albeit irrational, defenses of their beliefs. You do that because you have to maintain the illusion of escaping death, as that gives you the strength to continue on.

10/15/09

"Just what makes you think my book won't be fair and balanced? Because I think believers in the Christian god are delusional and can't handle reality and the fear of death?"

Yeah, pretty much.

"Are you suggesting that it is YOU that has the truth and I don't?"

There's a big difference between simply disagreeing with someone and saying that if they believe such-and-such, they must be delusional.

"Forget those extremes, what if I decided to write about Islam or Mormonism instead because these religions have wide acceptance?"

I don't care if you decide to write about them, or about Christianity. But if you're going to write about any major religion while declaring their members to be delusional, then you're not going to be fair in dealing with them.

"Each of these groups has their own apologists, just like you."

Of course they do. People make up lies about them, also. If the critics of Christianity and those religions would just be honest instead of making stuff up, there would be no need for apologetics.

"What you are is simply a defender of your beliefs, ignoring and brushing aside evidence you don't like, such as the fact that Paul never reported any miracles."

There's no need to simply brush it aside when I can easily just point to passages such as 1 Corinthians 20 where Paul talks about Jesus being resurrected. That Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' miracles (or are you saying that resurrection is not a miracle?) is one of the false claims critics make that justify the need for apologetics. Someone has to point out their falsehoods, right?

"Apologists such as you don't deal in facts and logic. You deal in "could haves" and speculation, and outright dismiss logic and reason, in order to stay in the safety of your little cocoon...."

No, we deal in evidence, and the evidence is firmly on Jesus' side. If you don't find the evidence convincing enough for you to believe, that's fine. But what puzzles me is why critics feel the need to fabricate false claims in order to try to convince people of their point of view. If they have the facts, why the need to make stuff up? You mentioned in your last letter the idea that Jesus plagiarized earlier religions. I assume you're referring to those lists people spread around the internet claiming that pre-Christian deities like Horus, Mithra, Buddha, etc. were also born of virgins, crucified, resurrected, yada yada yada. Well, I'm going to ask you a question that I already know the answer to - have you ever actually read a version of those deities' stories where they did those things? The answer is - no, you haven't. I know that because no one has read them. The stories don't exist. People fabricate those lists, expecting people to be gullible enough to believe them and too lazy to actually read the stories for themselves. Why do they bother making all those lists up, if they have actual, valid evidence that they can convince people with? Why the need to fabricate evidence, if they already have convincing evidence?

"Mormon apologists and Islam apologists have the same bubble as you, and also make the same spirited, albeit irrational, defenses of their beliefs."

People lie about their beliefs, too.

"You do that because you have to maintain the illusion of escaping death, as that gives you the strength to continue on."

But, if that were true (which it's not), why would I have to become an apologist? Couldn't I believe without being an apologist? The reason I'm an apologist is that there are lots of false claims about Jesus and Christianity being spread around, and I feel the need to correct those falsehoods. Again, if the critics would just be honest instead of trying to mislead people, there wouldn't be much need for me to do this, since everyone would have nothing but the truth.

David

10/15/09

David,

It would take up too much space to even attempt to answer all of your comments. If I get you right, you believe the apologists for Islam and Mormonism have lies told about them and people just make stuff up. Talk about making stuff up, that is exactly what apologists do. A prime example, though certainly not the only one, is the way you simply make stuff up about Paul not mentioning Jesus allegedly bringing a dead man back to life, feeding the multitude with a few loaves of bread, making a blind man see, and just brush it off as something he either forgot about, or felt it not important enough. Do some people actually believe this sort of crap? Are you thinking you have grade school kids you're trying to sell this bilge to? When humans were uneducated, maybe they would believe this junk. Fortunately, more and more people aren't. Yes, we still get believers in space ships, and people that will believe god sends angels to interpret writings on gold plates, or even people that believe Jesus was behind the Halle Bopp comet. But, more and more are realizing that religions are the notions of primitive men who made offerings to volcano gods.

As for Paul mentioning the resurrection, funny you should bring that up. There's a website that will give anyone $1,000.00 if they can put forward a logical chronology of events, taken only from the scriptures, of what happened after Jesus died. Seems your man Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about. As far as witnesses....big deal. There were MANY people who SWEAR to have seen Elvis after he died. I even have an article of a guy that swears he saw Elvis, and that Elvis performed a miracle for him. That people swear to have seen a resurrection is worthless "evidence". Three peasant girls also swore that Mother Mary appeared to them. The lady of Fatima story is widely seen to have occurred only in the minds of the believers, along with other believers who "see" what they want they to see.

If you'd like to try to win that thousand bucks and want the website, let me know.

Mike

10/16/09

"Talk about making stuff up, that is exactly what apologists do. A prime example, though certainly not the only one, is the way you simply make stuff up about Paul not mentioning Jesus allegedly bringing a dead man back to life, feeding the multitude with a few loaves of bread, making a blind man see, and just brush it off as something he either forgot about, or felt it not important enough."

Or didn't witness. Remember, he came along later, and only heard about those things from the people who did witness them. It kind of makes sense that he'd let the people who were there, the original apostles, be the ones to tell people about it, doesn't it? Of course Paul knew about those details, since he was a traveling companion of Luke, who wrote about them. You don't seriously believe that Paul never bothered to read Luke's Gospel, do you?

Besides, if it was significant that Paul didn't mention those things, then why do critics feel the need to pretend that Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' miracles at all? Why do they feel the need to stack the deck if they already have a convincing hand? They obviously know that his not mentioning some of the miracles won't convince people of their point of view, so they have to tell people that Paul didn't mention any of them. Out of curiosity, why do you think that critics feel the need to tell people that Paul never mentioned any miracles, when he obviously did?

"Do some people actually believe this sort of crap? Are you thinking you have grade school kids you're trying to sell this bilge to?"

If the Jesus story really was "crap" and "bilge", then critics would have no problem debunking it on its own merits. But since they know that they can't do that, they have to make up stuff about Jesus copying pre-Christian religions and repeating the already-debunked claim that Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' miracles, among other bogus claims. If critics can defeat Christianity without resorting to dishonest means, then why don't they? Why do they feel that they have to resort to dishonesty in order to convince people? Why can't they just tell the truth?

"When humans were uneducated, maybe they would believe this junk."

And that's what I'm trying to do - educate people. Show them the lies that critics are spreading all over the internet. I really believe that if people simply look at what evidence there is, and get rid of all of the garbage that the critics make up in a desperate effort to debunk Christianity, then they'd likely become convinced. I think that many critics must believe this also, or else they wouldn't be making up lies.

"As for Paul mentioning the resurrection, funny you should bring that up. There's a website that will give anyone $1,000.00 if they can put forward a logical chronology of events, taken only from the scriptures, of what happened after Jesus died. Seems your man Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about."

Huh? What do the chronology of the events after the resurrection have to do with Paul? That was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about the post-resurrection events, not Paul. Didn't you know that? Paul's writings were theological, not biographical. If (hypothetically) the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have some inconsistencies between them, how would that show that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? He didn't write them.

Besides, you can't put together a logical chronology of the events surrounding Julius Caesar's assassination if you go from the historical accounts. Suetonius wrote that witnesses claim Caesar spoke to Brutus just before dying, saying "you too, child?" in Greek. Plutarch says Caesar said nothing before dying, but pulled his toga over his head when he saw Brutus. By the logic of critics, Caesar must not have been assassinated, right? After all, differing details from the witnesses to an event must prove that the event never happened, right?

"As far as witnesses....big deal. There were MANY people who SWEAR to have seen Elvis after he died. I even have an article of a guy that swears he saw Elvis, and that Elvis performed a miracle for him. That people swear to have seen a resurrection is worthless "evidence"."

How many of those people personally knew Elvis before he died? How many of them withstood persecution rather than deny their claims? If, say, the members of Elvis' "Memphis mafia" (his inner circle) saw and spoke with Elvis after his "death" and were willing to face the persecution of people who were trying to force them to deny it, but still refused to deny it, even though they would gain nothing by keeping the lie going, then I would take that as good evidence that Elvis (as people sometimes claim) faked his death. People who never met Elvis while he was alive claiming to have met him afterwards (especially when there are hundreds of "Elvis Impersonators" in the United States) isn't convincing. You don't need to resort to lies in order to convince people that Elvis wasn't alive after his death, but critics obviously do when it comes to Jesus.

The Gospel authors were either members of, or closely associated with, Jesus' apostles. They faced terrible persecution from Nero and other Roman leaders, who were trying to squash Christianity. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then the Gospel authors would have known He wasn't resurrected, and they would have known that belief in Jesus had nothing to offer them. A lie would have gained them nothing. Perhaps one of the authors could have been irrational enough to claim Jesus had been resurrected when He hadn't been. But all four? Even Paul, who had earlier been persecuting Christians, ended up being convinced.

"If you'd like to try to win that thousand bucks and want the website, let me know."

Why not? I reconciled them years ago:

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Easter.html

But again, even if, hypothetically, they weren't reconcilable, that hardly proves that Jesus was never resurrected, just that some of the witnesses got some of the details wrong, as witnesses tend to do. The witnesses for Caesar's assassination disagreed on certain details, after all, but that doesn't prove that Caesar wasn't assassinated (except by the logic of critics).

David

10/16/09