My post wasn't intended as a shot at religion. I'm not religious, but if I was I might be a little ticked off that one of the holiest days of the year has been reduced to nothing more than a chance for Hershey and Cadbury to sell more chocolate. Likewise, the Bible, Qur'an and Torah are all silent on the mysterious Eskimo in a red suit who comes down my chimney and leaves a stocking full of gifts in exchange for a plate of cookies.![]()
So since no one wants to answer, what should be simple questions, let the blasphemy begin!Happy Easter and Passover. And God grant his grace to evangelical athiests, who are apparantly incapable of letting others enjoy the holidays without adding their mewling observations.
It really doesn't bother me, believers know the true meaning of these events. I'm sure someone whose into cultural history can explain the basis eskimo and rabbit, which as a student of history I am curious to know. I'll have to wiki it.
The Promise was fulfilled. God is great.
My post wasn't intended as a shot at religion. I'm not religious, but if I was I might be a little ticked off that one of the holiest days of the year has been reduced to nothing more than a chance for Hershey and Cadbury to sell more chocolate. Likewise, the Bible, Qur'an and Torah are all silent on the mysterious Eskimo in a red suit who comes down my chimney and leaves a stocking full of gifts in exchange for a plate of cookies.![]()
It's hard to take seriously the claim that your multiple posts "weren't intended as a shot at religion," when that's exactly what they are. Why deny the obvious? Apart from proving you're an athiest troll, what's your point? What I find offensive is you can't EVER give it a rest, just once. Insulting people of faith is a big part of what you do and presumably why you exist. Pathetic is the word that pops into my mind. Pathetic and dishonest, with yourself and us. You and that other dipstick as well.
well, it is kind of the most important part of the whole Jesus story, that he popped back up after taking the worst that the Romans could dish out short of actual disembodiment. I kind of think it would have helped their case a little more if they had bothered to figure out an actual date to celebrate it on, instead of just picking out a random Sunday early in the spring.It just amazes me how many of the atheist folk around here take pride in making condescending remarks to people of faith, as if they are the evolved and intellectually superior members of the human race. I completely understand the negativity that non believers have towards non-practicing Christians, because there are so many clerical vs. secular political issues in America today. But for them to consistently mock, what might be someones most sincere belief, is childish and selfish.
well, it is kind of the most important part of the whole Jesus story, that he popped back up after taking the worst that the Romans could dish out short of actual disembodiment. I kind of think it would have helped their case a little more if they had bothered to figure out an actual date to celebrate it on, instead of just picking out a random Sunday early in the spring.
Give a definition of how you are supposed to decide if something is symbolic vs. literal and then this argument holds water.If you look for dates and discrepancies in the Bible we could be here awhile. Did you know Moses lived to be 120? Most of the Biblical numbers seem arbitrary but they were culturally based and symbolic. (i.e 40 days in the desert just meant a really long time) There was nothing in my post trying to analyze the logistics of the Resurrection or the continuity of the 4 gospels. Read again.
I kind of think it would have helped their case a little more if they had bothered to figure out an actual date to celebrate it on, instead of just picking out a random Sunday early in the spring.
A sincerely held belief is no protection from criticism, doubly so if you truly believe in this stuff. You should probably have a good reason or at least a decent understanding of it if you do. Apologetics and semantics games are about as low as you can get when defending a "sincere belief".
Well, nobody's ever actually provided a credible explanation for why people should behave well toward others.I've never heard you provide a credible explanation for why people should behave well toward others.
Well, nobody's ever actually provided a credible explanation for why people should behave well toward others.
That's funny, I seem to recall you saying in a different place that atheists could maintain (as Ben Franklin did in his Autobiography) that always telling the truth is expedient because then people will be more likely to trust you and so you can become involved in important co-operative projects. The only problem with the "expediency" argument is that it leaves a "loophole" if the stakes are high enough. Otherwise, it actually is a pretty compelling reason!
I was interpreting "credible" in your statement as meaning to be rooted in undeniable objective reality.
Literal me, and here I thought "credible" meant something worth giving credence to.....![]()
which is not quite so strong a standard.....a synomym for "trustworthy" while you are adding a layer of irrefutable to it as well, hence our differential responses.