You are still dismissing sections, but that's ok-- you're doing better (at least, enough to make it feel worthy to reply).
That being said, I'll address your points:
Yes, I don't deny this. The reason being, as I loosely explained it in our PM, is that I think to accurately get a conclusion one must go straight to the source.
You are not "going to the source" -- the source would be Jesus, or the Apostles, or Paul, of Yahweh. If you are "going to the source" and they are actually answering you, then we need to have another discussion-- I would say if you are literally hearing voices, that something else may be going on.
But even that you cannot adequately demonstrate so your claim would be more likely be taken as hearsay, or delusion rather than objectively true. Now, maybe you are
hearing from these entities, in which case, Ok-- there's nothing further to discuss. You'd be right. But you would not be able to demonstrate
it to someone skeptical of your claim, and I personally would not believe your story without any corroborative evidence that was extraordinary as your claim is in the first place.
An example of what I mean is this: why aren't we discussing Buddhism? That's a religion too. Because Buddha never claimed divinity,
Buddhism is an atheistic religion; there are no gods in Buddhism, only a belief system of regeneration of lives until a certain level of enlightenment is attained. The "Buddha didn't claim divinity" tells me you don't really know what Buddhism is, and so until you make an effort to learn about it, I would say there's not much value in discussing it with you.
Where did Jesus
say he was divine? Oh, are you talking about the bible? Jesus didn't write that book. You're saying "The writers of the bible say that Jesus said he was divine". You don't like this bit of rebuttal, but it's true nonetheless-- you cannot claim that Jesus
made any direct claims whatsoever. You can only admit that "other people claim he made such and such claim."
So logically one would further the search of a god within Christianity because it's one step ahead in explaining why there's a god.
There are numerous religions wherein an individual claims he (or she) is divine-- but so what? Claims are as numerous as grains of sand. As I noted in my previous post on this, you value these claims and consider them valid. I do not.
Likewise in our discussion, the reason why I didn't comment on the talking donkey is because it's not leading us to something definitive and logical as to why God doesn't exist. Hypothetically if God exists then I'm sorry but that donkey in fact had a few things to say! Do you see where I'm coming from?
You assert that the bible stands as a core support for your belief system-- this means it is fully up for analysis as to what it states. In another post, you said if I could show you one thing that was wrong in the bible, you'd drop it. Well-- I say asserting a donkey is talking is not "right" in that it's an absurd bit of nonsense that doesn't actually occur
I think debating miracles leads nowhere because (and I know this isn't evidence of anything) I know I healed my friend of his rare fever. Well if it's enough proof to say that it's simply ridiculous that a donkey talked therefore miracles don't happen, then where does that leave me? In a mental institution? Hypothetically if God is real, then He did the impossible so that people would 'Keep The Reason' to believe that the Messiah will come. The matter is absolute. Either all of it is truth or none of it.
No -- this line of "reasoning" is why people think you're a sock puppet or a troll. This is such a reactionary fundie argument that it calls into the game Poe's Law. You come across as either devoid of reasoning skills, utterly mistaken, or a purposeful joke. You think things are either A or C and you totally jump over the idea there might be a B. Your options are not, "It's either god or a mental institution" -- In between those are other options, like you're mistaken
. Or it's merely a coincidence
. Or, it's a placebo effect. You apply this same broken logic to the bible writers-- either it's all true, or they are all "dirty liars". No, they could have been mistaken. Or, the belief system could have evolved from a culture of more or less technologically illiterate/superstition desert people. What is most likely is that given people's wishful thinking that there's something after death, they are likely to adopt comforting myths, and Christianity has a huge set of powerful elements to make it the "granddaddy" of competitive beliefs. That doesn't make it true or right, it just makes it BIG
You need to have a deeper understanding of the options, which you do not display in these discussions.
Well that's why we have these historians and scholars that have done the work for us. I find it more absurd that I need an IQ of X to understand the sciences that will lead me to believe God apparently isn't real.
Your above comment isn't making sense to me. What are you trying to say?
Wrong. Like I said, the lands are littered with greek NTs. 24 000 found and counting. The only translation has been from the original Greek to English. No chinese whispers whatsoever.
Research the wide varieties of bibles out there.
But like I said, I think we can get caught up in the smallest details that in the end won't answer anything.
This seems to be a ploy to avoid addressing any issue you feel boxes you in. I consider that dirty pool. It's the details that go into making the whole whatever it is. Basically you're saying, "Well, if I don't like a piece of the puzzle, I'll just throw it out." You can do that, but then I won't engage you any longer.
I find these assumptions cheap. I know what you mean by saying 'I know Ronald Reagan in person...' but the difference is that your statement is disproved within the minute
How do you know I didn't know RR in person? You're the guy who says, "Prove Jesus wasn't real"-- so, let's throw that same rule right back at you: Prove I didn't know Ronald Reagan while he was alive.
whereas my evidence of Clement hasn't been denied for 2000 years.
Of course it has! By anyone who wasn't a Christian! Certainly Jewish scholars who don't accept Jesus as messiah have criticized such claims.
I think you're distorting strong historical facts that have stood the test of time. There must be some reason as to why the many generations before us didn't deny this?
Yes, there are reasons. Cultural entrenchment. Superstition. Lack of skilled analytical thinking. Desire for belief. Government enforcement. All of these are perfectly legitimate reasons for any
religion to still exist uncritically; you above all people should be aware of how compelling belief in religious claims tend to be with people. Christianity is one of the religions that got to be big from very humble beginnings. So did Islam. So did Hinduism. So did Buddhism. So did Scientology. So did Mormonism.
Therefore: Are they all true
? You dismissed the "dying for a lie" issue completely regarding Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and I'm not surprised it makes you want to ignore it; the events around Mormonism are not much different from that of 1st and 2nd century Christianity.
What makes you think your thinking can disprove the billions
that lived before us and closer
to that time than us? Here's a video that kind of talks about what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w
I don't have to "disprove the billions" of people who have believed. You have to offer solid evidence that the belief is valid. That doesn't mean waving a book of claims. that means demonstrating that there is sin, a god, a heaven, a hell, salvation, and damnation. We know what the book says. Now demonstrate it's true
That is history for you and how it works. You're implying that even between people that are 2 generations apart can pass down the truth of what happened. Within this time historians have documented this and voilà, you have history preserved. How can Christianity, a religion based on history and Jesus walking the streets in public performing miracles be any different? Witnesses everywhere, underground church started and the generations are told about Jesus. It's cemented in the fabric of history.
Are you purposely being dense here? I cited not "two people" -- but a MOUNTAIN OF RECORDS DOCUMENTS FILMS, etc. to support WW2. Religions being created were not uncommon in our cultural history-- like I said-- it happens even now, and just as successfully and easily.
I healed my friend. Is it because I want to believe or because it's become fact therefore I believe?
I answered this in my previous post.