Looking to judge a debate, clallengers needed.....

[dan25]

PS: I'm pretty clever you know; and I think I have worked out who you are.... (Your real name, if I'm right, begins with J). Debate me on christianity if you want, and dare- but I'll probably just show you why its a load of superstitious horse-shit, so to speak.

[melonkali]

PS: I'm pretty clever you know; and I think I have worked out who you are.... (Your real name, if I'm right, begins with J). Debate me on christianity if you want, and dare- but I'll probably just show you why its a load of superstitious horse-shit, so to speak.

OK, now what is the specific proposition or question we might be debating? I'll need something a little more specific than Christianity is superstitious horse poop and/or I am a naive fool (because I am a Christian?), or all Christians are superstitious fools. I don't mind answering any of your questions, I just want to be sure that they are not directly part of the debate, since if they are, I might want to answer them during the debate.

What's your decision about allowing samm as my counsel (and you with the right to consult anyone of your choosing at any time -- no need to inform me about it)?

No J's in my name. Why would you think that I am other than rebecca, wife of samm, 60 year old woman and fairly new to this forum where I use the name melonkali? There's nothing secret or notorious about me.

Win or lose, I hope we enjoy a good, lively debate and exit shaking hands as we did when we entered "the ring". I hope we both come out just a little bit more respectful of and knowledgeable about the other's position. rebecca

[dan25]

This is the debate! its fine for you to ''consult'' whoever you like; have a bible at hand, and the pope on speed dial, if you like (this is, after all, just anonymous crap, on some meaningless message board on the internet- dont worry about it!).

christianity is an ancient mythology, dreamed up by a rather primitive civilisation- not much more than a ''tribe of savages'', really!
I dont believe that any christian can be exepted from the category of ''naive fools''- can you explain me how they can?


about me thinking you may have been somebody i know: just forget it; I MIGHT have been wrong (it happens often enough, believe me!)

What makes a person a ''christian''?

lets debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dan25]

I posted from my partners account (Faye-23), accidently; sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

[Samm]

OK, let's go. As soon as I can get back to my own computer (obviously typing from samm's right now), after samm digs a not-too-bright clumsy little kitten out of the ceiling above it, or sometime today or tonight (real life hassles), I'll lead off with an argument or two concerning the origins of Christianity as more than man-invented superstition.

Re: citations in our debate: I'd appreciate the freedom, which would apply to you as well, to occasionally give an informal citation vs. digging through stacks of old books, BUT I'll always make sure that I can access and formally cite any factual claim I make, in case there is disagreement about the facts, and I'd expect the same from you. Deal?

Re: Faye 23, I hadn't noticed that. I have a grown daughter named Faye. Please tell me you're not in Tennessee.

Back at you later today or tonight, depending on Sunday hassles; the day is NOT beginning well.

Hey, maybe I'll dress samm up like the consulieri (Robert Duvall) in The Godfather Don't tell him I said that. rebecca

[melonkali]

Dan --

I think I'd like to begin with the origins of the earliest known organized religion, the ancient Sumerians. It's my impression that you believe all ancient gods are of man's imagining, but not only is that theory not evidenced by the data, the available data in some ways contradicts such a theory.

No, I'm not going to argue for "Sumerian ancient astronauts". I guess that is one possible explanation for the anomalies associated with humanity's leap of civilization, but there's really not any hard evidence to support that theory, either (not a single hubcap), and there IS evidence which, IMO, might contradict it. For example, the SumeroBabylonian astrolabe evidences no knowledge of the outer planets or knowledge which could not have been obtained from earthly observations. If we're talking ancient astronauts, per the usual ancient astronaut theories, wouldn't the Sumerians have likely had access to better knowledge of the cosmos?

However, more and more mainstream researchers are expressing puzzlement about the ancient leap of civilization (a.k.a. urban revolution) with the sudden appearance, from out of nowhere (no transition layers, no footprints), of very smart and powerful beings, known as "gods", along with suddenly-smart humans and high civilization. The high civilizations of Sumeria (Mesopotamia), Egypt and the Indus Valley appeared suddenly in co-existence, complete with a triangle sea trade going back as far as the earliest cuneiform records. The oldest discovered cuneiform tablets are trade inventories, evidencing not only an established triangle trade but also the harvesting of natural resources from distant regions (for example, South Africa, the Caucasus Mts), especially minerals.

Germany's Max Planck Institute is supporting a multidisciplinary team to begin back at "Square One" in ancient Mesopotamia, to see if earlier scholars and researchers may have mis-stepped, since none of the anticipated data to fill in the "anomaly holes" has appeared after over 100 years of digging. Not one shred of explanatory data (for the sudden appearance of high civilization). Nothing. Our present, standard theories of the origins of the great leap of civilization simply can not adequately explain the available data, so the German team is slowly back-tracking to be certain nothing critical was overlooked.

One of the most difficult anomalies to explain is the math. Transition layers go from one to one bead correspondence to sticks serving as 10-markers (10 ones) to cuneiform tablets with sexagesimal (base 60) algebraic and quadratic equations. This is abnormal. Very abnormal. It requires an explanation which so far has not been forthcoming. Of course, occasionally someone will offer a personal explanation for the leap of math, but no theories have been even close to universally accepted. For further explanation of the SumeroBabylonian math problem, you might start with the foundational work of Dr. Otto Neugebauer, but even a Wikipedia article on Babylonian math may suffice.

The purpose of the above was to argue that we do not have sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the origins of the ancient Sumerian (and Egyptian and Indus Valley) civilizations, nor their gods, to declare that the gods were human inventions -- in fact, quite a bit of the evidence we have seems to be arguing against that theory. Our standard cultural anthropology evolutionary theories have failed in the face of the evidence, and new theories and understandings are needed. What those understandings and theories will turn out to be will depend on the data that is uncovered; there is no consensus in any direction as of yet, at least none that I am aware of, including no consensus that the ancient gods were inventions of men. That would be our usual explanation, but, again, the data in this case does not support the usual explanation.

This is my first point of debate, that a reasonable person cannot put forth as absolute truth, or even highly probable truth, ANY theory of the origins of the ancient Sumerian (or Indus Valley or Egyptian) gods, because there is not enough data to reasonably support any theory, and there is plenty of data which contradicts the usual "Ockham's Razor" invention-of-man explanation.

I'm focusing on Sumerian mythos (vs Indus Valley or Egyptian) because the Sumerian mythos is the primary origin of early Judaism. To go from the Sumerians to ancient Christianity, one can easily track Judaism from the first Semitic peoples in Mesopotamia who interacted with Sumerians (Akkadians and Assyrians -- Sumerians were non-Semitic) on through the West Semitic tribes of the Levant, their languages and gods, including the Hebrew god(s) of the Old Testament.

The decline and corruption of the Sumerian civilization began around 2000 BC, perhaps earlier, with the Third Fall of the city of Ur. Per Old Testament chronology, this could coincide time-wise (there's not a consensus as to exactly when Abraham came to the Levant) with Abraham's journey from Ur. Historical research tells us that there was indisputably a tribe of Hebrews among the West Semitic tribes in the Levant, and the Old Testament seems to be a mixture of sometimes accurate chronology of that tribe, the history of the Hebrews and other peoples of the Levant, mixed with sometimes heavy editing of Levantine history (obviously to promote Hebrew greatness and Hebrew legends), with convoluted remnants of ancient Sumerian gods.

Careful text evaluation of the old testament seems to show three versions of the ancient Hebrew high god, one of them (Yahweh) a typical West Semitic storm god. BUT ALSO, and this is important, the Old Testament contains some fairly pristine, albeit redacted, ancient SumeroBabylonian mythos (especially Genesis 1-11) which was adopted during the Hebrews' Babylonian captivity (6th century, BC) -- for example, the flood story of ancient Sumeria, adapted to fit the ever-evolving Hebrew high god. These myths can be and have been compared with older SumeroBabylonian cuneiform versions. The Hebrews were probably henotheistic (believed there were many gods, though they only worshipped one god) until the return from the Babylonian captivity and building of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, which is the true beginning of Judaism.

So this post roughly covers the history of JudeoChristianity's origins up to the inter-testamental period (?350-0 BC?). Influences on Christianity other than Mesopotamian and Levantine may be discussed later, as indicated. For my defense of the reasonableness of Christianity, it is simply important to be aware of the still unknown origins of Sumerian mythos, as recently evidenced by archaeological finds, as described by Greek historians, and as reflected in parts of the Old Testament. It is important to recognize that not even high scholars are of a consensus that the ancient Sumerian gods were man-made imaginings, because these usual theories have failed in the face of the evidence, and that there are a number of anomalies which any reasonable person would admit require further explanation.

rebecca

[dan25]

Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say "I am a christian", and then "I don't believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world". "Omnipotent" means "ALL POWERFUL", so an omnipotent being would not only be "omnipotent in this world", but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error?

Your position seems utterly ridiculous; you speak of "evidence", but most of the evidence points to christianity being nothing more than delusion, invented because of, among other reasons, mans fear of death!
Could you answer my earlier questions please?
What makes a person a "christian"?

You do understand the difference between a "christian" and a "theist", don't you?


Ps: don't worry about your daughter........ I'm in England!! Lol.

Pps: I genuinely like you, and don't want to offend you. However, I don't believe you have much of an argument.... Christianity is undefendable, unrealistic, ridiculous silliness (imo)!!!

[melonkali]

Hi Dan,
Samm and I like you, too. Don't worry about offending -- I'm old, battle-hard and crusty. I'll post a debate response this evening after the crisis du jour (one of our donkeys is injured, the veterinarian's on the way). Samm, as you may know, is a pagan. He says that I'm actually a Christopagan -- will 'splain later. What are you, spiritual/religion-wise? rebecca

[dan25]

Hi Dan,
Samm and I like you, too. Don't worry about offending -- I'm old, battle-hard and crusty. I'll post a debate response this evening after the crisis du jour (one of our donkeys is injured, the veterinarian's on the way). Samm, as you may know, is a pagan. He says that I'm actually a Christopagan -- will 'splain later. What are you, spiritual/religion-wise? rebecca

Many people I speak to about this "shit" (pardon the language) think I'm an atheist.... This is wrong! I'm agnostic (from the latin "ag nos co" meaning "I do not know"). I believe that the odds for, some kind of, gods existence are completely incalculable... So these odds can't be known better than 50/50..... To be honest, I could be described as a "borderline atheist" (if you know what I mean)..... Could you explain me, in detail, what it is that you believe, spirituality/religion wise, please?
I don't believe you are, what I would describe as, a "christian"...... Dan.

[Samm]

Dan25, in a recent post you said, "Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say 'I am a christian', and then 'I don't believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world'. 'Omnipotent' means 'ALL POWERFUL', so an omnipotent being would not only be 'omnipotent in this world', but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error? RESPONSE: If, god is not omnipotent in THIS world, then it would follow that he is not omnipotent in ALL worlds. Also, the Bible was written in a time when this world was the only world known to exist. Aquinas has argued that an omnipotent god can create a world in which he is not omnipotent. Finally, the New Testament concedes that Satan (referred to as "the Prince of the Power of the Air") is the ruler of this world.

Dan25, you also asked, "You do understand the difference between a 'christian' and a 'theist', don't you?" A theist believes in a god; Samm is a theist like me, but his god(dess) is the Moon. A Christian believes in the one God described in the New Testament of the Holy Bible with some reference to the one god of the Old Testament. Now do you know that the Christian God made famous by the conservatism of the fundamentalists is not the only Christian God. A liberal, loving God is also portrayed in the New Testament, whereas the fundie god is more the god of the Old Testament. I agree with you that the fundie god is indefensible, but the liberal God is both worthy and capable of being well defended in our debate.

Samm for Becky

[dan25]

Dan25, in a recent post you said, "Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say 'I am a christian', and then 'I don't believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world'. 'Omnipotent' means 'ALL POWERFUL', so an omnipotent being would not only be 'omnipotent in this world', but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error? RESPONSE: If, god is not omnipotent in THIS world, then it would follow that he is not omnipotent in ALL worlds. Also, the Bible was written in a time when this world was the only world known to exist. Aquinas has argued that an omnipotent god can create a world in which he is not omnipotent. Finally, the New Testament concedes that Satan (referred to as "the Prince of the Power of the Air") is the ruler of this world.

Dan25, you also asked, "You do understand the difference between a 'christian' and a 'theist', don't you?" A theist believes in a god; Samm is a theist like me, but his god(dess) is the Moon. A Christian believes in the one God described in the New Testament of the Holy Bible with some reference to the one god of the Old Testament. Now do you know that the Christian God made famous by the conservatism of the fundamentalists is not the only Christian God. A liberal, loving God is also portrayed in the New Testament, whereas the fundie god is more the god of the Old Testament. I agree with you that the fundie god is indefensible, but the liberal God is both worthy and capable of being well defended in our debate.

Samm for Becky

Are you being serious? If 'god' is not ''omnipotent in THIS world'' how can 'he' be described as ''omnipotent'', at all?
Omnipotence is self-refuting..... ''Could god, being omnipotent, create a rock that was so heavy 'he' could not lift it?''
Come on...... I mean,seriously, Aquinas was a fool.... a christian!!
ALL metaphysics (IMHO) is a waste of time- totally unprovable and undemonstrable: why cant you see this??
The bible i have, that i have to work with, which i have studied inside-out and upside-down, so to speak, is ''The New-World Translation of the Holy Scriptures''!..... The 'god of the OT, and the 'god' of the NT are two completely different characters; the OT 'god' is strict and vengeful- the NT 'god' is calm and mellow, 'he' doesnt get involved in the affairs of men, too much!!!
Can you explain that??

You have heard of the game ''Chinese whispers'', havent you? The, quite ridiculous, stories in the bible (especially the OT) were written down THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, and many are alleged to have happened many years before they were written down..... ''Chinese whispers'', think about it!!!!


We are 'debating' CHRISTianity, so let me offer a word on the man, himself.....................

Jesus-from the House of David, the ''Redeemer''- the ''christos''- was just a man, one of those rare and tortured men (ALL MEN ARE ''TORTURED'',imo)- a philosopher!!!
When ( even IF) the christos said: ''i am the son of god'', i dont believe, for a second, he was saying: ''i am the personal relation, the literal son of god, more than other men''.
As a ''man of faith'' (born in such a time, how could a man fail to believe in whichever 'god' he inherited from the previous generation? Even in our own time many people accept the religion their parents give them- without questioning it.... without even thinking about it, really!) Jesus took it for granted, it seems to me, that ALL men were the ''sons of god''; so when he said: ''i am the son of god'', i believe what he meant was: ''i am a man, god created ALL men, ergo- i am the son of god, just like any other man- like all other men''.
This man- this philosopher- was, in his own time, it appears, greatly misunderstood.
The fact that many people take ''chistian metaphysics'' seriously, in this day-and-age, saddens me deeply!!

The christ seems to have been, in some respects, a very clever man; in other respects, however, he seems to have been a complete fool!!! He seems to have wanted to show men how to live together, in society, in peace and harmony. This is, without doubt, highly important- practical; surely a 'noble' and worthy cause! He appears to have been a ''complete fool'', however, in the way he taught other men that this could be achieved! The christos taught, for example, to ''turn the other cheek'', that if an act of wickedness is committed against a person this should be repaid with an act of kindness! If a man lived by this doctrine, in this violent, dangerous world- well, i would NOT bet on him living very long!!!
Much of the christs teaching seems, to be blunt, EXTREMELY STUPID (the man did, after all, get himself tortured to death, quite literally, for the sake of his opinions, beliefs, ideas- in short, for the sake of his 'philosophy'!!).

[dan25]

Dan25, in a recent post you said, "Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say 'I am a christian', and then 'I don't believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world'. 'Omnipotent' means 'ALL POWERFUL', so an omnipotent being would not only be 'omnipotent in this world', but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error? RESPONSE: If, god is not omnipotent in THIS world, then it would follow that he is not omnipotent in ALL worlds. Also, the Bible was written in a time when this world was the only world known to exist. Aquinas has argued that an omnipotent god can create a world in which he is not omnipotent. Finally, the New Testament concedes that Satan (referred to as "the Prince of the Power of the Air") is the ruler of this world.

Dan25, you also asked, "You do understand the difference between a 'christian' and a 'theist', don't you?" A theist believes in a god; Samm is a theist like me, but his god(dess) is the Moon. A Christian believes in the one God described in the New Testament of the Holy Bible with some reference to the one god of the Old Testament. Now do you know that the Christian God made famous by the conservatism of the fundamentalists is not the only Christian God. A liberal, loving God is also portrayed in the New Testament, whereas the fundie god is more the god of the Old Testament. I agree with you that the fundie god is indefensible, but the liberal God is both worthy and capable of being well defended in our debate.

Samm for Becky

Are you being serious? If 'god' is not ''omnipotent in THIS world'' how can 'he' be described as ''omnipotent'', at all?
Omnipotence is self-refuting..... ''Could god, being omnipotent, create a rock that was so heavy 'he' could not lift it?''
Come on...... I mean,seriously, Aquinas was a fool.... a christian!!
ALL metaphysics (IMHO) is a waste of time- totally unprovable and undemonstrable: why cant you see this??
The bible i have, that i have to work with, which i have studied inside-out and upside-down, so to speak, is ''The New-World Translation of the Holy Scriptures''!..... The 'god of the OT, and the 'god' of the NT are two completely different characters; the OT 'god' is strict and vengeful- the NT 'god' is calm and mellow, 'he' doesnt get involved in the affairs of men, too much!!!
Can you explain that??

You have heard of the game ''Chinese whispers'', havent you? The, quite ridiculous, stories in the bible (especially the OT) were written down THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, and many are alleged to have happened many years before they were written down..... ''Chinese whispers'', think about it!!!!


We are 'debating' CHRISTianity, so let me offer a word on the man, himself.....................

Jesus-from the House of David, the ''Redeemer''- the ''christos''- was just a man, one of those rare and tortured men (ALL MEN ARE ''TORTURED'',imo)- a philosopher!!!
When ( even IF) the christos said: ''i am the son of god'', i dont believe, for a second, he was saying: ''i am the personal relation, the literal son of god, more than other men''.
As a ''man of faith'' (born in such a time, how could a man fail to believe in whichever 'god' he inherited from the previous generation? Even in our own time many people accept the religion their parents give them- without questioning it.... without even thinking about it, really!) Jesus took it for granted, it seems to me, that ALL men were the ''sons of god''; so when he said: ''i am the son of god'', i believe what he meant was: ''i am a man, god created ALL men, ergo- i am the son of god, just like any other man- like all other men''.
This man- this philosopher- was, in his own time, it appears, greatly misunderstood.
The fact that many people take ''chistian metaphysics'' seriously, in this day-and-age, saddens me deeply!!

The christ seems to have been, in some respects, a very clever man; in other respects, however, he seems to have been a complete fool!!! He seems to have wanted to show men how to live together, in society, in peace and harmony. This is, without doubt, highly important- practical; surely a 'noble' and worthy cause! He appears to have been a ''complete fool'', however, in the way he taught other men that this could be achieved! The christos taught, for example, to ''turn the other cheek'', that if an act of wickedness is committed against a person this should be repaid with an act of kindness! If a man lived by this doctrine, in this violent, dangerous world- well, i would NOT bet on him living very long!!!
Much of the christs teaching seems, to be blunt, EXTREMELY STUPID (the man did, after all, get himself tortured to death, quite literally, for the sake of his opinions, beliefs, ideas- in short, for the sake of his 'philosophy'!!).

[melonkali]

She's baaack.....

Reply to Dan Part I:

Before addressing the issues you've raised in Part 2 of my reply, I'd like to clarify that you have not contested my initial position: that it is possible, and not unreasonable to believe, that the earliest known "gods" of the Middle East, who evolved into models for many of the Semitic Middle East gods, including the Hebrew Yahweh, were not man-made imaginings; that the initial appearance of the Sumerian civilization with its associated gods is so loaded anomalies which don't fit any of our standard theories of natural cultural evolution or "man-made gods", something different, still unknown to us, must have occurred to account for this appearance, and that something unknown MAY be "supernatural". Unless you argue differently, I will assume that your silence equates to assent to this point.

In Part II, I'll address the specific arguments you've made in your responses thus far.

[melonkali]

Response Part II -- I'm not using the quote function because I'm still very clumsy with it. If I mis-state one of your assertions, please correct me.

I agree with you that the Orthodox Jewish Christianity handed down from the Nicene Council has obvious flaws which can be discerned by anyone; just take the NT canon and write down the core teachings. It's fairly clear what aspect of apparent contradictions agree with the core teachings, and which ones seem to be out of place. Especially when those "out of place" statements support a Judaizing Orthodox bias.

If you add to the NT canon those writings which were widespread and generally accepted in the early (through 250 AD) church, including 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas (controversial, but apparently the earliest written gospel), letters of the church fathers, the apologies of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, etc, and parse out the core teachings, you come out with a Christianity slightly different from the Orthodox Judaistic version which prevailed as orthodoxy.

So, based on the above, and in agreement with you, it seems reasonable to assert that Christianity teaches that all men are sons of God. Whether or not Jesus was a special form of son-being is debatable, not necessary in early Christianity. But the teaching that all men are or may become sons of God is essential.

Omnipotence in this world or realm can't be a property of the Christian God. NT Christian scripture teaches that the Christian God is not the ruler of this world (that would be the Prince of the Power of the Air, aka Satan, aka The Devil), and that believers will suffer in this world at the hand of this world's ruler. So much for omnipotence. Also, the gospel stories of The Temptation lose all meaning if Jesus's God is omnipotent in this world, don't they? Jesus's replies to The Tempter are to refuse the offers, not mock them as meaningless. That's the whole point of The Temptation, isn't it?

So the Christian God of Love may not be omnipotent in this world or in all worlds, and? Love doesn't require or respect that kind of power -- love is it's own power. What if The Tempter offered me goodies to abandon my husband -- I would refuse (I hope), and why? Because my husband is some powerful omnipotent lord? No -- I'd refuse (I hope) because of love.

Oops -- gotta go -- will finish up later in Part III addressing the rest of the points you've made, including what I think is your best argument, the idea of living in peace and turning the other cheek and getting whacked. But you don't have to wait on me to continue your end of the exchange, at least I hope we're not that formal. Fire at will. rebecca

[dan25]

She's baaack.....

Reply to Dan Part I:

Before addressing the issues you've raised in Part 2 of my reply, I'd like to clarify that you have not contested my initial position: that it is possible, and not unreasonable to believe, that the earliest known "gods" of the Middle East, who evolved into models for many of the Semitic Middle East gods, including the Hebrew Yahweh, were not man-made imaginings; that the initial appearance of the Sumerian civilization with its associated gods is so loaded anomalies which don't fit any of our standard theories of natural cultural evolution or "man-made gods", something different, still unknown to us, must have occurred to account for this appearance, and that something unknown MAY be "supernatural".

"...possible and not unreasonable to believe..."
I agree that, yes, it is POSSIBLE..... But almost anything is "possible"! Is it reasonable to believe, just because we don't understand something, that it has its origin in the "supernatural"? No! This is not reasonable!
Nature can be defined as: "all there is", "everything that exists"; so if the christian god exists, this god would be a part of nature; 'he' (it) would be "natural" not "supernatural". (I am here doing something that annoys me immensely: playing semantics, just being a pedantic shit, really.).

Think about the analogy I made, about "chinese whispers". So, yes I do "contest your original position".......although I agree that christianity MIGHT be based on something 'real', I think its silly to believe that it IS based on something 'real', especially considering how long ago the bible was written..... I have to repeat it: "chinese whispers".
Let me re-read part ii, of your response, then I will reply to that.

Dan

[melonkali]

She's baaack.....

Reply to Dan Part I:

Before addressing the issues you've raised in Part 2 of my reply, I'd like to clarify that you have not contested my initial position: that it is possible, and not unreasonable to believe, that the earliest known "gods" of the Middle East, who evolved into models for many of the Semitic Middle East gods, including the Hebrew Yahweh, were not man-made imaginings; that the initial appearance of the Sumerian civilization with its associated gods is so loaded anomalies which don't fit any of our standard theories of natural cultural evolution or "man-made gods", something different, still unknown to us, must have occurred to account for this appearance, and that something unknown MAY be "supernatural".

"...possible and not unreasonable to believe..."
I agree that, yes, it is POSSIBLE..... But almost anything is "possible"! Is it reasonable to believe, just because we don't understand something, that it has its origin in the "supernatural"? No! This is not reasonable!
Nature can be defined as: "all there is", "everything that exists"; so if the christian god exists, this god would be a part of nature; 'he' (it) would be "natural" not "supernatural". (I am here doing something that annoys me immensely: playing semantics, just being a pedantic shit, really.).

Think about the analogy I made, about "chinese whispers". So, yes I do "contest your original position".......although I agree that christianity MIGHT be based on something 'real', I think its silly to believe that it IS based on something 'real', especially considering how long ago the bible was written..... I have to repeat it: "chinese whispers".
Let me re-read part ii, of your response, then I will reply to that.

Dan

So we agree that something which we do not understand as part of the "natural" (at this time) might possibly be responsible for the Sumerian gods and/or Christianity. I would agree with you that ascribing a supernatural origin to something is silly UNLESS there is evidence which weights for such an explanation AND either a lack of evidence weighting for a more sensible, natural explanation of a known event, OR the existence of data which appears to contradict possible natural explanations for a known event.

Before Constantine (and later Theodosius and the missionary "sword"), about 10% of the population of the Roman Empire was Christian. That's not an unusually high number, but what is unusual is the Christians themselves. These very early Christians were noted for extraordinary and unusual behaviors, not only works of charity and self sacrifice, but an absolute refusal to meet violence with violence regardless of the situation, and an evident desire to be persecuted by authorities and slaughtered in the arena. The early church fathers put out an edict against early Christians' deliberate "rush to the arena". Early accounts testify to the "changed lives" of all the apostles in a way that lead to suffering, persecution and martyrdom, with no hope of reward in this life.

These accounts of the early Christians are widespread enough to prompt further investigation into the "why" of their behavior, and that will be the subject of further posts. rebecca

[dan25]

Quite simply: there is just not enough evidence to take any of these religions too seriously.
You said you thought my best argument against christianity, was my critique of, some of, christs teaching; that is not my best argument against christianity (or, for that matter, against any religion), this is: ''Chinese whispers''................. Think about it.



There is just NOT enough evidence........... Add to this the effect of a game of chinese whispers, spanning centuries (even millenia), and its clear to see: even if a 'god' has been in contact with man, at some remote point in history, and given man a set of rules to live by, there is no way of knowing, fore sure, what this 'god' wants us to do, how it wants us to live.


Yes, I agree, its ''possible'' that christianity (even all three of the monotheisms) is based on actual events from history.
But its equally ''possible'' that we are all plugged into the matrix, or that all of this reality is the dream of someone or something!