You're All A Bunch Of Nazis!

[The Pale Rider]

Quite right, you haven't criticised me. The point I was making was about the treatment of religion by our society / media as a whole.

I have no problem with criticism, infact I welcome it. What I dislike is people being affraid to criticise religion.

With the upmost respect, please don't quote the bible at me.

What books, historical documents are not off limits?

[Tomlad]

What books, historical documents are not off limits?

Everything should be open to criticism

edit - i see your point now.

I asked you not to quote the bible because I don't especially want to lay into it and cause offense.

[The Pale Rider]

lol - thats not cool.

I'd have thought he would have relished the chance for debate?

You weren't quoting verses at him all day were you?

No, he probably didn't like me changing. Just used to say "when yer deed yer deed" but it wasn't death I was afraid of just life.

[athe]

Who made Jesus carry a cross? Was it religous fanatics?

Religious fanatic is of course a loaded term, but the gospels indicate fairly clearly that Jesus was judged and condemned in a religious court.

Mark 14:53-65 (New International Version)

53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together.

54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.

56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him:

58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' "

59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[a] the Son of the Blessed One?"

62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.

64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.

65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.

Matthew 26:57-68 (New International Version)

57Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled.

58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.

60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward

61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

63But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

66What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.

67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him

68and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

Luke 22:63-71 (New International Version)

63The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"

65And they said many other insulting things to him.

66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.

67"If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me,

68and if I asked you, you would not answer.

69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

John 18:12-24 (New International Version)

12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him

13and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.

15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard,

16but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.

17"You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, "I am not."

18It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.

The High Priest Questions Jesus

19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.

23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.

25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, "You are not one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it, saying, "I am not."

26One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?"

27Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow. Jesus Before Pilate

28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.

29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"

30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

38"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"

40They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!"

[okaycuckoo]

Religious fanatic is of course a loaded term, but the gospels indicate fairly clearly that Jesus was judged and condemned in a religious court.

But he was put to death by the empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_death_of_Jesus#In_Christianity

The legal point is clear.

[athe]

But he was put to death by the empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_death_of_Jesus#In_Christianity

The legal point is clear.

That's disingenuous. From your own link, it's clear that it's not clear so to speak:

The primary sources for both inquiries are the Gospel accounts of the events leading up to the Crucifixion of Jesus, commonly called The Passion. In the Gospel accounts, Jesus is critical of the Pharisees, and causes a disturbance in the Temple, and is eventually arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. There he is charged and convicted of blasphemy, and they decided to take him to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, asking him for Jesus' death. Pilate, after some debate, rejects their religious justifications, but accepts the political ones, see INRI, and sentences Jesus to death by crucifixion.

The historical inquiry is aided by other sources from antiquity which explain the cultural and political environment in which Jesus lived. Historical analyses of Jesus' death generally assigned responsibility to either:

1. The Roman-appointed government of the Roman province of Iudaea;[1]

2. An alleged Judean (Jewish) leadership in Jerusalem at the time.

[enrieb]

Now the Pope is warning that there are people who want to see 'the voice of religion silenced' This leads me to suspect that the new Pope is really an Internet Troll using a reverse psychology tactic to prevent criticism of his made up god stories.

[okaycuckoo]

That's disingenuous. From your own link, it's clear that it's not clear so to speak:

It is clear. The people wanted him dead, but it was the empire that sentenced him to death - sentence executed by crucifixion. That's how the Romans did it.

Any other method would have been a revolution against the authority of the empire. Difficult decision for Pilate, which inspired the brilliant gesture of washing his hands. And the result made for great irony because Jesus once insisted on rendering unto Caesar. The new testament is full of awesome details like this - truthful illustrations of our essential failure.

Anyone with a thought in his head has read it - why haven't you?

[athe]

It is clear. The people wanted him dead, but it was the empire that sentenced him to death - sentence executed by crucifixion. That's how the Romans did it.

Any other method would have been a revolution against the authority of the empire. Difficult decision for Pilate, which inspired the brilliant gesture of washing his hands. And the result made for great irony because Jesus once insisted on rendering unto Caesar. The new testament is full of awesome details like this - truthful illustrations of our essential failure.

The original point was what led Jesus to be crucified. If the religious court had not condemned him to death then he would not have been delivered to Pilate.

Furthermore the original poster implied that Jesus was crucified by atheists. There is no evidence that Pilate was an atheist - Romans were generally polytheist around that time.

Anyone with a thought in his head has read it - why haven't you?

What on earth makes you think I haven't. Like many atheists I have come to my religious position after a length period of reflection and study (in my experience far greater than that of the average believer). I have read the bible from cover to cover several times. I have looked at the apocraphra, and much of the koran. Two weeks ago I had the vicar in my house for a cup of tea and friendly religious debate.

I have my position that I have come to after careful consideration. Arguing that I am evil, or without a thought in my head, or have no conscience, or implicitly likening me to a Nazi simply because I have come to a different conclusion to you is puerile and mildly offensive. But more than that it indicates a weakness in your own faith. If you feel the need to lie and dissemble to support your case then your case must be weak. You could do much better. Perhaps you need to read the bible a bit more thoroughly. (Although not too thoroughly or you might end up like me).

[Tomlad]

Call me ignorant, but I can't believe we're even arguing about the facts presented in a book of such questionable authenticity.

Even if the bible had said that the atheists executed Jesus, it wouldn't make it true.

[kudukid]

What on earth makes you think I haven't. Like many atheists I have come to my religious position after a length period of reflection and study (in my experience far greater than that of the average believer. I have read the bible from cover to cover several times. I have looked at the apocraphra, and much of the koran. Two weeks ago I had the vicar in my house for a cup of tea and friendly religious debate.

I used to think that I was an atheist but after a while I realised that it was totally illogical to hold that position, what it boiled down to for me was this:

Are we an accident or not?

And I decided that it is highly unlikely that everything in our known universe is some bizarre mishap, so it seems logical to me that there is some kind of design to it and hence a designer.

I think most atheists concern themselves far too much with manmade interpretations of religion and base their atheism relative to them.

For me the only logical position to hold is an Agnostic, all we know for certain is that we don’t know anything for sure.

Hence to me Atheism is an irrational conclusion to reach. .

[athe]

I used to think that I was an atheist but after a while I realised that it was totally illogical to hold that position, what it boiled down to for me was this:

Are we an accident or not?

And I decided that it is highly unlikely that everything in our known universe is some bizarre mishap, so it seems logical to me that there is some kind of design to it and hence a designer.

I think most atheists concern themselves far too much with manmade interpretations of religion and base their atheism relative to them.

For me the only logical position to hold is an Agnostic, all we know for certain is that we don’t know anything for sure.

Hence to me Atheism is an irrational conclusion to reach. .

Strictly speaking I am actually a theological noncognitivist rather than an atheist, but it's a fairly technical term and would just complicate the argument unnecessarily.

I accept your reasons for coming to the conclusions that you have and will simply note that starting from a fairly similar set of thoughts I have reached a different conclusion.

I would note that agnostic is not the position half way between atheism and theism that everyone seems to think it is. Strictly speaking almost all believers are also agnostic, as they have no special knowledge of God, but rather faith (gnosis = knowledge, whilst theos speaks to belief). Atheism is not knowledge of the absence of God but rather a lack of faith in god. By your argument it is not atheism that is the irrational position to reach, but rather gnostism.

[Tomlad]

I used to think that I was an atheist but after a while I realised that it was totally illogical to hold that position, what it boiled down to for me was this:

Are we an accident or not?

And I decided that it is highly unlikely that everything in our known universe is some bizarre mishap, so it seems logical to me that there is some kind of design to it and hence a designer.

I think most atheists concern themselves far too much with manmade interpretations of religion and base their atheism relative to them.

For me the only logical position to hold is an Agnostic, all we know for certain is that we don’t know anything for sure.

Hence to me Atheism is an irrational conclusion to reach. .

So how did your designer come about?

I don't think that the universe is any more a mishap than evolution by natural selection is.

[happy_renting]

The point is that the 20th Century is the history of one particular atheist ideology committing mass murder over and over again.

With 'Gott mit uns' inscribed on the bayonets.

Religion has played a huge part in mass murder in the 20th century, as in previous centuries.

Edit: I see someone already posted about 'Gott mit uns'

[happy_renting]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things and stopped believing in sky fairies, magic, angels and other supertitions.

[okaycuckoo]

What on earth makes you think I haven't. Like many atheists I have come to my religious position after a length period of reflection and study (in my experience far greater than that of the average believer). I have read the bible from cover to cover several times. I have looked at the apocraphra, and much of the koran. Two weeks ago I had the vicar in my house for a cup of tea and friendly religious debate.

I have my position that I have come to after careful consideration. Arguing that I am evil, or without a thought in my head, or have no conscience, or implicitly likening me to a Nazi simply because I have come to a different conclusion to you is puerile and mildly offensive. But more than that it indicates a weakness in your own faith. If you feel the need to lie and dissemble to support your case then your case must be weak. You could do much better. Perhaps you need to read the bible a bit more thoroughly. (Although not too thoroughly or you might end up like me).

Apologies for the assumption.

Likewise, you're attributing views that I simply don't hold. Must have me confused with snow bird or someone!

[okaycuckoo]

Call me ignorant, but I can't believe we're even arguing about the facts presented in a book of such questionable authenticity.

Even if the bible had said that the atheists executed Jesus, it wouldn't make it true.

Authenicity of the new testament isn't in doubt. It was written years after the events, but by eye witnesses. You may question whether they were telling the truth, but not their authority to write of what they experienced.

Lots of stuff about Q and the common source, but it is undoubtedly the most closely copied book from that era - more than any other work that has survived, like Plato etc.

[kudukid]

So how did your designer come about?

We are conditioned to think that everything must have a beginning and an end; we tend to have difficulty with the idea of infinity because of this conditioning, although we use the concept frequently.

If we accept the concept of infinity then it isn’t that much of a mental leap to accept that a creator has always been there, for if something is infinite then logically it always has been and it always will be.

Hence negating the question “who created the creator”

[kudukid]

Strictly speaking I am actually a theological noncognitivist rather than an atheist, but it's a fairly technical term and would just complicate the argument unnecessarily.

Yes, saying that you are an atheist whilst actually being something else would just complicate the argumant unnecessarly.

A quick wiki says this:

As with ignosticism, the consistent theological noncognitivist awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

Seems like semantics and a sitting on the fence on the fence position

How did you manage to have a religous debate with the priest without being able to discuss God?

I accept your reasons for coming to the conclusions that you have and will simply note that starting from a fairly similar set of thoughts I have reached a different conclusion.

I would ask what your conclusion is but it seems that being a theological noncognitivist negates the opportunity for you to answer.

I would note that agnostic is not the position half way between atheism and theism that everyone seems to think it is. Strictly speaking almost all believers are also agnostic, as they have no special knowledge of God, but rather faith (gnosis = knowledge, whilst theos speaks to belief). Atheism is not knowledge of the absence of God but rather a lack of faith in god. By your argument it is not atheism that is the irrational position to reach, but rather gnostism.

It seems illogical to claim to know 100% either way IMO.

[Ned Coates]

In my experience it is at the point of percieved imminent death that one decide's whether one is an athiests or not.

It's there that the atheists amongst us will start to believe real quick in a devine spirit some men call God!

I would maintain that there are no Athiests before God.

[profitofdoom]

I would ask what your conclusion is but it seems that being a theological noncognitivist negates the opportunity for you to answer.

It seems illogical to claim to know 100% either way IMO.

Well it may seem that way to you.In the same way that religious fundamentalists don't need an explanation bevause they have total faith I know instinctively that there is no God.

[kudukid]

Well it may seem that way to you.In the same way that religious fundamentalists don't need an explanation bevause they have total faith I know instinctively that there is no God.

Religous fundamentalists have the exact explanation that they need to carry out their atrocities and it is just as illogical as trusting your insticts 100%.

[Tomlad]

We are conditioned to think that everything must have a beginning and an end; we tend to have difficulty with the idea of infinity because of this conditioning, although we use the concept frequently.

If we accept the concept of infinity then it isn’t that much of a mental leap to accept that a creator has always been there, for if something is infinite then logically it always has been and it always will be.

Hence negating the question “who created the creator”

Right, earlier you said that its illogical to think the laws of physics that created the universe have just always been there.

At the same time, your statement above says its logical that a creator has always been there?

You can't have your cake and eat it!

[R K]

A very very bizarre and disturbing 'visit'.

Kim Jong-Il meets the Ku Klux Klan.

Indistiguishable from the recent BBC journo documentary visit of North Korea, right down to the hero worship of the infirm infallible leader, the clearly bonkers words coming from his mouth, the twisting of the truth such that those who refuse to believe what he says are described as intolerant and so on, the brainwashed children cheering him at his rallies after he has personally presided over covering up their abuse for 30 years, encouraging family life in his speech whilst never knowing a woman in his life and masturbation being canonically illegal.

A sick fascist cult of old men distorting the world to their own image and impeaching today's children to continue their hatred into the future.

[kudukid]

Right, earlier you said that its illogical to think the laws of physics that created the universe have just always been there.

At the same time, your statement above says its logical that a creator has always been there?

You can't have your cake and eat it!

Where did I say that?