Anti-theist

I think it is fair (and according to forum rules) that you ask AZPaul to make the arguments in his own words here. Rather than you having to parse them out of a video.You are discussing the topic with AZP not Harris. It's his responsibility.

Raph is free to discuss with whomever comes within arms reach.As for my video of Harris I gave my very short set of points and have been awaiting feedback.I'd like to hear what Raph has to say on the subject. I gather he hasn't a lot of time to come out and play so I'd like to see what he says.If someone wants something more specific from me they can ask.

When did I ever say I knew these concepts were not true?(or at least possibly true) It is *you* who like to guide and frame the arguments according to your logic and inform me what I must then believe.

So whats with this TRVTH nonsense? Have you pagans invented a new magik word?

You didn't. I did.And I have demonstrated that you know the message is more important than the messenger: You don't throw away your bills and worship the envelopes. Wrong. It is logic that guides and frames the arguments. I have nothing to do with defining logic.And it's all about pointing out the nonsense that you SHOULDN'T believe.

You seem to have problems categorizing things in order of importance. Yesterday I was bored and found myself staring at the quotes that I had assembled in my signature. I focused on Leo Tolstoy and resolved to look up the book from which it was taken. (You remember Tolstoy...a respected author and intellectual near the turn of last century. He wrote War & Peace. So I found the book in its entirety translated into English online.
The Kingdom Of God Is Within YouAside from my quote which I found in context, Tolstoy had some insightful observations about Christianity and organized religion.

quote:

---

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.

​

The Christian doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day as a doctrine which everyone has known so[50] long and accepted so unhesitatingly in all its minutest details that it cannot be understood in any other way than it is understood now.

​

Christianity is understood now by all who profess the doctrines of the Church as a supernatural miraculous revelation of everything which is repeated in the Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as an illustration of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural, which mankind has now outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which has received full expression in Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and has no longer any living significance for us. The significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church, from unbelievers by Science.

---

He sounds a bit like you. Perhaps he would have approved of the message superseding the messenger, though in reading more, I highly doubt it.

quote:

---

n the midst of the elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in which, in the words of Isaiah, law was laid upon law, and in the midst of the Roman legal system worked out to the highest point of perfection, a new doctrine appeared, which denied not only every deity, and all fear and worship of them, but even all human institutions and all necessity for them. In place of all the rules of the old religions, this doctrine sets up only a type of inward perfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and—as a result of this inward perfection being attained by men—also the outward perfection foretold by the Prophets—the kingdom of God, when all men will cease to learn to make war, when all shall be taught of God and united in love, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead of the[51] threats of punishment which all the old laws of religions and governments alike laid down for non-fulfillment of their rules, instead of promises of rewards for fulfillment of them, this doctrine called men to it only because it was the truth. John vii. 17: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." John viii. 46: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Keep my sayings, and ye shall know of my sayings whether they be true." No proofs of this doctrine were offered except its truth, the correspondence of the doctrine with the truth. The whole teaching consisted in the recognition of truth and following it, in a greater and greater attainment of truth, and a closer and closer following of it in the acts of life. There are no acts in this doctrine which could justify a man and make him saved. There is only the image of truth to guide him, for inward perfection in the person of Christ, and for outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The fulfillment of this teaching consists only in walking in the chosen way, in getting nearer to inward perfection in the imitation of Christ, and outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The greater or less blessedness of a man depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree of perfection to which he has attained, but on the greater or less swiftness with which he is pursuing it.

---

I like old Tolstoy! Intellectuals back in those days still respected the character of Christ and it(He) was reflected within their thoughts on the matter.Edited by Phat, : message v messenger

How so? Isn't it bloody obvious that the automobile is more important than Henry Ford? You don't. How can you respect somebody when you deny His teachings?

Again, one must view these things in context.
There is one God. Not many. Loki and the spaghetti monster dont even count. Edison was a human inventor...not a Creator of all seen and unseen. Envelopes and letters are not even in the same league and context as are Creator and creation. You insist on relative equivalence. I am simply reminding you that you are wrong.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I talk with the teacher. He knows that I have problems with His teachings. He continually reminds me why I am wrong and He does so in a loving way. He likely would forgive you for unbelief and would expand upon what was written in the Book. But go on and follow human logic, reason, and perception. You too will learn the errors of your ways if it is meant to be so.

That isn't the context. Message over messenger has nothing to do with the number of gods. They count every bit as much as your made-up god. You have never been able to show otherwise. Your "creator of all seen and unseen" is nothing but a bumper-sticker with no basis in reality. You can't use it to try to re-define "creator". Yes they are. It's a pretty exact analogy, unless you can show otherwise. If you think they're not equivalent, you have to SHOW it, not just deny deny deny. You're making an empty claim. That just underlines the emptiness of your position.

And you put yourself above Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But will He forgive YOU? According to Matthew 25, He was pretty blunt about people He never knew. Human logic, reason and perception are all any of us have.

Nonsense. I respect other men who have done, endured, and learned far more than I have. All I'm saying is that I believe that Jesus is more than the character in the book. You may be technically right in that I don't simply jump up and do everything He said to do to those whom He was talking to in the book. And if you then suggest that what was said in the book applies to all of us today, I would agree. I am not so quick to judge people who ignore what He said, for we all fall short. As to whether I talk to Him or to a fantasy Jesus I made up in my head, I will only say that I believe that I know Him and that though I take your admonitions under advisement, I see no evidence that you know Him any better than I do and thus we are both at the same human level.When others attempt to tell me that He doesn't exist or that He is a made up character, I respectfully remain silent. There are no winners here. If you care, you might try saying a prayer for me. Reminding me what the book says is not going to help me suddenly decide to believe without questioning. Im only human.

Jesus is not Leo Tolstoy, or Billy Graham, or Donald Trump. What they have to say, what anyone has to say, is based on the best information available. This means the Gospels, Pliny's letter to Trajan, a few offhand observations by the Roman Senators Tacitus and Suetonius, and Josephus. Everything else is commentary based upon these sources, or as often the case, made up wholecloth, with no regard for the originals.Let's start with Pliny's letter to Trajan. Pliny, alarmed at the growth of this religion, is asking Trajan how should I treat Christians?The full text Pliny's request and Trajan's reply of 112 CE are here and an overview here Tacitus refers to the Christians, identifies the cause (Christ) and even mentions the crucifixion. The direct quote is as follows:

quote:

---

...To get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians[58] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

---

Tacitus' Annals 15.44The Annals are from 115/116 CE.Suetonius also mentions "Chrestus" as the leader of a bunch of Jewish "rioters."

quote:

---

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,[11] a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

---

Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Nero 16.

quote:

---

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

---

Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Claudius 25.Lives of the Twelve Caesars (122 CE) Titus Flavius Josephus has a bit more to say than a letter or offhand remark. This is contained in the Jewish War (75 CE) and Antiquities of the Jews (94 CE). It is not so much Josephus mentions Christ (maybe) or Christians but rather he does mention a lot of other characters of the time that appear in the Gospels and is the best contemporaneous source on Jewish history, customs, and religion. Brevity requires I leave it at that as Josephus alone could easily be the subject of an entire thread.So, there you have it. Five sources within 100 years of the Crucifixion, three pagan, one Jewish, and the Gospels. Everything anyone claims to know about Jesus is either ultimately based on these sources, or made up whole cloth. Additionally, notice everything is a secondary source except for Pliny's letter and some parts of Josephus, who wrote about the events as they happened in the Jewish War.For transparency, I have read the entirety of the Jewish War, Annals, The Twelve Caesars, and the Gospels, but not the Antiquities. Also, War and Peace is one of the three books I could not get much past 100 pages, the other two being Das Capital, and Mein Kampf.So what can we conclude? Well, it is obvious to me there was a real person named Jesus Christ or likely something similar based on the fact he made quite an impression on some classical figures, which doesn't tend to happen if you never existed. So yes, someone of similar name did exist according to the pagans Tacitus and Suetonius, and likely the Jewish Josephus. We also know from these sources that Christianity had reached Rome less than 30 years after the Crucifixion. Pliny also shows Christianity was spreading to the provinces at a speedy rate. That is fast for a new religion, only Islam spread anywhere near that quickly.Then we have the gospels, which is somewhat biased.So, Phat, what have you read among these works I mentioned? Still believe Jesus to be "just a character in a book?"Which books would those be?

I could quibble about some things, but the main one is this:

quote:

---

Well, it is obvious to me there was a real person named Jesus Christ or likely something similar

---

His name would have been Yeshua or Yehoshua, transliterated into Greek as “Jesus” and his followers thought he was the Messiah (translated into “Christus” which became “Christ”)And I outright disagree with this:

quote:

---

....he made quite an impression on some classical figures, which doesn't tend to happen if you never existed.

---

None of those mentioned met Jesus or had any great knowledge of him - all of them but Josephus are primarily dealing with later followers. (The “Chrestus” in Suetonius may indeed, have been someone else - named Chrestus).I still think there was such a person, but I think you’re overstating the evidence.

I never have believed Jesus to be just a character in a book. I surmised that many people do. And yes, I can always read more...as long as the good Lord lets me keep my eyes.