How To Handle Christian Persecution On FusionCash

[jcribb16]

And again, unless you experience the ...

Your repetitious logical fallacy deserves the same response as before; it is not necessary to experience drowning to know that it wouldn't be conducive to living.

But that's the greatness of everyone making their own choices!  No one is experiencing drowning if they are established in their belief or dis-belief.  However, since you inferred "drowning" for a Christian, then it's only fair that a dis-believer would infer "drowning" in lack of understanding of what God is all about.

[falcon9]

No one is experiencing drowning if they are established in their belief or dis-belief.  However, since you inferred "drowning" for a Christian ...

The metaphor only works when applied to religious self-deception since those who don't hold such self-blinding beliefs are metaphorically 'drowning' in a superstitious religious belief.  Additionally, it is xtians which have a 'ritual drowning' ceremony apparently intended to "drown" any vestiges of reason which might cause them question their religious assumptions.

[jcribb16]

No one is experiencing drowning if they are established in their belief or dis-belief.  However, since you inferred "drowning" for a Christian ...

The metaphor only works when applied to religious self-deception since those who don't hold such self-blinding beliefs are metaphorically 'drowning' in a superstitious religious belief.  Additionally, it is xtians which have a 'ritual drowning' ceremony apparently intended to "drown" any vestiges of reason which might cause them question their religious assumptions.

I really feel sorry for your type of thinking, rambling, and what you think is your circle of reasoning.  In the end, they are just words, and do not affect a Christian's belief in God. 

[falcon9]

No one is experiencing drowning if they are established in their belief or dis-belief.  However, since you inferred "drowning" for a Christian ...

The metaphor only works when applied to religious self-deception since those who don't hold such self-blinding beliefs are metaphorically 'drowning' in a superstitious religious belief.  Additionally, it is xtians which have a 'ritual drowning' ceremony apparently intended to "drown" any vestiges of reason which might cause them question their religious assumptions.

I really feel sorry for your type of thinking, rambling, and what you think is your circle of reasoning.

No, that would be line of reasoning.  Your almost total unfamilarity with logical reasoning must be a prerequisite of xtian fundamentalism.  It seems I'm as 'proud' of being rational as you are of being irrational.  The pity-point would go to you there.
 

In the end, they are just words, and do not affect a Christian's belief in God. 

That's been understood all along; many of those severely blinded by religious faith are incapable of allowing reason/logic/rationality penetrate the darkness of blind faith, religious irrationality and self-deceptive superstitious beliefs. 

[dmahoney]

Why can you not have a discussion without all of your name calling? Is it not in in to do that? I just dont understand!  Maybe you would get your points across better if you tried that way some time. Just saying!

[falcon9]

Why can you not have a discussion without all of your name calling? Is it not in in to do that? I just dont understand!  Maybe you would get your points across better if you tried that way some time. Just saying!

There was no "name-calling" in the previous reply.  Between your false claims to have used the 'ignore button' and your demonstrated inherent ignorance of the meaning of what actually is stated, no meaningful discussion is possible.  The use of the term "ignorance" isn't name-calling since it accurately describes using the 'ignore button' to not ignore.

[queenofnines]

don't worry about these idiots...they are just frustrated about their own shortcomings...

remember--when you point a finger at someone else, there are 3 pointing back at you..

lol Am I the only one who noticed the blatant hypocrisy in this post? 

[falcon9]

don't worry about these idiots...they are just frustrated about their own shortcomings...

lol Am I the only one who noticed the blatant hypocrisy in this post?  

No.  Then again, xtians are nominally blind to the fact of their own blindness and such hypocrisy, (it's what puts the "blind" in blind faith).

[Azanne07]

i believe religion was invented to make ppl scared and have followers

[jcribb16]

i believe religion was invented to make ppl scared and have followers

Who would have invented religion from your studies?  Why would it be invented to make people "scared?"  Why would there have to be followers?  Thanks. 

[falcon9]

i believe religion was invented to make ppl scared and have followers

Who would have invented religion from your studies? 

The OP stated that those were her beliefs, you added the "studies" part so I'll add an answer.  Primative peoples who attributed thunder to 'thunder g-ds', rain to 'rain g-ds', (or 'g-ddesses'), invented such concepts out of their own fears and ignorance ... these ignorant superstitious beliefs became more and more elaborate until some early goat-herders couldn't keep up with pantheistic multiple g-ds/g-ddesses and "invented" monotheism, (one hypothetical supernatural egregore at a time).

Why would it be invented to make people "scared?" 

That's because 'fear', (or the religious misnomer, "awe"), was found useful in controlling the masses, (as noted historically, well before communism's mention of the tool).  A large number of people are afraid of various things ranging from death to any number of lessor things and latching onto a superstitious religious belief which deceived the believer into seeming to alleviating, (through deceptive promises in this life and 'the next'), seemed easier for many of the fearful.
 

Why would there have to be followers?  Thanks. 

Without followers, there would be no religion.  Without religion, there would be much less blind faith and self-deception.  With less blind faith and self-deception, there would be much less of a 'religious' basis for atrocities like native/pagan assimulations, witch hunts, crusades or inquisitions.  Why do there have to be followers of such self-deceiving blind faiths, indeed.

[jcribb16]

i believe religion was invented to make ppl scared and have followers

Who would have invented religion from your studies? 

The OP stated that those were her beliefs, you added the "studies" part so I'll add an answer.  Primative peoples who attributed thunder to 'thunder g-ds', rain to 'rain g-ds', (or 'g-ddesses'), invented such concepts out of their own fears and ignorance ... these ignorant superstitious beliefs became more and more elaborate until some early goat-herders couldn't keep up with pantheistic multiple g-ds/g-ddesses and "invented" monotheism, (one hypothetical supernatural egregore at a time).

Why would it be invented to make people "scared?" 

That's because 'fear', (or the religious misnomer, "awe"), was found useful in controlling the masses, (as noted historically, well before communism's mention of the tool).  A large number of people are afraid of various things ranging from death to any number of lessor things and latching onto a superstitious religious belief which deceived the believer into seeming to alleviating, (through deceptive promises in this life and 'the next'), seemed easier for many of the fearful.
 

Why would there have to be followers?  Thanks. 

Without followers, there would be no religion.  Without religion, there would be much less blind faith and self-deception.  With less blind faith and self-deception, there would be much less of a 'religious' basis for atrocities like native/pagan assimulations, witch hunts, crusades or inquisitions.  Why do there have to be followers of such self-deceiving blind faiths, indeed.

Indeed, the poster stated his/her belief - I was asking out of curiosity.  Thank you for taking the time to answer on your behalf, especially considering I already know your thoughts on the matter, lol. 

I would, however, be interested to know how you 100% know that Jesus Christ was not real, did not die on the cross, was not buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own tomb for Jesus (which would mean proving that man didn't exist,) and that Jesus did not rise again the 3rd day, as promised.  Even Muslims agree that Jesus Christ lived, though they believe only as a prophet and teacher, and not the rest.  What say you? 

[falcon9]

I would, however, be interested to know how you 100% know that Jesus Christ was not real, did not die on the cross, was not buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own tomb for Jesus (which would mean proving that man didn't exist,) and that Jesus did not rise again the 3rd day, as promised.  Even Muslims agree that Jesus Christ lived, though they believe only as a prophet and teacher, and not the rest.  What say you?  

Well, that's not how making a claim and substantiating it work.  Many have claimed that their supernatural egregores 'exist', from pagans to xtians, muslims and jews.  None have provided any substantiating evidence to support their initial claims and instead, sometimes try to illogically dodge this responsibility and shift it to any challenger of their empty claims.  
   The reason that the "burden of proof" is on the initial claimant is because more time would be needed to 'prove' that an infinite number of possibilities weren't true/accurate than proving one claim is accurate/true.  That being the case, unless substantive and valid evidence, (not beliefs or faith), can be provided to support those initial supernatural religious claims, they're coing to be challenged as specious/empty.

[jcribb16]

I would, however, be interested to know how you 100% know that Jesus Christ was not real, did not die on the cross, was not buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own tomb for Jesus (which would mean proving that man didn't exist,) and that Jesus did not rise again the 3rd day, as promised.  Even Muslims agree that Jesus Christ lived, though they believe only as a prophet and teacher, and not the rest.  What say you?  

Well, that's not how making a claim and substantiating it work.  Many have claimed that their supernatural egregores 'exist', from pagans to xtians, muslims and jews.  None have provided any substantiating evidence to support their initial claims and instead, sometimes try to illogically dodge this responsibility and shift it to any challenger of their empty claims.  
   The reason that the "burden of proof" is on the initial claimant is because more time would be needed to 'prove' that an infinite number of possibilities weren't true/accurate than proving one claim is accurate/true.  That being the case, unless substantive and valid evidence, (not beliefs or faith), can be provided to support those initial supernatural religious claims, they're coing to be challenged as specious/empty.

In the case of Christ and people in the Bible, historical evidence, along with Biblical history, archaeological digs, remnants of things, and places and leaders of history, all coincide with each other in one way or another.  The fact of the matter, is they are ignored and not accepted by many dis-believers.

However, some dis-believers have gone the extra mile, and have done their own research to dis-prove, only to end up finding proof of many of the buildings, leaders, places, people and groups, etc., that there is indeed evidence and proof of many things. 

I know that you do not accept it, and while that is most definitely your freedom of choice, it doesn't mean that there is not something in the given that proves one or more things, when and if researched.  You don't see proof, but others have.   That's about as clear as I know to explain it.

[falcon9]

I would, however, be interested to know how you 100% know that Jesus Christ was not real, did not die on the cross, was not buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own tomb for Jesus (which would mean proving that man didn't exist,) and that Jesus did not rise again the 3rd day, as promised.  Even Muslims agree that Jesus Christ lived, though they believe only as a prophet and teacher, and not the rest.  What say you?  

Well, that's not how making a claim and substantiating it work.  Many have claimed that their supernatural egregores 'exist', from pagans to xtians, muslims and jews.  None have provided any substantiating evidence to support their initial claims and instead, sometimes try to illogically dodge this responsibility and shift it to any challenger of their empty claims.  
   The reason that the "burden of proof" is on the initial claimant is because more time would be needed to 'prove' that an infinite number of possibilities weren't true/accurate than proving one claim is accurate/true.  That being the case, unless substantive and valid evidence, (not beliefs or faith), can be provided to support those initial supernatural religious claims, they're coing to be challenged as specious/empty.

In the case of Christ and people in the Bible, historical evidence, along with Biblical history, archaeological digs, remnants of things, and places and leaders of history, all coincide with each other in one way or another.  

No, you're missing the salient point.  None of that provides evidence to support the initial supernatural claims made by xtians and believers.  Those include; claims that a being vaguely designated as a "creator g-d" actually exists, claims that magical intercessory rituals, ("prayers"), 'work'/have functional results and can be attributed to aforementioned 'g-d', and virtually every single metaphysical claim made in both old & new biblical "testaments", (which are themselves, hearsay without evidence for the supernatural claims made).

I'm not referring to archeological digs which cannot produce solid evidence of a supernaturl religious claim, (because those are "faith"/"belief"-based concepts which lack even a coherently-rational basis).  So-called "biblical history" is hearsay, shot-through with unfounded fiction and outright lies contradicted by other extant sources.  Parenthetically, showing that some guy who may or may not have been "jesus" lived and was executed for sedition, (not to "absolve later followers of sins"), is not equivalent to providing evidence to support supernatural religious claims initially made.  These constitute xtian claimants' failure under the burden of proof responsibility and a shirking of that responsibility.