Jesus > Superman

[dshipp17]

All Christians? No. You, however, are in serious need of a slice of humble pie.

Did you even read the post the I was responding to? I'm merely providing responses; tell me, why would I need a slice of humble pie in your opinion?

[carabas]

Sorry, but get a clue; just because you think Christians are arrogant...

Well, they are. More so than most religions.

No, this is not good logic because we have irrefutable evidence that Superman is a fictional character with fictional abilities.

I woud be very interested in seeing this evidence.

In the case of Jesus, we do not have irrefutable evidence that either Jesus or God are not real;

We also have no irrefutable evidence Santa Claus isn't real either.

and, additionally, we have the creator of the Universe...

See, this is a problem with you. For some reason you seem to think that myths you personally believe in are acceptible as evidence and can sway opinions of people who have vastly different beliefs.

The author(s) of Superman are merely peer human beings...

And so are the authors of the bible.

At best, in the case of God and Jesus, we only have a minority of people who will remain in denial despite what evidence has been presented or will be presented, short of their bearing witness after their death of God or short of Jesus' second coming.

There is no evidence. Not even a smidgen of a clue.

[Morlock50]

Did you even read the post the I was responding to? I'm merely providing responses; tell me, why would I need a slice of humble pie in your opinion?

Because in every post I've read from you in every thread, you seem to want to preach the Gospel instead of talking about comic books. On a comic book message board. Do you even read comic books?

[Morlock50]

And unlike you and Castel, I don't think my book is morally superior to anyone else's (or no book). It's simply the one I choose to follow. Nobody deserves to burn in Hell because they don't follow my faith.

[dshipp17]

And unlike you and Castel, I don't think my book is morally superior to anyone else's (or no book). It's simply the one I choose to follow. Nobody deserves to burn in Hell because they don't follow my faith.

Do you not realize that "your book" teaches that there is only one God, call everyone else gentiles, implies that the God of creation established a special covenant with only your people, and do you follow the ancient history of your fellow Jews? Christianity than came along and made it a faith of inclusion. Also, please try to separate the fact of the matters from your own individual perspective.

[dshipp17]

Because in every post I've read from you in every thread, you seem to want to preach the Gospel instead of talking about comic books. On a comic book message board. Do you even read comic books?

So, that still doesn't mean I need a slice of humble pie, if it were true; I'm not preaching the Gospels, I'm correcting discrepancies caused by misguided attempts to ridicule Christianity and Jesus.

[dshipp17]

You got me I meant hundreds of years later, not thousands. The point still stands.

Actually I said the written testaments were made generations after Jesus died, and that there were lots of different versions. It's the fact that there are many conflicting versions that makes your claim to the credibility of "eye witness" accounts invalid. If ten people saw something and 4 say it happened one way and the rest say it happened another chances are better that the four were mistaken on what exactly they saw. It's called Logic.

I clearly will not be bothered to consult with a christian professor who got his degrees from a christian university on the veracity of the christian bible. You clearly can't see why this is a problem so I'll spell it out for you. What you're asking me to do is take a Nazi's word that Hitler was right because he can come up with "proof".

So you're telling me they up and killed the hell out of everyone who witnessed his miracles then? Well who then wrote your so called "eye witness" accounts if they were all dead and the original texts they "may" have written were destroyed?

But it isn't there are other sources. All of which say something else. I like how you're conveniently leaving that part out because it doesn't suit your argument.

Jesus rose from the dead was proven by SCIENCE!!! LOL sure buddy. Whatever you say.

Maybe they didn't. But you ever played the phone game as a kid? The one where you tell someone one thing and they tell someone else and that person tells someone else etc.etc. until at the end the message is completely different than the original one. Well imagine that with hundreds/thousands of people over time and regions. Because as you say written copies were dangerous so things had to be passed verbally. I'm pretty sure things got changed/warped over time. Going from Jesus gave Joe Schmoe at the wedding his fish and bread because Joe showed up without RSVPing and there wasn't enough to accomodate the extra person. To Jesus fed the entire wedding.

That proves less then nothing as you yourself have argued that the material was hidden and kept secret so the jews wouldn't see it. So which is it? You can't have both.


50 years is completely unreasonable for chronicling miracles the son of God is doing. Especially given that it was witnessed by thousands according to you. It's unfathomable to me that even a tenth of those people didn't immediately go home and write about this life changing event regardless of the danger to them. Cause if they did we'd have a bunch of accounts that tell the same thing, instead of a bunch years later, that all tell differing stories.



I'm glad you pointed out that it's a myth.

I'd grasp logic if you were actually using any. Instead you keep going back on your own arguments.

And he isn't just of man because of the "proof" you claim comes from the written material that you just claimed you would admit to being BS if it was about a normal man. That's literally the most cyclical catch 22 and F-expletive deleted- illogical argument I ever heard. After this post I will no longer reply to anything you say because you clearly don't understand how logic works.

Ah.... such a nice god....truly worthy of our adoration.... Worship me or burn in hell forever.



They also aren't included they vastly differ from what the catholic church wanted the bible to be.


It's not the experiments that I call silly. It's your conclusions that are. You're pointing out that because an experiment throws doubt on an accepted scientific theory all of a sudden believing in fantastic magic gardens and apples and adam and eve is right. Yeah that is silly. And now everyone can see just how silly you and your claims of being "on the scientific side of things" are.



Again it's not the peer reviewed info I think is wrong. It's YOUR conclusion of what that represents and how YOU present those conclusion as ALSO fact or part of the experiment that is wrong.



Oh cause a if god making a talking snake that makes total sense, but the tree of life is just straight ridiculous and is obviously only a metaphor for a lost plant species?

I honestly don't believe you're that ignorant or incapable of simple logic. Or at least I hope no one is that bad off. I think you're a troll. Troll away. I'm done with you.

Where are you getting your facts? All indications are that the Gospels were written merely decades after the resurrection of Jesus, which could place the authors within their elderly years at the time of authoring the Gospels (e.g. Luke died in 84 AD and he wrote the Gospel according to Luke and Acts; see archaeologist Sir William Ramsay; clearly, that’s not by someone born generations later). When you say generations, what are you trying to mean? Generations could mean hundreds or thousands of years later. To repeat, the sources (e.g. conflicting versions) that you keep eluding to were written coming into a time frame of hundreds of years later, thus they were not canonized for inclusion into the Bible. What you’re calling conflicting events is an exaggeration, if you mean the minor discrepancies among the four Gospels (e.g. none of the discrepancies take away from the overall message or premise of the accounts, a citing that would make them truly contradictory). There is no demonstrated logic on that point.

Everett Ferguson also got a degree from Harvard; the reasons you provide for not looking up his contribution is not very sound, as just about everybody who sets out on an expedition of discovery has an agenda. Do you think because he obtained part of his education from a Christian college that it somehow invalidates his findings? This person is very knowledgeable of the Persian, Greek, and Roman cultures; he uses that knowledge to than examine the existing culture that existed at the time Jesus lived, than proceeds to examine the early church; his work does not solely reference the Gospels as sources making reference to Jesus and the first Christians (e.g. some of his sources include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Titus Flavius Clemens, and Tertullian). There is simply no comparison between the evidence that the Nazis relied upon with the evidence that Everett Ferguson relies upon.

They possibly did kill all or most of them, or, at least the ones brave enough to stick up for what they witnessed; history tells us that Christians were killed as a matter of routine during that period; I also said that some of their accounts were likely obliterated through other means; or some their accounts are simply yet to be discovered; they clearly contributed, because they did share their experiences all over, at least by word of mouth, causing the message to go viral and the Christian faith to form; use logic, do you think just five to ten people could have been that effective to cause the word to be spread in so many places during that time period? When Paul set out, the New Testament consistently makes reference to existing groups of Christians that he encountered in furthering his evangelist cause.

Don’t I say, if that’s their only source? That implies that other sources may exist.

Jesus rising from the dead is proven science is your words, not mine; I already said that human logic cannot and does not have to account for the abilities of God, who’s beyond human logic.

Nothing could have gotten warped to the degree that you imply overtime which was relied upon by Christians, because we rely on the Gospels as our starting point and the authors of the Four Gospels were alive at the time of Jesus’ resurrection, or only about one generation removed, while all of the Four Gospels convincingly provide the same account of events with a few minor and insignificant discrepancies. The fact that there is not even more information from that period is likely due to the practices at the time by groups other than Christians, against Christians, which has been the point continually repeated.

[Aquacatlungfish]

No, this is not good logic because we have irrefutable evidence that Superman is a fictional character with fictional abilities.

All of those Superman writers are just liars hired by Lex Luthor to try and create an image that Superman doesn't exist.

[carabas]

Christianity than came along and made it a faith of inclusion.

Ahem... Unles you're gay. Or a woman.

[dshipp17]

Ahem... Unles you're gay. Or a woman.

The Christian faith does not exclude women from anything; the Jewish faith does not exclude women from anything. The Gospels do not exclude women from anything. If so, than we would not have women like Joyce Meyer.

[Aquacatlungfish]

The Christian faith does not exclude women from anything; the Jewish faith does not exclude women from anything. The Gospels do not exclude women from anything. If so, than we would not have women like Joyce Meyer.

The Bible says you should marry your rapist. Denying that Christianity isn't sexist is stupid especially with the recent news of female bishops in the Church of England. Funny how you left out gays and you realize just how homophobic Christianity is.

[UltimateMarvel Dude]

Clark seems like a cool dude to me, considering he doesn't demand that you worship him. Sure Superman sounds a bit cocky, but he is kind of super, isn't he? Whereas God... well let's just say if you're gonna call yourself 'God' you're an arrogant prick.
And I know that Supes had his ups and downs storytelling wise, but at least all of his stories are coherent in nature, which you can't really say about that whole God stuff.

[direction9]

The Christian faith does not exclude women from anything; the Jewish faith does not exclude women from anything. The Gospels do not exclude women from anything. If so, than we would not have women like Joyce Meyer.

go do some reading.

[dshipp17]

I opened this to reply and, swear up and down no lie, someone upstairs of me starts playing Motorhead's Don't Need Religion. It's a sign!



That "best" is purely a matter of opinion. And as presumptuous and insulting as most of what you've posted here in this thread. Certainly at the moment, the majority of people don't believe in your God, and those who espouse to, I'd wager, have trouble agreeing he's the same one or which faction has the true and best idea of that God. Adding Muslim and Jewish faiths into Christianity ignores that Catholics and Lutherans can't even agree on what makes God, God, or how any of us schmucks get up there to hang nearer Him rather than be hellbound. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, as is the absurd accusation that the Jewish people have a pre-Jesus tradition of genocidal behavior or were in need of some Jesus-led correction to their lifestyle and culture.

"Denial" there is damned condescending.

But, then, as you said earlier:



So, I doubt you care much for either my ideas or general civility. "You probably just memorized a lot of things that happened to be on the examine"? Really. Condescending and missing that, especially on a multiple choice history exam, memorized facts like dates and motivations would be the point. Or, that, memorizing/knowing those facts would preclude being "clueless about the material covered." If I can't trust you to keep the point of a history exam straight, how'm I supposed to just take your word for your Angry Magic Skyfather's reality? An angry magic skyfather whose position is so tenuous even his commandments given to Moses declare not that he's the god, but that it's against the rules to hold any gods over him because boohooohoo why don't you love me like you love them?

Anyhow, I'd stick around to play more My God Can Beat Up Your God, but I have pictures of Superman and Jesus eating cake to draw.

Where do you get you information that says most people do not believe in God? As much as you would like to see otherwise, most people still believe in God and the proportions have not shifted significantly since about 1970. Additionally, Christianity is the faith practiced by most people on Earth, despite the persecution to limit it's spread in various locations around the world; none the less, persecution would logically limit the number of people to openly profess their preference for Christianity; thus, the faith is not larger because of the means you appear to be implying, but for other reasons entirely. There is no trouble with the way the vast majority of Christians interpret God; you're relying on more of the fringe elements of Christianity. Catholics and Lutherans agree on the essential facts concerning God; the discrepancies come in the way Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants choose to approach God (e.g. Protestants do not believe in having a Pope and differ on the place of Mary, Mother of Jesus); Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants all agree to a significant degree on the way to God; that's one of those issues that's key to being Christian. I've only cited what's clearly evidence of how the early Christians were treated by all people during the first century AD and it read genocide, although martyrdom has been used to describe the systematic murder of Christians.

Clearly, I'm exercising general civility in the face of the ridicule of a figure like Jesus, if you compare what could be the reaction expressed by another large religion of the last several weeks in the press; try ridiculing that faith and see what civility you get. I know there's an attempt to try pitting Christianity, Judaism, and Islam against one another, but I'm rebuffing the instigation; seems like an attempt to pit the various Christian denominations against one another, as well.

[dshipp17]

The Bible says you should marry your rapist. Denying that Christianity isn't sexist is stupid especially with the recent news of female bishops in the Church of England. Funny how you left out gays and you realize just how homophobic Christianity is.

The Bible does not teach that women should marry their rapist. Christianity, at the level I'm defending it (purely from the Biblical text), is not sexist; you're at the level of where people may have chosen to interpret and, subsequently, practice Christian teaching; additionally, cultural changes does not shift the purity of God's Word. Christianity is not a religion of phobias, but it does define what's right and wrong as derived from the Creator of the Universe and biological life; thus, it's not a matter of choice based opinion.