This was posted 3 years 4 months 30 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Digital Video Course "Church History Boot Camp" @ Credo Courses

190
Free Digital Video Course "Church History Boot Camp" @ Credo Courses
Go to Deal
gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 10:36 credocourses.com (158 clicks)

Today's Christmas Gift to You: History of the Church by C. Michael Patton

Author: C. Michael Patton, (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary) Teachers: C. Michael Patton and Tim Kimberley (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary) An overview of Church history in four parts. This course give people a much needed introduction to the entire history of the Christian church, looking at the major events and turning points that have brought us to where we are today.

Session 1: The Early Church
Session 2: The Medieval Church
Session 3: The Reformation
Session 4: The Modern Church

Education

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

  • TruthNuke on 10/12/2020 - 10:38
    -5

    As an intellectual and an atheist (same thing, really), I love to criticize Christianity on Australian bargain website comment sections.

    Just throwing that out there.

    • Andard on 10/12/2020 - 10:38
      +9

      As an intellectual and an atheist (same thing, really)

      LOL wow

      • inasero on 10/12/2020 - 11:13
        +9

        As an intellectual and a Christian, I love debating ignorant comments like yours on Australian bargain websites

    • jv on 10/12/2020 - 11:11
      +9

      As an intellectual

      Self proclaimed apparently…

    • inamberclad on 10/12/2020 - 11:32
      -3

      I love to criticize Christianity on Australian bargain website

      +1 for this

    • theguyrules on 10/12/2020 - 15:53

      "In this moment, I am euphoric…"

    • metalslaw on 10/12/2020 - 21:00

      You might like this then, "The logical explanations to the Jesus miracles".

      https://www.facebook.com/thelogicalexplanationstotheJesusmir…

      My site ofc. Premise is that he wasn't supernatural, and all his miracles can be explained. However he was still an awesome guy.

  • pharkurnell on 10/12/2020 - 10:44

    Be a thousand priests shaking in their boots.

  • RubenM on 10/12/2020 - 10:46
    +3

    This crap again!

    • payton on 10/12/2020 - 10:50

      reeeeee reeeeeee

    • jv on 10/12/2020 - 11:01
      +13

      This crap again!

      No different to most of the crap udemy courses that are posted…

      If you don't like it, don't get it…

  • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 10:47

    FAQ: Is theism true?

    The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

    Leibniz’ Contingency Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I&t=1s

    The Moral Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    The Ontological Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74

    • RubenM on 10/12/2020 - 10:53
      +2

      The "scientific" proof of god shows that the universe requires to have a cause.
      Funny that god herself doesn't require to have a cause though!

    • dscott85 on 10/12/2020 - 10:58
      +1

      Oh! It's blessed are the meek! I'm glad they're getting something, they had a hell of a time…

    • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 11:13
      +2

      WLC, seriously? Such dishonesty. His arguments have been shot to pieces multiple times and yet he keeps to them without refinement or rejection.

      • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 12:38

        A convo between WLC and a much younger "atheist apologist" he is popular. He also thought he shot WLC arguments into pieces. https://youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0

        He also made that claim until recently he had to admit it's not that easy.

        • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 13:48

          Nice cherry-pick. I didn't watch the video (- no point, really -) because I never asserted that every critic was successful or carried better arguments, but I do understand the typical practice of selective picking when defending a cherished (religious) agenda.

          • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 14:13

            @Jeffie: Since you claim his arguments were refuted. I picked one. You were not specific. And it's also related to one of the videos I posted.

            All good don't watch it. I'm not surprised you're the same person who will claim his arguments have been refuted. By saying their no point you also show you already made up your mind.

            Credit to Alex in the video. Where he admits when he is wrong. And considered what WLC had to say with an open mind. He was not like no point, already been refuted.

            • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 14:34

              @gto21: The arguments have been refuted already (with no satisfactory response from Craig); why would I need to watch a video where said refuted arguments are being attacked with poor rebuttals just so they look better than what they are?

              If you want a discussion rather than selectively sharing videos which you believe support your case, you have that available.

              • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 14:55

                @Jeffie: You did not even watch it but now you claim it's a poor rebuttal. You're proving my point when I said you already made up your mind.

                Their no point having a conversation with someone who already made up his mind. If you have time for a convo, you have time to listen to them.

                Anyway, it's much faster to share an article or video. Than me having to do it. And they are much better than me at responding to those objections. The objections I hear are not new. And I know theologian and apologist who already responded to them.

                • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 18:24

                  @gto21: WLC has consistently failed to address the issues in his arguments, likely because he can't. If he has been able to address this critic's rebuttals, then the points raised aren't the ones that are fatalistic to the argument.

                  I enjoy conversing with people, not wasting time on videos. Do you know how many times I've had a religious individual telling to me watch this or that, only to be a total waste of my time?

                  Why don't you put forward your understanding of your preferred argument from the list if you can be bothered; don't go telling me I'm lazy when all you can is spam videos.

                  • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 19:55

                    @Jeffie: How do you know it's not the same "fatal arguments"? Maybe Alex used the same argument which he thought was fatal. You did not watch it but you know it's different lol.

                    I prefer to post videos or articles on objections that have already been refuted. People can watch or not. Accept it or reject it. Instead of me reading nonsense and having to respond to it.

                    Some response requires lengthy rebuttal like essays. Why do it when someone else already done it? And they are better than me at responding to the objections.

                    Since you said to bring up any arguments. This shows you an expert on a different field. And you don't think Alex used your fatal arguments 😆. Which mean you're probably smarter than Alex. So I'm assuming a few people must have heard about you. It will be easy for someone like you to set up a debate or convo with WLC.

                    I think Alex is currently doing his PhD. And WLC has two PhDs. If you're actually better than both of them. I'm looking forward to your debates and convos with the best apologist, scientist, philosopher and theologian.

                    But my guess is no one heard about you and no expert will take you seriously. But that just my guess I can be wrong.

                    • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 20:30
                      +1

                      @gto21: Wow, what a lot of dribble and fallacies. As if popularity is some kind of accurate gauge of the factual accuracy of one's worldview and arguments.

                      PhDs in the fields of philosophy and theology count next to nothing in demonstrating the existence of god(s). It's a load of question-begging and filling in the gaps with "God."

                      Nice to know you already assumed I would have nothing but "nonsense" to share. It's not always a case of being smarter but perhaps just taking a different angle.

                      • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 21:36

                        @Jeffie: Does not matter how you will try to twist it. It not gonna work. You don't know you have a different angle. You Did not watch the video.

                        And I did not write you must be more popular. I wrote a few people must have heard about you. 100 000s knows those two. I was generous by saying a few.

                        Philosophy has next to nothing about the existence of God. And yet philosophers made arguments for and against the existence of God.

                        They can also examine arguments which are not their "field". As it can still apply to different fields.

                        All those philosophers in history until today. Did not know their opinion is next to nothing when it comes to the existence of God. Making arguments about it, criticizing arguments. Tell them dude, school them. They have been arguing for centuries about it when their opinion count next to nothing.

                        I would assume those smart people would know it's not their field. Or at least I thought the majority will correct them that their opinion counts next to nothing.

                        I'm sure it will be a great opportunity for WLC to discuss with you. Alex can learn your fatal different angles.

                        The fatal angle what philosophers opinion count next to nothing when it comes to the existence of God. Alex can learn a lot from you.

                        Thank you for sharing your knowledge. You just embarrassed a lot of philosophers through history. Not many people can archive it.

                        • Jeffie on 10/12/2020 - 22:00

                          @gto21: Cheers for the condescending attitude. For that reason you don't make a very good witness for your faith, but also because it appears you just default to your selective philosophers to give the arguments for you, as if to admit that you are incapable of discussing the alleged evidence for "god" yourself. I don't go watching hour-long videos when I much prefer the personal option. I thought Christians were meant to be people-persons? Oh, well.

                          • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 06:57

                            @Jeffie: Maybe I misunderstood Proverb 26:5.

                            Even if I quote atheist/agnostic philosophers who discuss for and against the existence of God. I guess I would still be selective.

                            • Jeffie on 11/12/2020 - 11:28

                              @gto21: You probably have considering you are reading a text that is far removed from our time and culture, and of course being a translation which is inevitably also an interpretation. But I have nothing more to discuss with you if you wish to immaturely insinuate insults like that. Such typical religious bigotry. Good day to you.

                              • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 11:46

                                @Jeffie: I did not interpret the verse. I only gave the reference.

                                And how long it is written does not necessarily determine truth. If I write a true statement today it can still be true in 1000s of years.

                                Enjoy your day too.

                                • Jeffie on 11/12/2020 - 13:27

                                  @gto21: Implying others are fools isn't good PR for your faith, and that was entirely unnecessary.

                                  And I never said that the age of a statement affects its truth. You obviously don't understand the issues of hermeneutics.

                                  • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 13:54

                                    @Jeffie: Your first comment was an accusation about dishonesty. But I guess that's ok. Was that necessary?

                                    So what was your point about 'time'?

                                    • Jeffie on 11/12/2020 - 14:35
                                      +1

                                      @gto21: Firstly, if I was guilty of throwing insults, that doesn't justify you to do the same. You ought to know better as a Christian, especially when you pointed me in the direction of not engaging with a fool.

                                      My first comment was about the dishonest nature of WLC continuing to hold to arguments that have been clearly debunked many times over. Of course you disagree with that assessment, but calling that dishonest is not an insult.

                                      Now regarding the bible, hermeneutics are a major issue because you can't be certain that you are understanding the texts correctly in this time and culture. You are far removed from the original time and culture, that society and those authors. I have no idea how you understood that to mean that I find a claim invalid based purely on its age, but you can see from that alone that you even had issues with interpreting what I said - and we're occupying the same time and culture, as well as using the same language.

                                      • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 15:23

                                        @Jeffie: Christian means a follower of Christ. Christ himself calls people Satan, hypocrite and so on. Are you sure you want me to be more Christian? I can use those words on you if you like.

                                        It is an insult. No one is perfect, whether he is mistaken or not. I doubt he is being dishonest on purpose.

                                        Ok, you have some problem with hermeneutics. But for most of us. We have enough historian and scholars to let us know important things about the culture. The vast majority of the time we don't even need them. We have a lot of biblical and unbiblical sources to understand the culture. We will be fine. 🙂

                                      • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 15:54

                                        @Jeffie: I wrote you made an accusation of dishonesty. I recognised it can be against me or WLC. In both ways, it's inaccurate.

                                        I don't think you were specific. And I left it open by not being specific too. And you assumed I did not think you might be referring to WLC.

                                        • Jeffie on 11/12/2020 - 19:03
                                          +1

                                          @gto21: It's not an insult when the continual usage of the arguments after being debunked is dishonest. That is different to outright accusing someone of being a liar; one attacks the strength of the argument while the other attacks the individual. Granted, the comment was not specific and that was on me, but you could always have sought clarification instead of implying that I am a fool.

                                          Yeah, go ahead if you want in using further derogatory language on me. For me, that's just another example of the nonsense of Christianity, where one moment the religion is all about love, and then the next insulting you neighbour. Besides, it just makes your position even less secure when you have to resort to such dirty tactics.

                                          Lastly, your shallow dismissal of the issues of hermeneutics says it all. You don't actually have an appreciation for the deep problems concerning the understanding such old texts and their translation. There's little wonder why there are so many different denominations and views, but you come across as naively thinking it's a real walk in the park, as if the intended meaning of each statement is obvious and without doubt or contention.

                                          • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 20:31
                                            -1

                                            @Jeffie: Everything you accuse him. I see the accusation apply to you better than him.

                                            You are pretending to be knowledgeable about things you don't know.

                                            Hard rebuke does not mean you don't love the person. An analogy, parents discipline their kids because they love them. Discipline can be tough.

                                            Many denominations have nothing to do with the culture.

                                            If you present the same arguments to atheist they can come to different conclusions. . You can have one atheist who believes in a flat earth and another in a round earth. Both atheists get the same information but can come to a different conclusion. In the same way, Christians can get the same information and come to different conclusions. The vast majority agrees on core doctrines. I consider them as Christians.

                                            I've seen new believers. With almost zero-knowledge on the culture and they don't struggle to understand. Don't impose your inability to comprehend on everyone. It's truly not that big of an issue. In your head, it is this massive problem.

                                            It can happen sometimes learning about the culture help for a better understanding. But it's no where as bad as you're trying to make it sound.

                                            • Jeffie on 12/12/2020 - 00:19

                                              @gto21: What applies to me better? Are you saying I'm dishonest? How so?

                                              How am I pretending to be knowledgeable about things I don't know? Be specific?

                                              I was waiting for the 'tough love' idea to pop up. You shouldn't need to call your children fools or hypocrites in order to "discipline" them; I'd argue there are better and more healthy ways of showing their error.

                                              I really do think you are stuck in a bubble there when you continually misunderstand simple points I've raised. What do you mean that, "Many denominations have nothing to do with the culture"? You've missed the point entirely. Texts can be understood in a range of different ways because it's a matter of interpretation. Adding on to that fact, the context of these texts in question do not align with the context of today with regards to language and culture, then you have a great degree of potential variation for interpretation. For example, I have a friend who studied biblical Hebrew at uni, and he came to see a great deal of humour in the bible (such as the Book of Jonah) which a typical English translation will not convey. He is a Christian, and he holds to the conclusion that the Book of Jonah is a fictional account, written for the purpose of providing a moral, but also to entertain.

                                              The vast majority of Christians may agree upon "core doctrines," but so what? People will always follow consensus as a general rule; that's not to say that everyone just goes along with what the mass is doing, but that is definitely a widespread observation - no matter whether if it's in a church or in a doctor's waiting room. I myself, in a previous time when I was a Christian, actually researched deeply into some of those teachings and came out completely convinced that they were largely wrong, from theology (Trinitarianism) to Christology (the hypostatic union claimed to be within Jesus) to hell.

                                              You've seen new believers pick up a bible and read a text that's already gone through one or more interpretations, and then they inevitably add their own on top of that. It's not the point on how easy they find understanding the translation, but rather the issue being if their understanding is actually true and accurate to the original intended meaning as the author(s) purposed.

                                              It is really that bad but you've probably been conditioned to see the bible as some kind of magic book that its "god" intended to preserve, along with helping translators and readers alike to understand its/his messages, so you are in this kind of place of naivety where you think you can just trust the translations on face-value. There's a lot more to be said on that but that's enough.

                                              • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 07:36

                                                @Jeffie: As for calling children fool. I did write I will use discipline as an analogy. I did not say the analogy is to call them fools.

                                                This is a really bad point. We do have expert in the language. If they believe one-word can't be translated by another English word. They can explain the language and culture differently for a better understanding. They rarely have to do it. It's more like once in a while their one word out of hundreds or thousands of words. To try to make this as a giant issue is ridiculous. And they can explain it. Even if I did not have access to them. I can still understand the vast majority.

                                                I watched a whole series by Tim Mackie (PhD in Hebrew) and others on Jonah . He studied Hebrew. I can go to other teachers who know Hebrews too.

                                                Yeah, sure the English will not convey. It's probably a completely different story in Hebrew. We have a world-leading expert doing the translation. Some translation having several experts working on it. From literal to dynamic translations. And somehow it can't convey to English. But it gets even better. I can read three languages. In all of them, It's the same story. My guess it does not convey to other languages too lol. And for some reason, the other two languages are different from English. But renders the story the same way. Ok, I'm convinced. Several leading expert in Hebrew, translating it to three languages. Using different translations methods. And it's the same story.

                                                I know many people who will go against the consensus if it's the truth. I for sure would. I don't know if others are just following the consensus or not. What I know, the vast majority believe in the core doctrines. And for me they are Christians.

                                                Truly new believers are much better than you. Like everything, new people will have to learn. They ask questions. But I can't recall them having a misunderstanding because of the culture. Honestly, you're imposing your inability to comprehend on others. It's truly not that complicated.

                                                I've read different translation from dynamic to literal translations. In different languages. Made by different experts. I listen to people who know Hebrew. The average people don't need to understand Hebrew to understand the Bible.

                                                You've been wasting my time with some really bad points. I did expect that. I could tell from the start you have no idea what you're talking about.

                                                Can you stop wasting my time with this bad argument?

                                              • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 08:41

                                                @Jeffie: I've already gave you an example where atheist come to a different conclusion while having access to the same information.

                                              • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 09:13

                                                @Jeffie: I'm realising it's probably you who thinks it's this massive issue. I'm around many Christians. I also listen to other people too. I listen to criticism and responds to those criticism. I'm interested in apologetic more than most Christians. The vast majority don't think it's a massive issue. Even the opponent of Christianity. It's rarely used. Strange since apparently, it's such a big issue. It's mostly used among layman. Even among layman, it's rare.

                                                • Jeffie on 12/12/2020 - 14:32

                                                  @gto21: Did I say there aren't experts? Of course there are. But is there truly a wealth of information that gives us solid confidence that we are interpreting the purpose of the texts correctly? That's debatable.

                                                  You can have as many experts as you like translating the story, but do any convey the humour I mentioned earlier? Without the humour, many believers like yourself are more likely to accept the story as literal truth. So, stuff like that does matter; I'm not saying that humour in a story necessarily renders it false but it can give weight to the idea that it is meant to entertain rather than provide an historical account.

                                                  Read as many translations as you like but none are from people who lived in that time and culture, so you're always getting a product that is tainted to some extent. The best you can argue is that this tainting is small, but you don't know how small. No one does.

                                                  How are new believers better than me? In respect to what?

                                                  I myself had to dig into the languages to realise that translations were, at times, erroneously biased towards Trinitarian theology. Translations are definitely a problem.

                                                  I don't recall making this point an argument. It was merely a talking point on the confidence we can place on the texts; this is somewhat a different matter to the original topic on the discussion of the existence of a god.

                                                  Why would I care about different people coming to different conclusions? If anything, that just highlights the issue of subjectivity and, again, we know that translations have a good amount of subjectivity to them.

                                                  I've actually been recently involved in an apologetics group on Facebook myself; just today I was raising issues concerning god's responsibility for all events, good and bad.

                                                  • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 19:09

                                                    @Jeffie: Read this slowly maybe you did not get it. - I've watched a whole series on Johan by Tim Mackie who has a PhD in Hebrew.

                                                    Do you get it now?

                                                    He usually brings up the Hebrew when necessary. And a lot of people I listen to knows Hebrew.

                                                    I know you think you have a point. But you don't.

                                                    Maybe I forgot to mention. Some translations have a different expert working on it from a different denomination. So as it reduces the issue of the translation being subjective.

                                                    I'm not saying this to put you down. But you're using a truly bad argument. And if you are honest you would stop using bad arguments.

                                                    From what I can hear from you. You don't have the knowledge to criticize WLC works. You will need at least 4 years full time study. And that me being generous. You probably need more than that.

                                                    • Jeffie on 12/12/2020 - 19:29

                                                      @gto21: You watched one series from one academic? Is that expert from the time and culture of the texts he studied? There's probably no doubt he has plenty of knowledge, but what we know is always going to be imperfect. Knowing Hebrew to this or that extent isn't going to tell you the correct intent and purpose of a text, e.g. whether it serves as literal history or as a fictional story that provides a moral.

                                                      Your insistence that I don't have a point is just that; you're not going to change anything by repeating yourself again. It's already a fact that we far removed from that time and culture, and that any insight we have is incomplete and tainted with our own perceptions and culture.

                                                      Most translations would be provided by scholars who hold to those "core" doctrines you mentioned before; it would be controversial or scandalous for a translation to hit the shelves knowing that it could be "tainted" by an "anti-Trinitarian" agenda or some such. The bias is definitely there for certain cherished beliefs (such as the trinity), and you merely insisting that subjectivity is not an issue isn't going to make what I know disappear.

                                                      And I already stated that this is not an argument. I'm not using the point to dismiss the existence of a god.

                                                      And all that doesn't tell you squat about whether or not I can criticise WLC's arguments, but I do know your claim that you need "4 years full time study" to dismiss his position as nonsense is absolutely laughable.

                                                      • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 20:06

                                                        @Jeffie: Dude most people I listen to knows Hebrew. In real life and online. It's not one expert.

                                                        If you want someone who will be up Hebrew. He is one that I will recommend.

                                                        I did not even complain when you mention your "one friend". That was enough evidence for you. But now your complaining of me mentioning one expert. You don't know what to say anymore. Any excuse is good for you.

                                                        He also brings up time and cultural differences when necessary. Stop criticising people work when you did not even listen to him.

                                                        We have archeologist, historian, scholars to help us understand everything we need. We have biblical and non-biblical resources from Christians and non-Christians. To understand everything we need. The vast majority of time we don't even need them.

                                                        I never met anyone arguing for a really bad argument for so long.

                                                        I thought you're probably the one making the worst argument on ozbargain. But a guy last year might have done slightly worst than you.

                                                        You need to drop this argument. I can think of two reasons why you might use it. 1) You are a layman and don't know better. Or 2) You don't care about the truth. Which one?

                                                        I think option one is better, it's more likely your honest but just not knowledgeable on the topic. Which you can fix if you're humble yourself.

                                                  • gto21 on 12/12/2020 - 19:12

                                                    @Jeffie: Any way anyone can read the book and look up Tim Mackie. They can see for themselve it's not that complex.

    • cnut on 10/12/2020 - 16:04

      What a load of pseudo philosophical bull most of that was.

      • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 16:47

        Yes especially when they quote agnostic/atheist scientists and philosophers. Some considered among the best in their field. And quoting 2 or 3 of them to hammer in the point. I guess it just not good enough for some of the scientist and philosopher on ozbargain.

    • bargaino on 10/12/2020 - 17:56
      +2

      The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

      The earth appears to be fine-tuned for life, but that is easily explained by the anthropic principle.

      Anyway, this is just creationism, same as "intelligent design" . Even if we do one day find real evidence for design, like a signature in our DNA or a 3-billion-year-old rock, it
      tells us nothing of which of the hundreds of religions, or dozens of conflicting interpretations within any major religion, got it right.

      Which God do we worship, if any? The "creator" could as likely be two alien grad students pulling a prank, as an omniscient old man in a beard.

  • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 10:51
    -4

    FAQ: Who Created God?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWiEVNqKhRc

  • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 10:52
    -1

    FAQ: What is your response to the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU

    • dscott85 on 10/12/2020 - 10:56
      +4

      Blessed are the cheesemakers.

      • Andard on 10/12/2020 - 11:14
        +1

        I WAS GOING TO BE A CHEESEMAKER

  • gto21 on 10/12/2020 - 10:54
    -3

    FAQ: The Problem of Suffering and Evil

    The Logical Problem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM&t=57s

    The Probability Version
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4

  • xoom on 10/12/2020 - 10:54
    +3

    Rather get the other deal with the Bluetooth speaker.

    • Cousin IT on 10/12/2020 - 13:45

      Thers's also the free Rastaman deal

  • Laserface on 10/12/2020 - 10:54
    +2

    Hail Satan, Worship Doom.

  • screensaver on 10/12/2020 - 10:55
    +2

    As we are about to celebrate Christmas, please remember what that means, the Birth Of Christ.

    • the-fuzz on 10/12/2020 - 10:59
      +5

      A celebration of old pagan traditions?

      • screensaver on 10/12/2020 - 11:02

        No of living God, I am sure he gets a great joy looking at all the twinkling lights

    • Ohreally on 10/12/2020 - 11:07
      +2

      Trust me- I am not a Caucasian. When I moved to Australia 12 years ago, I was surprised to see and hear people who didn’t know the meaning of Christmas and Easter. Even Christmas was fine but Easter oh my goodness! One fellow said may be it’s a day for rabbits lol. But hey they celebrate it… But on the other side of the world in 2 different countries (one is a democracy one is a monarchy) where I was born and raised I would be killed/imprisoned/beaten for saying anything like this. It’s ridiculous.
      People have a choice and that needs to be respected.
      Buthere in Straya, you can tell anything but hate everything except sending kids to Christian schools. I always wonder why atheists don’t attack other religions. Well I don’t attack anyone as there is No need to abuse or criticise anyone for their belief it’s their right.

      • payton on 10/12/2020 - 11:30
        +3

        atheists don’t attack other religions.

        wrong - check out the comment section of any deal posts about religion.
        I like how you worded it as 'other' religions

    • bargaino on 10/12/2020 - 17:58
      +4

      please remember what that means, the Birth Of Christ.

      A common error. Christ's name was attached to the event, but it long predates the Judean preacher.
      We have no record of the date of his birth. The tradition is actually based on the solstice.

      But yes, the nativity is one of the many traditions around the Yule feast. Even for non-Christians, the carols and religious iconography are part of our culture.
      Just like decorated trees and flying reindeer.

  • nick90 on 10/12/2020 - 10:55
    +5

    If people don't like the deal, they don't have to go for it.

  • screensaver on 10/12/2020 - 10:56

    Wise Men Still Seek Him

    • belongsinforums on 10/12/2020 - 10:59

      sounds pretty queer to me (which the bible explicitly states is a sin punishable by death)

      • screensaver on 10/12/2020 - 11:00

        Thats the Old law until Jesus came to save sins or perceived sins

        • belongsinforums on 10/12/2020 - 11:56
          +1

          Yet the church continues to openly discriminate against gays and women.

          • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 10:05
            +2

            @belongsinforums: The church has a hierarchy system just like society. While different role and responsibility do not make one superior or inferior in nature and essence. We all have a different role and responsibility in society too. Every sin is punishable by death. Whether you are straight, gay or whatever.

            Do you discriminate against bestiality or are you for it?

            • belongsinforums on 11/12/2020 - 12:23

              @gto21:

              Every sin is punishable by death

              Have a nice day.

              • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 12:39

                @belongsinforums: I guess I won't get an answer to my question. Someone discriminate by his own standard. Or is into for some weird stuff.

                Enjoy your day too.

          • inasero on 11/12/2020 - 13:00

            @belongsinforums: It's a matter of perspective. How is it discrimination to point out certain lifestyle choices will lead to eternal damnation? The analogy to me is if someone is teetering off the edge of a cliff, would you not put up huge warning signs to warn them to stay well clear from the edge? How much more so then do we have a responsibility as Christians to warn people, when the consequences are far more serious then physical death (eternal damnation of their souls). To not do so would be the inexcusable act of indifference.

            Many people like to point out Christian opposition to homosexuality as if that's the only thing that matters to them and that they have an agenda to persecute homosexuals - it's not, and we don't (or shouldn't).

            By the way, the warning applies to all sins equally…not just homosexuality. Even ones we might consider relatively benign like lying or coveting (and who hasn't been guilty of those?). As Christians we believe that we're all equally deserving of judgment for our sins, the only difference being that we believe Jesus has paid the due punishment for our sins by his sacrifice on the cross.

            • belongsinforums on 11/12/2020 - 14:31

              @inasero: That's like saying we can't form attachments because that leads to the dark side. You're speaking as if hell is real and not a fantasy.

              • inasero on 11/12/2020 - 14:41

                @belongsinforums: I can understand why people aren't concerned about sins if they don't believe in the concept of Hell, I'm just laying it out there as to why Christians are opposed to what they consider the sin of homosexuality (among others), and speak out against gay marriage, and take it so seriously, whereas people who aren't Christian don't see what the big fuss is about and may see it merely as a preference or lifestyle choice, without eternal consequences

                • screensaver on 11/12/2020 - 15:27

                  @inasero: Wrong, it is not a choice at ll, it is a biologically programmed preference so a loving God cannot expect that person to live without a loving relationship and nor should you

                  • inasero on 11/12/2020 - 18:47

                    @screensaver: The Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality is a sin, rather than a biologically programmed preference. Romans 1 says:

                    "Because of this (worshipping the creation rather than the Creator), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

                    Now why would Paul refer to it as "shameful" and an "error" if it were a normal preference? God has ordained that marriage be between one man and one woman, at the exclusion of all other, voluntarily entered into for life. This is part of the natural order and His good purpose in creation. I know it's not politically correct to hold to these views in this day and age, but to teach otherwise is to encourage heresy and lead others down a pathway of eternal damnation.

                    • screensaver on 11/12/2020 - 19:08

                      @inasero: BS they are born like that so God created them like that. If God doesnt like it them why doesnt he change his biological programming.
                      It is biology so they are not sinners and doesnt that part of the Bible say having a tattoo is a capital offence too?
                      Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, and if its an error of nature its a very common one. You should be ashamed for not realising they are born like that and do not have a choice, so they are not sinning and therefore shouldnt have to worry. You are taking a superior attitude, when OBVIOUSLY they have to live their life with the cards they are dealt with. And dont deserve to have a cross to bear.

                • belongsinforums on 11/12/2020 - 15:42

                  @inasero: I was brainwashed enough at Catholic school. I'm well aware of the teachings of Christianity.

        • bargaino on 10/12/2020 - 18:05

          Matthew 5:17
          “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

          • screensaver on 10/12/2020 - 18:07

            @bargaino: He had to say that to be diplomatic, the Jewish elders were too powefful, he was the outsider, saying he was the promised messiah

            • bargaino on 10/12/2020 - 18:14
              +2

              @screensaver: Who knows if he even said that? The gospel was written anonymously, many decades after Jesus died, from fourth, fifth, tenth-hand accounts.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

              • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 10:15

                @bargaino: Is the NT too late to be reliable? Interestingly he quotes Bart Ehrman an atheist/agnostic scholar who admits we have creeds dating back to the time of Jesus. If not months or a few year's later. In the time of the eyewitness.

                https://youtu.be/7kcufpHq-gs

                • bargaino on 11/12/2020 - 10:53

                  @gto21: Linking to youtube videos does not help your cause. You might as well be writing in crayon.

                  Try a more respectable, and less tedious source. Even wikipedia will do.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

                  Scholars mostly agree that Jesus existed, unlike Moses or Adam & Eve who were mythical figures.

                  This language "atheist scholar who admits" is somewhat emotional and confrontational. For a real academic, their faith should make no difference.
                  Any bible scholar influenced by faith is worthless, but plenty of scientists do seem to be able to compartmentalise those parts of their lives.
                  The Big Bang theory was originated by a Catholic priest, who clearly had no trouble ignoring bible as authority (Genesis) when it came to his science.

                  • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 11:09

                    @bargaino: Sharing scholars answering the question does not make my case. But sharing the Wikipedia article makes your case. That makes a lot of sense.

                    It's not an emotional appeal. What Bart Ehrman says does not have much significance for me. If I'm addressing Atheist/agnostic I might use him. For example, If you are a Muslim. I might address your questions differently. For example one line of argument I would say your hadith are 100s of years later. So it depends on your worldview.

                    And it's sometimes good to quote unbelievers. Since some people, if you quote Christians they will automatically reject the source. I actually agree with you. I can quote Christian alone to make my case. It actually makes it even easier for me.

                    There are Christians who believe in the big bang without ignoring Genesis. Some of them will tell you they know who 'bang' it.

              • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 10:37

                @bargaino: Does Gospels contain eyewitness testimony? https://youtu.be/jCD9aHxSN_Q

              • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 10:51

                @bargaino: Who wrote the gospels?

                https://youtu.be/DHo_TuWqIcQ

                • bargaino on 11/12/2020 - 11:10
                  +1

                  @gto21: Please STOP the youtube video links. Nobody is following them.

                  Nobody having a serious argument does that, only internet crazies like conspiracy theorists.
                  Who would sit through a slow sermon, only to find at the end, a bunch of claims that were never supported. And how can anyone critique it?

                  Good arguments are always made by text, that can be skimmed, quoted and questioned. Just linking to videos makes one look foolish.

                  Surely you can find some decent written sources?
                  What do you think of the wikipedia articles on the subject? They, and the details have been subject to review by people from many perspectives, Christian or not.

                  • gto21 on 11/12/2020 - 11:40

                    @bargaino: It's the same arguments you can find written on a different website.

                    So if a scholar used words and is recorded. They are bad arguments. What if it's the same scholars who write it down? Suddenly it's good arguments because it's written?

                    Do you realise they have books, websites and peer-reviewed journals?

                    If you can't criticise when someone is speaking. I wonder why people debate in person. Maybe they have a supernatural ability.

                    I wonder how some people can do video response to a video. When it is so hard to criticise?

                    Since you ask for my opinion. Wikipedia has a history of being unreliable. They change things to be more reliable. Due to their past issues, I still don't trust them.

  • RubenM on 10/12/2020 - 10:58
    +2

    Religion only exists for two reasons:

    1) trying to explain the unknown. "What's thunder? I can't explain it!" "Oh, don't worry about that one, god did that!"

    2) trying to cheat death. Death is scary, so why not make up a fairytale that says that you don't "really" die?

    I believe that the world would be a better place without religion. While religious originations undoubtedly do some positive work, I think the harm by far outweighs its benefit. This might have been different in the Roman empire, as christianity helped to ban slavery et al, but today, I think it's overwhelmingly negative.

    • izequel on 10/12/2020 - 10:59
      +1

      or it's true

      • RubenM on 10/12/2020 - 11:02
        +4

        And maybe invisible pink unicorns exist!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join