Victims Silenced

[trencacloscas]

As said before, Christians have poisoned the debate about religion by passing off the concept that religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems. But what about the people that was infected with this hellish doctrine, harassed with its symbols, pestered with the absurd and dogmatism from the very cradle?

Most ex-Christians who just want to express their opinion on the subject plainly, and intend to expose forward the nonsense of this religion from their personal experience, are often diminished and censored on the basis that they offend religious people. Like Jews would offend nazis for attacking nazi's doctrine, right?

Lots of people chastised, their natural instincs abnormally refrained, their guilt excited beyond the limits of paranoia, their hunger for knowledge, curiosity or study denied, and the big etcetera...

So, where is exactly the breaking point? Why the "politically correct" tag goes always against victims? Should victims of Christianity be allowed any extra rights to react towards their executioner religion?

[trencacloscas]

As I'm new in the forum, probably there is a thread about these subjects opened before. Just to keep an order with the topic, I mean, or to move the discussion to a more suitable one.

Actually, the fact that there are multiple texts IS important, extremely important. An information scientist or expert in ancient documents, be they Christian or non-Christian, will tell you so.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote before. It doesn't matter how many documents you have if all of them are copies of the same original in a later stance. After the canon in the Concilium Nicaenum, for instance, the number of copies is not an important factor. The previous ones gain in order of importance when they are organic. Check this link for a full scope: http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch1.htm and mark the end lines: "The earliest MSS. we possess, apart from a few papyrus fragments, are separated by a matter of two and a half centuries from the authors' original."

Oh, t! I'm so disappointed in you! You didn't even bother to read any of the information at those links I posted. And I bet you aren't going to bother looking for the books I recommended either, are you? I provided sources of information that attests to the fact that claims about authorship are valid and reliable.

I beg you to take it easy. I'm not affirming Jesus never existed or that the whole matter in the Gospels is a fraud. I'm just skeptical about what Christian pretend these books to be. Since priests had the means, the motive and the occasion to forge and fabricate, suspicions of fraud are high in many areas. You never explored things under that light, did you? There were plenty of Gospels going around during the first two centuries, why did they take those four? The point we were discussing is if we can establish if there were actually eyewitnesses to Jesus life; well, the evidence I have until now is not enough, at least to me. I'm still searching, though.

There is NO proof that these books did not come from the sources to which they have been attributed.

Once again, and again, and again. The proof is on the believer. If proof is solid, I take it.

As for Paul not knowing Jesus personally, he knew him the way that I know him and millions of Christians have know him -- through his revelation of himself to us. Let's not forget Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.

Purely delusional. Anybody could write a Gospel or a testimony with those elements.

Does the fact that my sister tells me about an experience with somebody I have never met make her experience invalid? Does it make her experience a lie? If I know my sister to be a trustworthy person, then I have no reason to doubt her.

If she says she met an eight-armed E.T. or Peter Pan, would you still believe her?

My beliefs have nothing to do with wishful thinking.

I don't know about your beliefs. I just mentioned your research.

As for your statement that I am declaring indirectly that my research is conditioned by quoting the Bible

I never said such thing. You mentioned "hold on to what is good". And you relate good to God. Then you are conditioned in your research by that prejudice.

Can you honestly say that you are not conditioned by anything? Because, from where I sit, it looks like you have bought the atheistic lie hook, line and sinker. You have been conditioned to believe that God and the Bible are invalid. And yet you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Nor can you prove that the Bible is not reliable.

And again... I don't need to prove anything because I'm not affirming anything here, just doubting about what's presented. But, anyway, all of us are conditioned by something, me too, surely. But I've been on both sides of the river at least. From where I sit, it looks like you have bought the religious lie hook, line and sinker.

Bear in mind that all kinds of people become Christians from all kinds of backgrounds -- atheism, Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, etc. In other words, you can't dismiss all Christians as people who have been conditioned to believe what the Bible says. Many people have been conditioned in entirely different worldviews and yet come to Christ. How do you explain them?

Oh, yeah, and the number of converts is astronomical maybe... Do you have all the records? How many Christians became atheists, islamists, wiccan or just plainly indifferent? Of course anybody is able to overcome education and environment, but that's the less common move so far.