Jack Chick is the man!

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
LOL

An excellent cartoon. Had me in stitches. 😏

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You have yet to present any evidence for your assertions.

Think outside the box, or at least for yourself once in a while, Hammy. Sometimes, circumstantial evidence and character reference are enough to convict. Is Eusebius not responsible for the "discovery" of the purported textual mentions of those gospels by your church fathers?

Ch. 31, bk., xii. of EUSEBIUS Prae paratio Evangelica is entitled. "HOW FAR IT MAY BE PROPER TO USE FALSEHOOD AS A MEDIUM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO REQUIRE TO BE DECEIVED" (emphasis mine, but probably his, too).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
People love human view point.

Not even once, earlier in your youth, eh?

Correct. I was lucky enough to have escaped any early childhood indoctrination. Once I was old enough to care or not, I was able to critically assess the claims of the Christian bible without the unfortunate automatic hindbrain/Pavlovian response that so many christians and ex-christians exhibit.

Coping mechanisms. Do tell.

You seem bright enough to understand what I mean. For any lurkers who might not, coping means "dealing with tough questions about life". Why are we here, what happens to us after we die, why does evil exist in the hearts of some? These, of course, are not uniquely answered by Christianity, nor was Christianity the first to address them. Do you believe in Odin? Zeus? Osiris/Horus/Isis? Allah? Mithras the Redeemer? If the answer is no, then I simply believe in one less "god" than you.

Originally posted by David C
Think outside the box, or at least for yourself once in a while, Hammy. Sometimes, circumstantial evidence and character reference are enough to convict. Is Eusebius not responsible for the "discovery" of the purported textual mentions of those gospels by your church fathers?

Ch. 31, bk., xii. of EUSEBIUS Prae paratio Evangelica is entitled. [b]"HOW FAR I ...[text shortened]... THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO REQUIRE TO BE DECEIVED" (emphasis mine, but probably his, too).[/b]

Is Eusebius responsible for the discovery of the mentions of the Gospels by Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.? Where's your evidence?

Given what we know of the way early Christian literature was written, it's quite unlikely Eusebius separated his writings into chapters and, therefore, chapter headings like the one you've cited were probably inserted by modern translators. In any case, the entirety of Chapter XXXI goes:

[PLATO] 'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm#100

In fact, the preface to the online edition says:

The Praeparatio is perhaps best known from a narrow-minded attempt by Edward Gibbon in his Vindication to use it to 'prove' that Eusebius advocated deceit. The smear needs little discussion here. While Gibbon would like us to believe that Eusebius is really saying in book 12, chapter 31 that the bible is a lie so deceit is fine, some will feel that instead that it is simply part of his theme that the bible contains narrative fiction in order to get conceptually difficult truths into the uneducated.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_00_eintro.htm

The so-called permission to use falsehood is a verbatim quote from Plato. There's also a nice analysis of popular myths about Eusebius here (it's a skeptics' forum):
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-7583-0.html


Thinking outside the box and fanciful thinking are not the same thing.

Originally posted by David C
I was lucky enough to have escaped any early childhood indoctrination.

Don't be so sure. You don't need to be pro-Christianity to be indoctrinated.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Don't be so sure. You don't need to be pro-Christianity to be indoctrinated.

Are you saying I've been indoctrinated by the evil forces of Naturalists, Evolutionists and Christ-deniers?

Originally posted by David C
Are you saying I've been indoctrinated by the evil forces of Naturalists, Evolutionists and Christ-deniers?

You're in a better position than I am to answer that question. What are your own Pavlovian responses to the claims of the Bible?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're in a better position than I am to answer that question. What are your own Pavlovian responses to the claims of the Bible?

As I mentioned in my reply to Freaky, mild interest in the psychological phenomenon. Will I be included in the list of perverse secular humanists now?

Originally posted by David C
As I mentioned in my reply to Freaky, mild interest in the psychological phenomenon. Will I be included in the list of perverse secular humanists now?

Given the vehemence of your posts on this forum, I find it doubtful that "mild interest in the psychological phenomenon" is your response.

As to your second question, do you consider yourself a perverse secular humanist?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Given the vehemence of your posts on this forum, I find it doubtful that "mild interest in the psychological phenomenon" is your response.

My "vehemence" in this forum is only representative of my response to the discourse in this forum.

do you consider yourself a perverse secular humanist?

No. Now answer the question.

Originally posted by David C


Correct. I was lucky enough to have escaped any early childhood indoctrination. Once I was old enough to care or not, I was able to critically assess the claims of the Christian bible without the unfortunate automatic hindbrain/Pavlovian response that so many christians and ex-christians exhibit.

[b]Coping mechanisms. Do tell.

You seem bright ...[text shortened]... Mithras the Redeemer? If the answer is no, then I simply believe in one less "god" than you.[/b]

I was able to critically assess the claims of the Christian bible without the unfortunate automatic hindbrain/Pavlovian response that so many christians and ex-christians exhibit.
In the broadest, most generalizing way, of course. Although I think perhaps your analogy of Pavlov's dog may be either misplaced or merely half-thought. As you recall, the dog salivated at the expectation of something real, not imaginary.

You seem bright enough to understand what I mean.
Apparently you are not lumping me in with those pesky hindbrainers. Thanks, I think.

"dealing with tough questions about life".
In my thinking, those are the easy questions, but I'll bite, nonetheless: how do you tackle them?

Originally posted by David C
[b]Given the vehemence of your posts on this forum, I find it doubtful that "mild interest in the psychological phenomenon" is your response.

My "vehemence" in this forum is only representative of my response to the discourse in this forum.

do you consider yourself a perverse secular humanist?

No. Now answer the question.[/b]

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me for answers when you've yet to answer my earlier questions?

Since I know virtually nothing about you, I can't include you on my "perverse secular humanist" list yet.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me for answers when you've yet to answer my earlier questions?

Since I know virtually nothing about you, I can't include you on my "perverse secular humanist" list yet.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me for answers when you've yet to answer my earlier questions?

You'd know best, smarmy. I suppose the reference is to my "proof" of Eusebius' complicity in the farce of the NT at Nicea, right? Wish I had more for you, but this author is on the track:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Since I know virtually nothing about you, I can't include you on my "perverse secular humanist" list yet

...thereby admitting such a list exists. Wouldn't the dearly departed Ivanhoe be proud!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In the broadest, most generalizing way, of course.[/b]

As you recall, the dog salivated at the expectation of something real, not imaginary.

Are you saying the promises of the NT are not real, but imaginary? Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Thanks, I think.

You're welcome, I guess.

nonetheless: how do you tackle them?

Realistically.

Originally posted by David C
[b]Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me for answers when you've yet to answer my earlier questions?

You'd know best, smarmy. I suppose the reference is to my "proof" of Eusebius' complicity in the farce of the NT at Nicea, right? Wish I had more for you, but this author is on the track:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Sinc ...[text shortened]... thereby admitting such a list exists. Wouldn't the dearly departed Ivanhoe be proud![/b]

Actually, it doesn't mean such a list exists - just that it can be constructed. In classical DBMS terminology, it exists as a 'view' and not a 'table'.

The site you've cited uses the same old rehash of Gibbon's argument to question Eusebius's integrity (an argument that has been refuted many times and one that even your informed fellow-skeptics won't touch with a barge-pole these days). The other pages don't open up, but I can see the author intends to go along the lines of "Since Eusebius was dishonest, he very well could have made the NT up...". Disagree?