@suzianne saidPointing out that chaney3 has sometimes said he is a Christian and always has been, and sometimes has said he isn't a Christian and never has been, is not "spin". You are using the word incorrectly.
You do know what 'spin' is, I assume?
One of FMF's nicer nicknames is 'spinmaster'.
13 Jul 19
@fmf saidHowever, when I use it to describe your subjective 'spin' on his motivations, which you cannot know, yes, I am using it correctly.
Pointing out that chaney3 has sometimes said he is a Christian and always has been, and sometimes has said he isn't a Christian and never has been, is not "spin". You are using the word incorrectly.
You are aspiring to create a detrimental picture of him in the reader's 'mind's eye'.
This IS 'spin'.
@suzianne saidBy "subjective spin" you presumably mean "opinion". My opinion about his motivations is based on what he posts and things he has explicitly revealed about his motivations, especially when he was drunk. Do you ever talk about the "motivations, which you cannot know" of your fellow posters?
However, when I use it to describe your subjective 'spin' on his motivations, which you cannot know, yes, I am using it correctly.
@suzianne saidWould that be the same “spin” as when you accuse posters of whom you don’t approve, of destroying this website and the other paranoid lunacy which you come out with periodically?
However, when I use it to describe your subjective 'spin' on his motivations, which you cannot know, yes, I am using it correctly.
You are aspiring to create a detrimental picture of him in the reader's 'mind's eye'.
This IS 'spin'.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@suzianne saidAren't you doing exactly the same thing?
However, when I use it to describe your subjective 'spin' on his motivations, which you cannot know, yes, I am using it correctly.
You are aspiring to create a detrimental picture of him in the reader's 'mind's eye'.
This IS 'spin'.
I'll form my own opinions, thank you.
13 Jul 19
2 edits
@chaney3 saidI don't know of any serious historian that doubts whether Jesus existed.
I'm asking why Jesus exists to Christians, if the only requirement is to believe what the bible says.
In fact, all religions seem to say he was a man of God and all people who are not religious seem to think he was a wonderfully moral and upright human being.
What is amazing is that all religions assume this. I don't know of any man like him.
Do you?
13 Jul 19
@whodey saidYou should look into it. It's a very interesting subject. Your ignorance or lack of interest in the matter is not evidence of anything other than what it so often needed for people to keep their heads down and stick to whatever their beliefs are and not subject them to scrutiny.
I don't know of any serious historian that doubts whether Jesus existed.
13 Jul 19
@caissad4 saidIf you wish to discredit writers such as Josephus, who was not a Christian and wrote of Jesus, then so be it.,
I believe that Richard Carrier is the only person who has written on the historicity of Jesus which has PASSED peer review.
Of course, Christians don't like it.
Or do you question the existence of Josephus?
But you have an even bigger problem. What to do with the teachings that seem to be universally accepted among the religious and nonreligious?
@whodey saidJospehus wrote about there being Christians and about what Christians believed - he is not a historian who was able to write about Jesus. Gosh, don't you know this? He was born after Jesus died. He wrote his history about 60 years after the Romans executed him. He almost certainly never met anyone who could credibly claim to have met Jesus. You obviously have not looked into this at all and are just trotting out a kind of self-serving mischaracterization of what Josephus' writing "proves".
If you wish to discredit writers such as Josephus, who was not a Christian and wrote of Jesus, then so be it.,
Or do you question the existence of Josephus?
13 Jul 19
@whodey saidThere's no reason to believe that Golden Rule stuff is unique to Christianity. It probably started to develop 200,000 or so years ago. Maybe more, maybe less. The success of Christianity is probably down to its reliance on Golden Rule stuff. And it's certainly disingenuous of you to suggest that "nonreligious" have "universally accepted" any of the divine being and supernatural stuff that is a key part of Christianity's teachings.
What to do with the teachings that seem to be universally accepted among the religious and nonreligious?
13 Jul 19
2 edits
@fmf saidSo essentially you are saying that Josephus wrote about a fictitious man? What contemporary challenged his assertions as fictitious?
Jospehus wrote about there being Christians and about what Christians believed - he is not a historian who was able to write about Jesus. Gosh, don't you know this? He was born after Jesus died. He wrote his history about 60 years after the Romans executed him. He almost certainly never met anyone who could credibly claim to have met Jesus. You obviously have not looked into this ...[text shortened]... are just trotting out a kind of self-serving mischaracterization of what Josephus' writing "proves".
What other fictitious men did he write about?
Was Mohammad made up as well?
@fmf saidThe moral uprightness of Christ is flawless by all measures.
There's no reason to believe that Golden Rule stuff is unique to Christianity. It probably started to develop 200,000 or so years ago. Maybe more, maybe less. The success of Christianity is probably down to its reliance on Golden Rule stuff. And it's certainly disingenuous of you to suggest that "nonreligious" have "universally accepted" any of the divine being and supernatural stuff that is a key part of Christianity's teachings.
Prove me wrong.
Come on now. Get out those spikes and cross and start all over again.