Ezekiel contradicts God's other Word Exodus 20:4-6 - the third commandment of the 10 commandments “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am God, fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Ezekiel is one wacky book and I put it near the top of Bible books that will turn you into an atheist.

The whole thing of jesus being the sacrifical lamb is immoral and not logical. Spilling innocent blood so an evil man can live is plain dumb. It comes from primitive, superstitious pagan religions who didn't understand the causes of disease or natural disasters. In this way christianity is just another pagan religion. Even when I was a christian I was uneasy with this concept. It is just a way to make you feel bad about yourself. I have witnessed people crying because poor jesus had a bad weekend for them. I have heard analogies of this supposed sacrifice but they always seemed weak to me.
Now for those trinitarians out there it is even worse. If you want something done right you got to do it yourself. IOW humans to god are less than useless. He creates us defective so that we will fail him. And when we do he is super pissed at us throwing out more rules we cannot keep, meanwhile commanding our death with lots of prolonged pain and suffering. But instead of being a man about it and forgives us and gentlely help his fragile creation, he decides he must commit suicide because we are just that useless.

Immoral, illogical, demeaning, pointless. We really weren't necessary at all for his masterbatory plan of salvation, just pawns in his game.

Besides being good production, Christ's crucifixion is also a historical fact.

I am going to have to agree with Anony. I don't  see it is an historical fact. The only "legit" documents are in the new testament and they were clearly written decades after the fact. That would not really hold up well in a court of law. It was oral tradition built up over years. If you do have anything contrary to this please present.

I am working through an interesting video now by TruthSurge. He studies "Did the resurrection happen"? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmeDfsv4j8

Yes.

But I do also know that the way people talk about God reminds me of those cartoons for 3 year old children. Extremely naive.

The Bible is this kind of fairy tale.

LOL. The old bait and switch trick. 

Yeah, Mouse pretty well beat the hell out of him in those other two 'Atheist belief' threads.  He also pointed out that he was most likely two different guys-as one seemed to not be able to figure out the quote function???

I'm usually on the lookout for such vermin, but he slid one past me. I don't even think Extreme caught it after a lengthy debate.  Way to go Mouse!

Ex

Well put.

Regards

DL

Only if you believe in the resurrection. Miracles IOW.

If it did happen, one wonders why none of the 4 main gospels speak of such a fantastic occurrence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

Regards
DL

Have a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

Regards
DL

                  Thank you ex-minister for the great link.  I just spent the whole day watching the videos and cross referencing the info with other sources. The information is highly accurate and very informative ;  I recomend it to everyone ,  theist and atheists alike..  

                       Thanks again ex-minister.

"Good production" was a quote from another post above mine. I believe that post meant to suggest that Jesus' death was a good story used for dramatic effect. 

Regarding the "actual Jesus": I'm taking that to mean the historical person of Jesus, apart from claims about his divinity. The existence of the person of Jesus is one of the best attested facts in history, and is held by virtually all historians and scholars of that period. As an example of two such authorities, take Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman—neither of whom are religious, let alone Christian.

                  Sorry to inform you that Jesus was a fictional charactor, the name itself is  not even a name, it is a title "God's savior annointed" . There were meny 'mystical cults' around the middle east at the time;  David FitzGerald haas done a fine book on the subject.  Because they were 'Mystical' there was no real name for the mystical messiah. Messiah Yuoshua in Hebrew, Eyushia Messiah in Aramaic, Jesu Cristos in Greek or Jesus Christ in Latin.                   Evidence for this is in the bible. Try Matt. 5:1-5  versus Matt. 10:34-39.  In Matt.5 the Jesus chractor sounds like Mr.Rogers the childrens show host in Matt. 10 the charactor sounds like Mr.T. In parts of the bible he is a wine drinker, in other parts he is a Nazarene [a non-drinking sect of Judaism]. btw when J.C. turns water into wine that is a direct steal from the gods Baccus and Dyonisis. The gospell writers were borrowing from several sources including Homer and each other.                  In short there is no real person Jesus christ, the charactor is a mish-mash  composit from several sources,  some of the sources may have been real itinerent preachers but none of them would have been a REAL Jesus.

 Wow, this forum. I initially looked forward to some legitimate clear debate. However, I'm now convinced this forum does any atheist cause more harm than good. 

David Fitzgerald? Are you kidding me? Regardless of what the utterly unqualified David Fitzgerald says, and while the Gospels may well be tampered with political documents, the evidence of the historical person of Jesus is overwhelmingly accepted by historians and scholars.

Apart from Christian sources, there are Greco-Roman Pagan and Jewish sources. Even as far as Christian sources go, by any proper non-conspiracist standard for writing history, they seem to indicate Jesus did, in fact, live. For example, take Paul's acknowledgment that preaching the cross is foolishness. The early Christians had nothing to gain by preaching that Christ was crucified. Crucifixion was a most shameful death, and they were mocked for proclaiming that a crucified man was the Messiah, as they had to have known they would be. 

Jeffrick, you clearly have not read any of Ehrman's books, because in his books he makes many points like the above, that they would have been fools to invent a crucified messiah. Another such example from Ehrman is that the early Christians would have been fools to rely on a woman/women's testimony. If they were making it up, Ehrman points out, that was really not the way to go if they hoped to convince. 

Anyway, carry on with this circle jerk, but don't delude yourself into believing that you are doing any serious inquiry. You're as confused as any theist I've ever met, that's for sure. Peaceeeee out.

LOL

Jeffreyalex,
If jesus had only died it would be foolish, but he rose from the dead and was god, all-powerful and at the right hand of god. Ask anything in his name and you will receive it. Also the non-jewish world already believed in gods dying and being resurrected (horus, orisis and others).
So this argument that even Erhman makes is weak. This argument works only for believers.
The jewish historian you speak of was josephus who was born 4 years after jesus death and again didn't write til decades later. He was only repeating the story. His famous quote is that of a believer and even Erhman suspects it was added later. As far as the pagan authors they were not eye witnesses and write minor asides about christians who followed someone called christ. If you want to persue this more we can take historian by historian and make their best case. My investigation in the past has left me with jesus could have been an itinerate preacher but he could also have been a composite picture of the many messiahs during roman rule.
Just because people believe something and are willing to die for it doesnt make it true, e.g. 9/11. There are too many religious fables that believers have given their lives for for all religions to be true.

Well put Brian. 

What I meant in saying that it does more harm than good is that people, should they stumble on this forum, and browse through it, will find exactly the same zealotry that would be expected of a fundie nutbag. They will find amateur historians, and folks who think they know some science. They will not find sophisticated dialogue or debate. They will find foot-stomping and sophistry.

I will briefly mention two examples. One, the claim that there is poor evidence for the historical person Jesus. That's true, IF you're applying the same standard of evidence as you would apply to someone who existed 10 years ago. To say not simply that "maybe he didn't exist", but that he certainly did not exist or more than likely did not exist is to perpetrate a fraud and disregard the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of history, held on the basis of evidence they are most qualified to weigh. 

Two, I suggested that the new atheism is irrational by the criteria it, itself, sets for rationality—namely, evidence. 

1) It is irrational to believe a proposition P without evidence.

2) There is no evidence for the proposition "There is no God".

3) Therefore, it is irrational to hold the belief "There is no God".

That is a deductively valid argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. But holy mackerel, the responses. 

Actually let me mention, three: I brought up the teleological argument, to receive a response that told me how I would need to do the math if I really wanted to use it. That person had no trouble sounding smart, but if he had known the math he would not have made the response he made. If he had done more reading than simply what it took to satisfy himself that he could get in a fight with a theist, confuse the theist (who is most likely either an idiot, or simply not a mathematician or physicist), and then claim victory, he would have know that he was raising a ridiculous point. "Vary the parameters simultaneously". For Christ's sake.

So, I agree with you. I'm an idiot to get worked up about it. That's the long and short of it. I'm just disappointed that the debate between atheists and theists has become the joke that it is today. I'm especially disappointed in the atheist side, because honestly, it's the side with the smarter folks on it, in general. It's wrong that we're building straw men and attacking them, and it's wrong that so many people on the atheist side are obfuscating and confusing people with the three or four amateur arguments they learned from Richard Dawkins. 

Anyway, you're right. This may not be the place for me. But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. Debate with theists who have an IQ higher than their age. 

10 years ago? I was alive then I could confirm. There is far more evidence today so I think you couldn't have meant that.

I do you even one better.

I think there is plenty of solid evidence for George Washington. We can even go to his gravesite.  But you know the big difference between George and Jesus. One they made extraordinary claims about, so it requires extraordinary evidence. Even that aside here I will measure the amount of evidence for George and Jesus on equal footing. 

*** Jesus ****

Here is a list of historians that wrote about Jesus or about the existence of Christians. Again minor references. I encourage you to review them if you haven't already.

  Pliny the Younger 61ad - 112 ad

  Tacitus - 56ad - 117ad

  Suetonius - 69ad-140ad

  Josephus - 37a - 100ad

  Mara bar Sarapion -wrote around 73ad

  The Talmud starting at 70ad

Notice the pattern. All were born after Jesus death.

Artifacts: None in existence.

 **** George *****

There are many details about his family including Henry VIII gave his ancestors land in the Americas. And we know his father and mother and when they were born and that they lived in Westmoreland County, VA. They moved around a bit and George spent most of his youth in Fredericksburg, VA. George's father died when he was 11. We have his military record and we have his actual writings from 1745-1799. Check them out here

http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/

Birth date: Feb 22, 1732 - born Westmoreland County, VA

Death date: Dec 14, 1799 - Mt Vernon, VA

We have paintings of George Washington, painted during his lifetime. Gilbert Stuart. (there were artist when jesus was alive)

Washington Irving met George Washington and subsequently wrote a biography on him in 5 volumes.

There are close to 3000 biographies on George Washington that you can purchase today from Amazon.

Artifacts: Go to Mt Vernon, Virginia (his home) and also the Masonic Temple in Alexandria to see dozens of objects related to Washington. 

 **** ???? ****

Do you still say you don't see any difference in the comparison?  

Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 

 Frankly, that you would even make such an absurd comparison illustrates your impeccable grasp of historical method and good sense. 

You are deliberately provoking me. I am not the one who makes this comparison. Christians do it.
You wrote the silly comparison to 10 years ago.
So since ancients sucked at taking down history we believe what they tell us? That makes sense to you?
But for jesus to be god, that is what they believed, I think he would have more press. I never said he didn't exist, I said he might have been a itinerate preacher or more likely a composite.
I suppose you also believe Hercules was real.
I really don't believe you want an honest discussion now. You just want to ridicule.

We're talking past each other, that's the only explanation I can see for all this confusion. 

I made the comparison to 10 years ago to make the point that it's ridiculous to hold the same evidentiary standard for a modern historical figure as to an ancient nobody. As far as evidence for nobodies from 2000 years ago goes, we have good evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus did live. It seems he preached a novel message, had followers, and made trouble for the authorities of his time. That's all I'm saying. 

I am adding on that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is the more probable hypothesis that he never existed at all. 

That's all I'm saying. 

If the Mouse were humble the Mouse would say something humble.

But when responding to a statement that was equivocal they understood and pointed out the problem. When responding to a statement with unassailable logic they did not understand and wanted clarification in favor of theism. Seeing the difference between the two types of posts and exploiting them was the line of theist attack, a point of pride if you will. Attack the attack worked.

I did not connect the two approaches with quoting/not quoting.

Also I raised the point that if their arguments were correct then they were still not beyond multiple gods and they should stop talking about just one upper case god. There was no response to that. It was something they could not address with this approach.

Actually it is BS at the moment. They do have a higher birth rate no question but their population is not increasing at that rate. Their adult survival rate is lower as is their life expectancy.

That response is certainly probable for people like yourself who are ignorant of history and science and logic but then this is not a place to search for an elementary education.

Define sophistry in terms of what has been posted here not what you find by googling.