You reiterated the following claim: "Your god has been disproven by both reason and evidence." That's absolute nonsense.
That's not a rebuttal. That's a dismissal with a wave of a hand. It's been proven to me and apparently to
@Audie as well.
Nothing can be proven to you without your cooperation. Proof isn't something that can be imposed on a closed mind determined to ignore reason and evidence.
Where's your refutation of the resurrection of Jesus? When have you or anyone else EVER disproven that??
Why bother? There's no reason to believe any such thing ever occurred.
Have you disproven all of the competing resurrection stories, or is it only yours that requires that disproving in your estimation
"Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus Christ." - Wiki
Go ahead and dis[rove that Osiris wasn't resurrected. When have you or anyone else EVER disproven that??
Jesus is God in the Bible and you believe my god has been disproven. Wrong.
I gave my argument. You ignored it with the wave of a hand.
Dialectic is the process wherein two or more open-minded critical thinkers who disagree on a matter can decide cooperatively where they parted ways and see if they can come to agreement, in which case one has convinced the other, and the other has learned.
When an argument is made, the listener either agrees that it is correct, or identifies a specific area in the argument that he considers an error of fact or reasoning in a good-faith effort to find common ground and mutual understanding. If the difference is based in differing values, they can probably agree that if they had the values of the other, they would have come to the same conclusion.
That just doesn't happen here. Arguments are carefully presented, then just either ignored or dismissed without rebuttal as you are doing here.
You are judged by academic standards here, not church standards. You cannot prevail in this forum with the same approach as works in church, where your preacher says whatever he wants and you don't question it. He wins every disagreement just by disagreeing without giving a reason.
Until you and your like-minded cohorts can bust the resurrection, your claim is bogus.
You wouldn't accept an analogous argument such as until you can disprove abiogenesis, your religious claim is bogus, but you'd happily make a statement just as weak.
That the U.S is founded on Christianity is a fact based upon the people who founded it.
Nope. It's not a fact. It's a claim that you have failed to support, a claim rebutted which rebuttal you have ignored. I showed you the fundamental principles of Christianity and Americanism, with no overlap. Rather than addressing why you thought that that did not make the case I imply it did, you returned to your unsupported, rebutted claim and repeated it unchanged.
Christianity and Islam are not the same. Your description of similarities is lame
You failed to rebut that list of similarities, so, as always, the list and its attendant argument stand unchallenged and unchanged. "Lame" is not a rebuttal. It's more of this hand waving that seems to be so popular with the faithful.
And you're distorting the argument, which is not that there are no differences between Islam and Christianity, but that they are the similar authoritarian, paternalistic ideologies both guilty of unthinkable brutality, but that Christianity has largely lost its ability to torture people, but that Islam is still where Christianity was in the Middle Ages, and that that difference is accounted for not by differences in doctrine between the two, but due to the now centuries long civilizing influence of secular humanism, which immediately left Massachusetts unable to kill witches once the Enlightenment values embodied in the US Constitution replaced the old order.
You never addressed that, so, my argument stands uncontested.
The fact that Islam is a religion doesn't make it the same as Christianity.
Not my claim. The claim is that the two have a strong family resemblance, yet are rendered differently since the infusion of secular humanist values into the West.
Muhammad imitated what little he knew of Christianity to create a religion for the Arab peoples.
Somehow Mohammed ended up with a strikingly similar religion. Why do you suppose that the Muslims are still cutting off hands but Christians can no longer hang witches? You won't find that answer in scripture. Yours says to not suffer witches. Humanist values forced the church to do just that.
The humanists also gave you freedom of and from religion, something that Christianity is opposed to, but must tolerate. The Christian Bible commands you to believe in its god and no other. Very unAmerican.
This Christian is none too happy about humanism spoiling his fun, and would love to return to the brutality of his Bible if only he could. How do you suppose he feels about freedom of religion?:
- "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had
He makes my argument. Humanism is responsible for any greatness America one had, not Christianity, which wouldn't have given you democracy, freedom of religion, church-state separation
Here's some more from Christians on the Christian model they would prefer, also very unAmerican:
- "I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell
- "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson
Give these people half a chance, and they would revert to the brutality we see with Islam today.
What kind of a country do you think you would have if people like this guy ever get past your protections from them
- "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue
Sounds like it could have come out of Iran or Saudi Arabia. Sorry, but that is unwashed Christianity.
Show me how Jesus Christ in the Bible, and Jesus Christ in Islam are the same.
Why? Irrelevant to my argument.
Locke was Christian and the Bible influenced him greatly.
Locke's religion is irrelevant unless it appeared in his work. To make your case, you need to demonstrate Christian principles coming from the Bible and ending up in the Constitution. I have shown you that they're not there, and you deflected to Locke being a Christian influenced by the Bible, which is not an argument that his Christian beliefs became Americanism.
The reason that the framers of the Constitution felt that a social contract is the basis of free government goes back to Lockean principles of natural law.
Free government? Not a Christian principle, either. Nor is a social contract.
