[Liberator]

Firstly, Jesus wasn't forced to do anything, he willingly allowed himself to be hung on that cross because it's was the only sacrifice that would allow Man to live through God's Judgement.  God is the ultimate judge, as the Creator of everything, he is uniquely qualified to pronounce judgement on something.  We are all sinners, unworthy of the slightest measure of grace, damned to be out of his presence for all eternity unless you Jewish*, by birth or conversion, or you accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice into your heart and allow Him to guide you.

*By Jewish, I don't mean you go to temple once a week, I mean OT Jewish by keeping Kosher and the blood sacrifices and all that.

[General Battuta]

Good ol' Mithras cults done gone grown up.

[Blue Lion]

What on earth are you guys still talking about

[Turambar]

he thinks that jesus's actions were voluntary, when god probably knew exactly what he was ****ing doing when he impregnated some poor palestinian woman.

[BloodEagle]

Holy Hell! This thread has gone full circle!

[Liberator]

he thinks that jesus's actions were voluntary, when god probably knew exactly what he was ****ing doing when he impregnated some poor palestinian woman.

First, she was Hebrew.  You say she was impregnated like some kind of carnal act took place.  And yes, He knew exactly what he was doing.  God, in His perfection, cannot abide imperfection into his presence.  But, also, in His perfect love he cannot bear to remove us from His presence.  So He gave us an out, by sacrificing His Son in a similar manner to how he had instructed the Jews to sacrifice lambs for the thousands of years prior to the crucifixion.

Second, how can they not have been when the Bible says that he begged and pleaded to not to have to go through with it the night of his arrest, as any man would, but that when the time came, he went quietly the only bloodshed coming from an apostle who cut the ear from one of the officers in his anger.  After Jesus ended the scuffle, he retrieved the ear and reattached it.  These are hardly the acts of a man who had to be forced to do something.

Lastly, I suggest you study that which you are so quick to dismantle and denigrate.

[TrashMan]

atheism is a lot easier to understand than religionism (i made up a word!)

there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is no god

vs

there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is a god

That is only from your point of view. Different starting conditions.

See, if I were to change that starting statement to "There's proof of God", then atheism suddenly becomes harder to understand, no?

[TrashMan]

no idea.  maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'

Who needs quotes. Atheism is partially about having no quotes - altough eehre are guidelines and beliefs.
Beliefs that you are rational, sensible and methodical (scientific), while that crazy theistic rabble is dilluded, stupid, dense.

It doesn't really take much more than "I'm better than you,. I'm smarter then you. I'm more enlightened than you." And 99% of all atheists I know are like that.

[Nemesis6]

A lot of people here have walked into a trap - Assuming that Jesus was real. Stuff like whether Mary was a Palestinian or a Hebrew is just silly when we don't even know whether Jesus was real or not. Also, you can't throw out the old testament. If you call yourself a Christian, and believe in the bible, but not the old testament, then you are a heretic and you will burn in hell. Same goes for Islam says the same. Jesus himself said(there I go, falling into the trap) that he didn't come to replace the old testament, but just to fulfill it/amend it. Sorry I'm a bit rusty on the religious nonsense front, but that's it in a nutshell. So when people say the old testament doesn't count, but still call themselves Christian, it's a sign of moral conflict, because most people know that the God of the old testament is Hitler, Stalin, Mao times a million as far as cruelty and sheer evil goes. You can rationalize it, as many do, by saying that the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and/or he's God, so he can do whatever he wants. The old testament still counts unless you're a new-age Christian.

Edit: Found some info that might be relevant here... The leader is apparently a follower of the Ron Paul cult: http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2010/03/hutaree-militia-and-ronrand-paul.html
It explains perfect all their insane paranoia, conspiracy-theorism, big-government lunacy, and all that. And paint me surprised that the Paulbots are supporting these guys. I don't think it's as much about Christianity as it's about libertarian right-wing lunacy here.

[Nuclear1]

HSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Mongoose]

A lot of people here have walked into a trap - Assuming that Jesus was real. Stuff like whether Mary was a Palestinian or a Hebrew is just silly when we don't even know whether Jesus was real or not.

Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure, as documented by a few separate (and non-Christian) contemporary sources.  Whether or not you believe in the Gospels' account of his life is a separate issue entirely.

As for the issue of the Old Testament, this is an area where a little bit of understanding goes a long way.  Christ himself called out the scribes and Pharisees of his time as utter hypocrites, concerning themselves with the minutiae of Jewish law while ignoring its true spirit and intent.  As you said, Christ stated that he came as the "fulfillment" of the Scriptures, not as their "replacement"...but at the same time, he distilled them down to their essence.  "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself"--in Christ's own words, that statement is the Old Testament's commandments in a nutshell.

Besides all of this, the question of whether or not Jewish law even applied to Gentiles who became Christian was one that was addressed in the very early Church.  Specifically, the apostles decided that non-Jewish men did not need to be circumcised as a prerequisite for entering the Christian community; the same can be said to  hold true for the other aspects of Jewish cultural life.  The fact that Christians today don't follow kosher dietary standards is but one example of this.

(Also, does Godwinning a theological discussion count for double points? )

[NGTM-1R]

Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure, as documented by a few separate (and non-Christian) contemporary sources.  Whether or not you believe in the Gospels' account of his life is a separate issue entirely.

There's no real contemporary documentation of Jesus. He starts appearing in documentation seventy-five to one hundred years after his death. We do have contemporary documents, like Pilate's official correspondence, but even if he was real it's unlikely he would have been mentioned in the things we actually have.

The historical nature of Jesus of Nazareth is very debateable.

[mxlm]

You say she was impregnated like some kind of carnal act took place. 

When Mary said, "My pain is God's love," what did you think she meant?

[Liberator]

/backhand

Don't blaspheme.

[mxlm]

It's not blasphemy, it's heresy.

[General Battuta]

/backhand

Don't blaspheme.

Remember that time that saint had a dream about an angel thrusting a burning spear deep into her entrails, causing intense religious ecstasy?

Yeah.

[Aardwolf]

Ïa! Ïa! Azathoth, fhtagn!

[Kosh]

Check out Bar-Hillel 1980, most stuff by Kahneman and Tversky, or Nisbett et al. 1976 for some starters. And that's what I pulled up at random - there's a massive body of work.

And where might I find them?

[General Battuta]

Google Scholar should to the job. Web of Science if you've got access.

Anyway, the upshot of my argument is that even amongst the most rigorously disciplined and 'rational', debate is often as much about personal factors and heuristic biases as about information exchange and assessment.