No mate, they are entirely different things.
In many countries, scientology has been deemed a cult. I agree with them lol.
I want someone to tear apart this website... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Karlmarx
- Start date
No mate, they are entirely different things.
In many countries, scientology has been deemed a cult. I agree with them lol.
zombie omie jay
Banned
"i want someone to tear apart this hymen"
yeahh
yeahh
zombie omie jay
Banned
alternate thread title
grammarye
New Member
For those that dismiss religion as nonsense, I could line up a few basic the arguments why Christianity is a valid TRUTH, not a cult, fairytale or myth despite it being supernatural. And for those that believe in it themselves, they would argue that Christianity, among Islam, Judaism, Buddhism is no religion. It's a way of life.
We don't believe it because we are desperate, we believe in it because we know it as the truth.
I would also argue that Christianity have promoted women's and children's rights, education, learning, and broader scientific knowledge ... despite previous attempts to prevent knowledge to be spread to keep its power or excuses made in its name to further people's own ambitions.
It's not the belief that is the problem. It's not the Holy Bible, Q'ran, or the teachings of Buddha either. It is the people trying to fit the religion - being selective about what parts they should believe - into their own world beliefs, as influenced by their own social mores and secular societies that created their misconceptions in the first place. Until they are convinced otherwise, any human being, slave, politician, plumber, have created their own world views that may or may not prevent them from seeing the bigger picture.
The guy heading research into genetics and DNA is a Christian; is his faith stopping him from trying to understand the world from a scientific perspective?
Scientific theories such as the Big Bang, or Evolution, could have occurred, for all I know. As for Creation, I believe it when Bible says that there was infinite 'darkness'. God created 'light', so that a difference could be made between night and day. A 'day' during creation could be a billion years, who knows? I don't really care what happened at the beginning of the universe, I'm just happy to be alive in it right now. Why question it?
We don't believe it because we are desperate, we believe in it because we know it as the truth.
I would also argue that Christianity have promoted women's and children's rights, education, learning, and broader scientific knowledge ... despite previous attempts to prevent knowledge to be spread to keep its power or excuses made in its name to further people's own ambitions.
It's not the belief that is the problem. It's not the Holy Bible, Q'ran, or the teachings of Buddha either. It is the people trying to fit the religion - being selective about what parts they should believe - into their own world beliefs, as influenced by their own social mores and secular societies that created their misconceptions in the first place. Until they are convinced otherwise, any human being, slave, politician, plumber, have created their own world views that may or may not prevent them from seeing the bigger picture.
The guy heading research into genetics and DNA is a Christian; is his faith stopping him from trying to understand the world from a scientific perspective?
Scientific theories such as the Big Bang, or Evolution, could have occurred, for all I know. As for Creation, I believe it when Bible says that there was infinite 'darkness'. God created 'light', so that a difference could be made between night and day. A 'day' during creation could be a billion years, who knows? I don't really care what happened at the beginning of the universe, I'm just happy to be alive in it right now. Why question it?
runoutofsleep
AUTISM IS NOT HOLLAND
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 744
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 1998
go on
ilikebeeef
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,198
- Location
- Hoboland and Procrastinationland
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2010
Beliefs ---> way of life. The way of life doesn't exist without the beliefs.
You believe in it because someone told you it.
Secular Humanism has also not only promoted women and children's rights, but EVERYONE's rights. What makes Christianity more valid than that?
People are the carriers of beliefs. Beliefs are the carriers of people. If the people are the problem, then the beliefs are the problem, too.
Christianity is unscientific.
Because why not? If no one questioned anything, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.
Well what are the arguments that its valid truth? If you're saying the things you posted after this paragraph are your arguments then none of it is in the slightest bit convincing that its truth.
Believing its true doesnt make it so. I agree some people genuinely believe their religion is true, but in my personal opinion theres just as many people who merely believe in it because they are in times of desperation or just because its been handed down to them by their parents, culture etc and never really questioned it.
I would argue that all these things they promoted came well after mainstream society promoted them and came after pressure to cave in to more modernistic views (token comment about child molesting too). You cant seriously argue Christianity was a major influence, especially on womens rights and science. I would also say Christianity has done very little to broaden scientific knowledge. Yeah I'm sure someone will point out that some of the key scientists of our time were Chrsitian, but the contribution of a scientist thats Christian doesnt imply contribution of Christianity to science. I could list a number of openly christian scientists who got ex-communicated or put down for their proposed scientific theories or beliefs.
I'd argue that those that believe the truth of every single word in holy books and believe everything in the bible/quaran/whatever should be implemented in real life cause more problems than those that are selective. People that are selective about what parts to believe/implement in their life are probably the same people that realise there are inconsistencies and parts of the bible and other books that just arent compatible with modern life or promote things that seem absurd.
Bill Maher actually interviews him on Religulous. He openly admits that there are inconsistencies in the Bible and that the gospels cant really be considered evidence for things such as Jesus' existence or the things he did. It kind of astounds me how someone can be such a high ranking scientist but can follow something so blindly when they know in their work if someone presented something like the Bible as evidence it'd be so quickly rejected. It's a pretty clear cut double standard.
You're entitled to your opinion but some people like to question, it not only gives us an idea of the past but also helps for future knowledge and research.
Last edited:
grammarye
New Member
You want proof its true? I'm no theologian but I can give you a few things I did learn at scripture class. (No, I don't do Studies of Religion)
Scholars, historians, archaeologists regard the Bible as a historical document i.e. It's NON-FICTION. It was written by man, yes, and there so many things in it that doesn't even seem ... plausible, or believable, true, but it was written by learned people who lived during that point of time (they were able to write it down, which makes them, if not experts, then reliable to an extent since how many people during 1400BC even knew how to write?) --- except for the Pentateuch, which Moses wrote (he was a Hebrew, but lived as an Egyptian Prince, and they've already developed a writing system 2000 years before), and he was only present during Exodus to Deuteronomy, not Genesis, nobody lives that long --- and it wasn't written like: 'I've heard about this from ... who heard it from .... who heard it from his uncle ... who then heard it from his sister ...'. The authors really did live through the experiences first hand and the circumstances they wrote about did occur in history.
The basis of the Christian faith, among other things, is Jesus Christ fulfilling all the prophesies during his birth and throughout his life. All throughout the Old Testament, there were many prophesies concerning the 'Messiah', for example, how exactly Christ was going to be born (picked this one out because its that convinced me ... seriously, I thought JC was a product of a time machine experiment one point of time ... you cannot disprove time travel btw).
Jesus Christ may be able to 'fix' his miracles to make it seem astounding to a few thousand peasants e.g. bringing the dead back to life, turning dirty water into wine, healing the uncurable ... but the one thing he cannot 'fix' are the conditions in which he was born. What would happen at the time of his birth was written in the Old Testament, 400+ years before.
1) Jesus would be male: Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 9:6 ... Did you have any say what gender you wanted to be when you popped out? Even our DNA research isn't as advanced as that.
2) JC was Shem's, Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's, Judah's, Jesse's, King David's, and King Solomon's descendant: as prophesied in Genesis, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, fulfilled in Matthew 1:3-6. Jesus Christ is the 10th Generation descendant of an Israelite king. On the other hand, King Solomon had a harem of wives and by the 10th generation, he would have had a whole number of male descendants to name as the Messiah....
3) The Messiah would be preceded by a prophet:The only (and last) prophet in the New Testament is John the Baptist (who got beheaded), and the last prophet named by God before him was Malachi, 300-400 years before. John the Baptist was the cousin of Christ, and came before Christ....
4) Jesus born from a virgin: prophesied Isaiah 7:13-14, fulfilled Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35. Mary was 14. Joseph was her first marriage. JC was conceived and Joseph didn't touch her... Artificial insemination wasn't available in 4-6BC. So something must have happened.
5) Jesus born in Bethlehem: prophesied Micah 5:2-3, fulfilled Luke 2:1-7; Matthew 2:1-6. Mary and Joseph both lived in Nazareth, and around 5BC, and coincidentally the Roman emperor ordered a census to count how many people there are in the Roman empire so that he could evaluate his riches, I suppose. They had to travel to Bethlehem while Mary was enciente so that they could be counted.
6) The Star of David would be present during his birth: prophesied Num. 24:17; fulfilled Matt. 2:1-9
... There are way too many coincidences to disprove that he was the promised Messiah. **There are heaps more prophesies about his life, as well, but I won't bore you. We believe that, if he was what the Old Testament promised he would be and more, then he is God.
Also, you cannot disprove Jesus' existence or the foundation of his fame as a miracle worker. Rome's most famous historian, Cornelius Tacitus, even said: 'Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilate' Annals 44:2-3. This was rather a neutral description, but there were other writers, Thallos, Mara bar Serapion, Flavius Josephus who have mentioned Jesus in the texts that were found. (No, I'm not throwing names around, they are legit first century writers.)
Also, it is a myth that we have to basically live inside a box of rules to make it up to God ... that's absolute crap. We're already catching a free ride to 'heaven' because we choose to believe in Christ...
Have you ever even read the Bible? If so, please tell me what inconsistencies there are because it's so straightforward to me.
Scholars, historians, archaeologists regard the Bible as a historical document i.e. It's NON-FICTION. It was written by man, yes, and there so many things in it that doesn't even seem ... plausible, or believable, true, but it was written by learned people who lived during that point of time (they were able to write it down, which makes them, if not experts, then reliable to an extent since how many people during 1400BC even knew how to write?) --- except for the Pentateuch, which Moses wrote (he was a Hebrew, but lived as an Egyptian Prince, and they've already developed a writing system 2000 years before), and he was only present during Exodus to Deuteronomy, not Genesis, nobody lives that long --- and it wasn't written like: 'I've heard about this from ... who heard it from .... who heard it from his uncle ... who then heard it from his sister ...'. The authors really did live through the experiences first hand and the circumstances they wrote about did occur in history.
The basis of the Christian faith, among other things, is Jesus Christ fulfilling all the prophesies during his birth and throughout his life. All throughout the Old Testament, there were many prophesies concerning the 'Messiah', for example, how exactly Christ was going to be born (picked this one out because its that convinced me ... seriously, I thought JC was a product of a time machine experiment one point of time ... you cannot disprove time travel btw).
Jesus Christ may be able to 'fix' his miracles to make it seem astounding to a few thousand peasants e.g. bringing the dead back to life, turning dirty water into wine, healing the uncurable ... but the one thing he cannot 'fix' are the conditions in which he was born. What would happen at the time of his birth was written in the Old Testament, 400+ years before.
1) Jesus would be male: Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 9:6 ... Did you have any say what gender you wanted to be when you popped out? Even our DNA research isn't as advanced as that.
2) JC was Shem's, Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's, Judah's, Jesse's, King David's, and King Solomon's descendant: as prophesied in Genesis, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, fulfilled in Matthew 1:3-6. Jesus Christ is the 10th Generation descendant of an Israelite king. On the other hand, King Solomon had a harem of wives and by the 10th generation, he would have had a whole number of male descendants to name as the Messiah....
3) The Messiah would be preceded by a prophet:The only (and last) prophet in the New Testament is John the Baptist (who got beheaded), and the last prophet named by God before him was Malachi, 300-400 years before. John the Baptist was the cousin of Christ, and came before Christ....
4) Jesus born from a virgin: prophesied Isaiah 7:13-14, fulfilled Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35. Mary was 14. Joseph was her first marriage. JC was conceived and Joseph didn't touch her... Artificial insemination wasn't available in 4-6BC. So something must have happened.
5) Jesus born in Bethlehem: prophesied Micah 5:2-3, fulfilled Luke 2:1-7; Matthew 2:1-6. Mary and Joseph both lived in Nazareth, and around 5BC, and coincidentally the Roman emperor ordered a census to count how many people there are in the Roman empire so that he could evaluate his riches, I suppose. They had to travel to Bethlehem while Mary was enciente so that they could be counted.
6) The Star of David would be present during his birth: prophesied Num. 24:17; fulfilled Matt. 2:1-9
... There are way too many coincidences to disprove that he was the promised Messiah. **There are heaps more prophesies about his life, as well, but I won't bore you. We believe that, if he was what the Old Testament promised he would be and more, then he is God.
Also, you cannot disprove Jesus' existence or the foundation of his fame as a miracle worker. Rome's most famous historian, Cornelius Tacitus, even said: 'Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilate' Annals 44:2-3. This was rather a neutral description, but there were other writers, Thallos, Mara bar Serapion, Flavius Josephus who have mentioned Jesus in the texts that were found. (No, I'm not throwing names around, they are legit first century writers.)
Also, it is a myth that we have to basically live inside a box of rules to make it up to God ... that's absolute crap. We're already catching a free ride to 'heaven' because we choose to believe in Christ...
Have you ever even read the Bible? If so, please tell me what inconsistencies there are because it's so straightforward to me.
funkshen
dvds didnt exist in 1991
grammarye if I made a series of outlandish predictions that all came true in sequence would you believe that they weren't just predictions but divine prophecies?
Basically what you're doing is connecting a few dots that haven't made a decipherable image, and so you've drawn in a few more convenient ones to make your own picture.
No I don't care to refute any of your points because they're fucking nonsense and Scorch can do it. However how can you not understand how ridiculous
Basically what you're doing is connecting a few dots that haven't made a decipherable image, and so you've drawn in a few more convenient ones to make your own picture.
No I don't care to refute any of your points because they're fucking nonsense and Scorch can do it. However how can you not understand how ridiculous
is as a proposition.grammarye said:
Last edited:
Sigh. I was hoping that I would get a break from this for a while, but apparently not. We'll start here:
Historians examine them in terms of their worth in a sociological sense; they show the importance of the mythic circulation of legitimacy and claims to territory on the part of the Israelites, who claimed that they had some higher form of territorial legitimacy via discourses of God and promised lands. Historians do not view it as factual, but as a mythic text of an ancient civilization that mirrors some vague history, includes many fables and reflects an archaic understanding of a generic Near-Eastern mythic consciousness.
So either he was born a virgin or he was a direct descendant of David; he cannot be both. The reality is that the idea virgin birth was likely stolen from other messianic cults circulating around the Near East (oh yes! there were many Jesus figures; he just had the best post-mortem PR office) in order to, again, claim a higher form of mythic legitimacy for their cult figure. Had the virgin birth been an original element of the cult of Jesus, then there is absolutely no reason for a genealogy of Joseph, to whom Jesus is not related in any biological sense, to be included. The Bible was edited ad hoc by the early Church to suit their political/theological needs and this is just one such remnant of such acts.
Let me also add that there is evidence that here, as in many other parts, Matthew, who has a clearly poor grasp of Hebrew, has mistranslated the passage here. He points to:
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
However the correct translation is not 'virgin' but 'young woman', which is a totally different thing. Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman and `almah is the one used here. This notwithstanding, Jesus should have been named Immanuel if this is true.
This is nothing more than a literary device. Jesus of Nazareth, as he is continually referred to by the Bible and other extant historical sources that refer to him, is, as everyone knows, of Nazareth. The gospel writers needed some way of getting him to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy; so they made one up that never happened.
Thallus maybe made a comment about an eclipse during a time where Jesus may have been executed, but such an eclipse is simply impossible. Even the writer from which we draw our quote, Sextius Julius Africanus, had worked out in the 3rd Century that an eclipse cannot occur at Passover when the moon is full and therefore diametically opposite the Sun.
Finally Mara bar Serapion says nothing that is relevant, so you really are just throwing a name out. He references a 'wise king' that was executed:
The problems with the implied interpretation that this king was Jesus are many.
It is quite likely that he is referencing the 7th century BCE Jewish king Amon of Judah (reigned ca. 643/642-641/640 BCE) who, as Wiki nicely summarises for me, "was, according to the Bible, assassinated by his servants in retaliation for his idolatry (2 Kings 21 18-26; 2 Chronicles 33:20-25), and that his assassination preceded the Siege of Jerusalem by Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in 589 BCE. This interpretation is similarly reconcilable with the passage's allusion to Jews having been "driven from their land", as the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem and subsequent Babylonian Exile are considered the historical roots of the Jewish diaspora".
Even if it were Jesus, it does not show anything in and of itself, as bar Serapion quite simply would have been repeating the myth that was circulating around the Mediterranean. It makes no comment on the historicity of Jesus.
Even so, the idea that God issues these rules, in his perfection and omniscience, that were so impossible to live by that he had to say "fuck it, I need to fix this and the only way I can do this is through brutal human sacrifice" is just idiotic.
Your theology is entirely logically inconsistent and idiotic.
All you have, in the end, is the statement that "it can't be a coincidence that the literary accounts written years after the death of a figure, the authors of which had a vested interest in promoting his divinity, are semi-consistent with prophecies that the authors were entirely aware of". No, it can't be. I'll give you a hint: they wrote it that way, and in doing so, they made a metric fuckload of mistakes and were forced to invent history and distort the truth in order to do so. That's precisely why we can trace it so well.
Continuing on where I left off!
The fundamentalists are the only ones that follow the entirety of the Bible without hypocritical cherry-picking. If you must ignore large chunks of butchery, slaughter, rape, theft, genocide and other filth in your Holy Book to be considered sane, there is something deeply wrong with your Holy Book, and this is true for basically every religion.
Not at all. Exodus, for example, is a complete fabrication. The Bible is only reliable in areas where it can be reconciled and is consistent with [a] the archaeological record and the extant literary record. There are many historical events in the Old and New Testament that are quite simply just made up. Exodus never happened, Herod's slaughter of innocents never happened, there never was a census in Judea before the death of Herod.
Historians examine them in terms of their worth in a sociological sense; they show the importance of the mythic circulation of legitimacy and claims to territory on the part of the Israelites, who claimed that they had some higher form of territorial legitimacy via discourses of God and promised lands. Historians do not view it as factual, but as a mythic text of an ancient civilization that mirrors some vague history, includes many fables and reflects an archaic understanding of a generic Near-Eastern mythic consciousness.
No, this is one thing he cannot fix: this is why the authors of the gospels had to do it for him. I'm going to preface this by pointing out that the authors of the Gospels continually make historical mistakes, distort history and make up events at their convenience to make sure that Jesus fits as many prophecies regarding the messiah as he possibly can. Let me explain:
Well this is a no-brainer. Anyone laying claim to any mythic legitimacy or claim of power had to be male in such a patriarchal society. This shows nothing.
Well I'm going to lump these two together, because this is extremely important. These two are mutually exclusive. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then his only possible link to David is through his mother, which would not have been recognised as fulfilling the prophecy anyway, yet a genealogy of Joseph is provided; why? Joseph has no blood relation to Jesus if the virgin birth concept is to be believed. None at all. Such a society would not have recognised a legal adoption in the same terms as blood relation is considered, and the New Testament continually states that Jesus was of the seed (Greek 'Sperma) of David; this is not a concept that can be attached to legal adoption.
So either he was born a virgin or he was a direct descendant of David; he cannot be both. The reality is that the idea virgin birth was likely stolen from other messianic cults circulating around the Near East (oh yes! there were many Jesus figures; he just had the best post-mortem PR office) in order to, again, claim a higher form of mythic legitimacy for their cult figure. Had the virgin birth been an original element of the cult of Jesus, then there is absolutely no reason for a genealogy of Joseph, to whom Jesus is not related in any biological sense, to be included. The Bible was edited ad hoc by the early Church to suit their political/theological needs and this is just one such remnant of such acts.
Let me also add that there is evidence that here, as in many other parts, Matthew, who has a clearly poor grasp of Hebrew, has mistranslated the passage here. He points to:
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
However the correct translation is not 'virgin' but 'young woman', which is a totally different thing. Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman and `almah is the one used here. This notwithstanding, Jesus should have been named Immanuel if this is true.
This is rather vague and makes no sense. There were dozens of messianic/prophet figures in Judea at the time, many sparked by the recent Roman occupation, and it just so happens that John the Baptist fit the bill well enough that they ignore all the others. In fact John the Baptist is a far more extant historical figure than Jesus. There is far more objective historical detail available about John the Baptist than there is about Jesus and quite some deal of it contradicts the Biblical account of John the Baptist (for example John the Baptist's subordination to Jesus when he baptizes him is rather a propaganda ploy on the part of the Gospel writers.
This census is made up. No such census took place within the life of Herod. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Even if it did take place there is no way that any Roman censor would order hundreds of thousands of members of an agricultural subsistence economy to pack up and move through dangerous terrain, thousands of miles across the province. It would absolutely ruin hundreds of regional economies and incite hatred in a newly-occupied province.
This is nothing more than a literary device. Jesus of Nazareth, as he is continually referred to by the Bible and other extant historical sources that refer to him, is, as everyone knows, of Nazareth. The gospel writers needed some way of getting him to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy; so they made one up that never happened.
As I said, the Gospel writers are well aware of these prophecies and simply work them into their literary records. A star acting in such a way is an astronomical impossibility.
Oh please do. You've proven nothing beyond the fact that the Gospel writers were aware of many prophecies and went to great lengths distorting the truth and fabricating events in order to fulfill them, as happens time and time again with other mythic texts.
Well they are legitimate writers, but you're still just throwing names around. Flavius Josephus was very neutral in his description, when his actual words are distinguished from later Christian interpolations.
Thallus maybe made a comment about an eclipse during a time where Jesus may have been executed, but such an eclipse is simply impossible. Even the writer from which we draw our quote, Sextius Julius Africanus, had worked out in the 3rd Century that an eclipse cannot occur at Passover when the moon is full and therefore diametically opposite the Sun.
Finally Mara bar Serapion says nothing that is relevant, so you really are just throwing a name out. He references a 'wise king' that was executed:
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given
The problems with the implied interpretation that this king was Jesus are many.
- The Gospels firmly place the blame for the execution on the Romans, so the Jews did not execute him.
- The 'Kingdom' he refers to that fell had already fallen to the Romans before the death of Jesus.
- He names Socrates and Pythagoras, figures from hundreds of years earlier, yet does not name the 'wise-king'. The identity is indeterminable and this text proves nothing.
It is quite likely that he is referencing the 7th century BCE Jewish king Amon of Judah (reigned ca. 643/642-641/640 BCE) who, as Wiki nicely summarises for me, "was, according to the Bible, assassinated by his servants in retaliation for his idolatry (2 Kings 21 18-26; 2 Chronicles 33:20-25), and that his assassination preceded the Siege of Jerusalem by Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in 589 BCE. This interpretation is similarly reconcilable with the passage's allusion to Jews having been "driven from their land", as the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem and subsequent Babylonian Exile are considered the historical roots of the Jewish diaspora".
Even if it were Jesus, it does not show anything in and of itself, as bar Serapion quite simply would have been repeating the myth that was circulating around the Mediterranean. It makes no comment on the historicity of Jesus.
So many logical flaws with this. God did make up the box of rules and he did insist people live by them or die for hundreds of years in a very barbaric and torturous way. Even so, Jesus says on numerous occasions that he did not come to abolish these laws but fulfill them; anything else is wishful thinking on your part.
Even so, the idea that God issues these rules, in his perfection and omniscience, that were so impossible to live by that he had to say "fuck it, I need to fix this and the only way I can do this is through brutal human sacrifice" is just idiotic.
Your theology is entirely logically inconsistent and idiotic.
It's straightforward to you because you simply don't understand the history, logical or science.
All you have, in the end, is the statement that "it can't be a coincidence that the literary accounts written years after the death of a figure, the authors of which had a vested interest in promoting his divinity, are semi-consistent with prophecies that the authors were entirely aware of". No, it can't be. I'll give you a hint: they wrote it that way, and in doing so, they made a metric fuckload of mistakes and were forced to invent history and distort the truth in order to do so. That's precisely why we can trace it so well.
Continuing on where I left off!
So when Paul wrote that women were not allowed to speak when a man was speaking, and that they should keep silent on theological matters in public and cover themselves and their hair, he was promoting women's rights?
This is an excuse, and a poor one at that. Being selective about what you believe is the only way one can be a sane religious person in the modern era. If you followed the entirety of the Bible you would be bigoted, violent, insane and a dribbling idiot to boot.
The fundamentalists are the only ones that follow the entirety of the Bible without hypocritical cherry-picking. If you must ignore large chunks of butchery, slaughter, rape, theft, genocide and other filth in your Holy Book to be considered sane, there is something deeply wrong with your Holy Book, and this is true for basically every religion.
No. They happened. Fact. Whether or not you choose to ignore it is another thing entirely.
This really is just shifting the goalposts. If you believe such a vague translation is still does not account for the total ignorance of the writers of the Bible on the natural origins of the human species, the Earth and other phenomena that children in our society have a better understanding of before they reach high school; yet these writers were supposedly inspired by a God that created the whole shindig? What nonsense.
Last edited:
chamelia
Member
Hero.
pman
Banned
and many believe thats not even his full name, moses simply means son of in egyptian, he most likely had the name of an egyptian god (possibly Thoth) before the moses...this has obviously been left out becasue it would not do for a religions greatest profet to be called son of [other religions god], hence the shortening to moses
Except for point 1 being false, the roman authority in the bible, given as the person pontius pilate says "i cannot find any reason to condemn him" (john 18:38 GNB) and the jewish elders respond "crucify, crucify"....this seems to point the blame of the jewish authorities, not on pontius pilate who simply bowed down to pressure.
Cult-Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange.
I see religion as strange, therefore its a cult.
pman
Banned
i'm personally starting to move more towards agnostic than christian, you bosers will never move me further....my question is, is agnostacism a cult snowfox
Trolling?