Muckraker Posts: 345 Joined: 9 Nov 2007 | Sccye and Max (and all others)
One of the reasons the bible and its interpetations are so often criticized is because there are many christians who quote the bible to explain why they have certain views. They quote the bible to show that homosexuality (practicing it) is not allowed for example. So they say things like these because the bible says so. But at the same time, they do not live according other (lesser well known) rules and views also expressed in this bible. This comes across as a sort of cherry picking in bible rules. And this causes people to revolt against it and point out it's flaws of age and translation, and as such can not be trusted in the details.
The bible is important for it's messages, the general rules of life (ten commandments) and the spirit inside it. But I can not take it literally to the letter, and I think most of you would agree to that. But i hope it'll help you understand where the anti-bible arguments come from.
So, being flawed as it is, there will always be discussions about the bible and it's followers and their rules. |
Muckraker Posts: 229 Joined: 13 Oct 2008 | maximilian:
Bright_Raven:
hippo24:
Bright_Raven:
THINK ABOUT THE BIBLE! how much sense does it actually make people!?
- I have thought about the bible, read the bible and analyzed the bible, and made a clear decision, have you??
Yes i have. and it is... bovine excrement, not divine excitement.
why is it that Jesus, a man, sorry DEMI-GOD, who could walk on water and feed thousands and cure the sick and blind, is not mentioned in any of the actual historical texts of the time?
AND NO THE BIBLE DOESN'T COUNT! when has the bible actually done ANYTHING good?
Aunty Ethel, case in point.
Now this here folks, is what we call an ignorant person.
A) You really have not read the Bible. Don't lie. You haven't.
B) You really have no idea about the validity of the Bible - there is more proof that Jesus existed (OUTSIDE of Christian documentation) than Julius Caesar.
C) Now see, I figured "love thy neighbour as yourself" and "don't murder" were pretty good for secular understanding.
Of course, rage on home dawg. You're the sociopathic bull in this discussive china shop.
their are no references to jesus other than the bible. period.
the "Jesus story is mearly a rehashing of many old storys
e.g 1
in the old testament their is a character named Joseph (cough jesus cough) who is born to a family with 12 brothers (cough deciples cough) in a mericle birth... he is betrayed by his brother JUDAS (AKA JUDAH) and sold for 20 pieces of silver. he performed some pretty amazing acts when he was around 30...
e.g. 2
as early as 3000 bc the story of Horus was the foundation of Egyptian belief
Horus was born on DECEMBER THE 25th to a VIRGIN. his birth was marked by a STAR IN THE EAST and at his birth he was adorned by 3 KINGS.he was a PRODIGAL TEACHER AT 12 and at the age of 30 was BAPTIZED and began his ministry. he also traveled with 12 DISCIPLES when he went around performing MERICLES such as HEALING THE SICK aand WALKING ON WATER. he was betrayed by a desciple, CRUCIFIED and rose from the dead after 3 DAYS! 3000+ years before the birth of jesus.
jesus, is a rip off and most likely breaks copyright infringement laws.
their are dozens of gods which have near identical attributes as Jesus BEFORE the supposive birth of christ. the story of jesus is actually a description of the solstace, not the "son " of some magic "god."
oh yeah, and their are two supposive references to jesus in actuall historical texts,
1. which is actually been shown to be a reference to julius ceser
2. the only other one has been proven to be a fake for over 300 years
no, i do not have their exact quotes and names on me right now, its 11:40 at night! but if you insist i can dig them up from my research
Bright_Raven, case in point. now this here, folks this is what we call an incredibly ignorant person. |
Beat Writer Posts: 182 Joined: 31 Aug 2008 | Bright_Raven:
their are no references to jesus other than the bible. period.
no, i do not have their exact quotes and names on me right now
Bright_Raven, case in point. now this here, folks this is what we call an incredibly ignorant person.
Yeah, you're totally right.
Okay, my love for discussion starts to wear very thin around about now. This is around about the time where you get up to date with some actual viable/defensible atheist arguments in order for me not to think you're patronising me or being satirical.
Why not have a crack at the line between "fundamentalist" Christianity and "evangelical", or maybe argue that the Church has no right (biblically or otherwise) to try and determine state. Maybe you might want to express the displeasure of your own experience with Christians and allow me to explain the Christian truth from the Bible regarding how they acted and if it was in fact "Christian".
Instead, you do this.
And here I was, getting worried that a coherent discussion was beginning to take place. I have little time to DESTROY this (as I'm sure an amoeba could). Start digging friendo - you've just committed argumental suicide with the words |
Beat Writer Posts: 200 Joined: 28 Aug 2008 | Perhaps we would if you were actually open to discussion. Instead the aim of your posting, as far as i can discern from your posts, and forgive me if this is not your intention, is instead to spread your faith and attempt to annoy others who do not agree with you. Granted some of the reasoning behind some of my fellow atheists or those of other religions may at times be faulty, but the actual research is not. Study philosophy, specifically the philosophy of religion if you wish to learn more about why we do not believe. |
Muckraker Posts: 329 Joined: 12 Sep 2008 | Sccye:
TheDean:
hippo24:
TheDean:
No, I won't learn Hebrew because i don' even know where to start, and what would be the point.
I do read the bible. Surprisingly i have not yet flushed it down my toilet in anger at its lack of actually telling me anything good ever.
If god is so good and powerful, why didn't he write the frickin' book himeslf? Or why couldn't he tell us how to translate it properly?
And i stil say god is not all good because he allows evil to exist. You cannot dispute that.
And the reason those laws were only for hebrews is because at first, this was a tribal god. Only after he allowed his followers to be defeated in battle (evidently metal is to powerful for god)did they decide, as an excuse, that their god was the god of all, and he was simply helping the enemy more than them. WOW! Morons!
Ok at least it seems you have made an attempt to try and incorporate something other than a misconceived opinion.
I won't learn Hebrew because i don' even know where to start, and what would be the point.
-learning Hebrew would give you insight into the actuall literal meaning of the text rather than a translated version.
..I do read the bible. Surprisingly I have not yet flushed it down my toilet in anger at its lack of actually telling me anything good ever.
-generalizations should be avoided but this question is simply an opinion and I have no way of changing anyones opinion that is not based in facts.
..If god is so good and powerful, why didn't he write the frickin' book himeslf? Or why couldn't he tell us how to translate it properly?
- I addressed this in a previous post to you. But since you obviously ignored it, I will divulge further. Who can honestly say why god chooses to speak through an individual to write his text. But this theme is a constant throughout the scripture, God has opted to reveal his word to people that have the signs and wills to support a firm belief in god. The reason for this is fairly simple would you be more inclined to believe me if I told you that god literally wrote the bible. A supporting observation on this might be the fact that god gave his scriptures to people, not solely for the purpose of writing but to exhibit his connection with humanity.
..And i stil say god is not all good because he allows evil to exist. You cannot dispute that.
- Evil exists because of man. Man choose to disobey god, and this disobedience in itself caused the very existence of evil (think of it like a clean hand that touches a dirt object, where everything you now touch is besmirched and will suffer from the effects of that first touch). Many may argue the presence of the serpent proves the existences of evil before man, but man had free will straight from the beginning, and the serpent only represented temptation. God allows evil to exist because man allows evil to exist, and because god has given us free-will, so we are in essence the governors of our own life.
..And the reason those laws were only for hebrews is because at first, this was a tribal god. Only after he allowed his followers to be defeated in battle (evidently metal is to powerful for god)did they decide, as an excuse, that their god was the god of all, and he was simply helping the enemy more than them. WOW! Morons!
-While your statement is a strongly opinionated, this instance illustrates another common theme in the old testament. That while the Israelites followed gods word they were undefeated on the field of battle, but as the followers fell away from gods grace, god ceased to favor them and they were left to their own defense which was abnormally weak. If you attempt to argue that the Jewish people were fighting on their own accord, it is simple preposterous the think that such a small group of people could somehow have accomplished anything let alone establish a kingdom and defeat multiple armies, that as historical records account were substantially larger. It is to a degree negligent to ignore the fact that somehow the success of the Jewish nations was directly dependent on how closely they followed the teachings of god.
Y'know what? your opinion is well-argued. That even i cannot deny.
however, i still insist an omni-benevolent god can't allow evil ot exist, but let's not continue down that path because we've been going in circles for quite some time with that one.
As for the communication: Why would god let men translate somehting so imortant, something so holy? It's only the single most important thing of ever, and yet god entrusts us mere mortals to translate it for him? Maybe he can't speak English?
the success of the Jews correlated to how closely they obey god? Well, we must remember that the bible was written by men, and so i realy cannot believe the historical acuracy of this. to be honest, can we really trust the bible to be historicaly accurate about anything? I mena, there isn't even ANY historical evidence for the significance of Jesus, so i fail to see why the bible should be right about anything else.
If you don't mind, i would like to proceed to a new aspect of christianity in the discussion, still on-topic with why i hate it, for you see, i have been reading my bible (dusted the cob-webs off)and would like to raise a point or two.
Here we go: I may have said this before, but if god was real, i would not worship him. Simply because he is a totalitarian dictator. How can i worship him?
Moreover, he certianly is not just in any way. Some of the laws in the old testament are ridiculous. Stone disobediant children, for example. Don't trust the, what was it, hivites i believe. It's good to teach us to hold a grudge, nice going god. I'll hold a grudge on you when i see you next, so i can punch you in the face for being such a jerk.
I'm serious about that though, god i a mean nasty guy who deserves no respect nor praise.
And some of those "ten" commandments are stupid: don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk? Wow, thanks god that's really helpful. It's good to see what is important to our lord.
How about this one: when a woman has a son, she needs to lock herself away for a week. She is unclean evidently. She will remain unclean for 33 days, and even longer if she does not sacrifice doves to her preist. Slaughtering innocent animals, nice lesson there god. However, if she has a daughter, she is must lock herself away for 2 weeks, and is unclean for 66 days. Y'know what- this god is sexist. Or wait, isn't it more likely that god didn't exist and the religious nuts writing this crap were sexist because they were os damn frustrated because their own self-imposed beliefs meant they couldn't have the sexy-time?
Furthermore, may i ask, if you don't mind, if you own a slave? I bet not, since this would be cruel, however, didn't god say it was ok to have a slave so long as you release him after 7 years? Of course, under certain circumstances, you are allowed to keep your slave's wife and children. but fear not! Your slave can have them back, ad all he has to do is agree to be your slave for life! Not only that, you get to nail his ear ot a door post for good measure. And why wouldn't you?
This, my furry little friend, is laced with hideous theological misinterpretations and eisegetical fallacies. As is almost every secular attempt to make light of the difficulties in approaching the Bible as a text. Theologians have been dealing with these problems for 2,000 years, and there exist dogmatic superstructures which allow for a coherent maintenance of biblical authority. I know this, because I used to be a Christian, and I tested and trie every single one of the issues that you raised here. Ultimately, I rejected my faith for personal reasons - not because the Bible made no sense.
Also, before I launch into this rambling discourse, let it be noted that I'm merrily on the cusp of drunkenness. I blame any resultant incoherencies, grammatical incongruities and assorted idiocies on that.
As for the communication: Why would god let men translate somehting so imortant, something so holy? It's only the single most important thing of ever, and yet god entrusts us mere mortals to translate it for him? Maybe he can't speak English?
the success of the Jews correlated to how closely they obey god? Well, we must remember that the bible was written by men, and so i realy cannot believe the historical acuracy of this. to be honest, can we really trust the bible to be historicaly accurate about anything? I mena, there isn't even ANY historical evidence for the significance of Jesus, so i fail to see why the bible should be right about anything else
I have incredibly strong issues with this on several levels. Firstly, I'd ask what the proposed alternative is, other than the Bible being communicated through human speech. We're human. God is God. The difference is there plain and simple. God had to condescend to our level in order for us to understand Him/Her. We find that in both the doctrine of the Incarnation and the very nature of the Bible itself. Indeed, a central point of Christianity in general is that God sought to reach out to man in human terms, on his own level. What is the Bible if not that? A witness by human beings, for the sake of human beings. That includes allowing for human flaws andd human weaknesses. Furthermore, there needs to be addressed another fundamental epistemological misconception on your part. History does not establish faith. Historical accuracy is not a measure of 'spiritual' or 'revelatory' knowledge (And this is entirely irrelevant of the literary difficulty that the modern historical method and hence historical genre was entirely unknown to the period. To attempt to establish historical reliability with modern categories is something of an anachronism.) - the fundamental point to make is that Christianity centers around what is fundamentally an absolute paradox, the elements of which exist in a tension which gives life to the Christian faith. Although if we are playing the evidentialist game, I feel it's worth pointing out that there's buckets of extra-biblical evidence for the existence of the early church. Tacitus has detailed historical accounts of early Christians. There are gnostic writings which attribute to Jesus' existence. There are apocryphal gospels which do the same. Granted, this doesn't totally amount to direct proof of Jesus existence, so I'd like to posit the following question: What is more plausible: The a messianic figure was entirely fabricated by a group of dissident Jews, or that there existed a 'historical' Jesus and that the transmission of this figure was distorted by the growth of a religious tradition around him? The disparity between the 'historical; and the theological figure was spotted over 200 years ago. That didn't break the church. The argument that Jesus didn't exist doesn't wash, even with the most cynical of scholars.
And allow me to raise one central, more pragmatic issue on this. Irrelevant of how the Bible is recorded, the problem is fundamentally a hermeneutical one. The text exists in a fixed state, and may or may not contain absolute truth. That is, in itself, irrelevant the moment that a human comes into play. The Bible must ultimately be interpreted by humans before it can be acted upon. The notion of an objective reading of a text is a fallacy - history, science and all the disciplines which purport impartiality are guilty of a great and terrible hubris. No human being is capable of impartiality, and we never approach a text without prejudices (I interpret text in the broadest possible sense here - as anything which can be 'read' - I.e; interpreted. Data, a novel, a sign etc....). The problem, categorically, is with human limitation in all spheres. Irrelevant of *how* Divine truth is transmitted, a perfect interpretation of it is entirely impossible, and anyone that claims otherwise is guilty of insanity.
So, to point out minor textual incongruities and problems on a technical level is idiocy in its purest form. Ergo, the argument that God could have in some way have circumvented this problem is worthless and entirely debunked.
I may have said this before, but if god was real, i would not worship him. Simply because he is a totalitarian dictator. How can i worship him?
God being a totalitarian dictator is inherently evil? That's a somewhat trite statement. The anti-authoritarian, postmodern culture that invokes such flaccid political quibbles are barely worth consideration. The Western world is drunk on the idea that Democracy is good, and all other forms of government are evil - and such a principle has been extrapolated to form a catergorical truth. I agree with Milton; that insofar as humans are concerned, that democracy is the best form of government we can hope form. But the extension to this point is that monarchy (lit. - one power/authority) can only function in Heaven. To expand on this: If the Christian God existed and he was in fact as Christians claim that he is, then a totalitarian dictatorship / single rulership would be the best thing humanity could ever ask for. Ultimately, human interests would be perfectly secured and guarded, and all the petty partisan politics which often cripple democratic models of leadership would be done away with.
Moreover, he certianly is not just in any way. Some of the laws in the old testament are ridiculous. Stone disobediant children, for example. Don't trust the, what was it, hivites i believe. It's good to teach us to hold a grudge, nice going god. I'll hold a grudge on you when i see you next, so i can punch you in the face for being such a jerk.
Would you mind providing appropriate book, chapter and verse for these claims? Also, at this juncture I'd like to highlight a fundamental flaw in your logic. You claim at once that the document is subject to human flaws and prejudices, yet now you make God directly accountable for the contents of the documents. Make your mind up!
I'd argue that the more prejudiced content of the Hebrew Scriptures is down to a fundamentally different culture. If a nation had a routine habit of pillaging and raping your nation, then how would you respond? The political and social climate is just a teensy bit different from the white, male priveliged background that we lived in. An author writing a religious epitaph to his nation's suffering would of course believe that his God vindicated him. And beyond this, if God did have the covenant relationship with Israel that the OT suggests, then such a response is vindicated if you consider the society at the time. These points are coherent within their own context.
You seem to be playing the 'moral scorn card' - the idea that anything that clashes with your dominant moral paradigms and those of your age is unworthy of consideration. As I've pointed out - different context, different laws. Not to say that what occurred then justifies actions in parallel now - but there *must* be an understanding that different contexts signify different significance to actions.
I'm serious about that though, god i a mean nasty guy who deserves no respect nor praise.
And some of those "ten" commandments are stupid: don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk?
Do I even need to point out that you've confused the Ten Commandments in Exodus with petty civil laws from Leviticus? The two are in no way on the same level. Granted, there's theological interpretation involved in assigning significance to different laws, and there are inherent problems in that. But to blithely clump all Biblical commandments to one level? That's just lazy. The Ten Commandments form the legal basis for almost all Western societies, and are paralleled in some form in almost all societies with any form of legal system. Don't steal, murder, commit perjury or generally be a complete arse? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It also needs to be noted how Christianity deals with the OT commandments in respect to the new law of Grace brought about through Christ. In short, the old 'civic' Jewish laws are by and large held to be irrelevant - the Kosher laws, for example, in Acts are revoked by a vision that Peter has where God instructs him to eat of animals formerly held to be unclean. Troughout the Gospels, particulraly in John, speaks of the antithesis of Jesus' teaching to the established legal practices of the day. There is a recognised tension between Christianity and the Jewish law of the day, but reconciling that is another discussion which there isn't room for here. If you're interested, message me and I'll explain as best as I can.
The majority of your arguments rely on the same devices from here on in, so I won't address them here, unless you're desperate for me to do so. As it is, I'm still drunk and getting tireder by the minute.
But allow me to make the following conclusion before I collapse in an ale-filled heap in bed: The petty prejudices that anti-theists construct crudely from a negative experience with a Christian, or a perfunctory look at the Bible are inadequate to form a valid criticism. This debate has been argued 10,000 times on both sides by thinkers that are vastly more intelligent than either of us. Presenting woolly, emotive arguments is not only insufficient, but an insult to the entire debate on both the side of the Christian and the non-Christian.
WEll, i have finally finished reading your incredibly long 1724 word essay, and i see you have stooped to using as many big words as possible in an attmept to look intelligent, and also in the hop that i will be unable to respond. Well done.
If you are not a christian, then why the hell have we been debaitng this for the past 2 weeks? I mean, what is the point?
Nevertheless, i shall attempt to reply to your book.
Firstly, we should not need to have faith. End of story. god should provide us with some proof, or why not come and talk to us like he used to?
The argument that Jesus doesn't exist doesn't wash? I fail to see why not! If he didn't exist, which he didn't, this entire beleief system is a load of crap, which it is.
Any texts you mention to NOT proove the existance of Jesus. In fact, all they really do is proove the existance of christians. Well, i already know there are christians thank you very much. That doesn't proove there was a historical Jesus.
As for perfect interpretation of the bible being impossible, LIES. If it was that important god would make it easy for us to understand, he wouldn't want it to be so ambiguous. Unless of course it was intended to not make any sense, which i doubt. Therefore, my argument has not been debunked at all, unless you consider not debunking it debunking it!
No, not all dictators must be evil .Perosnally i want anarcho-communism, but that's for another thread. God shouldn't have to secure human interests as you put it. We should be able to do that or ourselves. We don't actually need god.If god is as christians say he is then we should want him as a dictator. Well, i cetianly odn't want a ruler whose favourite past-time is killing babies for the lolz.
My logic is not flawed at all. What i said was the bible does contian human eror, however, god SHOULD be accountable for it all. He SHOULD have written it himself. Maybe he forgot, since he evidenly has the Alzheimers (see the "ten" commandments).
Proof of god being a jerk: check out Exodus 21 v 1-6; Exodus 22 v 18 (WTF!?!); exodus 21 v24-5; Exodus 22 v 24 ; Exoudis 23 v 28; the flood story; exodus 12 v 29; exodus 7 v 3-4; exoudus 35 v 2; Leviticus 18 v 22; leviticus 19 v 20; Leviticus 20 v 27 (LOL); Leviticus 26 v 22; that one timw go dmade a deal with the devil and so such a jerk to Job; cuasing so much emotional trauma for Abrhamam telling him to sacrifice his sin, and then teling him it was all a joke; the fact that we go to hell for all eternity- i'd reckon we'd have learnt our lesson after a few million years. At this point, i am bored lokoing through my bible, but i'm sure there are many more examples. I also recommend reading the story of Lot, and Judges 19- good stories for sunday school there.
As for morals, to be honest, i understans that at different times there were different moral standrards, but why didn't god put things right?
It doesn't matter where in the bible laws came from, these are the divine word of god. This is his teaching. This is how we a re to live our lives. Every single thing god said is of the utmost importantce, surely?
Are you saying that god changed his mind? IS he just making things up as he goes along?
Perhaps our debate is an insult to christians and non-chistians, but i don't really care.
Sure, message me and tell me all about he christianity vs jews thing, i'd be glad to read it. |
Beat Writer Posts: 182 Joined: 31 Aug 2008 | Essentially, ianuam, all my posts pertain only to my correcting of stupidity people spout in an attempt to destroy a thing they no nothing about - all are usually easily corrected fallacies. My intention has never been evangelistic, but instead has been about me trying to halt and then correct the incessant stream of generalised nonsense about Christianity (see the last 18 pages for reference). I'm absolutely happy to discuss my faith and various view points. I believe I can do this without going onto the offensive. However, do not mistake my DEFENSE of my faith to be "unopen to discussion". You see, I'm working from an ignorance fueled negative. Not once have I attacked a world perspective held by a fellow forumite, but instead tried to correct their invented version or fallacy of my own faith. I also believe I should be able to PRESENT WHAT I BELIEVE without having several people jump up (who know NOTHING about it) and start proclaiming garbage as fact (see my above post).
So please, don't join the rest of the people here in generalising me as trying to convert you. I'm doing nothing of the sort. And you'll find that the other Christian forumites posting aren't either. If I spewed ignorant vitriol at you about your mother, you would have something to say about it, I would NOT however, say that your defense is unopen to discussion. Once a status quo has been established, then a discussion can take place. Until this/that time, this thread has been dominated by what I have decribed above. |
Beat Writer Posts: 182 Joined: 31 Aug 2008 | TheDean:
Sure, message me and tell me all about he christianity vs jews thing, i'd be glad to read it.
I think that is going to be of most help... so is a general look at fact:
ONE OF MANY, MANY HOSTILE RECORDS OF JESUS: I just dragged this up to deflate the whole "he's never mentioned anywhere" crap.
Tacitus:
Nero fabricated scapegoats-and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.)
Please, refine your vitriol. |
Muckraker Posts: 229 Joined: 13 Oct 2008 | maximilian:
Bright_Raven:
their are no references to jesus other than the bible. period.
no, i do not have their exact quotes and names on me right now
Bright_Raven, case in point. now this here, folks this is what we call an incredibly ignorant person.
Yeah, you're totally right.
Okay, my love for discussion starts to wear very thin around about now. This is around about the time where you get up to date with some actual viable/defensible atheist arguments in order for me not to think you're patronising me or being satirical.
Why not have a crack at the line between "fundamentalist" Christianity and "evangelical", or maybe argue that the Church has no right (biblically or otherwise) to try and determine state. Maybe you might want to express the displeasure of your own experience with Christians and allow me to explain the Christian truth from the Bible regarding how they acted and if it was in fact "Christian".
Instead, you do this.
And here I was, getting worried that a coherent discussion was beginning to take place. I have little time to DESTROY this (as I'm sure an amoeba could). Start digging friendo - you've just committed argumental suicide with the words
wow, you edited my post SEVERELY to do this. i don't have the "supposive" religious quotes on me because it was 11:40 at night, they are fakes anyway. if you are really that picky then i will post the fake references later this after noon. please do not deliver cut down versions of quotes so as to purposefully take things out of context. i had this kind of discussion last night and most of the peoople there stated that they were too scare not to believe. religion relies of fear, and now that many of the "mysteries" have been solved they only have the fear of death and hell remaining.
and as for
maximilian:
TheDean:
Sure, message me and tell me all about he christianity vs jews thing, i'd be glad to read it.
I think that is going to be of most help... so is a general look at fact:
ONE OF MANY, MANY HOSTILE RECORDS OF JESUS: I just dragged this up to deflate the whole "he's never mentioned anywhere" crap.
Tacitus:
Nero fabricated scapegoats-and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.)
Please, refine your vitriol.
i will investigate this but i believe is is a forgery. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 377 Joined: 14 Jan 2008 | *shrugs* Maybe if they all shut up we wouldnt hate them. **** Zealots. |
Paperboy Posts: 17 Joined: 14 Oct 2008 | I am an atheist. But that doesn't matter. As others said before me, this is the most populous religion. And because religion is mainly and idea, there are bound to be people against this idea. And some of them are haters.
And it is those haters that show their hate on public internet places. There aren't "so many haters" there are just haters that gather round. |
Muckraker Posts: 229 Joined: 13 Oct 2008 | Bright_Raven:
maximilian:
Bright_Raven:
their are no references to jesus other than the bible. period.
no, i do not have their exact quotes and names on me right now
Bright_Raven, case in point. now this here, folks this is what we call an incredibly ignorant person.
Yeah, you're totally right.
Okay, my love for discussion starts to wear very thin around about now. This is around about the time where you get up to date with some actual viable/defensible atheist arguments in order for me not to think you're patronising me or being satirical.
Why not have a crack at the line between "fundamentalist" Christianity and "evangelical", or maybe argue that the Church has no right (biblically or otherwise) to try and determine state. Maybe you might want to express the displeasure of your own experience with Christians and allow me to explain the Christian truth from the Bible regarding how they acted and if it was in fact "Christian".
Instead, you do this.
And here I was, getting worried that a coherent discussion was beginning to take place. I have little time to DESTROY this (as I'm sure an amoeba could). Start digging friendo - you've just committed argumental suicide with the words
wow, you edited my post SEVERELY to do this. i don't have the "supposive" religious quotes on me because it was 11:40 at night, they are fakes anyway. if you are really that picky then i will post the fake references later this after noon. please do not deliver cut down versions of quotes so as to purposefully take things out of context. i had this kind of discussion last night and most of the peoople there stated that they were too scare not to believe. religion relies of fear, and now that many of the "mysteries" have been solved they only have the fear of death and hell remaining.
and as for
maximilian:
TheDean:
Sure, message me and tell me all about he christianity vs jews thing, i'd be glad to read it.
I think that is going to be of most help... so is a general look at fact:
ONE OF MANY, MANY HOSTILE RECORDS OF JESUS: I just dragged this up to deflate the whole "he's never mentioned anywhere" crap.
Tacitus:
Nero fabricated scapegoats-and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.)
Please, refine your vitriol.
i will investigate this but i believe is is a forgery.
OK i found the notes in my RESEARCH and the term "christ" is not a name, it is a TITLE it means "the anointed one" never is the name Jesus mentioned and the word he used was actually "christus" also note that their is very little mention of a "christus" besides a few very vague lines which more than likely refers to the leader of the people, christus means
"the anointed one" i.e. The one anointed leader? i do my research.
please don't selectively take this out of context with quotes. again.
P.S Atheism cures religious terrorism |
Copy Clerk Posts: 91 Joined: 14 Jun 2008 | Girlysprite:
Sccye and Max (and all others)
One of the reasons the bible and its interpetations are so often criticized is because there are many christians who quote the bible to explain why they have certain views. They quote the bible to show that homosexuality (practicing it) is not allowed for example. So they say things like these because the bible says so. But at the same time, they do not live according other (lesser well known) rules and views also expressed in this bible. This comes across as a sort of cherry picking in bible rules. And this causes people to revolt against it and point out it's flaws of age and translation, and as such can not be trusted in the details.
The bible is important for it's messages, the general rules of life (ten commandments) and the spirit inside it. But I can not take it literally to the letter, and I think most of you would agree to that. But i hope it'll help you understand where the anti-bible arguments come from.
So, being flawed as it is, there will always be discussions about the bible and it's followers and their rules.
Right, like the teaching that its easier for a Camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
From a historical standpoint you can see how it became so popular when it is contrasted with both traditional Roman/Greek religion and Judaism. Christianity cut out the long, tiresome rituals of Roman religion, and made redundant many of the strict rules of Judaism. It is interesting to see how Christianity fixes history to achieve its own story. The letters of Pliny as Propreator of Bithynia to Trajan pretty much contradict the progress Christianity supposidly made during St. Paul's missions. Too some Christians the work of archiologists in discovering these corrospondances is seen as a conspiracy. |
Beat Writer Posts: 182 Joined: 31 Aug 2008 | Bright_Raven:
OK i found the notes in my RESEARCH and the term "christ" is not a name, it is a TITLE it means "the anointed one" never is the name Jesus mentioned and the word he used was actually "christus" also note that their is very little mention of a "christus" besides a few very vague lines which more than likely refers to the leader of the people, christus means
"the anointed one" i.e. The one anointed leader? i do my research.
please don't selectively take this out of context with quotes. again.
P.S Atheism cures religious terrorism
Umm yeah?
Okay:
Everyone knows that Christ wasn't his surname.
You've just proven (with a strange use of words) that Tacitus was indeed talking about Jesus the "Christ". (and the word is actually Christos is Greek)
Oh, the quality of your research and depth is evident.
Don't take this out of context with quotes again? What? You just said you have no proof for any of your statements and I'm meant to be okay with that? Like it's a valid form of discussion or debate?
PLEASE move on from this "Christ isn't recorded outside of the Bible argument". It's embarrassing and annoying.
P.S. Atheism doesn't cure Stalin's record for mass murder. Give up on the whole "the world would be better without religion." |
Beat Writer Posts: 182 Joined: 31 Aug 2008 | TrevorOfCrete:
Right, like the teaching that its easier for a Camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
From a historical standpoint you can see how it became so popular when it is contrasted with both traditional Roman/Greek religion and Judaism. Christianity cut out the long, tiresome rituals of Roman religion, and made redundant many of the strict rules of Judaism. It is interesting to see how Christianity fixes history to achieve its own story. The letters of Pliny as Propreator of Bithynia to Trajan pretty much contradict the progress Christianity supposidly made during St. Paul's missions. Too some Christians the work of archiologists in discovering these corrospondances is seen as a conspiracy.
First off, a brief look at that phrase would give you some incite as to what it means for Christians. It was written for Christians, and not for secular, fridge magnet philosophy.
I guess I'd implore you not to use a tone of language that instantly assumes everything you say is fact. I preface all of my statements (unless they are TRUE for you - due to fact as evident) with "I believe" so don't assume you've stumbled onto an atheist convention. Just like I wouldn't quote the Bible to you in a way that made you assume it was fact.
I'd like references for the last two points (regarding Pliny and conspiracy of Christian archeologists). Regardless, Paul's missions didn't need to be a success as the Bible itself teaches - the world will never be Christian and everywhere we go we'll face persecution/Christians who pervert the faith. |
Muckraker Posts: 229 Joined: |
Sccye and Max (and all others)
One of the reasons the bible and its interpetations are so often criticized is because there are many christians who quote the bible to explain why they have certain views. They quote the bible to show that homosexuality (practicing it) is not allowed for example. So they say things like these because the bible says so. But at the same time, they do not live according other (lesser well known) rules and views also expressed in this bible. This comes across as a sort of cherry picking in bible rules. And this causes people to revolt against it and point out it's flaws of age and translation, and as such can not be trusted in the details.
The bible is important for it's messages, the general rules of life (ten commandments) and the spirit inside it. But I can not take it literally to the letter, and I think most of you would agree to that. But i hope it'll help you understand where the anti-bible arguments come from.
So, being flawed as it is, there will always be discussions about the bible and it's followers and their rules.