African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[RandomGuy]

KET, Nigeria — The nine-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him – Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of "witch children" reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.

Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"It is an outrage what they are allowing to take place in the name of Christianity," said Gary Foxcroft, head of nonprofit Stepping Stones Nigeria.

For their part, the families are often extremely poor, and sometimes even relieved to have one less mouth to feed. Poverty, conflict and poor education lay the foundation for accusations, which are then triggered by the death of a relative, the loss of a job or the denunciation of a pastor on the make, said Martin Dawes, a spokesman for the United Nations Children's Fund.

"When communities come under pressure, they look for scapegoats," he said. "It plays into traditional beliefs that someone is responsible for a negative change ... and children are defenseless."

____

The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria's 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.

Nigeria is one of the heartlands of abuse, but hardly the only one: the United Nations Children's Fund says tens of thousands of children have been targeted throughout Africa.

Church signs sprout around every twist of the road snaking through the jungle between Uyo, the capital of the southern Akwa Ibom state where Nwanaokwo lay, and Eket, home to many more rejected "witch children." Churches outnumber schools, clinics and banks put together. Many promise to solve parishioner's material worries as well as spiritual ones – eight out of ten Nigerians struggle by on less than $2 a day.

"Poverty must catch fire," insists the Born 2 Rule Crusade on one of Uyo's main streets.

"Where little shots become big shots in a short time," promises the Winner's Chapel down the road.

"Pray your way to riches," advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.

It's hard for churches to carve out a congregation with so much competition. So some pastors establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft.

Nwanaokwo said he knew the pastor who accused him only as Pastor King. Mount Zion Lighthouse in Nigeria at first confirmed that a Pastor King worked for them, then denied that they knew any such person.

Bishop A.D. Ayakndue, the head of the church in Nigeria, said pastors were encouraged to pray about witchcraft, but not to abuse children.

"We pray over that problem (of witchcraft) very powerfully," he said. "But we can never hurt a child."

The Nigerian church is a branch of a Californian church by the same name. But the California church says it lost touch with its Nigerian offshoots several years ago.

"I had no idea," said church elder Carrie King by phone from Tracy, Calif. "I knew people believed in witchcraft over there but we believe in the power of prayer, not physically harming people."

The Mount Zion Lighthouse – also named by three other families as the accuser of their children – is part of the powerful Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. The Fellowship's president, Ayo Oritsejafor, said the Fellowship was the fastest-growing religious group in Nigeria, with more than 30 million members.

"We have grown so much in the past few years we cannot keep an eye on everybody," he explained.

But Foxcroft, the head of Stepping Stones, said if the organization was able to collect membership fees, it could also police its members better. He had already written to the organization twice to alert it to the abuse, he said. He suggested the fellowship ask members to sign forms denouncing abuse or hold meetings to educate pastors about the new child rights law in the state of Akwa Ibom, which makes it illegal to denounce children as witches. Similar laws and education were needed in other states, he said.

Sam Itauma of the Children's Rights and Rehabilitation Network said it is the most vulnerable children – the orphaned, sick, disabled or poor – who are most often denounced. In Nwanaokwo's case, his poor father and dead mother made him an easy target.

"Even churches who didn't use to 'find' child witches are being forced into it by the competition," said Itauma. "They are seen as spiritually powerful because they can detect witchcraft and the parents may even pay them money for an exorcism."

That's what Margaret Eyekang did when her 8-year-old daughter Abigail was accused by a "prophet" from the Apostolic Church, because the girl liked to sleep outside on hot nights – interpreted as meaning she might be flying off to join a coven. A series of exorcisms cost Eyekang eight months' wages, or US$270. The payments bankrupted her.

Neighbors also attacked her daughter.

"They beat her with sticks and asked me why I was bringing them a witch child," she said. A relative offered Eyekang floor space but Abigail was not welcome and had to sleep in the streets.

Members of two other families said pastors from the Apostolic Church had accused their children of witchcraft, but asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

The Nigeria Apostolic Church refused repeated requests made by phone, e-mail and in person for comment.

___

At first glance, there's nothing unusual about the laughing, grubby kids playing hopscotch or reading from a tattered Dick and Jane book by the graffiti-scrawled cinderblock house. But this is where children like Abigail end up after being labeled witches by churches and abandoned or tortured by their families.

There's a scar above Jane's shy smile: her mother tried to saw off the top of her skull after a pastor denounced her and repeated exorcisms costing a total of $60 didn't cure her of witchcraft. Mary, 15, is just beginning to think about boys and how they will look at the scar tissue on her face caused when her mother doused her in caustic soda. Twelve-year-old Rachel dreamed of being a banker but instead was chained up by her pastor, starved and beaten with sticks repeatedly; her uncle paid him $60 for the exorcism.

Israel's cousin tried to bury him alive, Nwaekwa's father drove a nail through her head, and sweet-tempered Jerry – all knees, elbows and toothy grin – was beaten by his pastor, starved, made to eat cement and then set on fire by his father as his pastor's wife cheered it on.

The children at the home run by Itauma's organization have been mutilated as casually as the praying mantises they play with. Home officials asked for the children's last names not to be used to protect them from retaliation.

The home was founded in 2003 with seven children; it now has 120 to 200 at any given time as children are reconciled with their families and new victims arrive.

Helen Ukpabio is one of the few evangelists publicly linked to the denunciation of child witches. She heads the enormous Liberty Gospel church in Calabar, where Nwanaokwo used to live. Ukpabio makes and distributes popular books and DVDs on witchcraft; in one film, a group of child witches pull out a man's eyeballs. In another book, she advises that 60 percent of the inability to bear children is caused by witchcraft.

In an interview with the AP, Ukpabio is accompanied by her lawyer, church officials and personal film crew.

"Witchcraft is real," Ukpabio insisted, before denouncing the physical abuse of children. Ukpabio says she performs non-abusive exorcisms for free and was not aware of or responsible for any misinterpretation of her materials.

"I don't know about that," she declared.

However, she then acknowledged that she had seen a pastor from the Apostolic Church break a girl's jaw during an exorcism. Ukpabio said she prayed over her that night and cast out the demon. She did not respond to questions on whether she took the girl to hospital or complained about the injury to church authorities.

After activists publicly identified Liberty Gospel as denouncing "child witches," armed police arrived at Itauma's home accompanied by a church lawyer. Three children were injured in the fracas. Itauma asked that other churches identified by children not be named to protect their victims.

"We cannot afford to make enemies of all the churches around here," he said. "But we know the vast majority of them are involved in the abuse even if their headquarters aren't aware."

Just mentioning the name of a church is enough to frighten a group of bubbly children at the home.

"Please stop the pastors who hurt us," said Jerry quietly, touching the scars on his face. "I believe in God and God knows I am not a witch."
AP report via: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


Where are US religious leaders condemning this, and working to stop it?

[TheSanityAnnex]

KET, Nigeria — The nine-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him – Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of "witch children" reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.

Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"It is an outrage what they are allowing to take place in the name of Christianity," said Gary Foxcroft, head of nonprofit Stepping Stones Nigeria.

For their part, the families are often extremely poor, and sometimes even relieved to have one less mouth to feed. Poverty, conflict and poor education lay the foundation for accusations, which are then triggered by the death of a relative, the loss of a job or the denunciation of a pastor on the make, said Martin Dawes, a spokesman for the United Nations Children's Fund.

"When communities come under pressure, they look for scapegoats," he said. "It plays into traditional beliefs that someone is responsible for a negative change ... and children are defenseless."

____

The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria's 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.

Nigeria is one of the heartlands of abuse, but hardly the only one: the United Nations Children's Fund says tens of thousands of children have been targeted throughout Africa.

Church signs sprout around every twist of the road snaking through the jungle between Uyo, the capital of the southern Akwa Ibom state where Nwanaokwo lay, and Eket, home to many more rejected "witch children." Churches outnumber schools, clinics and banks put together. Many promise to solve parishioner's material worries as well as spiritual ones – eight out of ten Nigerians struggle by on less than $2 a day.

"Poverty must catch fire," insists the Born 2 Rule Crusade on one of Uyo's main streets.

"Where little shots become big shots in a short time," promises the Winner's Chapel down the road.

"Pray your way to riches," advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.

It's hard for churches to carve out a congregation with so much competition. So some pastors establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft.

Nwanaokwo said he knew the pastor who accused him only as Pastor King. Mount Zion Lighthouse in Nigeria at first confirmed that a Pastor King worked for them, then denied that they knew any such person.

Bishop A.D. Ayakndue, the head of the church in Nigeria, said pastors were encouraged to pray about witchcraft, but not to abuse children.

"We pray over that problem (of witchcraft) very powerfully," he said. "But we can never hurt a child."

The Nigerian church is a branch of a Californian church by the same name. But the California church says it lost touch with its Nigerian offshoots several years ago.

"I had no idea," said church elder Carrie King by phone from Tracy, Calif. "I knew people believed in witchcraft over there but we believe in the power of prayer, not physically harming people."

The Mount Zion Lighthouse – also named by three other families as the accuser of their children – is part of the powerful Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. The Fellowship's president, Ayo Oritsejafor, said the Fellowship was the fastest-growing religious group in Nigeria, with more than 30 million members.

"We have grown so much in the past few years we cannot keep an eye on everybody," he explained.

But Foxcroft, the head of Stepping Stones, said if the organization was able to collect membership fees, it could also police its members better. He had already written to the organization twice to alert it to the abuse, he said. He suggested the fellowship ask members to sign forms denouncing abuse or hold meetings to educate pastors about the new child rights law in the state of Akwa Ibom, which makes it illegal to denounce children as witches. Similar laws and education were needed in other states, he said.

Sam Itauma of the Children's Rights and Rehabilitation Network said it is the most vulnerable children – the orphaned, sick, disabled or poor – who are most often denounced. In Nwanaokwo's case, his poor father and dead mother made him an easy target.

"Even churches who didn't use to 'find' child witches are being forced into it by the competition," said Itauma. "They are seen as spiritually powerful because they can detect witchcraft and the parents may even pay them money for an exorcism."

That's what Margaret Eyekang did when her 8-year-old daughter Abigail was accused by a "prophet" from the Apostolic Church, because the girl liked to sleep outside on hot nights – interpreted as meaning she might be flying off to join a coven. A series of exorcisms cost Eyekang eight months' wages, or US$270. The payments bankrupted her.

Neighbors also attacked her daughter.

"They beat her with sticks and asked me why I was bringing them a witch child," she said. A relative offered Eyekang floor space but Abigail was not welcome and had to sleep in the streets.

Members of two other families said pastors from the Apostolic Church had accused their children of witchcraft, but asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

The Nigeria Apostolic Church refused repeated requests made by phone, e-mail and in person for comment.

___

At first glance, there's nothing unusual about the laughing, grubby kids playing hopscotch or reading from a tattered Dick and Jane book by the graffiti-scrawled cinderblock house. But this is where children like Abigail end up after being labeled witches by churches and abandoned or tortured by their families.

There's a scar above Jane's shy smile: her mother tried to saw off the top of her skull after a pastor denounced her and repeated exorcisms costing a total of $60 didn't cure her of witchcraft. Mary, 15, is just beginning to think about boys and how they will look at the scar tissue on her face caused when her mother doused her in caustic soda. Twelve-year-old Rachel dreamed of being a banker but instead was chained up by her pastor, starved and beaten with sticks repeatedly; her uncle paid him $60 for the exorcism.

Israel's cousin tried to bury him alive, Nwaekwa's father drove a nail through her head, and sweet-tempered Jerry – all knees, elbows and toothy grin – was beaten by his pastor, starved, made to eat cement and then set on fire by his father as his pastor's wife cheered it on.

The children at the home run by Itauma's organization have been mutilated as casually as the praying mantises they play with. Home officials asked for the children's last names not to be used to protect them from retaliation.

The home was founded in 2003 with seven children; it now has 120 to 200 at any given time as children are reconciled with their families and new victims arrive.

Helen Ukpabio is one of the few evangelists publicly linked to the denunciation of child witches. She heads the enormous Liberty Gospel church in Calabar, where Nwanaokwo used to live. Ukpabio makes and distributes popular books and DVDs on witchcraft; in one film, a group of child witches pull out a man's eyeballs. In another book, she advises that 60 percent of the inability to bear children is caused by witchcraft.

In an interview with the AP, Ukpabio is accompanied by her lawyer, church officials and personal film crew.

"Witchcraft is real," Ukpabio insisted, before denouncing the physical abuse of children. Ukpabio says she performs non-abusive exorcisms for free and was not aware of or responsible for any misinterpretation of her materials.

"I don't know about that," she declared.

However, she then acknowledged that she had seen a pastor from the Apostolic Church break a girl's jaw during an exorcism. Ukpabio said she prayed over her that night and cast out the demon. She did not respond to questions on whether she took the girl to hospital or complained about the injury to church authorities.

After activists publicly identified Liberty Gospel as denouncing "child witches," armed police arrived at Itauma's home accompanied by a church lawyer. Three children were injured in the fracas. Itauma asked that other churches identified by children not be named to protect their victims.

"We cannot afford to make enemies of all the churches around here," he said. "But we know the vast majority of them are involved in the abuse even if their headquarters aren't aware."

Just mentioning the name of a church is enough to frighten a group of bubbly children at the home.

"Please stop the pastors who hurt us," said Jerry quietly, touching the scars on his face. "I believe in God and God knows I am not a witch."
AP report via: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


Where are US religious leaders condemning this, and working to stop it?


If these Christian witch killers did ISIS like videos I'm sure they'd get more notoriety and you'd have US religious leaders condemning them. Your comparison doesn't hold up, US religious leaders don't know what the fuck is going on at Mt Zion Lighthouse is Nigeria.

[I. Hustle]

That stuff is horrible. Disgusting.

[baseline bum]

Fucking Pentecostals are scary

[lefty]

:lmao White Christians

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Bible require no other provocation than itself.

[Wild Cobra]

People will use religion for their evil purposes. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if it's the KKK, ISIS, or other groups. It is evil people twisting a reference.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Witch burnings, raping babies to cure AIDS, sacrificing albinos, and muti murders in Africa have more to do with the fucked up tribal religions black Africans follow than it does with Christianity. Many are religions that go back over 1000 years before any Christian missionaries showed up to spread the word of Jesus. Nelson Mandelas government officially recognizes witchcraft today.

[Spurminator]

If these Christian witch killers did ISIS like videos I'm sure they'd get more notoriety and you'd have US religious leaders condemning them. Your comparison doesn't hold up, US religious leaders don't know what the fuck is going on at Mt Zion Lighthouse is Nigeria.

US Christian leaders do condemn them. They get as much mainstream news coverage of that condemnation as Moderate Muslim leaders get when they condemn terrorism.

[mingus]

I can't understand the logic of the comparison without knowing what exactly Muslim leaders are being asked to repudiate and why.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't understand the logic of the comparison without knowing what exactly Muslim leaders are being asked to repudiate and why.

Repudiate the Hadith because it was created by the Ayyubid Caliphate and is the basis of modern jihadi doctrine. Al that shit about evil people building tall towers, being required to answer the call of Allah to Jihad and the permissions for moral disregard towards 'non-believers' is explicitly laid out in the Hadith.

[mingus]

Repudiate the Hadith because it was created by the Ayyubid Caliphate and is the basis of modern jihadi doctrine. Al that shit about evil people building tall towers, being required to answer the call of Allah to Jihad and the permissions for moral disregard towards 'non-believers' is explicitly laid out in the Hadith.

You think people like rmt know wtf the Hadith even is? Nobody except people who want be somewhat literate in Islam know what the Hadith is. For real, that can't be what most people want them to reject--the vast majority of most non-Muslims are probably completely ignorant of what the Hadith even is.

Plus, isn't the Hadith followed to varying degrees by most Muslims? I mean there's lot more in it than jihadist doctrine re. martyrdom, killing infidels etc, right? The Hadith is a major part of being a Muslim for most Muslims. Asking them to repudiate the Hadith would be pretty excessive.

I just want some clarity here on what you think is "exactly" being asked of Muslim leaders to denounce by most people who ask of such a thing. The "Hadith" just doesn't make much sense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You think people like rmt know wtf the Hadith even is? Nobody except people who want be somewhat literate in Islam know what the Hadith is. For real, that can't be what most people want them to reject--the vast majority of most non-Muslims are probably completely ignorant of what the Hadith even is.

Plus, isn't the Hadith followed to varying degrees by most Muslims? I mean there's lot more in it than jihadist doctrine re. martyrdom, killing infidels etc, right? The Hadith is a major part of being a Muslim for most Muslims. Asking them to repudiate the Hadith would be pretty excessive.

I just want some clarity here on what you think is "exactly" being asked of Muslim leaders to denounce by most people who ask of such a thing. The "Hadith" just doesn't make much sense.

Why do you think I'm bringing it up? I think the Bible having Leviticus Deuteronomy and the other animal sacrifice rituals for absolution as well as Paul's pandering to the Roman's and directives to his underlings is the greatest irony in western culture.

All Hadith I've read are modeled after Matthew. Islamists are very chameleon. Much like Matthew a roman who went to Jesus' suppers and followed him around writing down what he said, people followed Muhammad around and wrote what he said in response to people asking him questions. The parables from this make up much of Matthew and are one of the few things in the Bible that I actually believe at all from that book. The contrived genealogy and sketch of his early life is obviously made to satisfy the person making a state religion. Constantine might have been converting but not necessarily so his fellow elites throughout the Mediterranean. A outcast wastrel taken in and trained by a shaman who ritually bathed wouldn't sell. King of Kings? Ok Yeah!

Much like Constantine at the head of his state, the Ayyubid sultanate was not able to maintain social control even with their state religion. They too needed more. The Ottoman's did it. The Roman's did it. Need some warriors? Cook it up. Need to justify your revenge killing? Cook it up. Need to justify slavery? Need to justify subjugation of women? Cook it up.

Muhammad explicitly says that you are not to speak in his name outside of the Quran in the Quran. He saw what people were doing that were following him around and told them not to do it. Jesus was crucified before he even had a chance to do likewise.

[mingus]

The shit I typed out got fucked bec. my phone's been giving me issues. Second time it's happened to me. So I'll just say this:

There'es more to the basis of the accusative line of questioning done by what I will concede are only or most entirely Christians (because I don't like painting with big paintbrushes, and see no point in really arguing with people who do--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that OP makes a point of making an example out of them here).

There's geo-political, ethnic, economic, cultural, historical and geographical things at play here that form the basis of what ultimately is a stupid accusation/question by "them", for sure. But it's not just religious, and for that reason it's a shitty comparison the way I see it.

[pgardn]

Fuzz

Where would you advise one read to find more on this:


Muhammad explicitly says that you are not to speak in his name outside of the Quran in the Quran. He saw what people were doing that were following him around and told them not to do it. Jesus was crucified before he even had a chance to do likewise.

[mingus]

If these Christian witch killers did ISIS like videos I'm sure they'd get more notoriety and you'd have US religious leaders condemning them. Your comparison doesn't hold up, US religious leaders don't know what the fuck is going on at Mt Zion Lighthouse is Nigeria.

This is the "geography" I was referring to. Not only do they not know "what the fuck is going on" there, that practice isn't relevant here. If Islamic terrorism was only carried out in and Islamic terrorists only lived in Podunk, which also happened to be somewhere China, carried out by poor villagers whose only way of spreading their propoghanda was via mail line or door-to-door (or tent-flap to tent-flap), it'd be comparable.

Generalizations can be made for a variety reasons. None of them good, it all boils down to ignorance.

If you wanna show "Christians" that they're being stupid because they generalized based on x,y & z, and that they're also hypocritical because in another instance they don't generalize based on a,b & c, it doesn't work.

[Winehole23]

Repudiate the Hadith because it was created by the Ayyubid Caliphate and is the basis of modern jihadi doctrine. Al that shit about evil people building tall towers, being required to answer the call of Allah to Jihad and the permissions for moral disregard towards 'non-believers' is explicitly laid out in the Hadith.It ain't that simple, Doc.

Calling for the repudiation of Hadith is somewhat akin to calling for Jews to repudiate Halacha -- it's never gonna happen and frankly, your case against Hadith per se, is weak. There's not a single authoritative tradition, but a multitude. A cursory review of basic info seems to indicate you've simplified matters grossly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It ain't that simple, Doc.

Calling for the repudiation of Hadith is somewhat akin to calling for Jews to repudiate Halacha -- it's never gonna happen and frankly, your case against Hadith per se, is weak. There's not a single authoritative tradition, but a multitude. A cursory review of basic info seems to indicate you've simplified matters grossly.

Does jihadi tradition derive from the Quran or not? If not then its from Hadith as I state. I know you want to hold onto your false prophets.

The Hadith is so obviously contrived by man as is the rest of your Abrahamic religions. I get that you don't like me because I mock for being figurative outside of Psalms and Proverbs but the god delusion is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz

Where would you advise one read to find more on this:


Muhammad explicitly says that you are not to speak in his name outside of the Quran in the Quran. He saw what people were doing that were following him around and told them not to do it. Jesus was crucified before he even had a chance to do likewise.

Read the Quran. It says that it is whole and complete and you are not to speak in his word outside of it.

[Winehole23]

Does jihadi tradition derive from the Quran or not?that's not what you said, and how could it not? you're tilting at a scarecrow...

[Winehole23]

Does jihadi tradition derive from the Quran or not? If not then its from Hadith as I state. I know you want to hold onto your false prophets.

The Hadith is so obviously contrived by man as is the rest of your Abrahamic religions. I get that you don't like me because I mock for being figurative outside of Psalms and Proverbs but the god delusion is what it is.WTF are you talking about? You hate religion per se, or something like that?

Just Abrahamic religions? Anything man-made?

[RandomGuy]

If these Christian witch killers did ISIS like videos I'm sure they'd get more notoriety and you'd have US religious leaders condemning them. Your comparison doesn't hold up, US religious leaders don't know what the fuck is going on at Mt Zion Lighthouse is Nigeria.

So you don't have any US Christian leaders condemning this? Why is that? Do they support it?

[Phenomanul]

No one here supports that crap.

That said, I think that many of you all largely believe that things such as witchcraft are simply myths from the past - i.e. non-existent, consigned to fairytaledom...

If you've never experienced or seen demonic manifestations first hand you probably would have every right to be skeptical.

When I was 22, I was visiting a church in southern Mexico (in the state of Chiapas) and they brought in a 12 year old boy, who clearly was not 'right'. There were several pastors there and they took him to a separate room and started praying (and asked the rest of us to pray in intercession from the sanctuary)... It was a humid August day, with temperatures exceeding 90°F as early as 8:00 AM every morning - and yet as soon as we begun praying the temperature in the building dropped to the point where you could see ice crystals forming in our exhalations (and no, the building was not equipped with an A/C system and the windows and door themselves were wide open). We were all visibly shaken but this manifestation was clearly "unnatural". After about an hour everyone came out of that room and the boy looked completely restored. There were even scratches on his arms and his face that had visibly disappeared and the color of his skin had warmed up. His parents were VERY grateful with us and wouldn't stop hugging their child. By that time, the towns' folk had gathered around the church in complete and total awe of what had just transpired. We were later told that the little boy had been afflicted for several months before the parents decided to come to the evangelical church for our help. This stuff is very real. You just don't see it in the U.S. as much. And this is not an isolated incident... I've seen similar manifestations on at least 3 other occasions. (Tragically that church was burned down by an indigenous tribe last year and several close brothers in the faith were murdered in the incident).

The point is... YOU all are skeptical of what you don't understand. What you all don't want to believe out of convenience to your positions/world-perspective. You all constantly forage the forum for continued justification of your general disbelief finding all sorts of articles and discussion points written from the same skeptical perspective to keep fostering and bolstering said position. It's fine... you all are entitled to do that. To believe whatever you want.

To be clear... the Nigerian church is clearly in the wrong here...

But the question I have is why bring this up with such accusational light against Christianity in general? ("Why aren't any other people - Christians specifically - condemning this???"). The answer is simple. They don't know about it. Because if they did, they would most certainly intercede - despite the religious climate there. It's not easy to venture into Nigeria these days... especially not as a Christian.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

And I ask that simply to present the context that explains why corrective action on part of the church is not something that can happen immediately (given the instability and religious volatility of the country).

My 2¢

[boutons_deux]

Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda's Anti-Gay Crackdown
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

Christian grifter "pastors" enouraging dead gays in Africa. They would do the same in America if Christian Sharia became law.

[baseline bum]

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WTF are you talking about? You hate religion per se, or something like that?

Just Abrahamic religions? Anything man-made?

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. :lol the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

[Phenomanul]

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. :lol the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

[boutons_deux]

:lol Taking Jesus as God/divine and the Bible as scientific and historical FACTS! :lol

[Winehole23]

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. :lol the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.You assume a lot about me. You don't know very much.

Whatever you extrapolate from that is your very own business, hilariously off base, and has nothing to do with me.

[Winehole23]

I dislike you not because you criticize believers, but because you're a pompous asshole.

[Phenomanul]

:lol Taking Jesus as God/divine and the Bible as scientific and historical FACTS! :lol

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those documents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

[boutons_deux]

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those documents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

with the exception of Josephus and one other, ALL of them are Christ propagandists/marketing men.

[Phenomanul]

Really? You need to catch up on your bot-like rebuttals.

Jesus and reference to Christians are found in:

The writings of Greek historian Lucian of Samosata (second century)...

The Acts of Pontius Pilate
or other Roman accounts from the first and second centuries
Gaius Suetonius
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger

How about references by Roman Emperors themselves:
Nero
Claudius
Hadrian
Trajan

Then there are other writings that reference Jesus/Christ and his followers:

Thallus the Samaritan wrote accounts that reference Jesus' crucifixion.
Phlegon was a secular historian who recorded four separate quotes in reference to Jesus. ONE is of particular importance because it also references the biblical account of Jesus crucifixion as having caused widespread supernatural phenomena [quote by Julius Africanus in particular]

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? . . . And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time." - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

"At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Mara bar-Serapion, was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus and his followers in a letter dated to A.D. 73
and then you have the Graece Magicae Papyri which references the use of Jesus' name to heal people (and includes references of Judaic rabbinical rebuke of using Jesus' name in said practice).

Aside from Josephus the Talmud also mentions Jesus' historicity.

[DMC]

No one here supports that crap.

That said, I think that many of you all largely believe that things such as witchcraft are simply myths from the past - i.e. non-existent, consigned to fairytaledom...

If you've never experienced or seen demonic manifestations first hand you probably would have every right to be skeptical.

When I was 22, I was visiting a church in southern Mexico (in the state of Chiapas) and they brought in a 12 year old boy, who clearly was not 'right'. There were several pastors there and they took him to a separate room and started praying (and asked the rest of us to pray in intercession from the sanctuary)... It was a humid August day, with temperatures exceeding 90°F as early as 8:00 AM every morning - and yet as soon as we begun praying the temperature in the building dropped to the point where you could see ice crystals forming in our exhalations (and no, the building was not equipped with an A/C system and the windows and door themselves were wide open). We were all visibly shaken but this manifestation was clearly "unnatural". After about an hour everyone came out of that room and the boy looked completely restored. There were even scratches on his arms and his face that had visibly disappeared and the color of his skin had warmed up. His parents were VERY grateful with us and wouldn't stop hugging their child. By that time, the towns' folk had gathered around the church in complete and total awe of what had just transpired. We were later told that the little boy had been afflicted for several months before the parents decided to come to the evangelical church for our help. This stuff is very real. You just don't see it in the U.S. as much. And this is not an isolated incident... I've seen similar manifestations on at least 3 other occasions. (Tragically that church was burned down by an indigenous tribe last year and several close brothers in the faith were murdered in the incident).

The point is... YOU all are skeptical of what you don't understand. What you all don't want to believe out of convenience to your positions/world-perspective. You all constantly forage the forum for continued justification of your general disbelief finding all sorts of articles and discussion points written from the same skeptical perspective to keep fostering and bolstering said position. It's fine... you all are entitled to do that. To believe whatever you want.

To be clear... the Nigerian church is clearly in the wrong here...

But the question I have is why bring this up with such accusational light against Christianity in general? ("Why aren't any other people - Christians specifically - condemning this???"). The answer is simple. They don't know about it. Because if they did, they would most certainly intercede - despite the religious climate there. It's not easy to venture into Nigeria these days... especially not as a Christian.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

And I ask that simply to present the context that explains why corrective action on part of the church is not something that can happen immediately (given the instability and religious volatility of the country).

My 2¢

:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No one here supports that crap.

That said, I think that many of you all largely believe that things such as witchcraft are simply myths from the past - i.e. non-existent, consigned to fairytaledom...

If you've never experienced or seen demonic manifestations first hand you probably would have every right to be skeptical.

When I was 22, I was visiting a church in southern Mexico (in the state of Chiapas) and they brought in a 12 year old boy, who clearly was not 'right'. There were several pastors there and they took him to a separate room and started praying (and asked the rest of us to pray in intercession from the sanctuary)... It was a humid August day, with temperatures exceeding 90°F as early as 8:00 AM every morning - and yet as soon as we begun praying the temperature in the building dropped to the point where you could see ice crystals forming in our exhalations (and no, the building was not equipped with an A/C system and the windows and door themselves were wide open). We were all visibly shaken but this manifestation was clearly "unnatural". After about an hour everyone came out of that room and the boy looked completely restored. There were even scratches on his arms and his face that had visibly disappeared and the color of his skin had warmed up. His parents were VERY grateful with us and wouldn't stop hugging their child. By that time, the towns' folk had gathered around the church in complete and total awe of what had just transpired. We were later told that the little boy had been afflicted for several months before the parents decided to come to the evangelical church for our help. This stuff is very real. You just don't see it in the U.S. as much. And this is not an isolated incident... I've seen similar manifestations on at least 3 other occasions. (Tragically that church was burned down by an indigenous tribe last year and several close brothers in the faith were murdered in the incident).

The point is... YOU all are skeptical of what you don't understand. What you all don't want to believe out of convenience to your positions/world-perspective. You all constantly forage the forum for continued justification of your general disbelief finding all sorts of articles and discussion points written from the same skeptical perspective to keep fostering and bolstering said position. It's fine... you all are entitled to do that. To believe whatever you want.

To be clear... the Nigerian church is clearly in the wrong here...

But the question I have is why bring this up with such accusational light against Christianity in general? ("Why aren't any other people - Christians specifically - condemning this???"). The answer is simple. They don't know about it. Because if they did, they would most certainly intercede - despite the religious climate there. It's not easy to venture into Nigeria these days... especially not as a Christian.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

And I ask that simply to present the context that explains why corrective action on part of the church is not something that can happen immediately (given the instability and religious volatility of the country).

My 2¢

:lmao oh my heavenly jesus

[Phenomanul]

The fact that you two jerks would laugh at the murder of my friends and then at the subsequent reference to the murder of 1,000s of Christians in Nigeria is emblematic of the Political Forum these days. Congratulations.

:downspin: :rolleyes :rolleyes

[baseline bum]

:lmao

[mingus]

The fact that you two jerks would laugh at the murder of my friends and then at the subsequent reference to the murder of 1,000s of Christians in Nigeria is emblematic of the Political Forum these days. Congratulations.

:downspin: :rolleyes :rolleyes

I've had things happen to me that were "odd" in the sense that there seems to be at least a slight possibility they occurred due to the supernatural. I don't know necessarily if they were or not due to the fact they they weren't and for all intents and purposes can't be tested using the scientific method. It is what it is. What you want to make of it is up to you, what other people want to make of it is up to them.

I take it with a grain of salt tho. It's been my personal experience that when push comes to shove both atheists and religious people have a pretty equal tendency to abandon what they SAY they believe.

Then they go on Internet forums and try and act like that shit never happened.


:rollin

[RandomGuy]

People will use religion for their evil purposes. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if it's the KKK, ISIS, or other groups. It is evil people twisting a reference.

I agree.

[RandomGuy]

Witch burnings, raping babies to cure AIDS, sacrificing albinos, and muti murders in Africa have more to do with the fucked up tribal religions black Africans follow than it does with Christianity. Many are religions that go back over 1000 years before any Christian missionaries showed up to spread the word of Jesus. Nelson Mandelas government officially recognizes witchcraft today.

You need to read some European history. Witch burnings have not been restricted to places with "fucked up tribal religions".

[RandomGuy]

Why do you think I'm bringing it up? I think the Bible having Leviticus Deuteronomy and the other animal sacrifice rituals for absolution as well as Paul's pandering to the Roman's and directives to his underlings is the greatest irony in western culture.

All Hadith I've read are modeled after Matthew. Islamists are very chameleon. Much like Matthew a roman who went to Jesus' suppers and followed him around writing down what he said, people followed Muhammad around and wrote what he said in response to people asking him questions. The parables from this make up much of Matthew and are one of the few things in the Bible that I actually believe at all from that book. The contrived genealogy and sketch of his early life is obviously made to satisfy the person making a state religion. Constantine might have been converting but not necessarily so his fellow elites throughout the Mediterranean. A outcast wastrel taken in and trained by a shaman who ritually bathed wouldn't sell. King of Kings? Ok Yeah!

Much like Constantine at the head of his state, the Ayyubid sultanate was not able to maintain social control even with their state religion. They too needed more. The Ottoman's did it. The Roman's did it. Need some warriors? Cook it up. Need to justify your revenge killing? Cook it up. Need to justify slavery? Need to justify subjugation of women? Cook it up.

Muhammad explicitly says that you are not to speak in his name outside of the Quran in the Quran. He saw what people were doing that were following him around and told them not to do it. Jesus was crucified before he even had a chance to do likewise.

ik7GRQ9hoVY

There may not have actually been anyone following Jesus around writing about him. Don't forget the possibility that the majority of what is ascribed to him may be almost entirely made up, long after his death. There is some evidence to support this thesis.

[RandomGuy]

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those documents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

I am always willing to read something new. Examples? Link?

[RandomGuy]

Really? You need to catch up on your bot-like rebuttals.

Jesus and reference to Christians are found in:

The writings of Greek historian Lucian of Samosata (second century)...

The Acts of Pontius Pilate
or other Roman accounts from the first and second centuries
Gaius Suetonius
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger

How about references by Roman Emperors themselves:
Nero
Claudius
Hadrian
Trajan

Then there are other writings that reference Jesus/Christ and his followers:

Thallus the Samaritan wrote accounts that reference Jesus' crucifixion.
Phlegon was a secular historian who recorded four separate quotes in reference to Jesus. ONE is of particular importance because it also references the biblical account of Jesus crucifixion as having caused widespread supernatural phenomena [quote by Julius Africanus in particular]

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? . . . And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time." - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

"At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Mara bar-Serapion, was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus and his followers in a letter dated to A.D. 73
and then you have the Graece Magicae Papyri which references the use of Jesus' name to heal people (and includes references of Judaic rabbinical rebuke of using Jesus' name in said practice).

Aside from Josephus the Talmud also mentions Jesus' historicity.

I will delve into the details, but first, let's get to a basic principle about how to tell the truth of something, and sufficiency of evidence.

I can watch a visual/auditory record of Neal Patrick Harris, a real human, driving around in New York, a real city. Neal Patrick Harris talks to magic blue creatures in this record, and these magic blue creatures perform miracles.

Does that mean Smurfs are real and do the things this record shows? Why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

ik7GRQ9hoVY

Easy to fulfill prophesies if you write it that way after the fact. Don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

[Phenomanul]

ik7GRQ9hoVY

Easy to fulfill prophesies if you write it that way after the fact. Don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

Ummmm... the bulk of those prophecies were written thousands of years before Christ's birth. The latest of those 400 years before his birth. HOW THE HELL can Jesus' fulfillment of the scriptures be written in after-the-fact?!? Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies from Genesis to Malachi concerning His role and nature... None of the writers of the Gospels could have known about all of them simply because it's not like any one person at the time carried around the "latest edition" of all the scrolls that comprise the Hebrew canon. Other than the Jerusalem temple (which was destroyed in A.D. 70), there was no central depository for the COMPLETE writings of the Hebrew scrolls - much less would they be made available to just anyone for "referencing and cross-checking of facts". Especially not Jesus' followers or the writers of the Gospels.

The fact remains that even the Jewish nation rejected their long awaited Messiah because they were awaiting a military leader and not a spiritual one. They failed to recognize all of the prophecies concerning Jesus because largely the general population was unaware of them. To this day the passages from Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22 are NEVER read aloud at synagogues BECAUSE they clearly reference Jesus Christ. The few Jews that have had a chance to read them can't even believe the writings are legitimately contained in their own canon or believe that somehow Christians must have added them in after the fact (as you smugly suggested). They would want to believe that because the context and references to Jesus' crucifixion are so explicit and detailed that mere coincidence alone can't explain them away. Here's the catch... The Book of Isaiah was written 800 years before Christ!!!

In fact, the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered during the original 1947 find, is actually a mostly complete copy of the The Book of Isaiah - it dates to 125-140 BCE cementing/validating the authenticity of the references to Jesus in these scriptures and just as important, that these copies pre-date Jesus' entirely by over a century. But go ahead and gloss over that fact. Fuzzy's narrative/rant was a whole bunch of "they say this --> but logically this makes more sense" - his arguments are entirely speculative and lack the fundamental proof to gain any ground as a true counter-narrative. The established narrative has been attacked for centuries, and yet secular accounts - existing outside of the context of scripture" - also support the historicity of Jesus and many of the events surrounding his ministry/life that are narrated in the Gospels. You don't think people much smarter than Fuzzy have already tried to debunk the Gospel accounts, or have tried to deny Jesus' existence altogether...? They will continue to stand the test of time - and only man's pride refuses to accept what is historically evident...

Bringing up fictional accounts as a counter argument (Neil Patrick Harris' encounter with the Smurfs - on two occasions no less), doesn't make sense in light of THE CONTENT of the gospels. Now THAT, RG is a deluded argument. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that the reader cannot discern the differences between fiction and prose. The Gospels are not written as fiction. It's clearly a revelation about GOD's nature and His desire for mankind.

John 3:16-22 New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Then there's this tidbit. YOU ALL always gripe about the use of scripture to support anything believers say, but then have the audacity to try and tell adherents how to interpret their own writings - because your assumption is that they must be interpreting incorrectly. YOU ALL can't have it both ways. It's rather laughable actually.

Finally, I noticed how in all of your replies you chose to ignore the only question I actually posited for you.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on why you chose not to address it. But it's very clear to me that this is simply another run-o-the-mill "let's all bash Christianity" thread - let's "point out how it's adherents are less than perfect" (mind you the faith has never claimed as much). Folks start about 3-5 of these threads per week (mainly boutons_deux) to again bolster their own disbelief. That said, I have no doubt in my mind that no one else responded to my question out of convenience to their continued and deliberate respite towards Christianity, its tenets, its believers and most importantly towards Jesus Himself. Carry on. You all are entitled to do as you wish.

Note: I have no idea what that video shows (cause I cannot access it from work).

[RandomGuy]

I will delve into the details, but first, let's get to a basic principle about how to tell the truth of something, and sufficiency of evidence.

I can watch a visual/auditory record of Neal Patrick Harris, a real human, driving around in New York, a real city. Neal Patrick Harris talks to magic blue creatures in this record, and these magic blue creatures perform miracles.

Does that mean Smurfs are real and do the things this record shows? Why or why not?


[as noted, going to pass on the details for now, merely trying to get at something a bit more basic. will circle around later-RG]

Bringing up fictional accounts as a counter argument (Neil Patrick Harris' encounter with the Smurfs - on two occasions no less), doesn't make sense in light of THE CONTENT of the gospels. Now THAT, RG is a deluded argument. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that the reader cannot discern the differences between fiction and prose. The Gospels are not written as fiction. It's clearly a revelation about GOD's nature and His desire for mankind.

You missed the point of the question. It was meant as a serious exercise in critical thinking, more than a specific comparison, although the comparison is more valid than you would prefer. To short circuit a lot of back and forth, I will go ahead and answer for you. Feel free to parse in your own words if you fault my logic/reasoning.

No, it does not mean Smurfs are real. It is possible for a story to be told about a real person, and real places, but still have one or more aspects of the story be completely made up, such as magical blue creatures and their adventures fighting an evil wizard.

Problem with your claim "The Gospels are not written as fiction" is that they stand on the same level as every other group of holy writings.

I reject your assertion "It's disingenuous..." People have a hard time distinguishing between fiction and prose all the time. The internet is full of people thinking Onion articles are real. The ancient world was full of people thinking all sorts of fantastic things were real, and things are not much changed today.

This leaves us with a lot of other books that were not written as fiction, the Quran, Great Hymn to the Aten, The Akilathirattu Ammanai, Bon Kangyur and Tengyur, etc, etc., and the almost impossible task of figuring out which ones are "real" or not.

Personally, I find it rather obvious that a being capable of creating a universe as vast as ours seems to be could find a better way to interact with its creations than a book or writings.

If human beings were to make up a religion, one would expect that they would use a book.

[RandomGuy]

Note: I have no idea what that video shows (cause I cannot access it from work).

The video contains quite a few things that address your points. Watch it or not. It is a bit short on the kinds of specifics that I prefer, but does a fair job of outlining some rather salient points on the topic of historical verisimilitude, and the early Christian church.

[RandomGuy]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

[Phenomanul]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

Except that the accounts I referenced are historical accounts by secular historians, wholly independent from scripture... they reference unexplained phenomena that was evident to all who were there to witness it... The Acts of Pontius Pilate for example, affirms that Jesus was performing miracles that defied all explanation (clearly prose not fiction)... the excerpt from Phlegon's writings talk about the sun being blacked out throughout the land "for all to see", and was explicit about the time of day (which coincides with the Gospel narrative)... He later in said book suggests that it couldn't be explained away with a solar eclipse because the moon was not in the proper position in the sky to produce an eclipse (which he also suggests is besides the point because solar eclipses don't last hours nor do they produce earthquakes) (again clearly prose not fiction)...

I'm just pointing out that the references to Jesus extraordinary life are out there - and not all of them are scriptural as boutons was trying to suggest.

[Phenomanul]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

As an aside, it's somewhat comical that people have argued for centuries the merits of the proof of Jesus' existence/life/ministry. The proof consisting of very real artifacts and manuscripts, 1st hand accounts - tangible, observable, measurable evidence. Given the context that Jesus lived roughly 2,000 years ago you all make it seem like the authenticity of any such proof is entirely up for debate because of the time factor.

YET those very same detractors then turn around and tell you with ALL CERTAINTY that man knows exactly what happened millions and billions of years ago on our planet/cosmos.

The inconsistency in standards is rather convenient.

[RandomGuy]

As an aside, it's somewhat comical that people have argued for centuries the merits of the proof of Jesus' existence/life/ministry. The proof consisting of very real artifacts and manuscripts, 1st hand accounts - tangible, observable, measurable evidence. Given the context that Jesus lived roughly 2,000 years ago you all make it seem like the authenticity of any such proof is entirely up for debate because of the time factor.

YET those very same detractors then turn around and tell you with ALL CERTAINTY that man knows exactly what happened millions and billions of years ago on our planet/cosmos.

The inconsistency in standards is rather convenient.

You think the standards of evidence are somehow different? They aren't. That is your problem in dealing with these topics.

You want an exception to standards of evidence when it comes to the thing you want to believe in. It is a very human thing to do.

[RandomGuy]

Except that the accounts I referenced are historical accounts by secular historians, wholly independent from scripture... they reference unexplained phenomena that was evident to all who were there to witness it... The Acts of Pontius Pilate for example, affirms that Jesus was performing miracles that defied all explanation (clearly prose not fiction)... the excerpt from Phlegon's writings talk about the sun being blacked out throughout the land "for all to see", and was explicit about the time of day (which coincides with the Gospel narrative)... He later in said book suggests that it couldn't be explained away with a solar eclipse because the moon was not in the proper position in the sky to produce an eclipse (which he also suggests is besides the point because solar eclipses don't last hours nor do they produce earthquakes) (again clearly prose not fiction)...

I'm just pointing out that the references to Jesus extraordinary life are out there - and not all of them are scriptural as boutons was trying to suggest.

There is no "except that". You fail to acknowledge even the most rudimentary form of the logic you are attempting to use.

Either the logic operates that way or it doesn't.


X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an recorded event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.


Is this true in all cases? Yes or no will do. A "why or why not" might also be helpful.

[RandomGuy]

Really? You need to catch up on your bot-like rebuttals.

Jesus and reference to Christians are found in:

The writings of Greek historian Lucian of Samosata (second century)...

The Acts of Pontius Pilate
or other Roman accounts from the first and second centuries
Gaius Suetonius
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger



100 years+ after the events? That is 5 generations removed.

Not quite first hand accounts. "I heard from this guy that...".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians

The best that can be said is to indicate that someone with a name similar to "Christ" existed.

(shrugs)

I don't really care overmuch to debate whether "Chrestus" existed. I'll even grant that, for the sake of argument Jesus existed at some point. That seems reasonable. I know humans exist. :)

Show me where Gaius talks about the same kinds of miracles he witnessed, or recorded an account of fantastical events, and that would start getting you the other arm or your assertion. "Jesus existed, AND he was the Son of God that did these miracles". Even then you still have a pretty high hurdle to clear. We can talk to people about their first-hand accounts of being abducted by aliens. Does that mean alien abductions are real?

The evidence supporting the magic in the gospels... is far thinner than you seem to think.

[Phenomanul]

You think the standards of evidence are somehow different? They aren't. That is your problem in dealing with these topics.

You want an exception to standards of evidence when it comes to the thing you want to believe in. It is a very human thing to do.

Turn that around and speak into a mirror.

All I'm pointing out is that we have cold cases after 48 hours in most forensic investigations... the Scientific method still applies with limitations.

We have artifacts and manuscripts that reference Jesus' existence and his works... the Scientific method still applies with limitations.

And then we have events that are neither directly observable, measurable, repeatable or predictable.... the Scientific method completely falls apart for that event!!! And yet the established view for most folks like yourself is that YOU ALL are CERTAIN of what happened billions of years ago.

Origins "science" falls out of the realm of science because the Scientific method cannot be applied to the same standard and rigor in order to assess the merits of any postulates or theories concerning the subject.

I've often said that elements of faith are required to believe what you believe regarding the origins of the Cosmos and the origins of Life. Yet you staunchly disagree that this is the case.

We have agreed to disagree on that one, but my premise remains. Origins science... isn't science at all.

[Phenomanul]

100 years+ after the events? That is 5 generations removed.

Not quite first hand accounts. "I heard from this guy that...".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians

The best that can be said is to indicate that someone with a name similar to "Christ" existed.

(shrugs)

I don't really care overmuch to debate whether "Chrestus" existed. I'll even grant that, for the sake of argument Jesus existed at some point. That seems reasonable. I know humans exist. :)

Show me where Gaius talks about the same kinds of miracles he witnessed, or recorded an account of fantastical events, and that would start getting you the other arm or your assertion. "Jesus existed, AND he was the Son of God that did these miracles". Even then you still have a pretty high hurdle to clear. We can talk to people about their first-hand accounts of being abducted by aliens. Does that mean alien abductions are real?

The evidence supporting the magic in the gospels... is far thinner than you seem to think.

That's only because you are conveniently choosing to ignore the accounts of those who walked with JESUS, citing bias (more like speculation of bias).

Imagine if we could all pick and choose which pieces of evidence were admissible as evidence, simply based on a priori SPECULATION that the sources were lying.

I could bet you $1000 that if some historian from that time period had written "Jesus never existed, he was entirely made up" you would take that to the bank as certifiable fact. The point is you don't want to believe the credibility of the other sources simply because you don't like their narrative. And so you keep moving the goal posts. Oddly enough, such an account while being as plausible as any other doesn't exist - and SEVERAL relating the opposite DO exist. That you don't want to believe them is another matter entirely.

First, you suggested that the Gospel writers had somehow written in JESUS as the fulfillment of prophecy AFTER-the-fact.

I pointed out that said prophecies were thousands of years old... and yet not all of them were common knowledge. It's rather difficult to satisfy the rigor of a fulfilling a plethora of prophecies if you don't know said prophecies even exist. YET JESUS satisfies ALL of them - every last one. If the Gospel writers had erred on the slightest of details then out of omission or mistake JESUS would have missed one or two prophecies. YET HE didn't. He satisfies them ALL.

Furthermore, I explained why this after-the-fact dynamic simply wasn't possible, because commoners simply didn't have access to the central depository of all the writings that contained the prophecies that JESUS would have to fulfill (located only at the temple in Jerusalem) - and more on point because JESUS' followers would have CERTAINLY been denied access to said depository for handy "cross-checking".... you then moved the goal posts.

I don't even know why I bother pointing this out.

[Phenomanul]

There is no "except that". You fail to acknowledge even the most rudimentary form of the logic you are attempting to use.

Either the logic operates that way or it doesn't.

Is this true in all cases? Yes or no will do. A "why or why not" might also be helpful.

The problem with absolutes is that it is devoid of context. That's why your rudimentary logic simply isn't the governing one. It's way too simplified.

Al Capone was a real person.

He operated out of a very real place (Chi Town)

There are many recorded events that incorporate both those facts.

And yet we still don't know what happened to him. Science - or forensic science in this case - with all of it's advancements and tools isn't capable of producing the truth... Absolute truth is not attainable with Science alone.

[Phenomanul]

I've had things happen to me that were "odd" in the sense that there seems to be at least a slight possibility they occurred due to the supernatural. I don't know necessarily if they were or not due to the fact they they weren't and for all intents and purposes can't be tested using the scientific method. It is what it is. What you want to make of it is up to you, what other people want to make of it is up to them.

I take it with a grain of salt tho. It's been my personal experience that when push comes to shove both atheists and religious people have a pretty equal tendency to abandon what they SAY they believe.

Then they go on Internet forums and try and act like that shit never happened.


:rollin

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.

[baseline bum]

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.

Your friends were witches for causing a 60F drop in temperature tbh

[Phenomanul]

facetious is as facetious does...

[baseline bum]

That tribe was doing the Lord's work, thank God none of your brothers' anchor babies made it across the river.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.

Uh Huh.

Was this one of those Mexican churches that eat these?

http://mescaline.com/exp/peyote-cacti.jpg

[Phenomanul]

Uh Huh.

Was this one of those Mexican churches that eat these?

http://mescaline.com/exp/peyote-cacti.jpg

LOL I don't do drugs... Mmmmkay...

[mingus]

Ummmm... the bulk of those prophecies were written thousands of years before Christ's birth. The latest of those 400 years before his birth. HOW THE HELL can Jesus' fulfillment of the scriptures be written in after-the-fact?!? Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies from Genesis to Malachi concerning His role and nature... None of the writers of the Gospels could have known about all of them simply because it's not like any one person at the time carried around the "latest edition" of all the scrolls that comprise the Hebrew canon. Other than the Jerusalem temple (which was destroyed in A.D. 70), there was no central depository for the COMPLETE writings of the Hebrew scrolls - much less would they be made available to just anyone for "referencing and cross-checking of facts". Especially not Jesus' followers or the writers of the Gospels.

The fact remains that even the Jewish nation rejected their long awaited Messiah because they were awaiting a military leader and not a spiritual one. They failed to recognize all of the prophecies concerning Jesus because largely the general population was unaware of them. To this day the passages from Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22 are NEVER read aloud at synagogues BECAUSE they clearly reference Jesus Christ. The few Jews that have had a chance to read them can't even believe the writings are legitimately contained in their own canon or believe that somehow Christians must have added them in after the fact (as you smugly suggested). They would want to believe that because the context and references to Jesus' crucifixion are so explicit and detailed that mere coincidence alone can't explain them away. Here's the catch... The Book of Isaiah was written 800 years before Christ!!!

In fact, the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered during the original 1947 find, is actually a mostly complete copy of the The Book of Isaiah - it dates to 125-140 BCE cementing/validating the authenticity of the references to Jesus in these scriptures and just as important, that these copies pre-date Jesus' entirely by over a century. But go ahead and gloss over that fact. Fuzzy's narrative/rant was a whole bunch of "they say this --> but logically this makes more sense" - his arguments are entirely speculative and lack the fundamental proof to gain any ground as a true counter-narrative. The established narrative has been attacked for centuries, and yet secular accounts - existing outside of the context of scripture" - also support the historicity of Jesus and many of the events surrounding his ministry/life that are narrated in the Gospels. You don't think people much smarter than Fuzzy have already tried to debunk the Gospel accounts, or have tried to deny Jesus' existence altogether...? They will continue to stand the test of time - and only man's pride refuses to accept what is historically evident...

Bringing up fictional accounts as a counter argument (Neil Patrick Harris' encounter with the Smurfs - on two occasions no less), doesn't make sense in light of THE CONTENT of the gospels. Now THAT, RG is a deluded argument. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that the reader cannot discern the differences between fiction and prose. The Gospels are not written as fiction. It's clearly a revelation about GOD's nature and His desire for mankind.

John 3:16-22 New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Then there's this tidbit. YOU ALL always gripe about the use of scripture to support anything believers say, but then have the audacity to try and tell adherents how to interpret their own writings - because your assumption is that they must be interpreting incorrectly. YOU ALL can't have it both ways. It's rather laughable actually.

Finally, I noticed how in all of your replies you chose to ignore the only question I actually posited for you.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on why you chose not to address it. But it's very clear to me that this is simply another run-o-the-mill "let's all bash Christianity" thread - let's "point out how it's adherents are less than perfect" (mind you the faith has never claimed as much). Folks start about 3-5 of these threads per week (mainly boutons_deux) to again bolster their own disbelief. That said, I have no doubt in my mind that no one else responded to my question out of convenience to their continued and deliberate respite towards Christianity, its tenets, its believers and most importantly towards Jesus Himself. Carry on. You all are entitled to do as you wish.

Note: I have no idea what that video shows (cause I cannot access it from work).

That's a lot to read, and I'll get to reading it later only under the condition you can provide further support for the stuff you said about Isaiah 53 & Psalms 22. There's really nothing specific other than crufixion part (and wasn't that a relatively death sentence practice anyway?). Everything else is stuff Jesus & Apostles could've read at some point and bullshitted that it happened, no? What I'm trying to get at is you make it seem like those prophecies offered some important detail or details that nobody could've manipulated or that if they happened would've been almost inconceivable (ie crusifixion). I just don't see it. Maybe you can help me understand your POV better. If we can't see eye to eye on that I'm not sure there's any value to discussing much else on this on my part.

Another thing, as a Jew the mass generalization concerning Jews is just stupid and as most generalizations are a little offensive. I'm sure you don't like it when others do that to Christians. Aren't you supposed to treat your neighbors as you'd want to be treated? Hypocrite.

[Phenomanul]

That tribe was doing the Lord's work, thank God none of your brothers' anchor babies made it across the river.

I missed this... but just goes to show the ignorance of your over-arching assumptions.

My missionary friends were full-blooded U.S. Citizens, from Minnesota. They had a 2 small children and a teen who were also killed. But go on... keep mocking their deaths.

[baseline bum]

I missed this... but just goes to show the ignorance of your over-arching assumptions.

My missionary friends were full-blooded U.S. Citizens, from Minnesota. They had a 2 small children and a teen who were also killed. But go on... keep mocking their deaths.

They sound more dangerous than ISIS if they can drop the temperature 60F tbh

[Phenomanul]

That's a lot to read, and I'll get to reading it later only under the condition you can provide further support for the stuff you said about Isaiah 53 & Psalms 22. There's really nothing specific other than crufixion part (and wasn't that a relatively death sentence practice anyway?). Everything else is stuff Jesus & Apostles could've read at some point and bullshitted that it happened, no? What I'm trying to get at is you make it seem like those prophecies offered some important detail or details that nobody could've manipulated or that if they happened would've been almost inconceivable (ie crusifixion). I just don't see it. Maybe you can help me understand your POV better. If we can't see eye to eye on that I'm not sure there's any value to discussing much else on this on my part.

Another thing, as a Jew the mass generalization concerning Jews is just stupid and as most generalizations are a little offensive. I'm sure you don't like it when others do that to Christians. Aren't you supposed to treat your neighbors as you'd want to be treated? Hypocrite.

I'm not condemning Jews mingus (I'm not Mel Gibson over here)... from my point of view I'm stating the fact that Jews have rejected JESUS as their Messiah. That's true, and most certainly an unspoken tenet of their belief system today. IF stating that fact somehow offends you... it's not my intent to do so. And if it does, ask yourself why it should bother you at all...?

I'm simply trying to point out that the prophecies JESUS would have to fulfill to claim to be/be called Messiah were all written in the Hebrew/Judaic scriptural canon. They couldn't be changed after-the-fact because they pre-dated JESUS' arrival. They were written a priori...

As for Psalms 22, it was written roughly 1,000 years before the crucifixion... and yet it already includes references to the fact that JESUS' hands and feet would be pierced. Bear in mind that the Persian, Carthaginic, and Macedonian empires (which included variations of this death torture method - had not yet developed the crucifixion method - which would later be adopted by the Roman empire) - and YET the explicit references to JESUS' death were already being described.

Furthermore, Jews also believe in Angels and Demons. That's the common-ground that's important to the theme of this thread. Folks here seem to think that those realms are wholly fictitious, which is there prerogative to do so... I've simply provided anecdotal context to show that manifestations in said realm do exist. And again, folks can choose not to believe. The other common ground is the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, texts which affirm/authenticate the fidelity with which Judaic texts have permeated through time. In other words, claims that authenticity of literary works should be questioned simply because they are archaic is fallacious in light of the practices that were employed to ensure their fidelity, and textual accuracy.

[Phenomanul]

They sound more dangerous than ISIS if they can drop the temperature 60F tbh
Only your cold heart is more astounding.

[baseline bum]

Only your cold heart is more astounding.

You would want such powerful witches back in our country?

[Phenomanul]

ENOUGH.

Go spit on someone else's graves. They don't deserve your mockery.

[baseline bum]

ENOUGH.

Go spit on someone else's graves. They don't deserve your mockery.

Sure they do, they're witches.

[baseline bum]

ENOUGH.

Go spit on someone else's graves. They don't deserve your mockery.

Hey, did their ghosts visit yesterday? If so, can you please thank them? I was getting sick of this 80 degree bullshit in December.

[Th'Pusher]

As for Psalms 22, it was written roughly 1,000 years before the crucifixion... and yet it already includes references to the fact that JESUS' hands and feet would be pierced.


Is there any textual dispute around that particular passage Phenomanul? Like a lion?

[Phenomanul]

Sure they do, they're witches.

BTW baseline bum your respite and hatred is against JESUS himself - not me.

John 8:42-45

42 Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but He sent me. 43 Why can't you understand what I am saying? It's because you can't even hear me! 44 For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

Whatever... do as you wish.

John 7:7

7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me [Jesus] because I testify about it that its works are evil.

[mingus]

I'm not condemning Jews mingus (I'm not Mel Gibson over here)... from my point of view I'm stating the fact that Jews have rejected JESUS as their Messiah. That's true, and most certainly an unspoken tenet of their belief system today. IF stating that fact somehow offends you... it's not my intent to do so. And if it does, ask yourself why it should bother you at all...?

I'm simply trying to point out that the prophecies JESUS would have to fulfill to claim to be/be called Messiah were all written in the Hebrew/Judaic scriptural canon. They couldn't be changed after-the-fact because they pre-dated JESUS' arrival. They were written a priori...

As for Psalms 22, it was written roughly 1,000 years before the crucifixion... and yet it already includes references to the fact that JESUS' hands and feet would be pierced. Bear in mind that the Persian, Carthaginic, and Macedonian empires (which included variations of this death torture method - had not yet developed the crucifixion method - which would later be adopted by the Roman empire) - and YET the explicit references to JESUS' death were already being described.

Furthermore, Jews also believe in Angels and Demons. That's the common-ground that's important to the theme of this thread. Folks here seem to think that those realms are wholly fictitious, which is there prerogative to do so... I've simply provided anecdotal context to show that manifestations in said realm do exist. And again, folks can choose not to believe. The other common ground is the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, texts which affirm/authenticate the fidelity with which Judaic texts have permeated through time. In other words, claims that authenticity of literary works should be questioned simply because they are archaic is fallacious in light of the practices that were employed to ensure their fidelity, and textual accuracy.

What you stated in the first paragraph here is an entirely different thing than what you did before.

If you had any dignity you'd man up and admit the fact that you grossly simplified sensibilitities & ideas about those verses, during the process of which made a broad generalization, and that you don't need to be Mel Gibson to do just that.

I'm pretty close to throwing a furry of obscenities your way. On account of that, I'll probably just back out. I'll read, keep my distance. It's an intresting discussion aside from that. But these sorts of interactions bring out the worst in me.

[baseline bum]

BTW baseline bum your respite and hatred is against JESUS himself - not me.

John 8:42-45

42 Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but He sent me. 43 Why can't you understand what I am saying? It's because you can't even hear me! 44 For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

Whatever... do as you wish.

John 7:7

7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me [Jesus] because I testify about it that its works are evil.

Hey can I book your witch doctor church for August? I could use a good exorcism then, it's hot as fuck.

[Phenomanul]

Is there any textual dispute around that particular passage Phenomanul? Like a lion?

There are...

http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles.../ (http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apologetics/pslam-2217-like-a-lion-or-pierced/)

But both interpretations are correct. (Though I'm not claiming to be a Hebrew scholar).

[Phenomanul]

Hey can I book your witch doctor church for August? I could use a good exorcism then, it's hot as fuck.

The church was burned down...

But if you want a demon to 'perform' that trick in your home just ask one... no harm, no foul right...? I mean, none of them exist after all... You might even save some money on your utility bill.

Come August, let us know how that goes... :hat

[baseline bum]

The church was burned down...

But if you want a demon to 'perform' that trick in your home just ask one... no harm, no foul right...? I mean, none of them exist after all... You might even save some money on your utility bill.

Come August, let us know how that goes... :hat

:cry But I was asking one of your demons to come perform it :cry

[Phenomanul]

:cry But I was asking one of your demons to come perform it :cry

Sorry bro... I don't have any.

You can request one if you want by conjuring them up. Some folks even get something in return for 'selling their soul'... Who knows... you might get lucky. :lol

[baseline bum]

Sorry bro... I don't have any.

You can request one if you want by conjuring them up. Some folks even get something in return for 'selling their soul'... Who knows... you might get lucky. :lol

I don't know how to conjure, it's not as easy as in Skyrim.

[Phenomanul]

What you stated in the first paragraph here is an entirely different thing than what you did before.

If you had any dignity you'd man up and admit the fact that you grossly simplified sensibilitities & ideas about those verses, during the process of which made a broad generalization, and that you don't need to be Mel Gibson to do just that.

I'm pretty close to throwing a furry of obscenities your way. On account of that, I'll probably just back out. I'll read, keep my distance. It's an intresting discussion aside from that. But these sorts of interactions bring out the worst in me.

Why? Because I referenced the Jewish nation at the time of JESUS as having rejected him? Many Jews today believe in JESUS as Messiah. So no... I have nothing against Jews. If you feel you have to throw 'obscenities my way' simply because I believe JESUS qualifies as Messiah and you don't - I don't know what to say to that.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. That's the freedom of choice GOD gave us all.

But yeah... I apologize if you felt offended. Going back and re-reading I did generalize for the sake of trying to make a separate point... that the Hebrew scriptures pre-dated Christ.

[Phenomanul]

I don't know how to conjure, it's not as easy as in Skyrim.

You're using the wrong method... try Diablo.

[mingus]

I'm not condemning Jews mingus (I'm not Mel Gibson over here)... from my point of view I'm stating the fact that Jews have rejected JESUS as their Messiah. That's true, and most certainly an unspoken tenet of their belief system today. IF stating that fact somehow offends you... it's not my intent to do so. And if it does, ask yourself why it should bother you at all...?

I'm simply trying to point out that the prophecies JESUS would have to fulfill to claim to be/be called Messiah were all written in the Hebrew/Judaic scriptural canon. They couldn't be changed after-the-fact because they pre-dated JESUS' arrival. They were written a priori...

As for Psalms 22, it was written roughly 1,000 years before the crucifixion... and yet it already includes references to the fact that JESUS' hands and feet would be pierced. Bear in mind that the Persian, Carthaginic, and Macedonian empires (which included variations of this death torture method - had not yet developed the crucifixion method - which would later be adopted by the Roman empire) - and YET the explicit references to JESUS' death were already being described.

Furthermore, Jews also believe in Angels and Demons. That's the common-ground that's important to the theme of this thread. Folks here seem to think that those realms are wholly fictitious, which is there prerogative to do so... I've simply provided anecdotal context to show that manifestations in said realm do exist. And again, folks can choose not to believe. The other common ground is the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, texts which affirm/authenticate the fidelity with which Judaic texts have permeated through time. In other words, claims that authenticity of literary works should be questioned simply because they are archaic is fallacious in light of the practices that were employed to ensure their fidelity, and textual accuracy.

re the the dating of psalms.

There were five (or 4) writers of the OT & NT, correct? Do you subscribe to this belief? "Experts" have pretty much been able to give a ballpark idea of the time in which each writer lived/wrote/edited etc., no? If yes, then I'm assuming they've validated your number. If no, where'd you get that number?

Were their other ther forms of torture/punishment that would've pierced his hands & feet that those other peoples used that the writer may have been referring to (assuming the 1000 yr estimate is on point?).

If no ^^^, does one specific, nonminipulatable prophetic detail (that's all I'm counting) allow to hold up all the prophetic but non-specific, manipulateable details?

How many of the other prophecies in the OT didn't get fulfilled?

^^^If a lot then maybe people found a needle (truth) in a haystack (the many falsities). What's to stop one from believing someone threw something that stuck?

BTW, these are questions I have that stem from genuine curiosity (admittedly inged with no doubt a certain degree--but not self-fulfilling--of skepticism), and not from a "scurred" Jew who cowers from oppositional beliefs/ideas/facts.

[mingus]

Why? Because I referenced the Jewish nation at the time of JESUS as having rejected him? Many Jews today believe in JESUS as Messiah. So no... I have nothing against Jews. If you feel you have to throw 'obscenities my way' simply because I believe JESUS qualifies as Messiah and you don't - I don't know what to say to that.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. That's the freedom of choice GOD gave us all.

But yeah... I apologize if you felt offended. Going back and re-reading I did generalize for the sake of trying to make a separate point... that the Hebrew scriptures pre-dated Christ.

It's more than that, though. It was a gross simplification of what Jews who don't belief in Jesus as Messiah (in the interest of avoiding confusion here, I'm talking about the Jewish faithful ONLY--not Jewish ethnicity--in which case they'd no longer be Jews [again, by faith]).

You represented practicing Jews disingenuously & unfairly in your caricature of them (I don't practice) as people leave out shit in the OT solely because it doesn't align with their beliefs--basically, that the only way they can "get around" these verses you referenced is by not addressing them at all. That's a steaming pile of bullshit.

[Th'Pusher]

There are...

http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles.../ (http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apologetics/pslam-2217-like-a-lion-or-pierced/)

But both interpretations are correct. (Though I'm not claiming to be a Hebrew scholar).

this translation doesn't sound much like a description of a crusifixion

Psalms 22:16 (22:17) For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. (JPS)

[RandomGuy]

Except that the accounts I referenced are historical accounts by secular historians...




There is no "except that". You fail to acknowledge even the most rudimentary form of the logic you are attempting to use.

Either the logic operates that way or it doesn't.


X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an recorded event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.


Is this true in all cases? Yes or no will do. A "why or why not" might also be helpful.


The problem with absolutes is that it is devoid of context. That's why your rudimentary logic simply isn't the governing one. It's way too simplified.

Al Capone was a real person.

He operated out of a very real place (Chi Town)

There are many recorded events that incorporate both those facts.

And yet we still don't know what happened to him. Science - or forensic science in this case - with all of it's advancements and tools isn't capable of producing the truth... Absolute truth is not attainable with Science alone.

Again, not really an answer. It is indeed a simplification of sorts, but I will assert that it is still useful to outline a general and quite important principle.

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm confused. Don't we know what happened to Al Capone? he died in Palm Beach after stroke/pneumonia/heart attack.

[RandomGuy]

I'm confused. Don't we know what happened to Al Capone? he died in Palm Beach after stroke/pneumonia/heart attack.

I noticed that. My guess: he is confusing him with Jimmy Hoffa. His point was made well enough for me to get what he was driving at, so I let it go. :)

[Phenomanul]

Again, not really an answer. It is indeed a simplification of sorts, but I will assert that it is still useful to outline a general and quite important principle.

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.

Yes. Its entirely possible.

That's why the multiple - wholly independent references - paint the overarching picture of Jesus' existence - and what he was up to.

Again, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, a Roman elected governor - wrote concerning Jesus and his miraculous acts. It's a secular work, historical annals - completely independent of the authors of the Gospels... yet it supports the basic premise of Jesus' extraordinary life.

The other historical writers witnessed an "unnatural" blacking out of the sun for several hours DESPITE not being present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. They knew those were very real events that other people had also seen - and no one questioned the events themselves - because they too were witnesses of the phenomena despite not knowing what was causing them.

The catch (the connection to the crucifixion) is that the times match those as written in the Gospels to a "T". From "the 6th to the 9th hour darkness covered all the land."

No astronomical event that we know of is capable of producing this phenomena.

[Phenomanul]

I noticed that. My guess: he is confusing him with Jimmy Hoffa. His point was made well enough for me to get what he was driving at, so I let it go. :)

Yes. Jimmy Hoffa.

[Phenomanul]

this translation doesn't sound much like a description of a crusifixion

Psalms 22:16 (22:17) For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. (JPS)

The Hebrew texts are explained by Jewish scholars in the link I provided.

The lion reference is written in to denote the type of pain being inflicted. So how can a lion hurt us? Either by piercing and slashing us with his claws, or by piercing us with his fangs. The context is shown.

[boutons_deux]

:lol

[Phenomanul]

re the the dating of psalms.

There were five (or 4) writers of the OT & NT, correct? Do you subscribe to this belief? "Experts" have pretty much been able to give a ballpark idea of the time in which each writer lived/wrote/edited etc., no? If yes, then I'm assuming they've validated your number. If no, where'd you get that number?

Were their other ther forms of torture/punishment that would've pierced his hands & feet that those other peoples used that the writer may have been referring to (assuming the 1000 yr estimate is on point?).

If no ^^^, does one specific, nonminipulatable prophetic detail (that's all I'm counting) allow to hold up all the prophetic but non-specific, manipulateable details?

How many of the other prophecies in the OT didn't get fulfilled?

^^^If a lot then maybe people found a needle (truth) in a haystack (the many falsities). What's to stop one from believing someone threw something that stuck?

BTW, these are questions I have that stem from genuine curiosity (admittedly inged with no doubt a certain degree--but not self-fulfilling--of skepticism), and not from a "scurred" Jew who cowers from oppositional beliefs/ideas/facts.

353 Separate prophetical clauses are fulfilled by JESUS according to the following list.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

The likelihood that any one person in history would satisfy all of those - every single one - is astoundingly low.

[tlongII]

Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.

[Phenomanul]

Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.

Except that they would have to brush away references to said work by Nero and Hadrian (both Roman Emperors).

You'd be giving 1st century "Christian forgers" too much credit if you believe 1) that they could pass off writings (an entire volume no less) and attribute them to a high ranking Roman official (Pilate) and 2) that those same works would then be legitimized (as authentic - not necessarily "in agreement with") by 2 separate Roman Emperors which were actually hunting Christ's followers down.

Ultimately, you choose to believe what you want to believe. No amount of evidence will sway you one way or the other. And in the case of most posters here THAT choice has already been made.

If you are truly genuine about researching Jesus' historicity I recommend the following books written by an atheist turned Christian author (Lee Strobel)...

The Case for Christ
The Case for the Real Jesus

[RandomGuy]

Yes. Its entirely possible.

That's why the multiple - wholly independent references - paint the overarching picture of Jesus' existence - and what he was up to.

Again, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, a Roman elected governor - wrote concerning Jesus and his miraculous acts. It's a secular work, historical annals - completely independent of the authors of the Gospels... yet it supports the basic premise of Jesus' extraordinary life.

The other historical writers witnessed an "unnatural" blacking out of the sun for several hours DESPITE not being present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. They knew those were very real events that other people had also seen - and no one questioned the events themselves - because they too were witnesses of the phenomena despite not knowing what was causing them.

The catch (the connection to the crucifixion) is that the times match those as written in the Gospels to a "T". From "the 6th to the 9th hour darkness covered all the land."

No astronomical event that we know of is capable of producing this phenomena.

A step forward. Thank you.

How do you know the Gospels account of the date of the crucifixion is accurate? Because the Gospels say so?

[CosmicCowboy]

I am impressed by the number of amateur religious scholars in here. Wouldn't have thought to find that in a political forum.

[RandomGuy]

If the gospels were written long after the life of jesus, they could easily incorporate real, known events, such as an eclipse. They could even pencil in all the details of Jesus' life to match that of the prophesies Jesus was supposed to fulfill.

Pauls writings, which form the basis for the new testament were written long after Jesus' death. Not overly convincing.

[RandomGuy]

I am impressed by the number of amateur religious scholars in here. Wouldn't have thought to find that in a political forum.

It interests me. I have had a running bet with a very devout friend who asked me to read/listen to C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and read the Book of John. I did both twice, and have been looking for material for him to watch/listen/read for almost a year. It has been interesting, and I have learned a lot.

Still need to get him a good playlist.

A good one I found was this youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup

Very concise criticisms of religion in general.

One of the best things I have found is a couple of short videos made in Britain.

pR7e0fmfXGw

Lays out some of the overarching thoughts, and avoids being heavy-handed. Personally I don't find the arguments about whether jesus was real to be overly productive. Once one starts delving into the details, it gets understandably murky. Easy enough to accept that someone named Jesus actually lived. I don't find that overly interesting. That doesn't get you to a supernatural being though, which is much less supported.

Even that aside, there are some really basic flaws in the entire ethos of Christianity. One might be able to quibble about Jesus existence, but there are some much more important questions to me.

rdxeqEoDXco

or

Z1BzP1wr234

Videos aside, here is an interesting thought experiment for you or anyone else for that matter:

If you could go back in time to Jesus' Crucifixion with the means of stopping it, would you? why or why not?

[CosmicCowboy]

Videos aside, here is an interesting thought experiment for you or anyone else for that matter:

If you could go back in time to Jesus' Crucifixion with the means of stopping it, would you? why or why not?

If you buy into the 'Jesus died to give you eternal life" argument then saving Jesus would be dumb. if you don't buy into it and he was just a man then fighting the Romans to try and save him would be dumb.

[RandomGuy]

If you buy into the 'Jesus died to give you eternal life" argument then saving Jesus would be dumb. if you don't buy into it and he was just a man then fighting the Romans to try and save him would be dumb.

Kind of an important point wrapped up there. Why did God not choose to just simply bypass the human sacrifice part?

Why not simply forgive the original sin directly?

It seems to me a bit parallel to the existence of Indiana Jones in the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dr. Jones could have spent the entire movie selling hot dogs, let the Nazi's find the ark, then kill themselves anyway, and swoop in after they all died. Why bother? :D

[boutons_deux]

The entire "Jesus died for your sins" is bullshit. Lays guilt on everyone who never sinned, like babies out of the womb. Make everyone "indebted" to the Christian religion, so keep sending in the tithings.

Jesus died because we as seen as subversive both by the Romans and by the Jewish establishment. He wasn't "fighting" either one. They "fought", killed Him for his subversive ideas.

Parthenogenesis? Immaculate Conception? Miracles? Resurrection? Jesus as God? All marketing bullshit, all deeply, aggressively anti-woman (Jesus couldn't be soiled by a filthy vagina and normal human sex), fabrications to combat the other religions, world views, philosophies in the 100s of years AFTER His death.

[Phenomanul]

A step forward. Thank you.

How do you know the Gospels account of the date of the crucifixion is accurate? Because the Gospels say so?

Was born during Herod's reign, during the time of the Roman census (verifiable through separate historical accounts), lived 33 years (fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 9), was tried in a Roman tribunal presided by Pontius Pilate, died during the week of the Jewish Passover.

IF your starting premise is that the Gospels are pure bunk, why debate any of their points at all? It's an exercise in futility. There isn't enough time to explain the context surrounding subject matter you clearly already reject.

[RandomGuy]

353 Separate prophetical clauses are fulfilled by JESUS according to the following list.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

The likelihood that any one person in history would satisfy all of those - every single one - is astoundingly low.

I could write a book about a guy today that would do just that. Again, not overly convincing. "fulfilling" vague prophecies is more of an exercise in confirmation bias than anything a rational being would use to determine how to live one's life, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Was born during Herod's reign, during the time of the Roman census (verifiable through separate historical accounts), lived 33 years (fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 9), was tried in a Roman tribunal presided by Pontius Pilate, died during the week of the Jewish Passover.

IF your starting premise is that the Gospels are pure bunk, why debate any of their points at all? It's an exercise in futility. There isn't enough time to explain the context surrounding subject matter you clearly already reject.

So you know the Gospels are true... because the Gospels say they are.

I don't really have a starting premise, other than mere skepticism. To me, the entire premise of such things is more proof of a man-made construct than divine communication from a being capable of bringing a vast universe into existence.

I withhold belief until there is a good reason to believe. Having a book that proclaims its own truth means I can't tell it from the other books that proclaim their own truths.

There is a fine line between not accepting something as true, and thinking it is false.

[RandomGuy]

I imagine it something like this:

God: i'm gonna create a universe.
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: i'm gonna create sentient beings
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: I'm going to communicate with them and give my Word to them.
Helper: ok, sounds great, I will put some giant flaming symbols in the sky... or do you want to just hard-wire it into their DNA?
God: Neither, I'm going to give them a book.
Helper: um... okay. Are they all going to be born knowing how to read it? are the books going to magically appear to everybody everywhere?
God: no, I'm going to just give my Word to this group here. The book will just be for the people who can read that language.
Helper: um... wouldn't it be better to just give some universal PA system thing to everybody all at once?
God: No, just a book and just to this one group.
Helper: umm... why?
God: because I love these beings, but this one group more than any other. the book that I give them says so.
Helper: um... okaay.

etc.

[Phenomanul]

Kind of an important point wrapped up there. Why did God not choose to just simply bypass the human sacrifice part?

If the consequences of sin is death... the payment for sin is life.

We were atoned by the most perfect life of all - which is why we now have direct access to GOD Himself.


Why not simply forgive the original sin directly?

What's a few thousand years in the context of Eternity...? What's 10,000 years compared to 100 Billion years, how about against 100 Trillion years...?

In mathematical terms it was addressed "quickly"

Conceptually, however, the answer you seek is a bit more complex. And because it uses other scriptures to support it, you likely wouldn't accept the answer anyways...



It seems to me a bit parallel to the existence of Indiana Jones in the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dr. Jones could have spent the entire movie selling hot dogs, let the Nazi's find the ark, then kill themselves anyway, and swoop in after they all died. Why bother? :D

Because Indiana Jones could not have foreseen the negligence with which the Nazis lead to their own demise. The Nazis bit off more than they could chew. Jones had no way of knowing how they would use the Ark.

[RandomGuy]

If the consequences of sin is death... the payment for sin is life.

Why?

[Phenomanul]

I imagine it something like this:

God: i'm gonna create a universe.
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: i'm gonna create sentient beings
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: I'm going to communicate with them and give my Word to them.
Helper: ok, sounds great, I will put some giant flaming symbols in the sky... or do you want to just hard-wire it into their DNA?
God: Neither, I'm going to give them a book.
Helper: um... okay. Are they all going to be born knowing how to read it? are the books going to magically appear to everybody everywhere?
God: no, I'm going to just give my Word to this group here. The book will just be for the people who can read that language.
Helper: um... wouldn't it be better to just give some universal PA system thing to everybody all at once?
God: No, just a book and just to this one group.
Helper: umm... why?
God: because I love these beings, but this one group more than any other. the book that I give them says so.
Helper: um... okaay.

etc.

Many assumptions on your part in creating that alternative narrative to simplify that which you refuse to accept.

But hey... you have the liberty to think whatever you want.

[Phenomanul]

I could write a book about a guy today that would do just that. Again, not overly convincing. "fulfilling" vague prophecies is more of an exercise in confirmation bias than anything a rational being would use to determine how to live one's life, IMO.

Ok. Now do that without knowing what the prophecies are, because you are amongst a group of people who are being hunted down by the very authorities who have those writings in their possession.

Thanks for playing.

And THAT my friend was the hurdle. YET Christ fulfills every prophecy concerning himself found in the canon of Hebrew/Judaic writings, every single one --> again, a mathematical improbability (which isn't proof in and unto itself, just more context supporting the notion that Jesus was who he claimed to be).

[Phenomanul]

I am impressed by the number of amateur religious scholars in here. Wouldn't have thought to find that in a political forum.

Adherents should strive to be scholars.

Why believe anything if you don't know why you believe it?

[boutons_deux]

Adherents should strive to be scholars.

Christian scholars, without any serious doubt, or creative thoughts = directed reasoning, simple-minded apologists.

[CosmicCowboy]

Many assumptions on your part in creating that alternative narrative to simplify that which you refuse to accept.

But hey... you have the liberty to think whatever you want.

The problem I had with religion from an early age was the concept that you had to believe in Jesus to have "eternal life". I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that no matter how "good" they were, 2/3 of the worlds population was doomed from the start because they weren't exposed to conventional Christian theology.

[RandomGuy]

Many assumptions on your part in creating that alternative narrative to simplify that which you refuse to accept.

But hey... you have the liberty to think whatever you want.

It was meant more in humor, to demonstrate a decision tree. :D Lighten up.

[Phenomanul]

Why?

It's a preordained dynamic that we don't fully understand. If GOD is Light. Sin is Darkness. IF GOD is Love. Sin is Hate. If GOD is Life. Sin is Death. IMO I believe sin has existed for as long as GOD has. In the absence of GOD sin is allowed to reign.

Sin was given a "death knell" of sorts on Calvary - and will ultimately be wiped from existence after Judgement Day (I hear the Terminator theme playing in my mind now).

[RandomGuy]

Ok. Now do that without knowing what the prophecies are, because you are amongst a group of people who are being hunted down by the very authorities who have those writings in their possession.

Thanks for playing.

And THAT my friend was the hurdle. YET Christ fulfills every prophecy concerning himself found in the canon of Hebrew/Judaic writings, every single one --> again, a mathematical improbability (which isn't proof in and unto itself, just more context supporting the notion that Jesus was who he claimed to be).

You know exactly the circumstances under which all the new testament in its current modern form was written? Do tell.

I am not really interested in the "my book is so special because..." tropes. Every religion has its apologists who make the excuses and fit evidence into narratives that make their book "miraculous". I have a feeling that the same level of logical and evidentiary failings await me down that road about the same as what I found when looking into creationists' claims about evolution, and that is never very convincing. If you really want to, I can, as I am always willing to listen/learn.

What does interest me far more is the ins and outs of the tenets.

[RandomGuy]

It's a preordained dynamic that we don't fully understand. If GOD is Light. Sin is Darkness. IF GOD is Love. Sin is Hate. If GOD is Life. Sin is Death. IMO I believe sin has existed for as long as GOD has. In the absence of GOD sin is allowed to reign.

Sin was given a "death knell" of sorts on Calvary - and will ultimately be wiped from existence after Judgement Day (I hear the Terminator theme playing in my mind now).

What is "sin"? And why do you think God is love?

[Phenomanul]

Christian scholars, without any serious doubt, or creative thoughts = directed reasoning, simple-minded apologists.

I've read more books on these subjects than you could fathom. I've been doing that for the past 28 years. You pick up a thing or two (beyond the obligatory "gfy" you've grown accustomed to dishing left and right). I've not secluded or isolated myself like a monk. In fact, I've been picking up "scholarly" merits over the past few years. Just recently I received a degree in Ocean Sciences and another in Robotics. My mantra has been "to never stop learning." That I don't fit the mold of your athiest gods Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawking despite my scholarly aptitudes (8 degrees and counting) I know drives you crazy. But yeah, I'm not ashamed to say that I also believe in JESUS CHRIST. It's only an irreconcilable dichotomy in your mind because you've already said in your heart, "there is no GOD".

To quote Einstein, "I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was yesterday..."

[Phenomanul]

What is "sin"? And why do you think God is love?

Sin is all the things that GOD isn't.

Just like cold is defined by the absence of heat, or darkness defined by the absence of light.

The second part of your question requires a wholly separate conversation... given that people have different interpretations of what "love" is.

[Chinook]

I imagine it something like this:

God: i'm gonna create a universe.
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: i'm gonna create sentient beings
Helper: ok, sounds great. let's do it.
(POOF)
God: I'm going to communicate with them and give my Word to them.
Helper: ok, sounds great, I will put some giant flaming symbols in the sky... or do you want to just hard-wire it into their DNA?
God: Neither, I'm going to give them a book.
Helper: um... okay. Are they all going to be born knowing how to read it? are the books going to magically appear to everybody everywhere?
God: no, I'm going to just give my Word to this group here. The book will just be for the people who can read that language.
Helper: um... wouldn't it be better to just give some universal PA system thing to everybody all at once?
God: No, just a book and just to this one group.
Helper: umm... why?
God: because I love these beings, but this one group more than any other. the book that I give them says so.
Helper: um... okaay.

etc.

Forgot the part where God makes it clear that only acceptable way to live happens to be exact way that group of live (specifically the people who are in power within that group) right down to the diet, sexual orientation and the length of their beards.

[Phenomanul]

The problem I had with religion from an early age was the concept that you had to believe in Jesus to have "eternal life". I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that no matter how "good" they were, 2/3 of the worlds population was doomed from the start because they weren't exposed to conventional Christian theology.

I use to have the same struggle trying to reconcile GOD's justice and His sense of Grace. But that's just it... Scripture reveals that no one is good enough. We're all sinners. All of us. Even on our best day, we fail to meet the sanctity and holiness required to appease GOD's justice. Ultimately, we're all accountable for our own actions because the law reveals our imperfection -- it is the law which reveals, but ultimately our own actions that condemn us. Only one was perfect, JESUS.

Children, which have no concept of 'right and wrong' are exempted from this system of justice by GOD's grace.

Everyone else will be accountable for their actions. So who else can they blame for their actions...? How is that unfair...?

"Sorry officer, I didn't know that in this jurisdiction the law was applied differently. Am I still accountable for breaking the law...?"

[CosmicCowboy]

Ok but let's take a perfect, peaceful, loving Buddhist for example. Your god condemns him to hell because he was born in India and wasn't culturally exposed to baby Jesus?

[Phenomanul]

Ok but let's take a perfect, peaceful, loving Buddhist for example. Your god condemns him to hell because r was born in India and wasn't culturally exposed to baby Jesus?

We can only see the outside. GOD sees the heart.

Everyone of us fails the "test of holiness" on that front.

[Phenomanul]

The "Church" isn't doing their job if they aren't being a light unto the nations. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone must convert. It simply means that everyone must be exposed to the Gospel. Ultimately, people will choose to receive or reject the Gospel message.

[Phenomanul]

Anyways, I have to run to Home Depot to get some things to install a projector off of the ceiling. Later peeps.

[RandomGuy]

I use to have the same struggle trying to reconcile GOD's justice and His sense of Grace. But that's just it... Scripture reveals that no one is good enough. We're all sinners. All of us. Even on our best day, we fail to meet the sanctity and holiness required to appease GOD's justice. Ultimately, we're all accountable for our own actions because the law reveals our imperfection -- it is the law which reveals, but ultimately our own actions that condemn us. Only one was perfect, JESUS.

Children, which have no concept of 'right and wrong' are exempted from this system of justice by GOD's grace.

Everyone else will be accountable for their actions. So who else can they blame for their actions...? How is that unfair...?

"Sorry officer, I didn't know that in this jurisdiction the law was applied differently. Am I still accountable for breaking the law...?"

The God of the Christian bible is a horrible monster, provably so. To claim that it is somehow above our moral reckoning is the worst form of special pleading.

I am morally superior to the Christian God. I would never flood the whole world because it was wicked, nor would I ever, ever ask anyone to sacrifice their child to make me happy. Easiest argument to make given the text of the Bible.

[RandomGuy]

353 Separate prophetical clauses are fulfilled by JESUS according to the following list.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

The likelihood that any one person in history would satisfy all of those - every single one - is astoundingly low.

""...most of the Old Testament prophecies claimed by New Testament writers to be prophecies of Jesus, were not even meant as messianic prophecies in the first place."


Matthew 27:35, it says "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, 'They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.'" which is referring to Psalm 22:18. However, just one look at Psalm 22:18 by anybody will show that the writer, David, was merely singing a psalm as a plea of help from God for injustices done to him (David) and not predicting what would happen to the future messiah! That’s a huge discrepancy!

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page7.htm

It goes on. "Fulfilled prophecies" is merely a conclusion in search of evidence.

That is the reason I don't think delving into this kind of muck just is all that interesting. It is thin gruel, and someone else's interpretations of prophesy is therefore not anywhere near a good reason to believe something.

Better is to ask some rather important questions about the nature of reality and what people think "God" is or isn't and why.

(edit)
Read more:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017” (that's 10 to the power of 17).

For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question. It was not until a Bible class earlier this year that serious doubts about the Messianic prophecies began to bubble to the surface. I was teaching through John's Gospel, verse by verse, when the class came to chapter 19 and verse 36 ("These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of his bones will be broken"). Someone asked me about the original prophecy, so I followed my index finger to the handy-dandy cross reference and arrived at Psalm 34:20. Ah, here I would be able to show the class one of the "astounding" prophecies of Scripture that "proves beyond a doubt" that Jesus was the Christ. What I discovered was, shall we say, underwhelming:

19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

This is certainly an inspiring verse of Scripture, but you would have to be a fool to take it as a prophecy of the Messiah. I was left in the truly awkward position of explaining to the class why John took a verse like this and wrenched it so violently from its original context (something I've preached against for years). As we went along, I noticed other misquoted passages the Gospel writer applied to Jesus. I was quite embarrassed--not for myself, but for the apostle John! This got me to wondering--how many other claims of prophetic fulfillment are not just a little bit off, but way off?
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/100-challenge.html

The comments section there has commentary from others who looked into the same topic. It follows the line


When I read St. Jerome's rationalization for perpetuating the translation fraud, even though he knew the Hebrew scholars who criticized Christian interpreters were correct, then I realized that the whole Christianity thing is false, as are all other religions. The "virgin birth" is the hinge upon which a huge chunk of orthodox soteriology rests. If it ain't so, the remainders don't leave much upon which to build gospel.

It goes back and forth. Handy for me though was something someone else wrote after looking into all this that sums up my take:


You are not considering that your presuppositions are based on circular reasoning. you believe in the christian god because the bible describes it, and the bible says it is the word of god. There is no corroborating evidence and there is a preponderance of evidence to show that it was borrowed from lots of other cultures and scriptures throughout the near east. Thats empirical evidence all converging on the one data point, that the bible is not the word of god but the words of people inspired by the idea of gods.

[CosmicCowboy]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

[RandomGuy]

The "Church" isn't doing their job if they aren't being a light unto the nations. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone must convert. It simply means that everyone must be exposed to the Gospel. Ultimately, people will choose to receive or reject the Gospel message.

I noticed you didn't directly answer this rather important question:

If you could go back in time to Jesus' Crucifixion with the means of stopping it, would you? why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

Well, chemistry has a certain structure, and obeys some rules, it isn't quite completely random. All you need is a shell of naturally forming lipids and basic amino acids. Dunno. I would never go so far as to think or say "there is no god", but I pretty much have ruled out the Christian concept of such a being by this point. Even if it did exist, I would not really want to worship such a being. People who want to claim it is all about love have to ignore and excuse a whole lot of evil behavior. I just can't put my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la" to multiple genocides.

[mingus]

Ok. Now do that without knowing what the prophecies are, because you are amongst a group of people who are being hunted down by the very authorities who have those writings in their possession.

Thanks for playing.

And THAT my friend was the hurdle. YET Christ fulfills every prophecy concerning himself found in the canon of Hebrew/Judaic writings, every single one --> again, a mathematical improbability (which isn't proof in and unto itself, just more context supporting the notion that Jesus was who he claimed to be).

"Prophecy" is just a non-religious way of saying "prediction" tho. And there are things that are hard to predict and things that are easy to predict. Before we can even get into talking mathematical probabilities, we have to know what the nature of the predictions/prophecies are. Every prediction has a different probability of turning out to be true or false based on their nature (i.e. vagueness or specificity). Where are these prophecies/predictions situated in the specificity-vagueness spectrum? After answering THAT, then we can talk about the mathematical probabilities, otherwise we're getting ahead of ourselves.

BUT, before you even do that, convince me that all of these prophecies were written BEFORE the outcomes had happened so that we can be sure we can actually call them "predictions/prophecies" in the first place.

These are questions anyone who has a desire to pursue/know truth should want answered to the fullest extent possible.

[baseline bum]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

I can understand that. I lean the other way, that there is no designer, but hell if I know if I'm right. When I was 18 I decided I wanted to become a good Christian and read the bible on my own without being guided by anyone who would spin it one way or the other, and I was horrified. Sometimes I go back and forth on whether there is some god(s), but I can't see myself ever following one who seems to be based on a brutal dictator.

[RandomGuy]

"Prophecy" is just a non-religious way of saying "prediction" tho. And there are things that are hard to predict and things that are easy to predict. Before we can even get into talking mathematical probabilities, we have to know what the nature of the predictions/prophecies are. Every prediction has a different probability of turning out to be true or false based on their nature (i.e. vagueness or specificity). Where are these prophecies/predictions situated in the specificity-vagueness spectrum? After answering THAT, then we can talk about the mathematical probabilities, otherwise we're getting ahead of ourselves.

BUT, before you even do that, convince me that all of these prophecies were written BEFORE the outcomes had happened so that we can be sure we can actually call them "predictions/prophecies" in the first place.

These are questions anyone who has a desire to pursue/know truth should want answered to the fullest extent possible.

The bible is full of "prophecies" that say something along the line of "people will be greedy". Hardly an astonishing feat of prediction. That is a bit like speaking a prophecy of a ham sandwich appearing on you plate at a restaurant, after ordering a ham sandwich.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You assume a lot about me. You don't know very much.

Whatever you extrapolate from that is your very own business, hilariously off base, and has nothing to do with me.

And youre cagey and wishy washy.

You claim I am off base but never ever provide a counter narrative. Reads as avoidance to me. You give no reason for anyone else to believe you either.

And your interactions and writings here have everything to do with you. You did it not someone else. That is the basis of my comments not make believe. The sentiments I am talking about are on display from you as we speak.

[Phenomanul]

The God of the Christian bible is a horrible monster, provably so. To claim that it is somehow above our moral reckoning is the worst form of special pleading.

I am morally superior to the Christian God. I would never flood the whole world because it was wicked, nor would I ever, ever ask anyone to sacrifice their child to make me happy. Easiest argument to make given the text of the Bible.


I don't have time to address all the rebuttals.... especially not on New Year's weekend.

but wow...! :lmao :lmao :lmao

("I am morally superior to the Christian God") Says the guy who unilaterally supports abortion and the selling of baby parts...

As for asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, I'm pretty sure GOD never intended for Abraham to kill him... wait, wait... that's exactly what scripture says.

[Phenomanul]

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).



Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

So the bolded ones are supernatural/unnatural prophecies... yeah let's all "predict" supernatural/unnatural things willy nilly style... because ANYONE can satisfy those.

The truth is WE will never see eye to eye because your skepticism is not based on disbelief alone - it is a disbelief grounded on disdain - in which case the passages from John 8:42-45 and John 7:7 that I posted previously apply to most of you all here. That being the case - again, this whole exchange/discussion is utterly futile (and frankly a waste of our time).

[vy65]

If there really is no underlying rhyme or reason to everything -- and we're in one big True Detective ghetto -- then this shit is really fucking depressing.

That being said, that the irony of anthropomorphizing a deity, ascribing it things like will/intent/language etc, and taking as literal shit written before we had electricity is lost on Christians is beyond me. It's why republicans are absolutely fucked -- they hate smart.

[mingus]

The only Christian friends I have--and I have many (actually most of my friends are Christian, probably)--are Catholic. I think Catholics are more realistic about practicing their faith than Evangelicals or Protestants. I've gotten to know quite a few priests, and even went to weekly mass and Bible study with this chick I was fucking, and basically all of what they had to say seemed fair. The priests were open to being challenged. All of them admitted as pretty much a fact evolution, as just one example. It didn't feel like they were practicing in an echo-chamber like the others.

[Phenomanul]

The only Christian friends I have--and I have many (actually most of my friends are Christian, probably)--are Catholic. I think Catholics are more realistic about practicing their faith than Evangelicals or Protestants. I've gotten to know quite a few priests, and even went to weekly mass and Bible study with this chick I was fucking, and basically all of what they had to say seemed fair. The priests were open to being challenged. All of them admitted as pretty much a fact evolution, as just one example. It didn't feel like they were practicing in an echo-chamber like the others.

And you are entitled to that opinion. I would add that the history of the Catholic institution is what mostly has cast Christianity in bad light (IMO)... The Inquisition, the Crusades, indulgences, the killing off of intellectuals, the "dark ages", etc... that's not to say that Catholic adherents are responsible. It's just I'm surprised you would take that position despite such a horrendous history...

[Phenomanul]

If there really is no underlying rhyme or reason to everything -- and we're in one big True Detective ghetto -- then this shit is really fucking depressing.

That being said, that the irony of anthropomorphizing a deity, ascribing it things like will/intent/language etc, and taking as literal shit written before we had electricity is lost on Christians is beyond me. It's why republicans are absolutely fucked -- they hate smart.

If by proxy you are implying Christians "hate smart"... you need to go back and read up on your history of the scientific movement.

I've posted this before:

First, by and large the fathers of the Scientific Enlightenment were Christian... or Deists. It is mere historical revisionism to claim that those that progressed Science to its current state were mostly atheists or unbelievers... Again, this is yet another instance of the fallacy of "consensus gentium…" running rampant in our modern society… You've probably heard this misconception over and over that you yourself have come to believe it... Let me share the truth with you – the following scientists were the ones that pushed humanity to the modern scientific era – and they all believed in an all-powerful Creator:

Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus and Physics)

Sir James Clerk Maxwell (father of Electromagnetism)

Sir Francis Bacon (father of the Scientific Method)

Neils Bohr (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

John Dalton (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

Louis Pasteur (father of Germ Theory of Disease)

Albert Einstein (co-father of Nuclear Physics and Relativity) [Deist]

J. Robert Oppenheimer (co-father of Nuclear Physics) [Deist]

Enrico Fermi (co-father of Nuclear Physics)

Michael Faraday (co-father of Chemistry)

Antoine Lavoisier (co-father of Chemistry)

Linus Pauling (co-father of Modern Chemistry)

Sir Robert Boyle (father of Thermophysical Gas Laws)

Gregor Mendel (father of Genetics)

Carl Linnaeus (father of Binomial Nomenclature)

Claude Bernard (co-father of Modern Physiology)

Lord Kelvin (William Thompson Kelvin) (co-father of Thermodynamics)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (co-father of Thermodynamics)

John von Neumann (father of the Computer)

Johannes Kepler (renowned astronomer who pinned down the motion of the planets)

Luke Howard (father of Meteorology – developed the cloud naming nomenclature we use today)

Nicolaus Copernicus (renowned astronomer)

Max Planck (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Max Born (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Werner Heisenberg (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Verner Edward Suomi (father of Satellite Meteorology)

Alfred Wegener (developed the Continental Drift Theory)

William Herschel (renowned astronomer who catalogued Galaxies and Nebulae)

Edwin Hubble (renowned astronomer who helped develop the modern telescope)

Franz Boas (father of modern Anthropology)

Anton van Leeuwenhoek (co-father of Microbiology – developed the micro-scope)

Leonard Euler (renowned mathematician)

Karl Friedrich Gauss (renowned mathematician)

Blaise Pascal (renowned mathematician)

Christiaan Huygens (developed the “Wave” theory of light)

Erwin Schrodinger (father of Wave mechanics)

Emil Fischer (co-father of Organic Chemistry)

Richard Feynman (father of Quantum Electrodynamics)

Thomas Milton Rivers (father of Modern Virology)

Paul Ehrlich (developed the concept of Chemotherapy)

Matthew Fontaine Maury (father of Oceanography)

Sheldon Glashow (co-father of Quarks – discovered Charm)

Jonas Salk (developed the Vaccination concept)

Alexander Fleming (developed the Anti-biotics concept – discovered Penicillin)

Christiaan Barnard (performed the first successful human-to human heart transplant)

Among others…

Note that they just about cover EVERY major field in Science…

But go ahead and keep on believing that somehow "Christians hate smart" or more specifically, intellectual reasoning.

I would add that (and I've said this before as well) science is not the only revealer of truth... People need to understand the importance of studying History...

[Winehole23]

And youre cagey and wishy washy.

You claim I am off base but never ever provide a counter narrative. Reads as avoidance to me. You give no reason for anyone else to believe you either.

And your interactions and writings here have everything to do with you. You did it not someone else. That is the basis of my comments not make believe. The sentiments I am talking about are on display from you as we speak.What precisely?

Stop clearing your throat and say something, if you have something to say. So far, it's pretty abstract.

[mingus]

I would add that the history of the Catholic Institution...

You haven't added shit. You've confused shit. I wasn't talking about the history of the Catholic Church.

[vy65]

If by proxy you are implying Christians "hate smart"... you need to go back and read up on your history of the scientific movement.

I've posted this before:

First, by and large the fathers of the Scientific Enlightenment were Christian... or Deists. It is mere historical revisionism to claim that those that progressed Science to its current state were mostly atheists or unbelievers... Again, this is yet another instance of the fallacy of "consensus gentium…" running rampant in our modern society… You've probably heard this misconception over and over that you yourself have come to believe it... Let me share the truth with you – the following scientists were the ones that pushed humanity to the modern scientific era – and they all believed in an all-powerful Creator:

Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus and Physics)

Sir James Clerk Maxwell (father of Electromagnetism)

Sir Francis Bacon (father of the Scientific Method)

Neils Bohr (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

John Dalton (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

Louis Pasteur (father of Germ Theory of Disease)

Albert Einstein (co-father of Nuclear Physics and Relativity) [Deist]

J. Robert Oppenheimer (co-father of Nuclear Physics) [Deist]

Enrico Fermi (co-father of Nuclear Physics)

Michael Faraday (co-father of Chemistry)

Antoine Lavoisier (co-father of Chemistry)

Linus Pauling (co-father of Modern Chemistry)

Sir Robert Boyle (father of Thermophysical Gas Laws)

Gregor Mendel (father of Genetics)

Carl Linnaeus (father of Binomial Nomenclature)

Claude Bernard (co-father of Modern Physiology)

Lord Kelvin (William Thompson Kelvin) (co-father of Thermodynamics)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (co-father of Thermodynamics)

John von Neumann (father of the Computer)

Johannes Kepler (renowned astronomer who pinned down the motion of the planets)

Luke Howard (father of Meteorology – developed the cloud naming nomenclature we use today)

Nicolaus Copernicus (renowned astronomer)

Max Planck (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Max Born (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Werner Heisenberg (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Verner Edward Suomi (father of Satellite Meteorology)

Alfred Wegener (developed the Continental Drift Theory)

William Herschel (renowned astronomer who catalogued Galaxies and Nebulae)

Edwin Hubble (renowned astronomer who helped develop the modern telescope)

Franz Boas (father of modern Anthropology)

Anton van Leeuwenhoek (co-father of Microbiology – developed the micro-scope)

Leonard Euler (renowned mathematician)

Karl Friedrich Gauss (renowned mathematician)

Blaise Pascal (renowned mathematician)

Christiaan Huygens (developed the “Wave” theory of light)

Erwin Schrodinger (father of Wave mechanics)

Emil Fischer (co-father of Organic Chemistry)

Richard Feynman (father of Quantum Electrodynamics)

Thomas Milton Rivers (father of Modern Virology)

Paul Ehrlich (developed the concept of Chemotherapy)

Matthew Fontaine Maury (father of Oceanography)

Sheldon Glashow (co-father of Quarks – discovered Charm)

Jonas Salk (developed the Vaccination concept)

Alexander Fleming (developed the Anti-biotics concept – discovered Penicillin)

Christiaan Barnard (performed the first successful human-to human heart transplant)

Among others…

Note that they just about cover EVERY major field in Science…

But go ahead and keep on believing that somehow "Christians hate smart" or more specifically, intellectual reasoning.

I would add that (and I've said this before as well) science is not the only revealer of truth... People need to understand the importance of studying History...

The absence of reading comprehension and defensiveness here proves my point.

Of course smart people had religious beliefs. That's not related to the claim that taking the bible literally is anti-intellectual. Try again.

[boutons_deux]

And you are entitled to that opinion. I would add that the history of the Catholic institution is what mostly has cast Christianity in bad light (IMO)... The Inquisition, the Crusades, indulgences, the killing off of intellectuals, the "dark ages", etc... that's not to say that Catholic adherents are responsible. It's just I'm surprised you would take that position despite such a horrendous history...

Repug Bible-thumpers, walking around the WH with Bibles in their hands, invaded Iraq and destabilized the (Muslim) Middle East probably for decades, with Ms dead, maimed, displaced.

And the blatant, materialistic, money-grubbing corruption of wealthy Protestant televangelists is a huge shit stain on your Christianity, are as corrupt as the CC was that led to the Reformation.

The Protestant, esp evangelical, claim that they are holier, better than the hated CC within Christianity reminds of Shiite - Sunni rivalry within Mohammadism.

One of the defining characteristics of Religion is disrespect, hate of other major Religions, and even of varieties, flavors, sects within their own Religion.

Defining others as apostates, infidels, sinners is a ploy to convince a Religion's members they are better, to affirm their choice, and serves as a basis, justification for punishing, discriminating against, persecuting the others, eg, with wedding cakes, marriage licenses.

The US evangelical fringe nuts with the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-humanistic Bible literalism are pulling America, or at least themselves, into a Dark Age, just like the CC, in conjunction with political powers, did for a 1000 years.

Bible literalists can't accept the scientific TRUTH of AGW, because it would destroy their belief in the bogus "truth" of their Bible(s).

[Phenomanul]

You haven't added shit. You've confused shit. I wasn't talking about the history of the Catholic Church.

No... you were too busy taking a dig at Protestants and Evangelicals... as if somehow the Catholic Church better interprets Biblical Scriptures when what they've done through the ages is murky up the simple gospel message - in an attempt to wield power.

Ironically enough, any claims that tampering occurred with Biblical scriptures annexed from the Hebrew/Judaic canon would reside on the shoulders of said institution. Fortunately, scripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls exist that AFFIRM that the language of the texts has not changed for several thousand years. In other words, Christians could not just change the old texts "all wily nily to suit their message" because those texts have been found in editions that predate the arrival of Christianity altogether (every one here seems to miss that point) - In other words those texts say the same thing prior to Christianity as they do in the Biblical canon. Furthermore, the meanings CAN in fact be validated because neither Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are completely dead languages.

[Phenomanul]

Repug Bible-thumpers, walking around the WH with Bibles in their hands, invaded Iraq and destabilized the (Muslim) Middle East probably for decades, with Ms dead, maimed, displaced.

And the blatant, materialistic, money-grubbing corruption of wealthy Protestant televangelists is a huge shit stain on your Christianity, are as corrupt as the CC was that led to the Reformation.

The Protestant, esp evangelical, claim that they are holier, better than the hated CC within Christianity reminds of Shiite - Sunni rivalry within Mohammadism.

One of the defining characteristics of Religion is disrespect, hate of other major Religions, and even of varieties, flavors, sects within their own Religion.

Defining others as apostates, infidels, sinners is a ploy to convince a Religion's members they are better, to affirm their choice, and serves as a basis, justification for punishing, discriminating against, persecuting the others, eg, with wedding cakes, marriage licenses.

The US evangelical fringe nuts with the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-humanistic Bible literalism are pulling America, or at least themselves, into a Dark Age, just like the CC, in conjunction with political powers, did for a 1000 years.

Bible literalists can't accept the scientific TRUTH of AGW, because it would destroy their belief in the bogus "truth" of their Bible(s).

Cool it there boutons... you're always on the verge of getting aneurysms... I find it hypocritical that you would characterize politicians as being evil and then in the same breadth chastise believers for denouncing what they do (as adherents who have gone astray). How can you not see the dichotic nature of your peeves...?

In other words only YOU (seemingly from the outside) can cast stones at everyone??? What gives you that authority...? Are believers supposed to abscond their interpretational discernment of the scriptures to fancy your political posturing? The way you see things...?

[Phenomanul]

The absence of reading comprehension and defensiveness here proves my point.

Of course smart people had religious beliefs. That's not related to the claim that taking the bible literally is anti-intellectual. Try again.

Your original post is rather cryptic. I went back to re-read it and the crux of your argument ("we're fucked because Republicans hate smart") is not supported by the ramblings in the earlier part of your quote. You didn't connect the context of your ramblings to the argument itself.

For example, why would it matter if something were written before we had "electricity", as if somehow that advancement marked the cutoff frame for taking something literal or not??? Is The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution itself devoid of literalness simply because they were documents written before the arrival of "electricity"...?

Don't shove the "reading comprehension" excuse down my throat if somehow you've failed to make a coherent argument to begin with.

Just more hate.

[mingus]

No... you were too busy taking a dig at Protestants and Evangelicals... as if somehow the Catholic Church better interprets Biblical Scriptures when what they've done through the ages is murky up the simple gospel message - in an attempt to wield power.

Ironically enough, any claims that tampering occurred with Biblical scriptures annexed from the Hebrew/Judaic canon would reside on the shoulders of said institution. Fortunately, scripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls exist that AFFIRM that the language of the texts has not changed for several thousand years. In other words, Christians could not just change the old texts "all wily nily to suit their message" because those texts have been found in editions that predate the arrival of Christianity altogether (every one here seems to miss that point) - In other words those texts say the same thing prior to Christianity as they do in the Biblical canon. Furthermore, the meanings CAN in fact be validated because neither Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are completely dead languages.

Where did I say that Catholics interpret the Bible better? What does "interpret the Bible better" even mean? What does "better" mean?

I'll rephrase what I said a bit more carefully to avoid confusion: Catholics--not 100, 200, 500, or 1000 years ago, but now--tend towards a less literal interpretation of the Bible, and I believe this is more realistic/pragmatic in light of the fact that science has given in my humble opinion better & more sound theories & explanations for various phenomena than what's in (or not in) the Bible.

I can't say whether that's a better way of interpreting the Bible per se. I simply think it's a better way of interpreting it against competing ideas that seem to me, better. Whether that makes them better Christians or not, I don't know. The better interpretation is the one that is closest to the Bible's intent.

The other paragraph you wrote, I don't know who it's directed at or what is it specifically attempting to answer. Since we got off topic a bit, I'll just take it back to the post where I listed some questions for you that anyone with a desire to know pursue/know truth would want answered to the fullest extent possible. I'm still waiting for your answers.

[boutons_deux]

Cool it there boutons... you're always on the verge of getting aneurysms... I find it hypocritical that you would characterize politicians as being evil and then in the same breadth chastise believers for denouncing what they do (as adherents who have gone astray). How can you not see the dichotic nature of your peeves...?

In other words only YOU (seemingly from the outside) can cast stones at everyone??? What gives you that authority...? Are believers supposed to abscond their interpretational discernment of the scriptures to fancy your political posturing? The way you see things...?

I am, as always, super cool beyond belief, but thanks for your concern

Believers can believe whatever shit their pastors make up, and whatever personal divine revelation their imaginations conjure, but when they "believe" that their shit authorizes them:

-- to violate civil law and/or pass civil laws to discriminate against whom they consider "sinners" (but only for particular sins)

-- to push their religious shit into taxpayers' public education

-- to use taxpayer facilities for religious ends, violating separation of religion and state

-- etc

... then I'll "chastise" you assholes.

[boutons_deux]

The Associated Press reported (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/de486b3d64154d0baae9f04fba0a4094/ap-norc-poll-religious-rights-us-christians-most-valued) this week:


Americans place a higher priority on preserving the religious freedom of Christians than for other faith groups, ranking Muslims as the least deserving of the protections, according to a new survey.

Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.


According to the survey’s findings, 82% of the public agreed that protections for Christians are important. For Jewish Americans, support slips to roughly 70%. For Mormons, it’s 67%. And at the bottom, 63% of Americans are on board with protections with those with no religion, and only 61% say the same about Muslims.



The idea that the First Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of their belief system, and that the law doesn’t play favorites among traditions, is a core constitutional truth – which many Americans evidently take issue with.



the fine folks at Right Wing Watch identified (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/five-failed-right-wing-prophecies-and-predictions-2015) “five failed right-wing prophecies and predictions” from 2015, “including fears about

the looming imposition of martial law,

establishment of Obama’s private army and

the assassination of conservative leaders.”

My personal favorite were the prophecies about divine punishment in 2015 over marriage equality, which some religious right figures said would include

hurricanes,

riots, and a

mass migration away from the United States.

None of this actually happened.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-1216?cid=sm_fb_maddow

So many Americans, giving at lip service, in theory, to their sacred Constitution, think Christianity, in practice, deserves protections and privileges that should not be accorded to non-Christian religions, and of course not to non-Christians.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What precisely?

Stop clearing your throat and say something, if you have something to say. So far, it's pretty abstract.

Precisely? Why don't you tell me? You are the one decrying I cannot speak for you. So then set me straight. If I'm wrong then demonstrate why and don't just claim that I am too vague. That goes to the core of the wishy washy. If I'm so vague then how can you say I' wrong.

What I think is again you don't want to actually address the core of your belief so you waffle. Introspection is hard.

[Winehole23]

so, what is the core of my belief as you see it?

I have no idea what you're talking about, why don't you just say it, rather than spinning around abstractly...

[Winehole23]

you still haven't said what you think. you want me to say it for you, but unlike you, I'm not a mind reader.

[Winehole23]

that I disagree with you doesn't make me any kind of believer, believe it or not...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so, what is the core of my belief as you see it?

I have no idea what you're talking about, why don't you just say it, rather than spinning around abstractly...

You believe in a dogmatic god. Are you you a christian or similar type or are you not? If you don't know that's fine but at that point it belies your position of surety. My point still strikes at one of your valences.

The reason why I think that is because you wouldn't be the first with the same passive aggressive response because I don't give the god delusion a pass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that I disagree with you doesn't make me any kind of believer, believe it or not...

Disagree with me on what? Making broad allusions and demonstrating very clearly how you are afraid to address the issue of what you believe head on doesn't make the case you want it to, wine.

[Phenomanul]

I am, as always, super cool beyond belief, but thanks for your concern

Believers can believe whatever shit their pastors make up, and whatever personal divine revelation their imaginations conjure, but when they "believe" that their shit authorizes them:

-- to violate civil law and/or pass civil laws to discriminate against whom they consider "sinners" (but only for particular sins)

-- to push their religious shit into taxpayers' public education

-- to use taxpayer facilities for religious ends, violating separation of religion and state

-- etc

... then I'll "chastise" you assholes.


AGAIN though... you always want to lump everyone together... I don't support Republicans in everything they do. And that's where my communication with you comes to an end. You're just toooooooooo mad at everyone and everything to have reasonable discourse. If you're as cool headed as you claim - your posts certainly never convey that attitude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AGAIN though... you always want to lump everyone together... I don't support Republicans in everything they do. And that's where my communication with you comes to an end. You're just toooooooooo mad at everyone and everything to have reasonable discourse. If you're as cool headed as you claim - your posts certainly never convey that attitude.

Seeing how reductio ad absurdum is your go to argument I find this take particularly amusing.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have time to address all the rebuttals.... especially not on New Year's weekend.

but wow...! :lmao :lmao :lmao

("I am morally superior to the Christian God") Says the guy who unilaterally supports abortion and the selling of baby parts...

As for asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, I'm pretty sure GOD never intended for Abraham to kill him... wait, wait... that's exactly what scripture says.

Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.

What is your rough estimate as to the number of babies that would have drowned in a global flood? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Give me your best guess within an order of magnitude. I would drown exactly zero babies.


He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.

2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.

3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;

4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord God! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?

9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.

10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.

11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.

I would never order my followers to kill children and pile their bodies so I could see them. I would hope you would refuse such an order, making you morally superior to the God of the bible.

Again, pretty easy case to make.

[Quetzal-X]

Did those friends of yours ever ever allow the white image of jesus to be shown to those Mexicans? I dont see why it wouldnt seeing it has been shown to Mexicans and black for over 500 years. Millions of Mexicans killed and forced to become todays Catholic/christians. When you mourn for all the millions of my ancestors, then maybe i will pause for your friends. I hope they kicked those lying friends of yours around like futbols. Why wont you fucking lying disgusting christians admit you fucking changed the biblical description of the most high for racist greed? Jesus was a so called black man yet these fake christians turn a blind eye to white cesare borgia the devil. Why not just be honest you assholes?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.

What is your rough estimate as to the number of babies that would have drowned in a global flood? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Give me your best guess within an order of magnitude. I would drown exactly zero.



Again, pretty easy case to make.

But dead baby parts!

[RandomGuy]

But dead baby parts!

You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.

Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.

A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.

The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."

If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...


3 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

27 And the Lord said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.



The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF? :wow

(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.

Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.

A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.

The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."

If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...



The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF? :wow

(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

I'm with you. My recent pet peeve are people that want to use a figurative interpretation of books full of declarations like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus, and most of what Paul wrote in the New Testament. Psalms, Songs of Soloman, the parables, or the narrative tales of the gospels and old testament sure but the Bible having those books of declarations is just as bad as any Hadith. Jesus was a peaceful revolutionary against such directives by all accounts.

Ultimately if we want to get past theocratic behavior we need to let go of the delusion of the dogmatic God as a species.

[Quetzal-X]

You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.

Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.

A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.

The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."

If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...



The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF? :wow

(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html


Speaking of foreskin...

Have the jew rabbis or whatever figured out an alternative to sucking on baby boy dick to cleanse the open wound from circumcision ?


I swear you religious honkeys come from the damn devil lol only the religious ones tho tbh

[Phenomanul]

Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.

What is your rough estimate as to the number of babies that would have drowned in a global flood? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Give me your best guess within an order of magnitude. I would drown exactly zero babies.

I would never order my followers to kill children and pile their bodies so I could see them. I would hope you would refuse such an order, making you morally superior to the God of the bible.

Again, pretty easy case to m5ake.

Given 55 million abortions have taken place since Roe vs. Wade. Your position has a much lower "high ground" position than you wish to have and hence any argument of your "superior morality" is moot.

[Phenomanul]

Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading.

Specifically Abraham knew that GOD could resurrect Isaac. That was his faith. This much is written.

[Phenomanul]

Seeing how reductio ad absurdum is your go to argument I find this take particularly amusing.

Really?

Because boutons has not been able to grasp a simple argument?

Which is (and listen in because all of you have the same problem in failing to grasp the obvious):

I have a moral perspective which is largely derived from the faith I practice and the tenets of said belief system. When I vote (a constitutionally protected right), I vote with the influence of said perspective. I don't disconnect the two.

boutons and (fill in the blank [everyone else here]) has a moral perspective which is largely derived by his[their] own belief system (in this case atheism or agnosticism). When he votes (his constitutionally protected right), he votes with the influence of said perspective.

boutons, nevertheless, voices his extreme displeasure at the fact that I would have the audacity to lean my voting based on my beliefs - WHEN HE DOESN'T REALIZE HE'S DOING THE EXACT SAME THING when voting on his end.

SO AGAIN I ASK;

What gives you all the right to curtail my right to vote which ever way I want...? THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. You win some, you lose some... not everything aligns itself with your world perspective. You all don't seem to get that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really?

Because boutons has not been able to grasp a simple argument?

Which is (and listen in because all of you have the same problem in failing to grasp the obvious):

I have a moral perspective which is largely derived from the faith I practice and the tenets of said belief system. When I vote (a constitutionally protected right), I vote with the influence of said perspective. I don't disconnect the two.

boutons and (fill in the blank [everyone else here]) has a moral perspective which is largely derived by his[their] own belief system (in this case atheism or agnosticism). When he votes (his constitutionally protected right), he votes with the influence of said perspective.

boutons, nevertheless, voices his extreme displeasure at the fact that I would have the audacity to lean my voting based on my beliefs - WHEN HE DOESN'T REALIZE HE'S DOING THE EXACT SAME THING when voting on his end.

SO AGAIN I ASK;

What gives you all the right to curtail my right to vote which ever way I want...? THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. You win some, you lose some... not everything aligns itself with your world perspective. You all don't seem to get that.

It can all be reduced to this simple thing which I will then jump up and down and wave my hands at a lot! BOUTOX THE OPPRESSOR!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped. The slavemasters were also the priests and the ones who could write. Marking the stalls of slaves for various purposes would have been common and the notion of passover has a much more sinister air. Passover from sacrifice to the Ptolemaic gods would have been a very cathartic experience. Fear of death will do that to you.

I think the priest class simply transplanted the ideals and social controls. You can find much of the flood and creation nonsense in the Ptolemaic scrolls that have been recovered from all over Egypt. Moses being trained by the pharoahs but not really one of them would have been very convenient lie for an escaping priest. Ideas of race and other were almost complete back then as opposed to the enlightenment of today. It puts the story of Abraham and Isaac in a much different light when its not God but instead a priest speaking on the behalf of God in the story. It also makes sense. STring him out and then ultimately relent, oh God is merciful! It also speaks to a priest that feared reprisal and couldn't follow through. Pharoah wasn't there any more.

When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally.

[mingus]

Disagree with me on what? Making broad allusions and demonstrating very clearly how you are afraid to address the issue of what you believe head on doesn't make the case you want it to, wine.


Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.

What is your rough estimate as to the number of babies that would have drowned in a global flood? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Give me your best guess within an order of magnitude. I would drown exactly zero babies.



I would never order my followers to kill children and pile their bodies so I could see them. I would hope you would refuse such an order, making you morally superior to the God of the bible.

Again, pretty easy case to make.

I think you're simplifying & demonizing the message behind God's dictation to Abraham. Whether this is due to ignorance or intentionally leaving out information, I don't know.

He basically gave him a choice: God, through which the Jewish people and humanity, or his son. It wasn't only a test of his loyalty to God. It was the ultimate test of selflessness. Abraham was chosen by God because he had the selflessness to give up what he loved most dearly, his child, for an even greater, and the only greater, cause: all of God's children (humanity).

[Phenomanul]

It can all be reduced to this simple thing which I will then jump up and down and wave my hands at a lot! BOUTOX THE OPPRESSOR!

I am oppressing him no more than he claims by my volition to vote according to my own world perspective.

Thanks for finally catching up.

The facetious smugness on this board is so rampant it rubs off... I would normally not have discussions in this manner.

[Th'Pusher]

I am oppressing him no more than he claims by my volition to vote according to my own world perspective.

Thanks for finally catching up.

The facetious smugness on this board is so rampant it rubs off... I would normally not have discussions in this manner.
No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.

[DMC]

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.
Was Avante involved?

[RandomGuy]

I think you're simplifying & demonizing the message behind God's dictation to Abraham. Whether this is due to ignorance or intentionally leaving out information, I don't know.

He basically gave him a choice: God, through which the Jewish people and humanity, or his son. It wasn't only a test of his loyalty to God. It was the ultimate test of selflessness. Abraham was chosen by God because he had the selflessness to give up what he loved most dearly, his child, for an even greater, and the only greater, cause: all of God's children (humanity).

Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?

What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.

[RandomGuy]

Specifically Abraham knew that GOD could resurrect Isaac. That was his faith. This much is written.

So, making a child believe you are going to kill them is not harmful to the child?

This is a simple yes or no, that you should be able to answer if you are being honest.

[RandomGuy]

No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.

Except of course if you are a Supreme Court justice...

[RandomGuy]

Given 55 million abortions have taken place since Roe vs. Wade. Your position has a much lower "high ground" position than you wish to have and hence any argument of your "superior morality" is moot.

More deflection. I noticed you deliberately didn't answer a simple question.

How many babies do you think God drowned in the great flood? Again, just a general number, within an order of magnitude.

All I am asking for is an honest answer. I will be happy to address the issue of abortion, but don't think the discussion should be one-sided. Quid pro quo.

[Blake]

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.

What did the temperature drop have to do with fixing a witchy kid?

[Blake]

Sin is all the things that GOD isn't.

Except murder is a sin

[mingus]

Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?

What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

[RandomGuy]

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

[Phenomanul]

More deflection. I noticed you deliberately didn't answer a simple question.

How many babies do you think God drowned in the great flood? Again, just a general number, within an order of magnitude.

All I am asking for is an honest answer. I will be happy to address the issue of abortion, but don't think the discussion should be one-sided. Quid pro quo.

I've given you my honest answer many times over... You all disingenuously always try to twist it around into something that it is not... Any many posters grab my responses outside of the flow of the discussion I'm having with you... And twist it some more devoid of any context whatsoever... So here's your answer.

Any child who died before their acknowledgement/discernment of good and evil (different age depending on the child's development) automatically enters the kingdom of Heaven... Anyone else, ultimately pays the price of their own actions - knowing of course that they were doing wrong (theft, rape, etc...). The flood/reboot was ultimately an act of redemption for any child in the former group - because given enough time they would have entered the latter group and been unsalvageable (accountable for their actions)...

You villify GOD as evil, but you don't understand the extent of evil HE was eradicating (Nephalim)... HIS actions were both merciful and gracious with respect to babies and children in the first group. Everyone else cast their own lots and sealed their own fates... Not to mention Noah preached a message of repentance to them for 100 years! All they had to do was step into the ark... But they made their choices... Again, you wantonly ignore the fact that people always had a choice... You constantly wish to justify their bad choices (and absolve them of the repercussions from said choice)... In this case, their bad choice cost them their life... Literally all they had to do was step in the ark.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

I like how you use utilitarian ethic to justify bad behavior while God who is supposedly made us based on him gets the thought control of Peter and simple declarations that brook no utilitarian ethic like 'thou shalt not kill.'

I didn't leave out shit that is actually in the Bible. You don't speak for God.

:lol parable. So lets be clear you think this didn't happen and it's just story time?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am oppressing him no more than he claims by my volition to vote according to my own world perspective.

Thanks for finally catching up.

The facetious smugness on this board is so rampant it rubs off... I would normally not have discussions in this manner.

Read what I said and try again. Your claiming that boutox is oppressing you. If you're going to be smug then simple reading errors don't help. Smug and fear of boutox is amusing though. Victim card much?

[Phenomanul]

No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.
Are not the laws of the land, also an extension of my vote? I vote with my conscience you vote with yours. That you all cry about the fact that I do so however, ALL WHILE retaining your own leanings is what I'm calling out... You all can't have it both ways... 2nd point... Are not the laws of the land also an extension of our moral code? The church doesn't preside over the government, its adherents however are the governed - as the governed they have a say so in how they wish to be governed... That is what a democracy protects - and you all don't seem to get that...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are not the laws of the land, also an extension of my vote? I vote with my conscience you vote with yours. That you all cry about the fact that I do so however, ALL WHILE retaining your own leanings is what I'm calling out... You all can't have it both ways... 2nd point... Are not the laws of the land also an extension of our moral code? The church doesn't preside over the government, its adherents however are the governed - as the governed they have a say so in how they wish to be governed... That is what a democracy protects - and you all don't seem to get that...

:lol From boutox the oppressor to this?

You can vote however you want. Taht still doesn't make it anything other than illogical wishful thinking. Counting victims trying to justify OT god was amusing though.

[Phenomanul]

Read what I said and try again. Your claiming that boutox is oppressing you. If you're going to be smug then simple reading errors don't help. Smug and fear of boutox is amusing though. Victim card much?
Oh now you wish to ignore his Tourette's-like ranting...? My responses to him aren't entirely contained by the flow of this conversation since he wishes to always bring up politics into the fray... I'm just pointing out his stance is hypocritical. Oppression was not the operative verb. If he wished to impose his beliefs while restraining mine then THAT would be oppressive... That is distinction you are missing for the sake of wanting to call me out on "reading comprehension"... Convenient but misplaced your assertion is.

[Phenomanul]

:lol From boutox the oppressor to this?

You can vote however you want. Taht still doesn't make it anything other than illogical wishful thinking. Counting victims trying to justify OT god was amusing though.

Someone doesn't get that there are like 24 different arguments and conversations going on in this thread... Cute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone doesn't get that there are like 24 different arguments and conversations going on in this thread... Cute.

Some doesn't get that to really make the argument you need to make the distinction between the arguments.

Your too simple to do that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh now you wish to ignore his Tourette's-like ranting...? My responses to him aren't entirely contained by the flow of this conversation since he wishes to always bring up politics into the fray... I'm just pointing out his stance is hypocritical. Oppression was not the operative verb. If he wished to impose his beliefs while restraining mine then THAT would be oppressive... That is distinction you are missing for the sake of wanting to call me out on "reading comprehension"... Convenient but misplaced your assertion is.

For someone who should buy the first cause argument you sure don't really understand notions of temporal order.

Christian proselytization needs be stopped. If you want to whine about oppression and claim utilitarian justification for the behavior fo your church then fine but it still doesn't mitigate the fact that Abrahamic religions are used to incite violence and all other manner of stupidity in and of themselves.

Continue trying to split hairs and separate yourself from people that read prose literally.

[RandomGuy]

I've given you my honest answer many times over... You all disingenuously always try to twist it around into something that it is not... Any many posters grab my responses outside of the flow of the discussion I'm having with you... And twist it some more devoid of any context whatsoever... So here's your answer.

Any child who died before their acknowledgement/discernment of good and evil (different age depending on the child's development) automatically enters the kingdom of Heaven... Anyone else, ultimately pays the price of their own actions - knowing of course that they were doing wrong (theft, rape, etc...). The flood/reboot was ultimately an act of redemption for any child in the former group - because given enough time they would have entered the latter group and been unsalvageable (accountable for their actions)...

You villify GOD as evil, but you don't understand the extent of evil HE was eradicating (Nephalim)... HIS actions were both merciful and gracious with respect to babies and children in the first group. Everyone else cast their own lots and sealed their own fates... Not to mention Noah preached a message of repentance to them for 100 years! All they had to do was step into the ark... But they made their choices... Again, you wantonly ignore the fact that people always had a choice... You constantly wish to justify their bad choices (and absolve them of the repercussions from said choice)... In this case, their bad choice cost them their life... Literally all they had to do was step in the ark.

Again, not an honest answer to my question. I know the excuse you give for the thing you worship.

I wasn't asking what your excuse is/was. I was wondering how many babies you think that the thing you worship drowned, just a ballpark figure. A much more limited question.

So, let's try a different tack then, since you seem to be unable to be honest about this topic.

Is mental anguish harmful?

[Phenomanul]

Some doesn't get that to really make the argument you need to make the distinction between the arguments.

Your too simple to do that.

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please. :rolleyes

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

[Phenomanul]

Again, not an honest answer to my question. I know the excuse you give for the thing you worship.

I wasn't asking what your excuse is/was. I was wondering how many babies you think that the thing you worship drowned, just a ballpark figure. A much more limited question.

So, let's try a different tack then, since you seem to be unable to be honest about this topic.

Is mental anguish harmful?

No but your attitude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

[mingus]

I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

I respect you guys' right to an opinion on the parable. It's not the only way of interpreting it tho. Any fair analysis would take the other, less take-it-at-face value interpretations of it into consideration. I think we can factually say your analysis was one-sided.

My .02 was an effort to fill the ideas explicitly and intentionally left out of your analysis.

[Blake]

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please. :rolleyes

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

You do know that this is an open message board

[Th'Pusher]

No but your attitude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

Wow. You really do consider yourself to be persecuted for your belief. Is this limited to your interactions on this message board, or is this how you generally live your life?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please. :rolleyes

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

And he dodges again. I have other things to do during the day.

I'm pointing out how you are wrong and I agree with RG. I have laid out several examples and your response is that I interjected myself -no shit- and now trying to assassinate my character through some emotional narrative.

RG keeps on trying to get you to address a point and you want to go around in circles with this stupidity with me. You know by now I don't waste my time with that shit.

We both know you think you've lost the argument. Actions speak louder than words. Believe anyway, it just goes to show the power of delusion for everyone else.

[RandomGuy]

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.


I think you're simplifying & demonizing the message behind God's dictation to Abraham. Whether this is due to ignorance or intentionally leaving out information, I don't know.

He basically gave him a choice: God, through which the Jewish people and humanity, or his son. It wasn't only a test of his loyalty to God. It was the ultimate test of selflessness. Abraham was chosen by God because he had the selflessness to give up what he loved most dearly, his child, for an even greater, and the only greater, cause: all of God's children (humanity).


Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?

What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.



What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.


I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

I respect you guys' right to an opinion on the parable. It's not the only way of interpreting it tho. Any fair analysis would take the other, less take-it-at-face value interpretations of it into consideration. I think we can factually say your analysis was one-sided.

My .02 was an effort to fill the ideas explicitly and intentionally left out of your analysis.

Since you don't seem to be willing to answer the specific question about what your analysis left out, let me help you.


22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.


Why do you not want to talk about the part where this being asks a human to kill his son? You implied my take was inaccurate, and I asked you to correct my "simplification" if it was inaccurate.

If this being knows what is in the heart of the man, why not simply ask him how selfless he is?

Why bother with the human sacrifice element?

Would you ever ask anyone to do that? Why or why not?

We could go on to another human sacrifices in the bible, if you prefer.


29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

...
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

...

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,



God didn't stop Jephthah. Does god like burnt daughters? Is there some part of that that I am missing?

[RandomGuy]

No but your attitude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

Is mental anguish harmful?

Yes or no. 2nd time.

[RandomGuy]

If you like, I can post a string of dissembling from Cosmored, when I ask him fair questions about his pet "faked moon landing theory". It looks bad, once you string a bunch of dissembling together for fair questions.


Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth.


When one is given the opportunity to state the truth, the honest way to approach it is to simply state it. If you can't, that should be a red flag that you may need to examine things a bit more closely.

[RandomGuy]

I've given you my honest answer many times over... You all disingenuously always try to twist it around into something that it is not... Any many posters grab my responses outside of the flow of the discussion I'm having with you... And twist it some more devoid of any context whatsoever... So here's your answer.


Is asking for honest answers disingenuous?

Please expand on how honest answers to fair, relevant questions can be considered disingenuous. You have accused me of being dishonest, and I would prefer not to be dishonest.

I fail to see how honest, truthful answers can ever twist something into what it is not. Seems like that is the only real path to truth.

[mingus]

Since you don't seem to be willing to answer the specific question about what your analysis left out, let me help you.



Why do you not want to talk about the part where this being asks a human to kill his son? You implied my take was inaccurate, and I asked you to correct my "simplification" if it was inaccurate.

If this being knows what is in the heart of the man, why not simply ask him how selfless he is?

Why bother with the human sacrifice element?

Would you ever ask anyone to do that? Why or why not?

We could go on to another human sacrifices in the bible, if you prefer.



God didn't stop Jephthah. Does god like burnt daughters? Is there some part of that that I am missing?

You're reading what is at its core literature--divinely inspired or not. As such, it deserves analysis into its possibley deeper subliminal meaning. I'm less concerned with trying to change your mind that God was/is evil in this particular interaction with Abraham, then I am with offering up a counter viewpoint on what God's intent may have actually been, or was, instead in order to do the literature itself and the millennia of Biblical scholarly analysis their due justice, respectively.

[TeyshaBlue]

If only RG subjected some of his notions to the same level of scrutiny......

[Phenomanul]

Is asking for honest answers disingenuous?

Please expand on how honest answers to fair, relevant questions can be considered disingenuous. You have accused me of being dishonest, and I would prefer not to be dishonest.

I fail to see how honest, truthful answers can ever twist something into what it is not. Seems like that is the only real path to truth.

It's disingenuous when you always want the answers to line up with your preconceived notions of what you want them to be. When they don't line up, you ALWAYS gloss over it and you harp on the next point.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Throw multiple arguments at someone, and nit pick at all their answers - but especially the weakest one - and then turn around and claim logical victory for all of the posited arguments. You always do this - without fail. And then you throw your hands in the air and say, "What?? All I wanted were honest answers".

I try to be civil with you. But unfortunately there are way too many moving parts in this forum to ever get anywhere (too many distracting posters which derail any semblance of true discourse). Furthermore, you throw way too many arguments to ever be able to address any one completely or to your satisfaction. The argument always moves and never settles. And then the "demanding" tactic... it's so condescending.

The worse part [the part that is most frustrating] is that my belief structure is built on an understanding of the scriptures you simply refuse to give any logical merit to.

For example If I say that "Scripture A" supports "belief B", not only do you argue against "belief B", but attack my interpretation of "Scripture A", and then it quickly devolves into an attack on the tenets of Christianity in general, and hence my own belief structure at large...

In every single thread where this discussion rears its head... ultimately you [or someone else] always end up positing the GOD question, and without fail you simply say. I don't believe in GOD's existence, therefore "Scripture A" is irrelevant (and has no merit whatsoever), so "belief B" is completely erroneous. Anyone who tries to argue for the merits of" belief B", THEN ends up having to scale up to an intransigent position that is so firmly entrenched in your own belief structure (i.e. "GOD does not exist") that they've already lost the argument in your mind before ever entering it. That is why the dynamic of all of your so called "genuine" questions is rather disingenuous - you may disagree with my description and over-simplification of the dynamic - but it always unfolds in this manner.

That is the pattern of every single one of these arguments.

It's futile.

It's tiring.

AND it strips away at both of our time.


Is mental anguish harmful?

Yes or no. 2nd time.

What is this pissy authority with which you demand answers???? You are somehow never able to see when a question has been answered. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE PLAYING THE ROLE OF THE DISMISSIVE BLIND MICE. GO FOR IT. FRANKLY, I'm tired of these circular-logic games.

Continue believing what you believe. I nor anyone else have ever told you otherwise. Peace and farewell.

[Th'Pusher]

It's disingenuous when you always want the answers to line up with your preconceived notions of what you want them to be. When they don't line up, you ALWAYS gloss over it and you harp on the next point.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Throw multiple arguments at someone, and nit pick at all their answers - but especially the weakest one - and then turn around and claim logical victory for all of the posited arguments. You always do this - without fail. And then you throw your hands in the air and say, "What?? All I wanted were honest answers".

I try to be civil with you. But unfortunately there are way too many moving parts in this forum to ever get anywhere (too many distracting posters which derail any semblance of true discourse). Furthermore, you throw way too many arguments to ever be able to address any one completely or to your satisfaction. The argument always moves and never settles. And then the "demanding" tactic... it's so condescending.

The worse part [the part that is most frustrating] is that my belief structure is built on an understanding of the scriptures you simply refuse to give any logical merit to.

For example If I say that "Scripture A" supports "belief B", not only do you argue against "belief B", but attack my interpretation of "Scripture A", and then it quickly devolves into an attack on the tenets of Christianity in general, and hence my own belief structure at large...

In every single thread where this discussion rears its head... ultimately you [or someone else] always end up positing the GOD question, and without fail you simply say. I don't believe in GOD's existence, therefore "Scripture A" is irrelevant (and has no merit whatsoever), so "belief B" is completely erroneous. Anyone who tries to argue for the merits of" belief B", THEN ends up having to scale up to an intransigent position that is so firmly entrenched in your own belief structure (i.e. "GOD does not exist") that they've already lost the argument in your mind before ever entering it. That is why the dynamic of all of your so called "genuine" questions is rather disingenuous - you may disagree with my description and over-simplification of the dynamic - but it always unfolds in this manner.

That is the pattern of every single one of these arguments.

It's futile.

It's tiring.

AND it strips away at both of our time.



What is this pissy authority with which you demand answers???? You are somehow never able to see when a question has been answered. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE PLAYING THE ROLE OF THE DISMISSIVE BLIND MICE. GO FOR IT. FRANKLY, I'm tired of these circular-logic games.

Continue believing what you believe. I nor anyone else have ever told you otherwise. Peace and farewell.

You need to pull yourself out of this emotional tailspin. People can respect your right to believe without respecting what you believe. Christians are not being persecuted.

Do you also believe there is a war on Christmas?

[RandomGuy]

If only RG subjected some of his notions to the same level of scrutiny......

I am always happy to do so.

[RandomGuy]

You're reading what is at its core literature--divinely inspired or not. As such, it deserves analysis into its possibley deeper subliminal meaning. I'm less concerned with trying to change your mind that God was/is evil in this particular interaction with Abraham, then I am with offering up a counter viewpoint on what God's intent may have actually been, or was, instead in order to do the literature itself and the millennia of Biblical scholarly analysis their due justice, respectively.

Are you capable of answering questions honestly?

[TeyshaBlue]

You need to pull yourself out of this emotional tailspin. People can respect your right to believe without respecting what you believe. Christians are not being persecuted.

Do you also believe there is a war on Christmas?

This.

[mingus]

Are you capable of answering questions honestly?

No! I'm a pathological liar!

[Blake]

You're reading what is at its core literature--divinely inspired or not. As such, it deserves analysis into its possibly deeper subliminal meaning

Lolwut

[RandomGuy]

No! I'm a pathological liar!

A fun paradox. :lol

I will assume from the sarcasm you like to think you are honest, and thought my question was snarky. It wasn't.

I was hoping you would simply answer it. Seriously though, do you consider yourself an honest person? Is it important to you?

[mingus]

No! I am a pathological LIAR!

[mingus]

TBH, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? I've explained myself here to the fullest extent that I seemingly can.

I called your shitty analysis of what God meant toward Abraham & Isaac a simple one, based on the FACT that it didn't even mention nevermind address the counter-view to it, as if to say it's the only one that's worthy of consideration. So what am I missing exactly? Where am I wrong?

[Blake]

TBH, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? I've explained myself here to the fullest extent that I seemingly can.

I called your shitty analysis of what God meant toward Abraham & Isaac a simple one, based on the FACT that it didn't even mention nevermind address the counter-view to it, as if to say it's the only one that's worthy of consideration. So what am I missing exactly? Where am I wrong?

What's the counter view, reverend?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No! I am a pathological LIAR!

Pathological avoider is more like it. You won't touch anyone questioning your 'counter-narrative' which of course is so nebulous as to be meaningless and is not mutually exclusive with what we are saying. At least Thoreau had the balls to try and describe it but even then he came ot the conclusion that faith and reason should not contradict like we are describing.

You claim that there is some other subliminal meaning. You have in no way described what that is and when questioned on it you go into this most current dodge.

You want to follow the playbook of a theocrat 3.5 centuries after the fact and ignore all of the historical, societal, anthropological and archeological proof to the contrary then you go right ahead. You go ahead and think that Jesus supported the Levites when everything in his story points the other way. He was overturning dovecoats and money tables with a huge crowd at his back because he actually wanted people to follow those directives as you defend them in his name.

Jesus entire point was you didn't have to do sacrifices like that to obtain the kingdom of heaven. Here your dumbass is trying to justify someone demanding physical offerings of the worst sort and you are trying to shoehorn it into Jesus' religion?

Christians are stupid and without principle for the most part is what it seems to me.

[mingus]

What's the counter view, reverend?

It's the one I've already offered up--the one every theologian & follower of Christianity or Judaism I've personally ever talk to subscribes to.

[mingus]

Pathological avoider is more like it. You won't touch anyone questioning your 'counter-narrative' which of course is so nebulous as to be meaningless and is not mutually exclusive with what we are saying. At least Thoreau had the balls to try and describe it but even then he came ot the conclusion that faith and reason should not contradict like we are describing.You claim that there is some other subliminal meaning. You have in no way described what that is and when questioned on it you go into this most current dodge.You want to follow the playbook of a theocrat 3.5 centuries after the fact and ignore all of the historical, societal, anthropological and archeological proof to the contrary then you go right ahead. You go ahead and think that Jesus supported the Levites when everything in his story points the other way. He was overturning dovecoats and money tables with a huge crowd at his back because he actually wanted people to follow those directives as you defend them in his name.Jesus entire point was you didn't have to do sacrifices like that to obtain the kingdom of heaven. Here your dumbass is trying to justify someone demanding physical offerings of the worst sort and you are trying to shoehorn it into Jesus' religion?Christians are stupid and without principle for the most part is what it seems to me."All Christians are stupid""But pppplease, answer my questions you stupid fucking Christians""Hey stupid fucking Christians, why are you avoiding my questions?"I avoid people, not questions.Go choke on a dick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"All Christians are stupid""But pppplease, answer my questions you stupid fucking Christians""Hey stupid fucking Christians, why are you avoiding my questions?"I avoid people, not questions.Go choke on a dick.

Cowardice is as cowardice does. You cannot even restate my points goes to show how hardcore your avoidance is. We both know you have nothing but 'subliminal meaning' and we both know it to be horseshit.

I didn't ask a question. I hammered you for supporting the laws that Jesus acted against. You are of the Pharisees more than Jesus.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's the one I've already offered up--the one every theologian & follower of Christianity or Judaism I've personally ever talk to subscribes to.

Repost it would you or at least link the post. I think you're full of shit.

[mingus]

Your words don't mean shit to me, you pompous shithead. Maybe you'll get your answers via my other conservations. But I've no interest in answering directly to a pompous shithead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your words don't mean shit to me, you pompous shithead. Maybe you'll get your answers via my other conservations. But I've no interest in answering directly to a pompous shithead.

'God' is asking Isaac to sacrifice his son for salvation.

Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.

Aristotle said something along the lines of an enlightened mind can entertain a notion without having to accept it. Your behavior smacks of fear.

You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.

If you could restate my points and actually argue on merit I wouldn't treat you as I do. You are doing the veritable holding your hands over your ears and screaming. I address your counter narrative of the Holy Spirit driving all this directly. I give you the same respect I ask for.

If you don't want to argue then great but tossing insults at me and only that is not going to presenting the case that you want.

[Blake]

It's the one I've already offered up--the one every theologian & follower of Christianity or Judaism I've personally ever talk to subscribes to.

Sorry, I don't see where you offered it up. Is it really too much for you to repost it

[mingus]

'God' is asking Isaac to sacrifice his son for salvation.

Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.

Aristotle said something along the lines of an enlightened mind can entertain a notion without having to accept it. Your behavior smacks of fear.

You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.

If you could restate my points and actually argue on merit I wouldn't treat you as I do. You are doing the veritable holding your hands over your ears and screaming. I address your counter narrative of the Holy Spirit driving all this directly. I give you the same respect I ask for.

If you don't want to argue then great but tossing insults at me and only that is not going to presenting the case that you want.

Sir, what's your issue?

You throw up a broad generalization about Christians, calling them all stupid, and you throw a hissy fit when I avoid entering a debate with you. I don't waste my precious time with people who hold such irrational views.

I'm more than ready to discuss this topic, whether I turn out to be right or wrong, with someone else.

[mingus]

Sorry, I don't see where you offered it up. Is it really too much for you to repost it

I'll go through my statements later on today. Right now I have very little time. I'm not trying to avoid you. I may be wrong--I don't know--and it doesn't bother me one bit if it turns out I am. But, later I will get back to you.

[Blake]

I'll go through my statements later on today. Right now I have very little time. I'm not trying to avoid you. I may be wrong--I don't know--and it doesn't bother me one bit if it turns out I am. But, later I will get back to you.

Its up to you if you want to keep the conversation going. No skin off of my back.

I'm fairly certain you won't find a pastor anywhere that talks about the subliminal message of this parable though

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sir, what's your issue?

You throw up a broad generalization about Christians, calling them all stupid, and you throw a hissy fit when I avoid entering a debate with you. I don't waste my precious time with people who hold such irrational views.

I'm more than ready to discuss this topic, whether I turn out to be right or wrong, with someone else.

I said most Christians seem stupid because they are unable to address points directly and instead try to give a counter narrative that is not mutually exclusive. I pointed out to you how I see it as a lack of respect and how I behaved in accord with taht.

Actions speak louder than words and we both know that if you had any answer to what I said directly you would make it. You see it and are afraid to adress it honestly. That'll have to be good enough I guess.

[RandomGuy]

TBH, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? I've explained myself here to the fullest extent that I seemingly can.

I called your shitty analysis of what God meant toward Abraham & Isaac a simple one, based on the FACT that it didn't even mention nevermind address the counter-view to it, as if to say it's the only one that's worthy of consideration. So what am I missing exactly? Where am I wrong?

You wanted civility. I tried to give it to you. Since honesty is not important to you though, I think we're done. It is kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion with someone determined to be dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

What's the counter view, reverend?

That was the part I don't get. I didn't offer a "counter-view". I offered a more complete view.

The thing I am trying to point out is the double standard when it comes to morality.

If a human being ate one baby a year, but give tens of millions of dollars to save children from deadly diseases every year would wouldn't say "ignore the part where he eats babies, the only relevant part is the good he does where he saves tens of thousands of children".

If God asks his followers to sacrifice their children or hack babies to death, but gives those children "eternal heavenly comfort", why do worshippers say "ignore the sacrifice/murder, the only relevant part is the part about heaven and salvation".

I find it telling that worshippers call people dishonest, pompous, or disingenuous when they point out that murder is bad.

To a rational person who cares about what is true, the fact that you have to rationalize murder and torture should be a huge red flag.

(shrugs) I guess it is human nature. I don't discount the salvation part of that idea, but I don't accept that I have to ignore the evil.

A real universe creating diety could do a lot better than the thing written about by bronze age savages. Bronze age savages would write about a being with the same morals and within their own understanding of the universe, which is exactly what the bible shows.

The very concept that a universe-creating being that cares whether some hairless apes on a tiny speck of dirt in some random tiny section of the universe worship begs belief in and of itself.

Why flood the entire planet to kill wicked people? Why not simply simultaneously pinch off their carotid arteries? Send your angels down to scoop up the babies that you don’t want to die, and give the babies to the people you prefer?
Flood myths are very, very common ones, based on primitive understandings of the world. The bible stories fall into that pattern. The new testament didn’t even vary much from similar heroic myths of the area.
Why send the savior figure to just ONE tribe, before mass media?
Worshippers never really step back and look at the bigger picture. They spend their time, meditating on minutae, without ever asking why.

You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble.

[Phenomanul]

That was the part I don't get. I didn't offer a "counter-view". I offered a more complete view.

The thing I am trying to point out is the double standard when it comes to morality.

If a human being ate one baby a year, but give tens of millions of dollars to save children from deadly diseases every year would wouldn't say "ignore the part where he eats babies, the only relevant part is the good he does where he saves tens of thousands of children".

If God asks his followers to sacrifice their children or hack babies to death, but gives those children "eternal heavenly comfort", why do worshippers say "ignore the sacrifice/murder, the only relevant part is the part about heaven and salvation".

I find it telling that worshippers call people dishonest, pompous, or disingenuous when they point out that murder is bad.

To a rational person who cares about what is true, the fact that you have to rationalize murder and torture should be a huge red flag.

(shrugs) I guess it is human nature. I don't discount the salvation part of that idea, but I don't accept that I have to ignore the evil.

A real universe creating diety could do a lot better than the thing written about by bronze age savages. Bronze age savages would write about a being with the same morals and within their own understanding of the universe, which is exactly what the bible shows.

The very concept that a universe-creating being that cares whether some hairless apes on a tiny speck of dirt in some random tiny section of the universe worship begs belief in and of itself.

Why flood the entire planet to kill wicked people? Why not simply simultaneously pinch off their carotid arteries? Send your angels down to scoop up the babies that you don’t want to die, and give the babies to the people you prefer?
Flood myths are very, very common ones, based on primitive understandings of the world. The bible stories fall into that pattern. The new testament didn’t even vary much from similar heroic myths of the area.
Why send the savior figure to just ONE tribe, before mass media?
Worshippers never really step back and look at the bigger picture. They spend their time, meditating on minutae, without ever asking why.

You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble.

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said view.

In the context of eternity, you think I'll remember any pain I've suffered in my time on Earth in 1,000 years? How about a million years? After a billion? ETERNITY is a LOOOOOOOONG time... Furthermore, you keep glossing over the importance of the belief that it was SIN that introduced death into our world, not GOD - fittingly enough, JESUS' sacrifice, HIS death and ultimately HIS defeat of SIN is what allows us to enter heaven - it is a gift. Because that's the catch, we ALL have an eternal timeline and those that reject the offer of grace will share the fate of satan and all of the other fallen demons that rejected GOD - away from GOD's presence in the "lake of fire". My belief is that we condemn ourselves by our own actions... lest people here think for a second that somehow I've cast judgment over them.

So if everyone ultimately dies, then the exact "when" or "how" isn't as important in the context of an Eternal timeline. Your erroneous assessment of GOD's morality based largely on the fact that HE doesn't rescue us from death, hence, is based on an incomplete view of the process of death itself. This is exemplified by your continued pointing to the redemption of children as an 'evil' act (where the alternative would have separated them from GOD eternally). More importantly, GOD didn't promise any of us a painless death. Yet according to your logic, being involved in a horrific death means that somehow GOD has wronged us??? That is such a myopic view of death.

JESUS suffered one of the most brutal deaths on record, and even though HE had the power to stop it (have thousands of angels 'swoop' in and rescue him from his captors) HE didn't out of LOVE for us all --> the mission was to defeat SIN and DEATH once, and for all Eternity. You asked earlier, in an attempt to build another strawman argument, whether or not I would stop the crucifixion if I had a time machine. Speculative as the question was, the answer is "no," because JESUS ultimately chose that path to redeem us all --> the part you keep missing is that if HE would have saved himself THEN HE wouldn't have been able to pave a road to save ANY of us. You mock that as irrational behavior because in your finite wisdom, you point to GOD as being 'sadistic' - but you do so without a fundamental understanding of WHO GOD is and WHAT SIN is... or that somehow SIN could have been defeated via an alternative method.

[All related] Why are the Moriat mountains even referenced by name in the story of Abraham and Isaac? GOD was making a prophetic point. JEHOVA-JIREH, GOD our Provider, supplied the ram that was offered up in sacrifice in Isaac's stead, Abraham's son. On that same mountain, thousands of years later, it was GOD's own SON, JESUS, that would be offered up in OUR place! Of course, none of these things matter to you - you brush them off in smug dismissiveness because you don't care for any of it - which is fine. But when you state, "You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble" do you realize that your own belief comes from a bubble of it's own??? Of course not, that type of introspection is never part of any of your assessments.

I'm talking to the guy that faithfully believes that life came from non-life (even though that LAW has never been broken and is provable time, after time, after time, after time, everytime, always). You even referenced it earlier in the thread, that a belief in GOD wasn't essential because "amino acids and lipids can rearrange themselves". BUT that dynamic has never been proven to create life. Nevertheless, you believe that 'some yet undiscovered' chemical pathway long ago broke the divide and made it possible for life to come from non-life - You've even cited some studies on this front (in previous threads) BUT none of those pathways can proceed on their own to the desired end product (without our intervention as a designer/creator). YOU believe that world view entirely on faith, creating the bubble from which you then throw barbs and daggers at other people's views. Mathematically, you've even clung to staggering odds on the whim that it could continue to justify your own disbelief - again, all your prerogative. Just understand that each man has their own faith - including yourself.

[boutons_deux]

:lol bullshit religious-brain-dead cant, repeated ad nauseam

[Phenomanul]

:lol bullshit religious-brain-dead cant, repeated ad nauseam

So says the guy that can never make a single coherent argument of his own. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said view.

In the context of eternity, you think I'll remember any pain I've suffered in my time on Earth in 1,000 years? How about a million years? After a billion? ETERNITY is a LOOOOOOOONG time... Furthermore, you keep glossing over the importance of the belief that it was SIN that introduced death into our world, not GOD - fittingly enough, JESUS' sacrifice, HIS death and ultimately HIS defeat of SIN is what allows us to enter heaven - it is a gift. Because that's the catch, we ALL have an eternal timeline and those that reject the offer of grace will share the fate of satan and all of the other fallen demons that rejected GOD - away from GOD's presence in the "lake of fire". My belief is that we condemn ourselves by our own actions... lest people here think for a second that somehow I've cast judgment over them.

So if everyone ultimately dies, then the exact "when" or "how" isn't as important in the context of an Eternal timeline. Your erroneous assessment of GOD's morality based largely on the fact that HE doesn't rescue us from death, hence, is based on an incomplete view of the process of death itself. This is exemplified by your continued pointing to the redemption of children as an 'evil' act (where the alternative would have separated them from GOD eternally). More importantly, GOD didn't promise any of us a painless death. Yet according to your logic, being involved in a horrific death means that somehow GOD has wronged us??? That is such a myopic view of death.

JESUS suffered one of the most brutal deaths on record, and even though HE had the power to stop it (have thousands of angels 'swoop' in and rescue him from his captors) HE didn't out of LOVE for us all --> the mission was to defeat SIN and DEATH once, and for all Eternity. You asked earlier, in an attempt to build another strawman argument, whether or not I would stop the crucifixion if I had a time machine. Speculative as the question was, the answer is "no," because JESUS ultimately chose that path to redeem us all --> the part you keep missing is that if HE would have saved himself THEN HE wouldn't have been able to pave a road to save ANY of us. You mock that as irrational behavior because in your finite wisdom, you point to GOD as being 'sadistic' - but you do so without a fundamental understanding of WHO GOD is and WHAT SIN is... or that somehow SIN could have been defeated via an alternative method.

[All related] Why are the Moriat mountains even referenced by name in the story of Abraham and Isaac? GOD was making a prophetic point. JEHOVA-JIREH, GOD our Provider, supplied the ram that was offered up in sacrifice in Isaac's stead. On that same mountain, thousands of years ahead, JESUS would be offered up in OUR place. Of course, none of these things matter to you - you brush them off in smug dismissiveness because you don't care for any of it - which is fine. But when you state, "You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble" do you realize that your own belief comes from a bubble of it's own??? Of course not, that type of introspection is not part of any of your assessments.

I'm talking to the guy that faithfully believes that life came from non-life (even though that LAW has never been broken and is provable time, after time, after time, after time, everytime, always). You even referenced it earlier in the thread, that a belief in GOD wasn't essential because "amino acids and lipids can rearrange themselves". BUT that dynamic has never been proven to create life. Nevertheless, you believe that 'some yet undiscovered' chemical pathway long ago broke the divide and made it possible for life to come from non-life - You've even cited some studies on this front (in previous threads) BUT none of those pathways can proceed on their own to the desired end product (without our intervention as a designer/creator). YOU believe that world view entirely on faith, creating the bubble from which you then throw barbs and daggers at other people's views. Mathematically, you've even clung to staggering odds on the whim that it could continue to justify your own disbelief - again, all your prerogative. Just understand that each man has their own faith - including yourself.

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

[I. Hustle]

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

What apple?

[Blake]

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said.....

Tldr

What's your opinion on why your God requires a blood sacrifice.

Don't want theological rambling. I want your opinion.

[Phenomanul]

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

Yes (a fruit). In fact that's why scripture says GOD had Seraphim angels guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, because doing so would have given Adam and Eve immortality all while locked into SIN. They needed to eventually die to free themselves from the bondages of SIN / AND JESUS would at some later date pave the road for redemption.

[DisAsTerBot]

indoctrination is a bitch

[DisAsTerBot]

lol in fact

[Phenomanul]

indoctrination is a bitch


The part everyone here keeps missing is that everybody's beliefs are "indoctrinated" in some shape, form, or fashion. You hold on to your beliefs with the same 'religious' fervor that believers hold on to theirs.

That you all don't want to accept that fact as reality is nothing more than denial.

At least I know why I believe what I believe. Most people, however, feel snug in the comfort of consensius gentium.

[Blake]

Yes (a fruit). In fact that's why scripture says GOD had Seraphim angels guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, because doing so would have given Adam and Eve immortality all while locked into SIN. They needed to eventually die to free themselves from the bondages of SIN / AND JESUS would at some later date pave the road for redemption.

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

[DisAsTerBot]

The part everyone here keeps missing is that everybody's beliefs are "indoctrinated" in some shape, form, or fashion. You hold on to your beliefs with the same 'religious' fervor that believers hold on to theirs.

That you all don't want to accept that fact as reality is nothing more than denial.

At least I know why I believe what I believe. Most people, however, feel snug in the comfort of consensius gentium.

Following doctrine is what being indoctrinated is
I'd say most here that you are discussing with were indoctrinated at one time and are no longer.

[Phenomanul]

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

You have children Blake... How many times have you promised your children gifts for 'good behavior'? It was Satan's astuteness that corrupted man's heart... and ultimately sealed his own fate. Adam and Eve reached over and grabbed a "cookie from the cookie jar" before they were ready for it. The fruit of those trees was meant to be a good thing, but the fact that they ate it in disobedience to GOD's orders is what made it a sin. Such is the risk that comes from choice.

Your view that "GOD just dangled [the fruit] there and tempted them to sin" is an opinion I don't share. GOD made Adam, Eve and Satan accountable for their actions because it was THEIR choice to act in the manner in which they did. You know we have a philosophical impasse on the concept of 'free will'. Unfortunately, your heart has been filled with disdain against GOD and I cannot help you there.

Peace and farewell...

(I really don't want to get drawn in to discussions with you - you quickly turn contemptful).

[baseline bum]

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

God's not only a genocidal maniac, he's also a fucking troll. :lol

[boutons_deux]

So says the guy that can never make a single coherent argument of his own. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

that's just like your bullshit opinion, man. I lay down so much butthurt that my victims stalk me with silly comments.

[baseline bum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

[Phenomanul]

that's just like your bullshit opinion, man. I lay down so much butthurt that my victims stalk me with silly comments.

I'm a stalker? Please.... YOU are always there (without fail) the few times I decide to chime in on anything...???? Hmmmmmmm. :shootme

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like ending with the creation story literally interpreted. There was a snake and the first two humans not born of homo naledi or similar member of our genus. I am guessing you can cut off the literal into figurative at will. It's good to be a christian sophist.

[Blake]

You have children Blake... How many times have you promised your children gifts for 'good behavior'? It was Satan's astuteness that corrupted man's heart... and ultimately sealed his own fate. Adam and Eve reached over and grabbed a "cookie from the cookie jar" before they were ready for it. The fruit of those trees was meant to be a good thing, but the fact that they ate it in disobedience to GOD's orders is what made it a sin. Such is the risk that comes from choice.

Your view that "GOD just dangled [the fruit] there and tempted them to sin" is an opinion I don't share. GOD made Adam, Eve and Satan accountable for their actions because it was THEIR choice to act in the manner in which they did. You know we have a philosophical impasse on the concept of 'free will'. Unfortunately, your heart has been filled with disdain against GOD and I cannot help you there.

Peace and farewell...

(I really don't want to get drawn in to discussions with you - you quickly turn contemptful).

You quickly turn butthurt.

He's supposed to be omniscient, ergo he knew they'd eat it but put it there any way.

Use some logic, man.

[Blake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Lol

[Phenomanul]

He's supposed to be omniscient, ergo he knew they'd eat it but put it there any way.

Use some logic, man.

And THAT's our impasse.

I believe that GOD willingly gives up some of his omniscience in order to gift mankind 'free will' - honoring a gentleman's agreement with Himself. IN that context, man is still very much accountable for his/her actions and GOD ultimately has to deal with the consequences of gifting other beings the power of choice - it's a risk HE willingly chose to take...

GOD is all-knowing, but willingly relinquishes some of that power to allow us to come to HIM on grounds of faith (an extension of our choice). That many people can't reconcile GOD's omniscient nature with the ramifications of 'free-will' stem largely from the fact that they deal only in absolutist terms. --> which is very much what you've done by suggesting GOD is pulling ALL the puppet strings and essentially playing both sides...

So again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[boutons_deux]

I believe that GOD willingly gives up some of his omniscience in order to gift mankind 'free will'

:lol