Facebook Preachers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2011, 01:44 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
It's too late. You missed it. It was beautiful. In the end they got married.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
27-12-2011, 01:52 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 01:44 PM)Malleus Wrote:  It's too late. You missed it. It was beautiful. In the end they got married.

Don't make me post the sad puppy again.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 01:52 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 04:38 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  You believe Matthew came first? I thought most people accepted Mark as the first being written, though it would be interesting to hear a different opinion.

no - I don't. I knew it was Mark - just writing off the top of my head and didn't bother to check it...Regardless, Mark (not Matthew) was pegged at it's earliest, several years after the temple's destruction

(26-12-2011 04:38 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  I'm kind of curious as to why they led you to lose your belief.

It's a matter of record. No need to PM

http://centersolid.blogspot.com/2011/05/...heist.html

Smile

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Seasbury's post
27-12-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 01:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  So much has happened since I promised to come back to this topic.

Will someone give me a summary?

God is non-existent.
The Bible is false.
You smell funny.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Erxomai's post
27-12-2011, 09:07 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 09:03 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(27-12-2011 01:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  So much has happened since I promised to come back to this topic.

Will someone give me a summary?

God is non-existent.
The Bible is false.
You smell funny.
I would have summarised:

God is non-existent.
The Bible is false.
You think funny.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-12-2011, 09:23 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 01:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  So much has happened since I promised to come back to this topic.

Will someone give me a summary?

Debating the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus.

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 10:56 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
I've heard (can't remember where) that there is a case that the gospels were written before the destruction of the temple as none of them mention the fulfilment of Jesus' prophesy.
Also from what I understand each gospel was written for a different audience (this referring to the comment that the gospels were written for the Jews) one wrote for the Romans, one for the Jews one for the Greeks and I think John was sort of on his own.

Another point I have heard that most if not all of the records of Alexander the Great are from the records of the Greek council there are no independent sources. I heard this on the facebook group Fuck Jesus Christ. no idea of the validity.

P.S. Sharks9 are you from toronto

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2011, 05:29 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 10:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  P.S. Sharks9 are you from toronto

Close to Toronto. Town called Oakville

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2011, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2011 08:18 AM by Malleus.)
RE: Facebook Preachers
(27-12-2011 10:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Another point I have heard that most if not all of the records of Alexander the Great are from the records of the Greek council there are no independent sources. I heard this on the facebook group Fuck Jesus Christ. no idea of the validity.

P.S. Sharks9 are you from toronto

Disclaimer:
This post will reveal my personal opinions based on the church history I studied in school. I developed such opinions after I stopped believing that Constantine the Great was a saint - based on his actions and his very late death bed baptism. Don't ask for my sources, this comes straight from my imperfect "laboratory".

Historic context:

Christians were strongly persecuted for almost 300 years, based mainly on the fact that they were weird and misunderstood.

Strange rumors were surrounding this new sect: eating babies (not just atheists), atheism (based on their refusal to worship the standard gods), treason (they refused to worship the Caesar as a god), incest (husband and wife called each other "brother/sister"), homosexuality and immorality (they had the practice of kissing each other as part of the religious service. They took each other's hands - both hands - and they kissed on the lips - man+woman, man+man, woman+woman, all of them, even blood relatives).

For all these reasons they were largely hated and they were (conveniently) blamed for natural disasters, drought, lost battles etc. As enemies of the state, they were hunted and used as food for the arena animals, as gladiators or simply displayed in live torture shows greatly enjoyed by the bored Roman audience.

However, their death was not entertaining enough. They went to death willingly, they did not fight back and they rarely displayed fear.

Pathway to tolerance

While the first christians were simple illiterate folk with no political support they were easy to persecute. However, their morality became popular among people who were criticizing the Greco-Roman way of life.

These people, however, were not simpletons and they did have connections (senators, rich families, army commanders, educated and respected people). Some of these new Christians started defending Christianity against the rumors and this way they became the first "apologists". These people were not so easy to kill without consequences and they became louder and louder.

Edictus Mediolanum

Constantine the Great was aware of the new trend in Christianity and he started to figure out that fighting it was going to hurt his political career more and more. Not to mention that a bunch of people willing to die for an idea was potentially very useful to him if he could ever turn that into an army.

This is why, the first time when he found himself outnumbered in an imminent battle, he decided to suspend the persecution laws and to invite the Christians to join him. If he had lost, it was not his fault, it was not his poor strategy, he's not a bad commander. It's these fucking Christians, kill them all (nobody would have argued with *that* logic and this would have been a good opportunity to get the upper hand on those powerful new converts)

However he won, with the help of Christians and that made his next decision the obvious choice: hey, I can definitely use these people. So he gave them Edictus Mediolanum, which stated that persecutions stop effective immediately and Christianity becomes "tolerated" - not additional state religion, mind you, because he wanted to be able to take it back if it ever backfired.

Nicaea Council

SO, if he was going to use Christianity for his political and military purposes, he wanted to make sure that there is only ONE Christianity, not a bunch of conflicting sects with conflicting scriptures. He was so involved in this that he actually sponsored the council of Nicaea and he gave them full access to the Imperial Mail system to be able to travel and communicate (a very unusual decision).

You have to understand that during the first 3 centuries they were too busy running and hiding to develop unitary beliefs. In fact they had multiple sects in various stages of development, lots of conflicting "gospels", widely spread range of dogma, plus the constant mumbling that the other sects are "heretics" - just like now.

That's why I will have to assume that Constantine had a set of rules that he imposed from square 1 such as:

1. I am a wonderful man and you people love me. I will have your full political and rhetorical support.
2. You go in that room and no one leaves until you have one dogma and one set of scriptures that everybody accepts. The rest will be destroyed and/or abandoned. (this explains the great pressure between Arius's party and the Nicholas&Co party. They were the main two and they fought really hard to get their way because dogma supremacy rendered the other party "heretic" so no religious-political power. It also explained why *all* Arius's supporters left him alone with his apprentice as soon as they figured out that the others are winning)
3. The capital city of your religion and your main worship place will be Constantinople (this was especially unpopular with Christians and it would have never come from them. Jerusalem would have been the logical choice)
4. You will choose a bishop "president" and his permanent residence will be in Constantinople
5. Fail to comply with the previous rules and you will see lions up-close very fast.

And this is why you're right. There is no independent source because Nicaea and the other 6 councils *were* the source of the Bible. And they picked what books go in the bible based on "what sounded about right".

Figuring this out was a really hard blow for me and I actually dropped the bible immediately because I realized that I pick and choose what sounds about right to me from a book that sounded about right to other people and that was the only method of selection ever used.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Malleus's post
28-12-2011, 08:48 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(28-12-2011 05:57 AM)Malleus Wrote:  
(27-12-2011 10:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Another point I have heard that most if not all of the records of Alexander the Great are from the records of the Greek council there are no independent sources. I heard this on the facebook group Fuck Jesus Christ. no idea of the validity.

P.S. Sharks9 are you from toronto

Disclaimer:
This post will reveal my personal opinions based on the church history I studied in school. I developed such opinions after I stopped believing that Constantine the Great was a saint - based on his actions and his very late death bed baptism. Don't ask for my sources, this comes straight from my imperfect "laboratory".

Historic context:

Christians were strongly persecuted for almost 300 years, based mainly on the fact that they were weird and misunderstood.

Strange rumors were surrounding this new sect: eating babies (not just atheists), atheism (based on their refusal to worship the standard gods), treason (they refused to worship the Caesar as a god), incest (husband and wife called each other "brother/sister"), homosexuality and immorality (they had the practice of kissing each other as part of the religious service. They took each other's hands - both hands - and they kissed on the lips - man+woman, man+man, woman+woman, all of them, even blood relatives).

For all these reasons they were largely hated and they were (conveniently) blamed for natural disasters, drought, lost battles etc. As enemies of the state, they were hunted and used as food for the arena animals, as gladiators or simply displayed in live torture shows greatly enjoyed by the bored Roman audience.

However, their death was not entertaining enough. They went to death willingly, they did not fight back and they rarely displayed fear.

Pathway to tolerance

While the first christians were simple illiterate folk with no political support they were easy to persecute. However, their morality became popular among people who were criticizing the Greco-Roman way of life.

These people, however, were not simpletons and they did have connections (senators, rich families, army commanders, educated and respected people). Some of these new Christians started defending Christianity against the rumors and this way they became the first "apologists". These people were not so easy to kill without consequences and they became louder and louder.

Edictus Mediolanum

Constantine the Great was aware of the new trend in Christianity and he started to figure out that fighting it was going to hurt his political career more and more. Not to mention that a bunch of people willing to die for an idea was potentially very useful to him if he could ever turn that into an army.

This is why, the first time when he found himself outnumbered in an imminent battle, he decided to suspend the persecution laws and to invite the Christians to join him. If he had lost, it was not his fault, it was not his poor strategy, he's not a bad commander. It's these fucking Christians, kill them all (nobody would have argued with *that* logic and this would have been a good opportunity to get the upper hand on those powerful new converts)

However he won, with the help of Christians and that made his next decision the obvious choice: hey, I can definitely use these people. So he gave them Edictus Mediolanum, which stated that persecutions stop effective immediately and Christianity becomes "tolerated" - not additional state religion, mind you, because he wanted to be able to take it back if it ever backfired.

Nicaea Council

SO, if he was going to use Christianity for his political and military purposes, he wanted to make sure that there is only ONE Christianity, not a bunch of conflicting sects with conflicting scriptures. He was so involved in this that he actually sponsored the council of Nicaea and he gave them full access to the Imperial Mail system to be able to travel and communicate (a very unusual decision).

You have to understand that during the first 3 centuries they were too busy running and hiding to develop unitary beliefs. In fact they had multiple sects in various stages of development, lots of conflicting "gospels", widely spread range of dogma, plus the constant mumbling that the other sects are "heretics" - just like now.

That's why I will have to assume that Constantine had a set of rules that he imposed from square 1 such as:

1. I am a wonderful man and you people love me. I will have your full political and rhetorical support.
2. You go in that room and no one leaves until you have one dogma and one set of scriptures that everybody accepts. The rest will be destroyed and/or abandoned. (this explains the great pressure between Arius's party and the Nicholas&Co party. They were the main two and they fought really hard to get their way because dogma supremacy rendered the other party "heretic" so no religious-political power. It also explained why *all* Arius's supporters left him alone with his apprentice as soon as they figured out that the others are winning)
3. The capital city of your religion and your main worship place will be Constantinople (this was especially unpopular with Christians and it would have never come from them. Jerusalem would have been the logical choice)
4. You will choose a bishop "president" and his permanent residence will be in Constantinople
5. Fail to comply with the previous rules and you will see lions up-close very fast.

And this is why you're right. There is no independent source because Nicaea and the other 6 councils *were* the source of the Bible. And they picked what books go in the bible based on "what sounded about right".

Figuring this out was a really hard blow for me and I actually dropped the bible immediately because I realized that I pick and choose what sounds about right to me from a book that sounded about right to other people and that was the only method of selection ever used.
As you are no doubt aware, it's impossible to verify this chain of events. However, it all seems extremely plausible, and is a far better explanation than the Apologetic "oh everyone already agreed on these things, the Council of Nicaea was mostly a formality" line of crap that you normally get. Well done.

Our brains deceive us on a regular basis, so we have to find ways to fight back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: