The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(20-03-2015 02:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  [Image: the_greatest_enemy_of_knowledge_is_not_ignorance.jpg]

Nice self mockery there Q-tip. Very humble of you to admit your own "illusion of knowledge" on how this world and universe works holds you back from learning. You are OK there Q-ball.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
30-03-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(25-03-2015 08:51 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 07:13 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  There is no evidence of a leader called Moses or Joshua leading a military campaign to establish the nation of Israel, it was a gradual process of separation of people from Canaan over centuries.

The story is just another plagiarized myth in the bible.




does that book have anything original ?

Which is it? That the Bible is "made up" or is derived from related, true events in the ANE? You cannot have it both ways.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(30-03-2015 02:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-03-2015 08:51 AM)Ace Wrote:  does that book have anything original ?

Which is it? That the Bible is "made up" or is derived from related, true events in the ANE? You cannot have it both ways.

No, based on older myths - not actual events.

You really need to read what people actually post and respond to that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-04-2015, 02:56 AM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(09-03-2015 12:49 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-03-2015 06:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Q, I sense a tiny bit of humility in your answers which is something positive. Yet you are so, so wrong on many fronts. Allow me to explain why.

"When I see something in the Bible that alarms me I research it. I look around, I wrap my mind around it."

No you don't. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you simply ignore addressing serious faults in the texts. You also, quite clearly, have done almost no research into the origins of the Bible, or into the life and times of the characters who wrote it. I will allow myself a generalisation; most of the atheists on this forum have. I, for example, have spent eight years in my spare time researching the history of the origins of Christianity. It is obvious to me from your answers that if you and I were to have a debate I'd have you for dinner. You just don't know how much you don't know.

"You are also skirting the issue that the Bible itself makes claims about the text--that those who give it cursory readings are missing the "meat""

Nonense. The "meat" is "off."Jesus’ teachings aren’t particularly meritorious, interesting or innovative. Many of them were invented to suppress critical thought, stifle people’s individuality, and to discourage crowds from complaining.

Jesus’ fans all cherry pick and reinterpret what he allegedly said, and that’s not intellectually honest.

It’s sad, wrong and ironic that generations of ordinary, trusting Christians have wasted their time looking for truth and meaning in the New Testament, hoping to be enlightened, when the characters who created it were so cavalier with the truth. Churches today always insist people believe the bible was divinely inspired, yet they have no facts to back up this assertion, and they will never be honest enough to admit that belief in the bible bolsters their own authority and income. By forcing faith on children and adults too busy to carefully consider it, priests and preachers have ruled over human reason to benefit themselves, not the consumer.

The human family has always had real thinkers, people who were clearly interested in the truth. I’m referring to men such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Celsus, Cicero, Philo, Seutonius, Tacitus and others, who employed high standards of integrity and scholarship. Their writings are believable, consistent and still read well. The Biblical authors weren’t in that group.

We, modern people who genuinely care about the health and happiness of our fellow men, and particularly our children, mustn’t let these writings and those who advocate them have an undeserved authority. It’s time bibliolatry and theology were replaced with open-mindedness, pragmatic thought, and genuine empathy. The era in which uninformed people blindly believe Christian dogma and bow down to those promoting it should now be over.

*How Jesus profited financially or otherwise from His preaching, not having a coin to address the Pharisees, not having a rock to lay his head on at night"

Your ignorance about who "Jesus" was and who wrote the gospels blows me away. Your "jesus" may or may not have existed. What "he" said and did is a story... One made up by the multitudes of anonymous people who wrote the gospels. It has little or no relationship to a once living human character. If I tried to lecture you on what Harry Potter thought and did you wouldn't be impressed, would you? Has this (rather simple) concept got through to you yet?

*How the apostles profited by limiting their income, number of wives, and wandered thousands of miles on foot and by sea through hardship to--as Paul put it--make tents and preach the gospel without charge..."

Oh dear, oh dear! You quite clearly have no idea who the apostles were (if they even existed) or who Paul was. It is abundantly clear that all you have done is read your bible and assumed the truth thereof. Do you not realise how intellectually bankrupt that approach is?

"In sum, when you insult hermeneutics, you insult the liberal scholars who practice it also."

Bingo! You have hit the nail on the head there. No one has any issue with reading ancient texts in a certain context, one in which they were written. Yet the mental gymnastics that over imaginative preachers go through when using hermeneutics is an insult to the intelligence of all modern readers. They deserve derision, because they take their mental masturbation too far.

You are basing your case against the Bible with your interpretation of it. Again, what you are accusing Jesus and the apostles of teaching, to become some kind of master manipulators, is simply not reflected in the outcome of their lives. Jesus was crucified and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man, not to acquire followers and riches.

In my own case, I am conversant with all manner of arguments for the historicity of Jesus, JEDP theory, Q theory, Markan priority theory, as well as "swoon theory", "twin theory" and other schools of thought meant to deride the Bible, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. I'm (somewhat) glad you've undertaken 8 years of Bible studies. I'm in my 40's, and after trusting Jesus as a junior at a secular university, changed my major to complete a Bachelor's in Religion, and then and since have been studying liberal and secular thought on what I believe. My studies in literature apart from Bible source texts and higher criticism, etc. inform me that if we wish to criticize a text we must begin with its own internal statements and claims. Mark, you are no different than Orthodox scholars who say the NT is invalid because "the writers are suspect". It's a copout in both cases.

More specifically in your case, I noticed you tried to pawn off on The Q a theory regarding the entire NT being written by a Roman manipulation, a conspiracy designed to cause NT believers to follow and obey Rome. Amazingly, and likely because you assumed in error I didn't know what I know about the source texts and the sources themselves, you expected me and other TTA members to buy this story--despite the fact that you teach different gospels and epistles were written by competing teams of writers, and despite the fact that there are about four verses in the NT about obeying the Roman authorities and thousands of other verses, despite the fact that Jesus clearly taught to obey only where it doesn't conflict with worshipping YHVH, etc. (I guess I'm saying that I'm fortunate I can smell poop a mile off whether or not it has to do with higher criticism.)

You are in no way objective in these matters. No way. If you were, you would adhere to the historicity of Jesus, whether or not you believe He is the Christ. Even the Jesus Seminar did so.

Time will tell for both of us. I pray you learn the truth soon. Thank you.

"Jesus was crucified"

Who was your "jesus"?

Who crucified "him"? Why?

"and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man..."

Who were the "apostles?"
How did they die?
Why did they die?

"I pray you learn the truth soon."
Ah...the truth. A topic dear to my heart. Please explain your definition of "the truth."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
01-04-2015, 06:25 AM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(30-03-2015 02:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which is it? That the Bible is "made up" or is derived from related, true events in the ANE? You cannot have it both ways.

It could also be both (parts made up and other derived from true events in the ANE), or neither (not made up, but based on something other than true events in the ANE).

You need to learn more about set theory to help avoid setting up these false dilemmas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
01-04-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(01-04-2015 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 12:49 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are basing your case against the Bible with your interpretation of it. Again, what you are accusing Jesus and the apostles of teaching, to become some kind of master manipulators, is simply not reflected in the outcome of their lives. Jesus was crucified and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man, not to acquire followers and riches.

In my own case, I am conversant with all manner of arguments for the historicity of Jesus, JEDP theory, Q theory, Markan priority theory, as well as "swoon theory", "twin theory" and other schools of thought meant to deride the Bible, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. I'm (somewhat) glad you've undertaken 8 years of Bible studies. I'm in my 40's, and after trusting Jesus as a junior at a secular university, changed my major to complete a Bachelor's in Religion, and then and since have been studying liberal and secular thought on what I believe. My studies in literature apart from Bible source texts and higher criticism, etc. inform me that if we wish to criticize a text we must begin with its own internal statements and claims. Mark, you are no different than Orthodox scholars who say the NT is invalid because "the writers are suspect". It's a copout in both cases.

More specifically in your case, I noticed you tried to pawn off on The Q a theory regarding the entire NT being written by a Roman manipulation, a conspiracy designed to cause NT believers to follow and obey Rome. Amazingly, and likely because you assumed in error I didn't know what I know about the source texts and the sources themselves, you expected me and other TTA members to buy this story--despite the fact that you teach different gospels and epistles were written by competing teams of writers, and despite the fact that there are about four verses in the NT about obeying the Roman authorities and thousands of other verses, despite the fact that Jesus clearly taught to obey only where it doesn't conflict with worshipping YHVH, etc. (I guess I'm saying that I'm fortunate I can smell poop a mile off whether or not it has to do with higher criticism.)

You are in no way objective in these matters. No way. If you were, you would adhere to the historicity of Jesus, whether or not you believe He is the Christ. Even the Jesus Seminar did so.

Time will tell for both of us. I pray you learn the truth soon. Thank you.

"Jesus was crucified"

Who was your "jesus"?

Who crucified "him"? Why?

"and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man..."

Who were the "apostles?"
How did they die?
Why did they die?

"I pray you learn the truth soon."
Ah...the truth. A topic dear to my heart. Please explain your definition of "the truth."

Jesus was crucified for human sin. He is man and also divine.

The apostles were eyewitness of Jesus (before or after His resurrection). They died and/or were persecuted in bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles, who shared a loathing for Xianity.

Jesus didn't merely say He spoke truth, He claimed to be truth.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2015, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2015 09:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(01-04-2015 02:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Jesus was crucified"

Who was your "jesus"?

Who crucified "him"? Why?

"and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man..."

Who were the "apostles?"
How did they die?
Why did they die?

"I pray you learn the truth soon."
Ah...the truth. A topic dear to my heart. Please explain your definition of "the truth."

Jesus was crucified for human sin. He is man and also divine.

The apostles were eyewitness of Jesus (before or after His resurrection). They died and/or were persecuted in bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles, who shared a loathing for Xianity.

Jesus didn't merely say He spoke truth, He claimed to be truth.

"He is man and also divine"
No. Here is a far more plausible view

http://www.markfulton.org/more_on_the_jesus_myth

"Jesus was crucified for human sin."
No. This is nonsense. Here's why
http://www.markfulton.org/paul-a-complex-character

"The apostles were eyewitness of Jesus"
If Jesus existed, then he may have had some friends which you might refer to as "apostles." They did not write the gospels, and we know very little about them.

"(before or after His resurrection)."
NO. There most definitely never was a resurrection...
http://www.markfulton.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus

"They died and/or were persecuted in bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles."
NO. The only friend of Jesus who we have any reliable information about is Jesus' brother James, who died in 62CE, when he was executed by the high priest. As to all the other supposed apostles of Jesus... we know nothing about their deaths, however it is reasonable to assume that many of those still alive died in the first Jewish War of 66 to 70. Look it up grasshopper.

"Jesus didn't merely say He spoke truth, He claimed to be truth."
NO. If an historical Jesus ever existed, he was a fundamentalist Jew, and would never have made silly statements like this.

As I said previously, you quite clearly have no idea of the real history. You only parrot what you have been told in church.

"I pray you learn the truth soon."
What you mean by this is that you desperately hope someone, anyone, is impressed by your uneducated rambling. I'll take the liberty of making a generalisation… we've heard it all before, ad nauseam, and we outright reject your childish nonsense. We are thinking people, and we are not impressed by your "truth"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
02-04-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(01-04-2015 02:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Jesus was crucified"

Who was your "jesus"?

Who crucified "him"? Why?

"and the apostles gave their lives for love of their fellow man..."

Who were the "apostles?"
How did they die?
Why did they die?

"I pray you learn the truth soon."
Ah...the truth. A topic dear to my heart. Please explain your definition of "the truth."

Jesus was crucified for human sin. He is man and also divine.

The apostles were eyewitness of Jesus (before or after His resurrection). They died and/or were persecuted in bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles, who shared a loathing for Xianity.

Jesus didn't merely say He spoke truth, He claimed to be truth.

RE "He is man and also divine."

NO. Most definitely NO. That only happened in the fourth century. Here is some more history for you..

As a consequence of Paul’s amorphous Christ concept, there was much contention as to whether Christ was a God, a spirit, a mortal man, or all three. Arius, a presbyter from Libya, gained followers around the empire by insisting
“there was a time when the Son was not,” in other words, the son was a creation, and in some way inferior to, the father. Others said the son was of the same substance as the father. The argument spread, threatening to rip the church in two. Constantine disapproved of the conjecture and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to rectify the rift. (http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_...ror.html). This was the first ecumenical council of the Catholic church, and Constantine commanded it, which confirms how close church and state had become. There was a belligerent atmosphere at the council. (http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readin.../11.html). It resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine; that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were all of the same substance, a belief that became known as the Nicene Creed. (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm). Those who voted against it were banished.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, Jesus had most often been perceived as an intermediary between man and God; the council decided he actually was equal to God. The core character of Christianity was created; Jesus the son of God. This Nicaean formula clearly wasn’t founded on Yeshua. It was nothing more than a contorted creation invented to unify some of the opinions about Jesus.

Some authors claim that there were not only Christian commanders at this council, but leaders from many other cults, sects and religions too, including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus, Janus, Jupiter, Zeus, Osiris and Isis. (http://www.northernway.org/pagandna.html, http://www.examiner.com/article/1st-coun...part-014). The council contrived to coalesce these competing cults under one “catholic” (i.e. “universal”) church to be controlled by the Constantine government. Their gods were subjugated under the name of the new god, Jesus Christ. If this is true, it would help explain how “Jesus” blended the religious formulas of China, India, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Palestine into a single sect suitable for all. Forget Christmas; the Council of Nicea marked the true birth of Jesus Christ.

Any texts that contradicted what the clergy had chosen as canonical were labeled as subversive. Old copies of the Gospels were recalled and scribes were co-opted to make revised copies suitable for consumption throughout Christendom. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...ar_40.htm, http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/fabrication of the galilaeans.htm).

In 335 CE, a mere ten years after the council of Nicea, all of a sudden Jesus wasn’t of the same substance as God any more. A second Council, also convened by Constantine, that of Tyre, reversed the conclusion of the first, and Arianism, the belief that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, became the brand new dogma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Synod_of_Tyre). This decision lasted until Constantine’s death in 337 CE, after which the empire was split into a Nicene West and an Arian East. There was no universal consensus about Jesus’ status for the next forty years or so.

In 381 CE, the emperor Theodosius convened an ecumenical council at Constantinople, resulting in the ratification of the first Nicene formula. The Roman world was at last given a definitive triune god—an intellectually challenging gobbledygook spiel about three characters in one that is still promoted by the Catholic church today. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
06-04-2015, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 09:22 AM by The Q Continuum.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
It's hard for me to not take issue with pages that are more polemic than fact, e.g.:

Quote:To put Paul’s Christology in perspective, we should consider his almost complete lack of credentials. His legitimacy rested solely on his claim that God had revealed everything to him, an extremely weak argument.

1. Paul cites his credential in the scriptures as a leading Pharisee, well advanced in zeal and knowledge

2. Paul cites his will to further Christianity, rooted in his zeal that led to him being a former persecutor of the church

3. Paul cites as proof of his authority the salvations, new churches and miracles that followed in his wake

And I appreciate your comments on the 4th century Christian councils--but it's hard to understand how people meeting three centuries after Christ to argue over doctrine proves your points about the NT.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2015, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 07:17 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(06-04-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's hard for me to not take issue with pages that are more polemic than fact, e.g.:

Quote:To put Paul’s Christology in perspective, we should consider his almost complete lack of credentials. His legitimacy rested solely on his claim that God had revealed everything to him, an extremely weak argument.

1. Paul cites his credential in the scriptures as a leading Pharisee, well advanced in zeal and knowledge

2. Paul cites his will to further Christianity, rooted in his zeal that led to him being a former persecutor of the church

3. Paul cites as proof of his authority the salvations, new churches and miracles that followed in his wake

And I appreciate your comments on the 4th century Christian councils--but it's hard to understand how people meeting three centuries after Christ to argue over doctrine proves your points about the NT.

Paul was no leading Pharisee. He was attacked by Jewish religious leaders nearly every where he went. He didn't have a deep understanding of Judaism and nor did he have a respect for it.

You can't tell people that there was more than one God and that God was incarnated in a human, and that the Jewish law is no longer relevant, and that God died, and call yourself an expert in, and a practitioner of, Judaism. Paul, and the author of Acts, both made out Paul was some sort of Jewish authority, but he quite clearly wasn't.

Paul never met Jesus. The road to Demascus story is a myth invented by the author of Acts. Paul barely associated with the disciples or family of Jesus. They had
"nothing to add to the good news I preach." This is probably why Paul barely mentions a single anecdote about what Jesus said or did.

All this stuff about Jesus being God's son, Jesus dying for everyone's sins, and faith buying your ticket into heaven, was all made up by Paul.

Paul's only claim to legitimacy was the fact that he thought God talked to him. What that means is that the basic theology of Christianity was invented by the obsessive, narcissistic, manipulative Paul. Christian theology was not created by Jesus, who if he even existed, was a patriotic Jewish zealot who tried to start a war against the Romans.

Re "but it's hard to understand how people meeting three centuries after Christ to argue over doctrine proves your points about the NT."

Thank you for actually reading something that I wrote. Many authors claim that the gospels were rewritten after the council of Nicaea. How true that is I don't think anybody knows for sure, but considering the atmosphere of the times and the way the government rarely hesitated to manipulate public opinion using propaganda it is highly likely that this happened. Constantine and Eusebius were quite adept at creating new dogma.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: