Religimyth...

[vbnautilus 48]

The OT tells how the entire nation will rise or fall based on the conduct of the nation and it's leaders, the NT tells of how the priesthood is dissolved and the individual is now responsible for his own action.

So that whole system that got dissolved was wrong? Seems to me even with your current explanation there was a big change made, which falls within your rule that if it were to change, that would mean it was false.

[crowTrobot 2]

I guess I could read those posts and highlight them for you so you could keep up with the discussion instead of typing these meaningless diatribes of yours about how I am not following your pre-conceived notions of reality...But then you would be forced to actually defend your positions and I don't think you can.So instead I will let you read all by yourself.so either keep up or leave..but your current whining is getting to the point where putting you on ignore might be the best thing we can all do for you.

no content. attempt to shift burden of proof for something you said. obvious dodge.

[crowTrobot 2]

You mean like it says in the Bible?2 Pet 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

no, not at all like it says in the bible if you take it literally. that's the point.

[Balloon guy 158]

So that whole system that got dissolved was wrong? Seems to me even with your current explanation there was a big change made, which falls within your rule that if it were to change, that would mean it was false.

Was it change? or the next step?Before the sacrifice of Christ, you had to sacrifice and animal to atone for your sin, now you don't because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.Did God change it or just fulfill it?When God chose the nation of Israel, He said He chose it because it was weak and insignifigant and therefore when He did things through them the world could see that it was God doing it not Israel. He used Israel to declare the future Messiah. then Messiah came, and now things are different. now God chooses to deal with people directly and no longer through a priestly tribe or through individual prophets. As such He speaks to us directly and gives us an even more clear understanding of what He wants.That is all radically different than the notion you are implying that the Bible changed.Although I do love the convenient way you guys can overlook the clear problem with your theory that the Bible was written by man and is not God inspired.If some guy came along and wrote a book that radically changed the old stuff, why wouldn't he change the old stuff? Why wouldn't he clean it all up and make it perfect so noone could make any challenge onto it? I mean you guys belive that somebody actually knwoingly wrote stuff out of his own head and purposefully passed it off as God's word when he knew full well that it wasn't even remotely from God. And this same people who did this are incapable of fixing some supposed glaring examples of the Bible being full of problems?So you should either have a man made book of lies that the authors knew they were lying about and it should be so smooth that noone would be able to question it...in which case you can fully ignore what it says and doubt everything that it preaches.Or you can say it was inspired by God and therefore understanding what it says is the most important thing you can do on this planet by a factor of 20.But please stop with the picking and choosing your positions based on your desire to fit what the Bible says into your neat little world view that you decided to hold when you were all 12 years old.

[Balloon guy 158]

no, not at all like it says in the bible if you take it literally. that's the point.

Actually it is exactly like what you are saying, but you will never ever says anything that the Bible says is right because you have too much emotional investment in your paranoid delusions.You would make Freud happy...and sad.

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually it is exactly like what you are saying

what does radiometric dating have to do with "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"? heavy elements didn't even exist at the beginning.

[vbnautilus 48]

Was it change? or the next step?Before the sacrifice of Christ, you had to sacrifice and animal to atone for your sin, now you don't because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.Did God change it or just fulfill it?When God chose the nation of Israel, He said He chose it because it was weak and insignifigant and therefore when He did things through them the world could see that it was God doing it not Israel. He used Israel to declare the future Messiah. then Messiah came, and now things are different. now God chooses to deal with people directly and no longer through a priestly tribe or through individual prophets. As such He speaks to us directly and gives us an even more clear understanding of what He wants.That is all radically different than the notion you are implying that the Bible changed.

The moral rules changed. It's one thing to have an absolute set of moral rules handed down by some inerrant authority. But now what you are describing is that the moral rules are whatever god happens to want today. He might change what is moral tomorrow and make murder a great thing.

If some guy came along and wrote a book that radically changed the old stuff, why wouldn't he change the old stuff? Why wouldn't he clean it all up and make it perfect so noone could make any challenge onto it? I mean you guys belive that somebody actually knwoingly wrote stuff out of his own head and purposefully passed it off as God's word when he knew full well that it wasn't even remotely from God. And this same people who did this are incapable of fixing some supposed glaring examples of the Bible being full of problems?

I never said that the people who wrote it didn't believe it. Just that they were wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

The moral rules changed. It's one thing to have an absolute set of moral rules handed down by some inerrant authority. But now what you are describing is that the moral rules are whatever god happens to want today. He might change what is moral tomorrow and make murder a great thing.

So every soldier in every war who believed that it was wrong to kill on the streets of their homes had to change their rules about morality and when they returned home they no longer held to the same beliefs?Or are you having a hard time understanding how God can say Though shalt not Kill and then command Israel to destroy another nation?

I never said that the people who wrote it didn't believe it. Just that they were wrong.

Then you believe that the Bible which is filled with beautiful philosophical truths and ways to live were written by men who were confused, delusional or liars?

[vbnautilus 48]

Then you believe that the Bible which is filled with beautiful philosophical truths and ways to live were written by men who were confused, delusional or liars?

Mostly just wrong. But its somewhat excusable since they didnt have much science back then. Believing it nowadays makes one confused and delusional.I'm curious, do you think the Koran was written by men who were confused, delusional or liars?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

JJJ says "Well I don't know why I am here and don't really care about what this is proving but I do like Free Willy. But I see a tree over there, if we cut it down we could count the rings but it's height and girth are pretty large and this we know means the tree is probably 40-60 years old which I can bracket and get a consensus if I had my laptop"

This is probably accurate. Although I've never seen Free Willy. But it still sounds like something I'd say.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm curious, do you think the Koran was written by men who were confused, delusional or liars?

This is an interesting point. Yes, I believe that the dude who wrote the Koran was a liar. Do you know... was Mohammed martyred? serious question. I'm wondering, because I can't think of another religion, other than Christianity who's central figures died protecting a lie. In Christianity you have at least 15 people, but as many as hundreds, with intimate knowledge of the fact that Jesus was ressurected or not and then went to their deaths without proclaiming the truth. That seems pretty unique. But I don't know Islam as well as I should.This same 'test' wouldn't work for anyone but the original central figures, since everyone else has to believe on faith.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is an interesting point. Yes, I believe that the dude who wrote the Koran was a liar. Do you know... was Mohammed martyred? serious question. I'm wondering, because I can't think of another religion, other than Christianity who's central figures died protecting a lie. In Christianity you have at least 15 people, but as many as hundreds, with intimate knowledge of the fact that Jesus was ressurected or not and then went to their deaths without proclaiming the truth. That seems pretty unique. But I don't know Islam as well as I should.This same 'test' wouldn't work for anyone but the original central figures, since everyone else has to believe on faith.

Brv I can't figure out what you are getting at here. Muhammed died of an illness, and was not killed. Are you saying there were more witnesses for the resurrection than for Muhammed's teachings?

[Balloon guy 158]

Mostly just wrong. But its somewhat excusable since they didnt have much science back then. Believing it nowadays makes one confused and delusional.I'm curious, do you think the Koran was written by men who were confused, delusional or liars?

Doesn't matter, it doesn't claim to be the written word of God, only the followers of it do.

Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Quran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Quran to his followers and many of them memorized the Quranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Quran.After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Quran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Quran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Quran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Quran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Quran?Muslims claim that Quran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that Quran is the word of God because it was written in first person speech unlike Bible, where third person speech is used. But the very first chapter of Quran is written in the third person speech.Surah 1:1-7. "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray."This is not the only one example but there are many Surahs which are written in third person speech. So if we take the word of Muslim Scholars, Quran is not the word of God.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is probably accurate. Although I've never seen Free Willy. But it still sounds like something I'd say.

Of course future you in the past might have seen Free Willy so you could be confused about that point from a time/space perspective.

[brvheart 1,752]

Brv I can't figure out what you are getting at here. Muhammed died of an illness, and was not killed. Are you saying there were more witnesses for the resurrection than for Muhammed's teachings?

Not at all. In fact, I'm fairly surprised that my post was so poorly written that you even got this possibility out of it.I was saying that I was asking you a serious question about Muhammed's death because I didn't know how he died. I wasn't trying to make any point.I was further stating that I don't know of another religion that was started by someone, who knew that it was a lie, and still died protecting that lie. This only applies to the disciples, Jesus, and the people that saw Jesus before and after his death/resurrection. According to Jewish and Roman historians we know that all but one disciple was a martyr. This seems unique to me, because they would have all been privy to the truth. This can't apply to anyone that were not contemporaries with the original founders of a religion, since they would have no idea if it was actually true.Christianity would HAVE to meet that standard... as nearly everyone involved died protecting the 'lie'. I don't know of another religion where this is the case, and was asking you if you did.

[Balloon guy 158]

Besides the Heaven's Gate cult...

[brvheart 1,752]

Besides the Heaven's Gate cult...

Insane people don't know that they are lying. Like the black dude that killed the four cops in Seattle yesterday. I hear he thinks he's Jesus.

[speedz99 145]

Well, it did. Oh, oops!

Heh.

He does! He does! <slapping knee>

Heh.

One of the reasons the greek stories are in the mythology section of our public libraries, and the Bible is in the religion section, is one is a myth, the other is not.

Heh.

That's because you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

:eye roll:

what are the odds that you exist?Since the mom makes 12 eggs a year, and the old man makes millions of sperm, what are the odds of the exact two getting together?Then factor in the same odds for your parents and grand parents.I would guess the odds against you existing must be less than >00000000000000000001%, About the same odds an atheist gives for God existing.

:eye roll:

mr. shift burden of proof strikes again.

No matter how many times you say it he's still going to ignore you.I haven't added anything to the conversation...hmm...Royal, try harder to get BG to talk about the fact that he's 100% positive that his religion is right and all others are wrong, and it doesn't phase him that a billion people think their respective religions are 100% right and his is wrong. Actually, just say, "I only believe in one less religion than you." Drives him crazy. Unless that already came up...I had to stop reading after a few pages.Edit: After reading this page, it looks like that phrase may have already been mentioned. Whatever, say it again...they've already been recycling the same arguments for years, might as well add to the problem. Be like me...come in here, stir it up a bit, then head for the hills after you make a point that can only be refuted by someone who doesn't...what's the word...think.

[brvheart 1,752]

No matter how many times you say it he's still going to ignore you.I haven't added anything to the conversation...hmm...Royal, try harder to get BG to talk about the fact that he's 100% positive that his religion is right and all others are wrong, and it doesn't phase him that a billion people think their respective religions are 100% right and his is wrong. Actually, just say, "I only believe in one less religion than you." Drives him crazy. Unless that already came up...I had to stop reading after a few pages.Edit: After reading this page, it looks like that phrase may have already been mentioned. Whatever, say it again...they've already been recycling the same arguments for years, might as well add to the problem. Be like me...come in here, stir it up a bit, then head for the hills after you make a point that can only be refuted by someone who doesn't...what's the word...think.

I officially refute your point, I think.

[crowTrobot 2]

According to Jewish and Roman historians we know that all but one disciple was a martyr.

false. we do not "know" anything of the sort. there is no objective contemporary evidence that jesus existedas a real person, much less that anyone who knew him personally was actually martyred even if he did.what you think you know comes from tradition passed down by christian apologists, not from scholarsstudying jewish/roman historians. also, comparison to islam aside, even if jesus existed as just a man and the disciples were martyredthat wouldn't necessarily mean they were dying for something they believed to be false (to state thestupidly obvious).

[vbnautilus 48]

Doesn't matter, it doesn't claim to be the written word of God, only the followers of it do.

Why does that matter in this context?

Not at all. In fact, I'm fairly surprised that my post was so poorly written that you even got this possibility out of it.I was saying that I was asking you a serious question about Muhammed's death because I didn't know how he died. I wasn't trying to make any point.I was further stating that I don't know of another religion that was started by someone, who knew that it was a lie, and still died protecting that lie. This only applies to the disciples, Jesus, and the people that saw Jesus before and after his death/resurrection. According to Jewish and Roman historians we know that all but one disciple was a martyr. This seems unique to me, because they would have all been privy to the truth. This can't apply to anyone that were not contemporaries with the original founders of a religion, since they would have no idea if it was actually true.Christianity would HAVE to meet that standard... as nearly everyone involved died protecting the 'lie'. I don't know of another religion where this is the case, and was asking you if you did.

OK, now it seems like you are saying the resurrection is a lie (from my perspective) and that these people who came up with the lie took it to their graves. If that's what you are saying I was confused because you are talking about this as if it's a lie and I assume you don't think it is a lie. But I have also stated that I don't think these people were lying per se. I can think of several examples where people are convinced of something which is clearly preposterous, and have at least some degree of sincerity in their belief. Think of the number of people who believe they saw UFOs for example, or for that matter, how many of them were abducted and probed. Anally even.

[BaseJester 1]

Doesn't matter, it doesn't claim to be the written word of God, only the followers of it do.

The Koran attributes words to God all over the place. I'm not sure what you're looking for here.Paul explicitly distinguishes between the saying of Christ and his own in the epistles, so I don't think you can really make the case for there being a single voice of God for all of the bible.

[speedz99 145]

I officially refute your point, I think.

Trick question! I had no point.

[brvheart 1,752]

false. we do not "know" anything of the sort. there is no objective contemporary evidence that jesus existedas a real person, much less that anyone who knew him personally was actually martyred even if he did.what you think you know comes from tradition passed down by christian apologists, not from scholarsstudying jewish/roman historians. also, comparison to islam aside, even if jesus existed as just a man and the disciples were martyredthat wouldn't necessarily mean they were dying for something they believed to be false (to state thestupidly obvious).

Its funny that you throw 'contemporary' in the mix and think that you discredit Josephus.

[brvheart 1,752]

Why does that matter in this context? OK, now it seems like you are saying the resurrection is a lie (from my perspective) and that these people who came up with the lie took it to their graves. If that's what you are saying I was confused because you are talking about this as if it's a lie and I assume you don't think it is a lie. But I have also stated that I don't think these people were lying per se. I can think of several examples where people are convinced of something which is clearly preposterous, and have at least some degree of sincerity in their belief. Think of the number of people who believe they saw UFOs for example, or for that matter, how many of them were abducted and probed. Anally even.

Yes, that is what I was saying. I was speaking from your point of view. Also, how do you know that they weren't anally probed?