Athiest Billboard

[Balloon guy 158]

That's wildly incorrect, and I don't just mean the "it's."

Well barring what Brv is trying to shove down our throats...The Jews came from a culture that had almost every single sanitary and medical practice 100% the worst it could be (Egyptians) , they in a generation ( meaning the time it took Moses to come down from the mountain ) changed their entire dietary, sanitary and medical ways into a near perfect selection of choices.The Christian movement (which was considered a sect of Judism by the Romans for over 150 years) transformed a society of people that believed in armed rebellion and their eventual Divinely induced taking over of the world with full authority over all women ( sound familiar?) and changed them to believe that man's duty was to God only, not God first himself second etc.He changed to believe that women were equals in this world, that helping others was the only sign of being 'chosen' by God.He changed from believing that Jews were the only chosen by God in the world, to all are called to be saved.But I'm sure you can tell me why I got this wrong...you are a woman.

[Roll the Bones 74]

A Voyage Long and Strange: Rediscovering the New World — Tony Horwitz is an audio book I've recently started. I picked it from Bubba's Book Club, ( Neil Pearts website)I am an hour or so into it and really loving the book in it's insightfulness and hilarity. Did you know the first person born in the US from European descent wasn't the infant girl Virginia from Jamestown, it was a Norwegian girl named Snoori, prounounced Snorey. hahaAnyway he was talking about the first Nowegian settlement which preceded the pilgrims by 600 years (which I didn't know). They were also in the midst of converting to Christianity. Most of the women liked it but the men were slow to change. It seems they liked the idea of taking their favorite possessions to the afterlife with them, like thier favorite swords or battleaxes. Also, given the fact that people who lived ass deep in snow year round would even consider adapting a middle-eastern desert religon was odd, but this was a thousand years after Christianity got started and a testament to the power of word of mouth and Christianity's staying power.So, as I'm contemplating this as I am driving south of Dayton to Cinti and look up and see a billboard for the Creation Museum. WHAT? A Billboard------Creation Museum? Holy shit! Was that a sign or was it a sign?

[BaseJester 1]

The Christian movement (which was considered a sect of Judism by the Romans for over 150 years) transformed a society of people that believed in armed rebellion and their eventual Divinely induced taking over of the world with full authority over all women ( sound familiar?) and changed them to believe that man's duty was to God only, not God first himself second etc.He changed to believe that women were equals in this world, . . .

[Southern Buddhist 1]

What BaseJester said, only for the whole post. First point, that Christianity sprang up sui generis: tell me about the history of Christmas. Or the early debate over whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine. Or the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the much later Protestant Reformation.Then, well, let's see:

The Christian movement (which was considered a sect of Judism by the Romans for over 150 years)

If Christianity isn't related to Judaism, then why do you reach back to what Moses did as evidence of how Christianity is sudden and perfect? Moses = not a Christian.

transformed a society of people that believed in armed rebellion and their eventual Divinely induced taking over of the world with full authority over all women ( sound familiar?) and changed them to believe that man's duty was to God only, not God first himself second etc.

Which people? Jews? Romans? Everyone? First-century Middle Easterners?

He changed to believe that women were equals in this world,

Who the heck are you talking about? Jesus? God? Moses? Changed his own mind, whoever it is? Changed the minds of others? Anyway, check with Paul on that -- I don't think he agrees.

that helping others was the only sign of being 'chosen' by God.

Cool, cause I know plenty of atheists who work for non-profits or are otherwise helping others. The ONLY sign, regardless of anything else mentioned anywhere in the bible (another example of how some of it can be ignored when necessary)? It's a popular interpretation by liberal Christians of the Sermon on the Mount, but fundies hate this interpretation. You're sure you want to stick with it?Maybe it's the massive overuse of pronouns, maybe you sometimes like to drunk-post the religion forum, but whatever, that whole post was darn near incoherent.Anyway, my point, regarding my initial comment:

[vbnautilus 48]

Cool, cause I know plenty of atheists who work for non-profits or are otherwise helping others.

Just don't group me with those bleeding-heart idiots. Since there is no invisible man in the sky the only realistic course of action is for us all to be as horrible as we can to each other. The only plausible reason anyone would aspire not to be a complete asshole is fear of suffering after death, so any rational atheist should be as mean and selfish as humanly possible. I personally try to kick an old lady at least once a day just to affirm my status as a nonbeliever.

[brvheart 1,752]

Most of this is incorrect, and it's because you are confusing Christianity the religion with Jesus Christ the man and his message. For our purposes, I will use the term Christianity to mean a follower of Jesus and his teachings, not any religion or denomination.

What BaseJester said, only for the whole post. First point, that Christianity sprang up sui generis: tell me about the history of Christmas. Or the early debate over whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine. Or the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the much later Protestant Reformation.

Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. The Catholic church or whoever moved it to December as an attack on the pagans celebrating the winter solstice. The is no debate over whether Jesus was fully human and fully God. The Bible is clear... the only debate is in religion, which all of us should hate. 30 "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

If Christianity isn't related to Judaism, then why do you reach back to what Moses did as evidence of how Christianity is sudden and perfect? Moses = not a Christian.

Of course Judaism is related, the entire Old Testament is pointing to the coming Messiah. There is nothing sudden about Jesus' coming. It was predicted more than 1,500 years earlier, all the way down to the town where Jesus would be born. Remember folks, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to 100BC... that still stands for Before Christ.

Who the heck are you talking about? Jesus? God? Moses? Changed his own mind, whoever it is? Changed the minds of others? Anyway, check with Paul on that -- I don't think he agrees.

Paul doesn't disagree. Just because Paul presents a structure that has a leader, doesn't mean you can just dismiss everything else he wrote. Just because we have a President, doesn't mean Congress isn't important and doesn't have a voice. You need to look no further than these words of Paul: "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. "So Paul says that women are to be treated the same as Christ treats believers in Him. That sounds different than the propaganda you are pushing.

Cool, cause I know plenty of atheists who work for non-profits or are otherwise helping others. The ONLY sign, regardless of anything else mentioned anywhere in the bible (another example of how some of it can be ignored when necessary)? It's a popular interpretation by liberal Christians of the Sermon on the Mount, but fundies hate this interpretation. You're sure you want to stick with it?

What part of the Bible are Christian's ignoring?

Anyway, my point, regarding my initial comment:

Religion has definitely evolved. Jesus Christ and his initial message remains the same.

[vbnautilus 48]

That sounds different than the propaganda you are pushing.

dueling propagandas!

What part of the Bible are Christian ignoring?

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy...

[brvheart 1,752]

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy...

Well, who wouldn't ignore THAT crap.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, who wouldn't ignore THAT crap.

high five!

[brvheart 1,752]

high five!

Seriously though... Christ followers follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. It's one main reason that the establishment Jews hated Jesus... he didn't keep the Sabbath, or follow many of the other rules in the books you mentioned.

[Mills 0]

Seriously though... Christ followers follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. It's one main reason that the establishment Jews hated Jesus... he didn't keep the Sabbath, or follow many of the other rules in the books you mentioned.

Are the ten commandments not included in this?

[BaseJester 1]

The is no debate over whether Jesus was fully human and fully God. The Bible is clear... the only debate is in religion, which all of us should hate.

The selection of books for the bible is a result of that debate. The Pope didn't just go to a hotel room, find a bible, and look up his questions on Jesus' divinity. Waving the wand of ignorance doesn't make history go away for the rest of us.

[SlapStick 0]

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/12/05/gove...awaii/#comments

[vbnautilus 48]

Seriously though... Christ followers follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. It's one main reason that the establishment Jews hated Jesus... he didn't keep the Sabbath, or follow many of the other rules in the books you mentioned.

I think they were right to throw that crap out, as it was obviously outdated and wrong. It's the same thing rational modern people do with most of the jesus stuff. We move on.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think they were right to throw that crap out, as it was obviously outdated and wrong. It's the same thing rational modern people do with most of the jesus stuff. We move on, at our eternal peril.

[brvheart 1,752]

Are the ten commandments not included in this?

They are in Exodus 20, but I have no idea what your point is.

The selection of books for the bible is a result of that debate. The Pope didn't just go to a hotel room, find a bible, and look up his questions on Jesus' divinity. Waving the wand of ignorance doesn't make history go away for the rest of us.

One of us is definitely displaying ignorance, I agree. SB was talking about a debate within early Christianity. Not a few people in 2010 who hate Christians, that are trying to constantly cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity. Also, Christians believe that God is real and wanted to protect his word, and that He had a hand in making sure that the correct books were chosen. Christians couldn't possibly care less that you think some valid books may have been excluded.If Jesus had lived 300 years ago and we were forming the Bible right now, would we include the Book of Mormon? The answer to that question is the same reason that they didn't include the Book of Thomas.It's pretty simple. What was Jesus' message? Did he claim to be God? Does this book agree with that message, or at least further that core message?

I think they were right to throw that crap out, as it was obviously outdated and wrong. It's the same thing rational modern people do with most of the jesus stuff. We move on.

It wasn't crap at the time. Jesus just said that He was the fulfillment of those rules and laws and that they were no longer necessary. That doesn't mean that they were outdated. I mean, I think it was probably still important to wash your hands before preparing your meal... it just wasn't a law.

[Mills 0]

They are in Exodus 20, but I have no idea what your point is.

I find it hard to believe that you had no idea what my point was, but ok..Christians don't follow Old Testament Law.The Ten Commandments are established in the Old Testament through Moses.Do we have no need to follow the ten commandments?

[brvheart 1,752]

I find it hard to believe that you had no idea what my point was, but ok..Christians don't follow Old Testament Law.The Ten Commandments are established in the Old Testament through Moses.Do we have no need to follow the ten commandments?

Um. Obviously. Who said that the Ten Commandments have extra importance? They were part of the Jewish law.

[Mills 0]

Um. Obviously. Who said that the Ten Commandments have extra importance? They were part of the Jewish law.

sweet.time to murder, lie and steal. Brb.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

sweet.time to murder, lie and steal. Brb.

Good logic.

[brvheart 1,752]

sweet.time to murder, lie and steal. Brb.

Either that... or read the New Testament.

[Balloon guy 158]

sweet.time to murder, lie and steal. Brb.

You're going to become an evolutionist professor who does abortions on the side and uses medicare to pay for it?

[Mills 0]

You're going to become an evolutionist professor who does abortions on the side and uses medicare to pay for it?

From your mouth to god's ears.

[BaseJester 1]

One of us is definitely displaying ignorance, I agree. SB was talking about a debate within early Christianity.

That's what we were all talking about.

Not a few people in 2010 who hate Christians, that are trying to constantly cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity.

I don't hate all Christians, just you guys.

Also, Christians believe that God is real and wanted to protect his word, and that He had a hand in making sure that the correct books were chosen. Christians couldn't possibly care less that you think some valid books may have been excluded.

I wasn't making a case for the inclusion or exclusion of particular books, only pointing out that there was a process of inclusion or exclusion.

If Jesus had lived 300 years ago and we were forming the Bible right now, would we include the Book of Mormon?

I guess that depends on who 'we' are. I mean, the Mormons did. They self-identify as Christians, even if you don't agree. No True Scotsman?

The answer to that question is the same reason that they didn't include the Book of Thomas.It's pretty simple. What was Jesus' message? Did he claim to be God? Does this book agree with that message, or at least further that core message?

Perhaps they could have started with The Gospel of Thomas and determined that the Matthew's and Mark's didn't fit.

[Roll the Bones 74]

One of us is definitely displaying ignorance, I agree. SB was talking about a debate within early Christianity. Not a few people in 2010 who hate Christians, that are trying to constantly cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity. Also, Christians believe that God is real and wanted to protect his word, and that He had a hand in making sure that the correct books were chosen. Christians couldn't possibly care less that you think some valid books may have been excluded.If Jesus had lived 300 years ago and we were forming the Bible right now, would we include the Book of Mormon? The answer to that question is the same reason that they didn't include the Book of Thomas.It's pretty simple. What was Jesus' message? Did he claim to be God? Does this book agree with that message, or at least further that core message?It wasn't crap at the time. Jesus just said that He was the fulfillment of those rules and laws and that they were no longer necessary. That doesn't mean that they were outdated. I mean, I think it was probably still important to wash your hands before preparing your meal... it just wasn't a law.

I've wondered about the books though myself. For many centuries the book of Hermes was included and Revelations was left out, (for 4 or 5 centuries). So, since one of those people were obviously doing it wrong, are they kind of screwed simply because of a poor managing editor?And, I always here this new/old testament debate, but didn't Jesus support the old testement, (I believe in Matthew)? If he validated it then who do you believe? Also, is heaven disfunctional with Jesus and his dad dissagreeing on so much? (kidding).