What makes your faith true?

[Abaddon_ire]

Well, I would also be interested to read that, and like MK, I rigorously observe the right to privacy, so if you could go so far?....

I thought you already said it wasn't true anyway?

I read the bible cover to cover twice, and probably a dozen more times in drips and drabs. The Koran also. 

I firmly believe that if one proposes to argue against any proposition whatever that might be, one has a duty to first understand said proposition.

Second, I was raised RCC in an RCC family, so I already have a head start.

And third, When I said I respect the right to privacy, I meant it. It might very well happen that I might want to post whatever part of you material. Were that to happen, I would do what? Three steps. 1. I disagree with this chunk of text. (with luck, a constructive private conversation ensues) 2. I state that whatever is worth posting to the thread, you may or may not agree. 3. You either grant or deny permission.

And there it ends. Sure, I can happily mock you all week long for things you post publicly were I of a mood to do so. Private communication falls under a very different ethical regime. Who knew, atheists actually do have ethics.

All that said, I know I am a new user on this site, and I know full well that you have no reason to know if I am real or some mad internet loon. 

Bottom line? Say yes or say no. That is your call to make, and so it should be. 

And no, I will not get humpy either way. 

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think so. You already told me it wasn't true and called the Virgin Mary a very nasty, sexist name. I certainly don't want to open up about something that is very sacred to me to someone who's already made clear what they think about it.

[Abaddon_ire]

I don't think so. You already told me it wasn't true and called the Virgin Mary a very nasty, sexist name. I certainly don't want to open up about something that is very sacred to me to someone who's already made clear what they think about it.

It isn't true in any way and you have no evidence that it is.

Mary was not a virgin. Which is more likely in your mind. An unexpected teen pregnancy (something we know happens) or the arrival of some horny spook (something we know has never happened)? And how likely is it that an unexpectedly pregnant teen would invent a lame cover story? Especially when her only other option was being stoned to death as a harlot? And then we move along to the "sacred" malarkey. I am not having that. "Sacred" is simply an excuse to avoid any and all questions because the beliefs at hand simply are not able to withstand the slightest scrutiny, and yes, I have made my position clear. To not do so would be abjectly dishonest, a position which seems to be common among believers.

So I will state again. I am interested to read your thoughts and I will not reveal a word of it without your blessing.

At worst I will take that to PM and PM alone. Perhaps you are worried about paraphrasis and hyperbole? No that ain't happening either. My word is good.

This does, however, lead me to wonder...Why is it that you are so deeply ashamed of your deity of choice? You must admit, it is a rather strange position to take, no?

[WinterHold]

I don't think so. You already told me it wasn't true and called the Virgin Mary a very nasty, sexist name. I certainly don't want to open up about something that is very sacred to me to someone who's already made clear what they think about it.

It isn't true in any way and you have no evidence that it is.

Mary was not a virgin. Which is more likely in your mind. An unexpected teen pregnancy (something we know happens) or the arrival of some horny spook (something we know has never happened)? And how likely is it that an unexpectedly pregnant teen would invent a lame cover story? Especially when her only other option was being stoned to death as a harlot? And then we move along to the "sacred" malarkey. I am not having that. "Sacred" is simply an excuse to avoid any and all questions because the beliefs at hand simply are not able to withstand the slightest scrutiny, and yes, I have made my position clear. To not do so would be abjectly dishonest, a position which seems to be common among believers.

So I will state again. I am interested to read your thoughts and I will not reveal a word of it without your blessing.

At worst I will take that to PM and PM alone. Perhaps you are worried about paraphrasis and hyperbole? No that ain't happening either. My word is good.

This does, however, lead me to wonder...Why is it that you are so deeply ashamed of your deity of choice? You must admit, it is a rather strange position to take, no?

Did you see her losing her virginity to a man?
The miracle God caused to her son was enough to shape history permanently. Another sex that brings a child is not enough in my opinion and the opinions of so many to make a story like that.

That child literally brought down the western Roman Empire, presented a new religion that lived for 2000 years and still, believed by Billions -not just Christians; he is holy in Islam too-. His mother was a good woman, a saint that deserves every bit of respect for dealing with her sexist society.

Just a note from my side; that woman was pure. Her son was a Prophet. He talked as a toddler, and cured the sick with his touch.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

What do you mean what makes my faith true? My faith is I believe in Jesus and everything he represented throughout his life, his ideals, his way of life, his sacrifice, everything. Your question sounds like "Why do you think what you think is true is the truth?". The answer is in the question itself, if you want to rephrase your question please do but right now it doesn't make much sense.

[Abaddon_ire]

It isn't true in any way and you have no evidence that it is.

Mary was not a virgin. Which is more likely in your mind. An unexpected teen pregnancy (something we know happens) or the arrival of some horny spook (something we know has never happened)? And how likely is it that an unexpectedly pregnant teen would invent a lame cover story? Especially when her only other option was being stoned to death as a harlot? And then we move along to the "sacred" malarkey. I am not having that. "Sacred" is simply an excuse to avoid any and all questions because the beliefs at hand simply are not able to withstand the slightest scrutiny, and yes, I have made my position clear. To not do so would be abjectly dishonest, a position which seems to be common among believers.

So I will state again. I am interested to read your thoughts and I will not reveal a word of it without your blessing.

At worst I will take that to PM and PM alone. Perhaps you are worried about paraphrasis and hyperbole? No that ain't happening either. My word is good.

This does, however, lead me to wonder...Why is it that you are so deeply ashamed of your deity of choice? You must admit, it is a rather strange position to take, no?

Did you see her losing her virginity to a man?
The miracle God caused to her son was enough to shape history permanently. Another sex that brings a child is not enough in my opinion and the opinions of so many to make a story like that.

That child literally brought down the western Roman Empire, presented a new religion that lived for 2000 years and still, believed by Billions -not just Christians; he is holy in Islam too-. His mother was a good woman, a saint that deserves every bit of respect for dealing with her sexist society.

Just a note from my side; that woman was pure. Her son was a Prophet. He talked as a toddler, and cured the sick with his touch.

No. Did you see Mary not lose her virginity to a finger?
And that leaves you in the rather uncomfortable position of claiming that jebus is not a man at all.

Child? You have not idea what that "child actually did for thirty frakkin' years and a man who operated from the age of 30 to 33 is not a "child" that is a stupid claim. Oh and that "child" did not bring down the western Roman Empire, we still have it to this very day.

Was his mother a "good woman"? Perhaps she was, but who knows? The bible certainly doesn't. The Bible says precisely fuck all about the matter.

Was she so pure though. The brief bible description is of a typical teenage pregnancy. Colour me surprised.

Her son was a Profit, sure, but note the spelling. The bible contains no account of whatever jebus did as a toddler and who was there to see jebus heal anybody? You? No. 

And before you climb up on some imaginary high horse, your bible also treats additions and subtractions from the text in severe ways. Proceed at the peril of your immortal soul. What is it like to have one of those? What is it like to actually be a slave to an imaginary being and have not thoughts of your own?

[WinterHold]

Did you see her losing her virginity to a man?
The miracle God caused to her son was enough to shape history permanently. Another sex that brings a child is not enough in my opinion and the opinions of so many to make a story like that.

That child literally brought down the western Roman Empire, presented a new religion that lived for 2000 years and still, believed by Billions -not just Christians; he is holy in Islam too-. His mother was a good woman, a saint that deserves every bit of respect for dealing with her sexist society.

Just a note from my side; that woman was pure. Her son was a Prophet. He talked as a toddler, and cured the sick with his touch.

No. Did you see Mary not lose her virginity to a finger?
And that leaves you in the rather uncomfortable position of claiming that jebus is not a man at all.

Child? You have not idea what that "child actually did for thirty frakkin' years and a man who operated from the age of 30 to 33 is not a "child" that is a stupid claim. Oh and that "child" did not bring down the western Roman Empire, we still have it to this very day.

Was his mother a "good woman"? Perhaps she was, but who knows? The bible certainly doesn't. The Bible says precisely fuck all about the matter.

Was she so pure though. The brief bible description is of a typical teenage pregnancy. Colour me surprised.

Her son was a Profit, sure, but note the spelling. The bible contains no account of whatever jebus did as a toddler and who was there to see jebus heal anybody? You? No. 

And before you climb up on some imaginary high horse, your bible also treats additions and subtractions from the text in severe ways. Proceed at the peril of your immortal soul. What is it like to have one of those? What is it like to actually be a slave to an imaginary being and have not thoughts of your own?

I'm not Catholic, I don't worship Jesus; the guy was a prophet, he used to poop, piss, eat, sleep, have sex, cum...etc.
He was a man created out of stardust.

Since neither me or you knew Marry; let's wait for God to judge between us in the afterlife instead of cutting our throats now.
To you your religion; to me mine.

[Cyberman]

Did you see her losing her virginity to a man?

I certainly did more than see it. She still writes to me.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think so. You already told me it wasn't true and called the Virgin Mary a very nasty, sexist name. I certainly don't want to open up about something that is very sacred to me to someone who's already made clear what they think about it.

It isn't true in any way and you have no evidence that it is.

Mary was not a virgin. Which is more likely in your mind. An unexpected teen pregnancy (something we know happens) or the arrival of some horny spook (something we know has never happened)? And how likely is it that an unexpectedly pregnant teen would invent a lame cover story? Especially when her only other option was being stoned to death as a harlot? And then we move along to the "sacred" malarkey. I am not having that. "Sacred" is simply an excuse to avoid any and all questions because the beliefs at hand simply are not able to withstand the slightest scrutiny, and yes, I have made my position clear. To not do so would be abjectly dishonest, a position which seems to be common among believers.

So I will state again. I am interested to read your thoughts and I will not reveal a word of it without your blessing.

At worst I will take that to PM and PM alone. Perhaps you are worried about paraphrasis and hyperbole? No that ain't happening either. My word is good.

This does, however, lead me to wonder...Why is it that you are so deeply ashamed of your deity of choice? You must admit, it is a rather strange position to take, no?

My bold.

Ok then. I really don't see why you'd be genuinely interested in hearing what happened.

[Fake Messiah]

My faith is I believe in Jesus and everything he represented throughout his life, his ideals, his way of life, his sacrifice, everything.

Then you must be really lonely person


I mean really what ideals? The guy was a liar, thief, hypocrite, coward and so on. Like when in Luke 6: 1-4 says, "It came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he [Jesus] went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days ... ?"
Here Jesus and his disciples not only violated the sabbath by picking ears of corn thereon, but stole property as well. The ears of corn were not theirs to pluck, any more than the Gadarene swine of Luke 8:33 were theirs to destroy.

Or his cowardice like in Matthew 12:14-16 says, "Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him .... And he charged them that they should not make him known." In other words, Jesus wanted his whereabouts kept secret. John 7:1 says, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." John 11:53-54 says, "Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death, Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness."
In other words Jesus was a coward who could not keep himself safe and yet people expect for some reason that he will help them?! How?

In Matthew 5:44 Jesus said, "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you." But in Matthew 12:34, 23:15, 17, 19, 27, 33, Luke 11:40, and John 10:8 Jesus called people "fools," "vipers," "serpents," "hypocrites," "whited sepulchres," "thieves," and "blind." Who would equate adjectives of this kind with loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you? What a hypocrite! How can you honestly say you admire his ideals? Or are you maybe writing from a prison?