<![CDATA[Atheist Forums - Christianity]]>

<![CDATA[Atheist Forums - Christianity]]> https://atheistforums.org/ Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:34:29 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[The deal with Melchizedek]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66702.html Sun, 07 Jun 2026 13:08:26 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66702.html
Melchizedek is a name that is mentioned in the OT in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (and also in Hebrews in the NT).

Here's the thing with him:

He is abruptly introduced in Genesis 14:18-20 as the king of Salem who also happens to be a priest of the same God whom Abram followed. Out of nowhere, this king comes into the picture with bread and wine and blesses Abram, and then Abram gives him a tithe. And then he is never mentioned again (until Psalm 110).

It has been argued by a few scholars that this king was initially meant to be the same king of Sodom mentioned in Genesis 14, but then later changed to a separate character by redactors exactly to avoid the embarrassment that Abram was being subservient here to the king of a corrupt nation. Part of the case they put forward here is that the Hebrew for "Sodom" and "Salem" only differ by one character.

That one-letter difference may just be a coincidence, though. Nevertheless, because of how Melchizedek was abruptly presented as both king of a mysterious region and as priest of God, he has become quite a mystery and a regular topic of debate among scholars and laypeople.

For many Christians, Melchizedek is Jesus. But even before Christianity was a thing, you can see in Psalm 110:4 how Melchizedek was already being suggested as an almost divine figure.

I suspect the redactors had access to some tradition about the great king Melchizedek and made the decision to patch that in Genesis 14:18-20 in the middle of the account of Abram and the king of Sodom in the aftermath of the hostage rescue described earlier in the chapter. And it was likely a creativity decision to emphasize a contrast between the great king of Salem and the not-so-great king of Sodom and reiterate that Abram was blessed by God. This would've been the best spot to include this in.

So the king himself would not have been intended to be a mysterious figure to the ancient Israelites but part of their lore. It is only later that he is made legendary by Christians (and Jews).]]>
Melchizedek is a name that is mentioned in the OT in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (and also in Hebrews in the NT).

Here's the thing with him:

He is abruptly introduced in Genesis 14:18-20 as the king of Salem who also happens to be a priest of the same God whom Abram followed. Out of nowhere, this king comes into the picture with bread and wine and blesses Abram, and then Abram gives him a tithe. And then he is never mentioned again (until Psalm 110).

It has been argued by a few scholars that this king was initially meant to be the same king of Sodom mentioned in Genesis 14, but then later changed to a separate character by redactors exactly to avoid the embarrassment that Abram was being subservient here to the king of a corrupt nation. Part of the case they put forward here is that the Hebrew for "Sodom" and "Salem" only differ by one character.

That one-letter difference may just be a coincidence, though. Nevertheless, because of how Melchizedek was abruptly presented as both king of a mysterious region and as priest of God, he has become quite a mystery and a regular topic of debate among scholars and laypeople.

For many Christians, Melchizedek is Jesus. But even before Christianity was a thing, you can see in Psalm 110:4 how Melchizedek was already being suggested as an almost divine figure.

I suspect the redactors had access to some tradition about the great king Melchizedek and made the decision to patch that in Genesis 14:18-20 in the middle of the account of Abram and the king of Sodom in the aftermath of the hostage rescue described earlier in the chapter. And it was likely a creativity decision to emphasize a contrast between the great king of Salem and the not-so-great king of Sodom and reiterate that Abram was blessed by God. This would've been the best spot to include this in.

So the king himself would not have been intended to be a mysterious figure to the ancient Israelites but part of their lore. It is only later that he is made legendary by Christians (and Jews).]]> <![CDATA[Adam's original company?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66700.html Mon, 01 Jun 2026 22:08:00 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66700.html <![CDATA[Religion I am developing; what is your thoughts on it?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66690.html Tue, 19 May 2026 20:25:47 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66690.html

Administrator Notice
Link removed again. Against 30/30 rule and advertising which are against the rules. Also the duplication in looking kinda spammy. Please read and follow the rules. No more freebees.

Moderator Notice
Hid massive wall of text

]]>

Administrator Notice
Link removed again. Against 30/30 rule and advertising which are against the rules. Also the duplication in looking kinda spammy. Please read and follow the rules. No more freebees.

Moderator Notice
Hid massive wall of text

]]> <![CDATA[Religion I am developing; what is your thoughts on it?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66689.html Tue, 19 May 2026 20:22:58 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66689.html
I am developing a new form of religion/government and I was wondering if you would share a few critical views of it;

Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule.

ty]]>
I am developing a new form of religion/government and I was wondering if you would share a few critical views of it;

Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule.

ty]]> <![CDATA[My thread for Charity :) x]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66672.html Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:37:31 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66672.html I am Jewish by blood but appalled by what the Jews have done to Gaza. They even allowed Children to starve Sad

You would have thought they would have learned compassion after what Hitler did to them but apparently not they have allowed Children to starve.
I would sort of say I am Christian but I don't believe people go to Hell so I am not sure what I am.
I am still going to say Christian.
Now I am God
Well not God I am St Christopher and Jesus
Man and Angel God but not actual God
Hello to everyone Smile

]]> I am Jewish by blood but appalled by what the Jews have done to Gaza. They even allowed Children to starve Sad

You would have thought they would have learned compassion after what Hitler did to them but apparently not they have allowed Children to starve.
I would sort of say I am Christian but I don't believe people go to Hell so I am not sure what I am.
I am still going to say Christian.
Now I am God
Well not God I am St Christopher and Jesus
Man and Angel God but not actual God
Hello to everyone Smile

]]> <![CDATA[Jesus' resurrection was prophesized?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66570.html Tue, 25 Nov 2025 04:16:04 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66570.html Those who saw the resurrected Jesus, saw prophecy fulfilled.

Which is, in best case, debatable because you can go back and say that the Bible said anything you want.

Look at it this way: if Jesus's resurrection was clearly prophesized in the Bible long time before Jesus was born, then, when he was in the grave, you would expect hundreds of people waiting outside for the famous prophecy to be fulfilled, but no.

Even the gospels claim that Jesus' resurrection was discovered by a woman (or group of women) who happened to be there.]]> Those who saw the resurrected Jesus, saw prophecy fulfilled.

Which is, in best case, debatable because you can go back and say that the Bible said anything you want.

Look at it this way: if Jesus's resurrection was clearly prophesized in the Bible long time before Jesus was born, then, when he was in the grave, you would expect hundreds of people waiting outside for the famous prophecy to be fulfilled, but no.

Even the gospels claim that Jesus' resurrection was discovered by a woman (or group of women) who happened to be there.]]> <![CDATA[Psalms 14:1 is not about intellectual atheism]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66520.html Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:09:54 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66520.html Psalm 14

Psalm 14:1

Quote: The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Many people who read this think this is saying something negative about those who deny the existence of God, but (IIRC) atheism in this sense is not something that is considered anywhere in the Old Testament.

Instead, the attack is on those who are “moral atheists”, those that live as if God is not watching them, so instead of calling on God, they do what are deemed morally vile things, including oppressing the chosen people of God. This is made clear in the rest of the Psalm.

Funnily enough, despite the wording, Psalm 14:1 doesn’t even support the Christian doctrine that no man is righteous. But that’s another topic for another day.]]> Psalm 14

Psalm 14:1

Quote: The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Many people who read this think this is saying something negative about those who deny the existence of God, but (IIRC) atheism in this sense is not something that is considered anywhere in the Old Testament.

Instead, the attack is on those who are “moral atheists”, those that live as if God is not watching them, so instead of calling on God, they do what are deemed morally vile things, including oppressing the chosen people of God. This is made clear in the rest of the Psalm.

Funnily enough, despite the wording, Psalm 14:1 doesn’t even support the Christian doctrine that no man is righteous. But that’s another topic for another day.]]> <![CDATA[It is a bit frustrating reading through Ecclesiastes]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66517.html Sun, 17 Aug 2025 05:57:49 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66517.html
You guys all know about Ecclesiastes, how it is considered a favorite among atheists because it sort of reads like a work from an ancient Israelite Nietzsche. And actually, I would consider the Teacher (the author of the core message in Ecclesiastes) to be like a proto-Nietzsche. The guy is cynical as fuck and loves pointing out how everything is meaningless. And the philosophy itself is interesting and engaging.

But what is annoying is seeing what appear to be injections by later scribes who may have found the message valuable enough to include in the canon (as it speaks to the suffering of the Jews and such) but nevertheless too "unorthodox" to leave untouched. So they basically had to insert their commentaries into the text and fuck with its intended core message: that everything is meaningless and you should just enjoy your life.

Thus, you get stuff like this:

Ecclesiastes 4:

Quote:The Teacher:
And I saw that all toil and all achievement spring from one person’s envy of another. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
The naughty scribes:
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves.

The Teacher:
Again I saw something meaningless under the sun: There was a man all alone; he had neither son nor brother. There was no end to his toil,yet his eyes were not content with his wealth. “For whom am I toiling,” he asked, “and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?” This too is meaningless—a miserable business!
The naughty scribes:
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

Notice how they fuck up the original points.

The Teacher is deriding hard work and accomplishments, pointing out how it's all meaningless. The editors then had to add that laziness is not good either; better to be neither lazy nor a workaholic.

While the Teacher points out how futile it is to have all the wealth a man can have, the later scribes changed this point and made it about how important it is to have friends/companions.

Another example in Chapter 3:

Ecclesiastes 3:16-17 Wrote:And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment—wickedness was there, in the place of justice—wickedness was there.
I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge every deed.”

]]>
You guys all know about Ecclesiastes, how it is considered a favorite among atheists because it sort of reads like a work from an ancient Israelite Nietzsche. And actually, I would consider the Teacher (the author of the core message in Ecclesiastes) to be like a proto-Nietzsche. The guy is cynical as fuck and loves pointing out how everything is meaningless. And the philosophy itself is interesting and engaging.

But what is annoying is seeing what appear to be injections by later scribes who may have found the message valuable enough to include in the canon (as it speaks to the suffering of the Jews and such) but nevertheless too "unorthodox" to leave untouched. So they basically had to insert their commentaries into the text and fuck with its intended core message: that everything is meaningless and you should just enjoy your life.

Thus, you get stuff like this:

Ecclesiastes 4:

Quote:The Teacher:
And I saw that all toil and all achievement spring from one person’s envy of another. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
The naughty scribes:
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves.

The Teacher:
Again I saw something meaningless under the sun: There was a man all alone; he had neither son nor brother. There was no end to his toil,yet his eyes were not content with his wealth. “For whom am I toiling,” he asked, “and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?” This too is meaningless—a miserable business!
The naughty scribes:
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

Notice how they fuck up the original points.

The Teacher is deriding hard work and accomplishments, pointing out how it's all meaningless. The editors then had to add that laziness is not good either; better to be neither lazy nor a workaholic.

While the Teacher points out how futile it is to have all the wealth a man can have, the later scribes changed this point and made it about how important it is to have friends/companions.

Another example in Chapter 3:

Ecclesiastes 3:16-17 Wrote:And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment—wickedness was there, in the place of justice—wickedness was there.
I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge every deed.”

]]> <![CDATA[Proverbs 30:4 - The son is rhetorical]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66514.html Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:25:44 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66514.html Proverbs 30

Proverbs 30:4 says:

Proverbs 30:4 Wrote:Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!

Bold mine. A Christian may read this part and think "Hey, this is referring to God and his Son, Jesus!"

But, once again, paying attention to the context helps. Agur, the sage of this chapter, is not talking about God at all here. He is sarcastically asking about this human person who can do all these amazing things that only God can do.

Basically, it's like this:

Who is this amazing person? Give me his name, along with the name of his son, so we may find him and praise him for his awesomeness!

It's not about God (the Father) and Jesus, but about a human who just cannot possibly exist but is sarcastically assumed. The son is asked about here probably because if it's anything like in my culture, a father was sometimes identified in ancient Israel by the name of their oldest son.]]> Proverbs 30

Proverbs 30:4 says:

Proverbs 30:4 Wrote:Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!

Bold mine. A Christian may read this part and think "Hey, this is referring to God and his Son, Jesus!"

But, once again, paying attention to the context helps. Agur, the sage of this chapter, is not talking about God at all here. He is sarcastically asking about this human person who can do all these amazing things that only God can do.

Basically, it's like this:

Who is this amazing person? Give me his name, along with the name of his son, so we may find him and praise him for his awesomeness!

It's not about God (the Father) and Jesus, but about a human who just cannot possibly exist but is sarcastically assumed. The son is asked about here probably because if it's anything like in my culture, a father was sometimes identified in ancient Israel by the name of their oldest son.]]> <![CDATA[Genesis 1:26 is not implying God is triune]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66513.html Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:27:04 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66513.html Genesis 1

Genesis 1:26 Wrote:Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

As you can see in the above verse, the plural pronoun "us" is used as the model that human beings are based on. Christians then latch on to this to argue that it is referring to the Trinity. But as always, that interpretation is forced, especially since the Old Testament doesn't outright state (or even imply) that God is a trinity.

What we do see in various passages in the OT are mentions of "sons of God". Not just in Genesis but elsewhere, such as in Psalms and Job. These are the ones God is very likely speaking to in Genesis 1:26.

Of course, Christian apologists are a clever bunch and have some stock responses to this latter interpretation. So one point to keep in mind:

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the heavenly beings but the creation of the heavens (skies) and earth (land) and everything in them (and in the waters), so Christians who argue it doesn't make sense that God would speak to his creation about creation misunderstand the point of Genesis 1.

Now if any Christian is reading this and would like to share one or more counters to this, I'm all ears.]]> Genesis 1

Genesis 1:26 Wrote:Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

As you can see in the above verse, the plural pronoun "us" is used as the model that human beings are based on. Christians then latch on to this to argue that it is referring to the Trinity. But as always, that interpretation is forced, especially since the Old Testament doesn't outright state (or even imply) that God is a trinity.

What we do see in various passages in the OT are mentions of "sons of God". Not just in Genesis but elsewhere, such as in Psalms and Job. These are the ones God is very likely speaking to in Genesis 1:26.

Of course, Christian apologists are a clever bunch and have some stock responses to this latter interpretation. So one point to keep in mind:

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the heavenly beings but the creation of the heavens (skies) and earth (land) and everything in them (and in the waters), so Christians who argue it doesn't make sense that God would speak to his creation about creation misunderstand the point of Genesis 1.

Now if any Christian is reading this and would like to share one or more counters to this, I'm all ears.]]> <![CDATA[Are you fan of "Sinead O Connor"]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66497.html Fri, 18 Jul 2025 03:25:34 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66497.html
She is known for basically calling out sex abuse by Catholic Clergymen, but at the time nobody believed her, until John Paul II decided to say it was true later.

I guess the only way i can think could heal people, would be to heal it over time as (Walker) from Walker Texas Ranger from episode 1+2 talked about. Though the scars will still be there]]>
She is known for basically calling out sex abuse by Catholic Clergymen, but at the time nobody believed her, until John Paul II decided to say it was true later.

I guess the only way i can think could heal people, would be to heal it over time as (Walker) from Walker Texas Ranger from episode 1+2 talked about. Though the scars will still be there]]> <![CDATA[Psalm 110 is about the Israelite king, not Jesus Christ]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66493.html Sun, 13 Jul 2025 03:38:28 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66493.html Psalm 110 (NIV)

The first verse in Psalm 110 says:

Quote:The LORD says to my lord:

Jesus in the New Testament quoted this verse and somehow stunned the Pharisees into silence because he questioned that a son of David could have been called 'lord' by David himself. Christians of course latch onto passages like this to argue that Psalm 110 is about Christ because look at what Jesus himself said.

The problem is that if you go with the most parsimonious reading of the text, considering the original intent of the psalmist and ignoring all later interpretations in line with later beliefs, there is nothing to suggest that David was the psalmist here, other than perhaps the title/superscription of the Psalm (which would have been a later ascription anyway). One thing clear to me is that the psalm is either ABOUT David or some Israelite king in power at the time, so I don't think any king came up with this psalm, and the psalm was probably authored by some poet/singer who sang praises to the king at the time.

Either way, it is a mistake to confidently ascribe the authorship of this Psalm to David.

Nevertheless, Christians may counter by latching on to a later verse about how this Lord is said to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". So how could an Israelite king have been a priest also, when only Levites could have been priests?

Fair question, but these Psalms are forms of poetry, and people should not take this verse to mean that the Israelite king was a priest in the Levitical sense. There's a reason it says "in the order of Melchizedek" as opposed to something like "in the order of Aaron".

And if you read elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as in Chronicles, the king was priestly in some of the roles he took on. For example, he would lead the people of Israel in prayer and in sacrifices even. And his relationship with God was not more distant than the one the priest would have with God. So the verse is a poetic way of saying that God approves of the king (including his services on behalf of the people) and in an ethereal and divine sense (like how Melchizedek was in an ethereal sense both a king and priest of God).

So once again, a passage in the Old Testament that Christians interpret as speaking of Christ (in the future legendary sense) when a better reading suggests otherwise.]]> Psalm 110 (NIV)

The first verse in Psalm 110 says:

Quote:The LORD says to my lord:

Jesus in the New Testament quoted this verse and somehow stunned the Pharisees into silence because he questioned that a son of David could have been called 'lord' by David himself. Christians of course latch onto passages like this to argue that Psalm 110 is about Christ because look at what Jesus himself said.

The problem is that if you go with the most parsimonious reading of the text, considering the original intent of the psalmist and ignoring all later interpretations in line with later beliefs, there is nothing to suggest that David was the psalmist here, other than perhaps the title/superscription of the Psalm (which would have been a later ascription anyway). One thing clear to me is that the psalm is either ABOUT David or some Israelite king in power at the time, so I don't think any king came up with this psalm, and the psalm was probably authored by some poet/singer who sang praises to the king at the time.

Either way, it is a mistake to confidently ascribe the authorship of this Psalm to David.

Nevertheless, Christians may counter by latching on to a later verse about how this Lord is said to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". So how could an Israelite king have been a priest also, when only Levites could have been priests?

Fair question, but these Psalms are forms of poetry, and people should not take this verse to mean that the Israelite king was a priest in the Levitical sense. There's a reason it says "in the order of Melchizedek" as opposed to something like "in the order of Aaron".

And if you read elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as in Chronicles, the king was priestly in some of the roles he took on. For example, he would lead the people of Israel in prayer and in sacrifices even. And his relationship with God was not more distant than the one the priest would have with God. So the verse is a poetic way of saying that God approves of the king (including his services on behalf of the people) and in an ethereal and divine sense (like how Melchizedek was in an ethereal sense both a king and priest of God).

So once again, a passage in the Old Testament that Christians interpret as speaking of Christ (in the future legendary sense) when a better reading suggests otherwise.]]> <![CDATA[Maybe controversial - Religion IS bad, but.....]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66470.html Tue, 24 Jun 2025 02:46:59 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66470.html <![CDATA[Failed prophecy in the bible if one cares to look]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66467.html Sun, 22 Jun 2025 02:28:34 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66467.html
Critics say that the prophecy says Tyre will never be rebuilt and yet it was.

Christians respond by saying that the prophesy really says is Tyre will never regain its independence wealth and power.

They assert confidently that history shows it was never independent again and never regained its wealth power, glory, in all history...

That can sound very convincing and hard to beat when they state it with so much confidence.

Well lets just see if that's true.

Google search: how rich and influential was Tyre compared to other cities at the time Nebuchednezzer sieged it

It shows Tyre was indeed the wealthiest, most powerful etc. of the time (excluding the super powers of the day)

Awhile later Alexander the Great sieged it.
We know the city was soon rebuilt because historical documents say the Seleucid empire took control of the city of Tyre (can be found on Google).
The Seleucid empire then lost control of it and Tyre became an independent republic (also can be found on Google).
The Seleucid empire continued to try to regain control of the city but failed.

Google search: how rich and influential was Tyre compared to other cities at the time the Seleucids tried to control it

Google shows how Tyre was again the wealthiest, most powerful etc. of the time (also excluding the super powers of the day). Really.

Unfortunately, and of course, I can't get and research the actual historical documents concerning these two periods to fully prove it for myself.

Even so, I think common sense says Tyre regained its wealth, power and independence.

Thus the biblical prophecy failed.

bah would have put the links in but they were too large and didn't know how to shorten them, if even possible....]]>
Critics say that the prophecy says Tyre will never be rebuilt and yet it was.

Christians respond by saying that the prophesy really says is Tyre will never regain its independence wealth and power.

They assert confidently that history shows it was never independent again and never regained its wealth power, glory, in all history...

That can sound very convincing and hard to beat when they state it with so much confidence.

Well lets just see if that's true.

Google search: how rich and influential was Tyre compared to other cities at the time Nebuchednezzer sieged it

It shows Tyre was indeed the wealthiest, most powerful etc. of the time (excluding the super powers of the day)

Awhile later Alexander the Great sieged it.
We know the city was soon rebuilt because historical documents say the Seleucid empire took control of the city of Tyre (can be found on Google).
The Seleucid empire then lost control of it and Tyre became an independent republic (also can be found on Google).
The Seleucid empire continued to try to regain control of the city but failed.

Google search: how rich and influential was Tyre compared to other cities at the time the Seleucids tried to control it

Google shows how Tyre was again the wealthiest, most powerful etc. of the time (also excluding the super powers of the day). Really.

Unfortunately, and of course, I can't get and research the actual historical documents concerning these two periods to fully prove it for myself.

Even so, I think common sense says Tyre regained its wealth, power and independence.

Thus the biblical prophecy failed.

bah would have put the links in but they were too large and didn't know how to shorten them, if even possible....]]> <![CDATA[Why are Christians afraid of Gay People?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66384.html Fri, 04 Apr 2025 03:43:24 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66384.html
Less than 10% of the U.S. Population identifies as homosexual AND all the other letters and the plus sign combined. They aren't over throwing anything. In fact they own less guns and are far more likely to be the ones shot by said guns. Now I'm all for shooting for sport but this isn't even a contest. They aren't a threat to anybody save your erotic sexy mind you pervert you.

Seriously, why are people upset about this?]]>
Less than 10% of the U.S. Population identifies as homosexual AND all the other letters and the plus sign combined. They aren't over throwing anything. In fact they own less guns and are far more likely to be the ones shot by said guns. Now I'm all for shooting for sport but this isn't even a contest. They aren't a threat to anybody save your erotic sexy mind you pervert you.

Seriously, why are people upset about this?]]> <![CDATA[I will only ban Homosexual marriage, on one condition]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66354.html Wed, 05 Mar 2025 12:29:22 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66354.html But Catholics and Orthodox Christians better allow it on the mouth. If not then its like what Chief Wiggum from Simpsons said, which is (The bible says alot of things)

( Then, after the consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of God, because He wished us also to be His sacrifice, a fact which was made clear when the Holy Sacrifice was first instituted, and because that Sacrifice is a sign of what we are, behold, when the Sacrifice is finished, we say the Lord's Prayer which you have received and recited. After this, the 'Peace be with you' is said, and the Christians embrace one another with the holy kiss. This is a sign of peace; as the lips indicate, let peace be made in your conscience, that is, when your lips draw near to those of your brother, do not let your heart withdraw from his. Hence, these are great and powerful sacraments. — St. Augustine ))

The overall reason for why i want "Holy Kiss" in its original form back is. Christians are often seen as massive hypocrites on picking and choosing. So if Love is what matters, then clearly this shouldnt be a problem.]]> But Catholics and Orthodox Christians better allow it on the mouth. If not then its like what Chief Wiggum from Simpsons said, which is (The bible says alot of things)

( Then, after the consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of God, because He wished us also to be His sacrifice, a fact which was made clear when the Holy Sacrifice was first instituted, and because that Sacrifice is a sign of what we are, behold, when the Sacrifice is finished, we say the Lord's Prayer which you have received and recited. After this, the 'Peace be with you' is said, and the Christians embrace one another with the holy kiss. This is a sign of peace; as the lips indicate, let peace be made in your conscience, that is, when your lips draw near to those of your brother, do not let your heart withdraw from his. Hence, these are great and powerful sacraments. — St. Augustine ))

The overall reason for why i want "Holy Kiss" in its original form back is. Christians are often seen as massive hypocrites on picking and choosing. So if Love is what matters, then clearly this shouldnt be a problem.]]> <![CDATA[Women on period]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66317.html Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:53:21 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66317.html
And suppose I want to obey that God's command. How can I tell if a woman is on her period? Especially since most women take offense when you ask them.]]>
And suppose I want to obey that God's command. How can I tell if a woman is on her period? Especially since most women take offense when you ask them.]]> <![CDATA[The Delusions Are Real]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66172.html Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:19:59 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66172.html Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule. The other posts/threads will be deleted. If you don't see a post show up right away it may be in the spam filter.
Woman claims she witnessed heaven and hell after being dead for 11 minutes, then came back to tell her peeps all about it.

Sure, this kind of stuff happens all the time, but what I found interesting was how specific the questions were about her baby and aging. It seems she needed answers...

Our brain can make us see all kinds of things that we want to see (or not). When my Dad had dementia he was convinced he was on his old ship, painting while eating cookies and asking me to hand him the box, even though he was laying in a hospital bed. He could still recognize me (the reality), while at the same time living in the delusion.

So, I conclude that when people die (or are dying), their mind projects whatever reflects their own personal beliefs, memories and thoughts. She sees what she wants to see...heaven good, hell bad....but then comes back to life with those visions as "proof" of an afterlife, even though it's just like any other delusion, and the uncritical non-thinkers lap it up. Tell us more! Does Aunt Sara still have that scar on her forehead? Are there unicorns??

My Dad was sure he was sailing before dying, but that didn't make it so....]]> Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule. The other posts/threads will be deleted. If you don't see a post show up right away it may be in the spam filter.
Woman claims she witnessed heaven and hell after being dead for 11 minutes, then came back to tell her peeps all about it.

Sure, this kind of stuff happens all the time, but what I found interesting was how specific the questions were about her baby and aging. It seems she needed answers...

Our brain can make us see all kinds of things that we want to see (or not). When my Dad had dementia he was convinced he was on his old ship, painting while eating cookies and asking me to hand him the box, even though he was laying in a hospital bed. He could still recognize me (the reality), while at the same time living in the delusion.

So, I conclude that when people die (or are dying), their mind projects whatever reflects their own personal beliefs, memories and thoughts. She sees what she wants to see...heaven good, hell bad....but then comes back to life with those visions as "proof" of an afterlife, even though it's just like any other delusion, and the uncritical non-thinkers lap it up. Tell us more! Does Aunt Sara still have that scar on her forehead? Are there unicorns??

My Dad was sure he was sailing before dying, but that didn't make it so....]]> <![CDATA[I believe the Bible is God's Word]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66119.html Sat, 07 Sep 2024 13:38:12 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66119.html <![CDATA[Christianity is unsafe for your health]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66107.html Wed, 04 Sep 2024 03:28:40 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66107.html info@atheists.org
I received on Saturday, Aug 31, 2024

Quote:Earlier this month, Gallup released a troubling new poll. Among its findings:

TITLE = Far Fewer in U.S. Regard Childhood Vaccinations as Important
Decline occurs among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Source:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/648308/far-...id=8326847

Only 40% of Americans say vaccinating their children is essential, down from 58% in 2019.
Just 51% of Americans believe the government should require children to be vaccinated, down from 62% in 2019.
1 in 5 adults in the United States believe vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to prevent.

The pollsters reported “the declining belief in the importance of vaccines is essentially confined to Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.” This aligns with other research that’s found vaccine denialism occurs across the political spectrum but tends to skew conservative.

^^^^^That's a rapid drop in numbers for the USA.
I wonder how do the numbers look for Canada and related countries? Come on Gallup!

Quote:TITLE = For COVID-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity
Source:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-c...id=8326847

There is no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon. According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.

^^^^^Maybe the independent types are the kind of people that tell me "stop being a sheep or a sheople".

Quote:Religiosity, too, is a contributing factor in vaccine rejection. An analysis released this week found, for example, “Catholics have a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccine intention than atheists, and this relationship was mediated by lower belief in science among Catholics.”

^^^^^That line was in the email.]]> info@atheists.org
I received on Saturday, Aug 31, 2024

Quote:Earlier this month, Gallup released a troubling new poll. Among its findings:

TITLE = Far Fewer in U.S. Regard Childhood Vaccinations as Important
Decline occurs among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Source:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/648308/far-...id=8326847

Only 40% of Americans say vaccinating their children is essential, down from 58% in 2019.
Just 51% of Americans believe the government should require children to be vaccinated, down from 62% in 2019.
1 in 5 adults in the United States believe vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to prevent.

The pollsters reported “the declining belief in the importance of vaccines is essentially confined to Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.” This aligns with other research that’s found vaccine denialism occurs across the political spectrum but tends to skew conservative.

^^^^^That's a rapid drop in numbers for the USA.
I wonder how do the numbers look for Canada and related countries? Come on Gallup!

Quote:TITLE = For COVID-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity
Source:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-c...id=8326847

There is no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon. According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.

^^^^^Maybe the independent types are the kind of people that tell me "stop being a sheep or a sheople".

Quote:Religiosity, too, is a contributing factor in vaccine rejection. An analysis released this week found, for example, “Catholics have a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccine intention than atheists, and this relationship was mediated by lower belief in science among Catholics.”

^^^^^That line was in the email.]]>