Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 16, 2015 at 9:36 pm (This post was last modified: May 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm by Cyberman.)
... and your point being..? The quote I shared was a direct observation on your words. You chose to ignore comment on it in favour of irrelevant proselytising. I should say at this juncture that you are skirting Rule 1.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
May 16, 2015 at 9:42 pm (This post was last modified: May 16, 2015 at 9:43 pm by Whateverist.)
(May 16, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(May 16, 2015 at 9:16 pm)whateverist Wrote: That is not at all my point. I didn't say I do concede either historical accuracy or the sincerity of its authors. I only said that doing so would have no bearing on the truth of anything written in the bible.
If you want to argue for either of those points be my guest. It will pointless and get you nothing. But knock yourself out.
No worries. I know you have not conceded the historical accuracy of the NT, yet. You need more evidence.
But you have agreed that the authors BELIEVED what they wrote which is a far cry from making up a lie which they knew to be false and then spreading it around.
Agreed?
Hate to string you along like this but no I don't assert that the authors believed what they wrote. I merely find it even less likely that they were part of a mass conspiracy to promote a profitable fiction. Not out of the question mind you. But in general I shy away from conspiracy theories.
What I prefer to say is I just don't have any opinion about that. The reason being that I don't really care.
Quote: I merely find it even less likely that they were part of a mass conspiracy to promote a profitable fiction.
Way too modern a concept. We know that gmark came first and the others were essentially fanfics written for different audiences at a later time. Since there was no "canon" it seems that the various and scattered communities which later came to identify as xtians each had local favorites. When the various "bishops" gathered the ones with the biggest fan clubs were the ones that got in in a manner quite similar to how a conference committee irons out differences in legislation passed by the House and Senate. As Bismark said, never watch laws or sausages being made. He might have included "bibles" in that!
Quote: I merely find it even less likely that they were part of a mass conspiracy to promote a profitable fiction.
Way too modern a concept. We know that gmark came first and the others were essentially fanfics written for different audiences at a later time. Since there was no "canon" it seems that the various and scattered communities which later came to identify as xtians each had local favorites. When the various "bishops" gathered the ones with the biggest fan clubs were the ones that got in in a manner quite similar to how a conference committee irons out differences in legislation passed by the House and Senate. As Bismark said, never watch laws or sausages being made. He might have included "bibles" in that!
How do we know that Mark came first?
When did he produce the first gospel, Min, and where did he get his material?
May 17, 2015 at 12:35 am (This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 12:42 am by robvalue.)
Here is what I consider to be one of the biggest problems. The ressurection is usually central to the theology. But there's much doubt over whether it is actually even a legitimate original account. Many think it contains a forgery added later. The original "short" version is hardly convincing that anything happened beyond the body going missing. In fact, it's downright suspicious. It seems to me that some guy got in there, removed the body, then spread the rumour that he had come back to life. See for yourself; stop reading at the end of verse 8!
(May 16, 2015 at 7:04 pm)abaris Wrote: So what's your take on the trinity?
They're one entity, one spirit, right?
If I fail to explain one of the most complicated doctrines of Christianity adequately, what? Does the problem lie with the doctrine or with me?
But here's something I put together for someone else earlier this year:
Trinity - Basics Understanding the inner life of an infinite, triune God is beyond us, and what we do know is only because of He has chosen to reveal it to us.
There is only one God.
Within that one God are three persons.
They are not three Gods.
How is that possible? Well, consider that a dog is a being but not a person. A man is a being and one person. God is a being and three persons. From this you can see that while we usually think one being = one person, in fact, the number of persons "in" a being can vary depending on the nature of that being.
We have a human nature. God has a divine nature. The three persons who share the one divine nature are referred to by God Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All of them are referred to individually or collectively as "He". The Holy Spirit is not an "It".
Unlike human fathers who are older than their sons, God the Father did not exist before God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Two graphics that might help:
The holy trinity is the cathylick church's way of shoehorning the idea of multiple gods into the idea of a single god to ease the transition of the pagan heathens when christeranity started spreading itself through force and conquest. It's the same reason all the pagan holidays survive today under the guise of christer holidays.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
If I fail to explain one of the most complicated doctrines of Christianity adequately, what? Does the problem lie with the doctrine or with me?
But here's something I put together for someone else earlier this year:
Trinity - Basics Understanding the inner life of an infinite, triune God is beyond us, and what we do know is only because of He has chosen to reveal it to us.
There is only one God.
Within that one God are three persons.
They are not three Gods.
How is that possible? Well, consider that a dog is a being but not a person. A man is a being and one person. God is a being and three persons. From this you can see that while we usually think one being = one person, in fact, the number of persons "in" a being can vary depending on the nature of that being.
We have a human nature. God has a divine nature. The three persons who share the one divine nature are referred to by God Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All of them are referred to individually or collectively as "He". The Holy Spirit is not an "It".
Unlike human fathers who are older than their sons, God the Father did not exist before God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Two graphics that might help:
The holy trinity is the cathylick church's way of shoehorning the idea of multiple gods into the idea of a single god to ease the transition of the pagan heathens when christeranity started spreading itself through force and conquest. It's the same reason all the pagan holidays survive today under the guise of christer holidays.
Trinity was only really added as a late addition to the already steaming pile of shit of what they call the bible.
May 17, 2015 at 2:43 am (This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 2:51 am by Mudhammam.)
All of the fuss over the "historical accuracy" of the NT misses some important points. The trouble is that so much of whatever may be historical is infused with Christian mythology, which, while it had some novelty, derived most of its key features from folklore prevalent in Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures (which they in turn largely received from Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Babylonian civilizations before them).
Gods impregnating mortals and having sons - not original to Christianity
Gods coming in the form of mortals - not original to Christianity
A trinity or triad of deities - not original to Christianity
Celestial virgins - not original to Christianity
Divine signs in the stars, birds, heavenly voices, miraculous healings, prophecies, dreams, frenzied states (speaking in tongues), etc. - not original to Christianity
The body is corrupted and one must free themselves of bodily pleasures and pains to attain true spiritual enlightenment - not original to Christianity
Lucifer (he was originally Venus, i.e. the morning star, a title also attributed to Jesus in the NT) - not original to Christianity
Heaven and hell - not original to Christianity
Sacrificing humans/animals as a blood atonement for sins - not original to Christianity
A hero or deity being called Lord, King, and Savior - not original to Christianity
Post mortem appearances - not original to Christianity
The list could go on.
What's more plausible, as a matter of historical accuracy: that a god decided to come to earth and mimic the folklore already prevalent in the world or that a group of religious fanatics applied the common stock of mythology to a man they revered as a god?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
![[Image: 250px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb3%2FShield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg%2F250px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png)
![[Image: geb2[1]___03b612c2fa1e4a5183b656b851dcbce0(301x349).gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=s3.amazonaws.com%2Fwebjam-upload%2Fgeb2%5B1%5D___03b612c2fa1e4a5183b656b851dcbce0%28301x349%29.gif)
