The Failure of Christianity to Stand Up to Reason.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hmm?

Originally posted by David C
Seems to me that, despite bitpiece objections and sweeping claims of "rubbish", no-one was able to offer any sort of coherent rebuttal to most of the article's points. You seemed to acquit yourself well, though. Were you a seminary student at some point? Why the "deep reverence" for the texts?

Originally posted by Agerg
They cannot and will not, having spent most of their lives believing these fairy tales it'd be pretty damned humiliating for them to even consider the possibility that they might have been mis-led, so they just don't!...They will simply throw excerpts from the bible at you and make unfounded claims to wriggle out of any arguments you throw at them. In these ty ...[text shortened]... ny question there is always a convenient and wit-less answer to be found chaps.. 😉

Originally posted by David C
Seems to me that, despite bitpiece objections and sweeping claims of "rubbish", no-one was able to offer any sort of coherent rebuttal to most of the article's points. You seemed to acquit yourself well, though. Were you a seminary student at some point? Why the "deep reverence" for the texts?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Lets imagine a scenario: "God" as depicted in the bible, is not a god but a being coming down in an invisible spacecraft and further that individual is so scientifically advanced he can do what would only be interpreted as miracles 2 thousand years ago. Heal the sick, etc. part the red sea (he made several trips).
Now this individual, being a powerful pers e our faith, what do you think would be the real response of the pope and the Immams, etc.?

Originally posted by David C
Seems to me that, despite bitpiece objections and sweeping claims of "rubbish", no-one was able to offer any sort of coherent rebuttal to most of the article's points. You seemed to acquit yourself well, though. Were you a seminary student at some point? Why the "deep reverence" for the texts?

Yozzer,

My my, what a list. I would like to offer some things for you to consider, however. To begin with you attack on the Old Testament you say that the stories are mere myth. Have you ever heard of Biblical archaeology? The Bible, in fact, is the only religious text to have a scientific discipline as a basis for its existence which is Biblical archaeology. Therefore, the lie that the Bible is a book of myths does not fit the bill my friend. However, if you wish to debunk certain details about each story you can certainly try if you like.

As far as your insistance that Christian people sacrifice animals for their sins, I would point out that Christ has replaced the need for animal sacrifice. Christ is referred to as the lamb of God and has become the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

Your objection of Christians eating "unclean" animals is covered in Acts chapter 11. Peter is given a vision of unclean animals and God commands him to eat and partake. Each time Peter objects and says that the animals are unclean and should not be eaten. Each time God responds that "What God has cleansed, he should not call unclean". This, of coarse, is in light of the fact that Saul had recently been converted to the faith despite having been a known persecuter of Chrisitians before his conversion. He to is to be welcomed as well by Peter as having been cleansed by God after his conversion. Also Gentiles in general are soon to be welcomed into the family of God once they are converted despite not being Jewish and therefore considered "unclean" by Jews. You see, Christ ushered in a new covenant that opened up conversion to Gentiles and those who were once considered unclean. What God has cleansed, whether it be man or beast, let no man call unclean.

In reference to killing people who break the sabbath I would draw your attention to a similair example of someone who deserved death according to Mosaic law. The woman caught in adultery in John 8:7 was in a similair situation. Christ did not deny their right to stone her according to Mosaic law rather he said he that is without sin cast the first stone. You see Christ ushered in a new era of grace and a new way to deal with the sinner. He came to destroy the works of sin in peoples lives so that their lives could then be spared. It was no longer necessary to destroy the sinner in order to destroy their sinful ways that infected the society they lived in.

You brought up the issure of Christians worshiping idols. You say that Christians worship images such as the crucifix. If this is so, then it is idol worship. I, however, to not worship inanimate objects. In reality, idol worship is anything that replaces God as being your first priority in life. It could be a myriad of things and not simply images or sculptures. The first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you keep this commandment, you will keep all the others without even trying.

To sum up your attack on the Old Testament I would say that the majority of your beef should be with modern day Jews and not modern day Christians. After all, as far as Christians are concerned, Christ ushered in a new era of grace that is a new and better era that replaced the ear of the Old Testament.

Yozzer,

I have never heard of the account of the tampering with the gospel of Mark as you before mentioned. I will look into it, however. I must admit it does sound very "Da Vinci Codish", however. If you are into fantasy, I suggest you read the Da Vinci Code. If what you say is true, however, you are only talking about a small snap shot of scripture that was taken out to hide some sort of homosexual misdonduct. However, if it had not been taken out, assuming it had in the first place, it would not have proven any homosexual misconduct in any way, rather, it may have merely been interpreted in such a way.

As far as your attack on the lineages of Christ, you are making several assumptions. The first of which is that these lineages are exhaustive and in order. The second assumption is that the lineages are of Joseph only. Could it be that one is for Joseph and the other for Mary? After all, Jesus was not the product of the seed of Joseph. However, Joseph was his earthly father and would therefore have equal importance in terms of lineage as was Mary's lineage according to Jewish custom. I have heard many convincing arguements as to the later and I will try to expound on this issue further if you like.

Your assumption that Herod did not attempt to kill off the male children in Bethlehem is problematic. What is known for certain about Herod is that he existed and that he was a ruthless, paranoid, dictator who would kill any one or anything that he even suspected as possibly challenging his rule. This is undeniable truth. I was watching several secular documentaries on the birth of Jesus last year during Christmas. It was interesting to me that one documentary suggested that the story of Herod killing off the male children in Bethlehem was mere fantasy due to the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an event. The other documentary, however, suggested that Bethlehem was such an insignificant and sparsly populated area during that time that such an event would not have merited historical coverage of any kind. I am sure Herod did similar dispicable acts that are not recorded in the anals of history. Both perspective were secular and both were backed by a myriad of different theologens and historians.

In regards to your pointing out that there are many misconceptions about Jesus that are not backed by scripture, I provide no arguement against such a statement and agree.

Your bit about Jesus not being a rabbi due to the fact that he had no formal education and was not married, let me just remind you of one thing, who were his subjects? Were they the religious leaders? No, in fact they were mere fishermen and considered common folk. In fact, he only had 12 disciples. As far as you bringing up books such as the gospel of Mary to suggest that Jesus had a wife, I have no need to defend such books. AFter all, I thought you were attacking the Bible and not a myriad of other heretical books.

The next assumption of Jesus being a pacifist is no where to be seen in scripture. In fact, I started a thread about the issue a while back if you care to review it. My conclusion was and is that Christ was in no way a pacifist. Every one has a fight, if you will. For Christ, his fight was to see that the will of his Father was accomplished. This is why he drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. They were in his Fathers house and were defiling the temple and distracting the worshipers. They were effecting the spiritual realm by their intrusion. Christs fight is and was soley involving the spiritual realm and fulfilling the will of the Father. If physical violence is needed to defend this spiritual realm then so be it. Turning the other cheek, however, was a teaching that involves Christians not getting to wrapped up in the physical realm. As the scriptures state, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness" Turning the other cheek expounds upon this teaching. If you think Christ to be a pacifist you may want to take a peek at the book of Revelation and see how Christ restores order when he returns. When he returns the era of grace will have ended and he will rule with a rod of iron, as the scriptures state. You mistake both the tactics and essence of his fight. Make no mistake about it, his life came to a violent end and one in which he knew beforehand. Does this sound like a pacifist to you? for me he does not sound like someone I would like to mess with, if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unfortunately, despite the plagarism, even the original author is without an original thought. Moreover, despite lack of originality of thought, there exists a permeation of lack of common sense, let alone even a moderate level of scholarship. Even within the first few paragraphs of rants, the author reveals his appalling lack of grasp of history.

Giv ...[text shortened]... lusionary mistakes, is it profitable to entertain a blow-by-blow for the rantings of a blowhard?

I wish to comment on two points you've raised.

Originally posted by whodey
As far as your insistance that Christian people sacrifice animals for their sins, I would point out that Christ has replaced the need for animal sacrifice. Christ is referred to as the lamb of God and has become the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

So you acknowledge the possibility that God can retract commandments from His law. So,
theoretically, God could say: Murder is no longer a sin. Go have fun.

In reference to killing people who break the sabbath I would draw your attention to a similair example of someone who deserved death according to Mosaic law. The woman caught in adultery in John 8:7 was in a similair situation. Christ did not deny their right to stone her according to Mosaic law rather he said he that is without sin cast the first stone. You see Christ ushered in a new era of grace and a new way to deal with the sinner. He came to destroy the works of sin in peoples lives so that their lives could then be spared. It was no longer necessary to destroy the sinner in order to destroy their sinful ways that infected the society they lived in.

While I agree that it is no longer necessary given what I think is an accurate reading of
this 'Johannine' passage (I bet you didn't know that it was a later editorial insert probably of
Lucan origin), nothing that Jesus did excludes the possibility that people might still be
permitted to do this. That is, Jesus did not deny their right to do this, He simply asked them
to look at their own hearts. If they had continued, Jesus wouldn't have been able to object,
for the Law permitted this action; He simply would have known their motivations.

So, while it might encourage people to look inwardly, it falls within the confines of God's Law.

Certainly you don't think that God's Law would encourage you to sin, do you?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Agerg
their reply would be..."doh!" 😀


in this hypothetical scenario [i](to me it is far more plausible that a few charismatic philosophers got their heads together and decided that a *god* must be the explaination for all those things they didn't understand, made up a few silly stories to make it more credible and plug any holes in their arguments before then ...[text shortened]... actually drown then they made a mistake and they weren't witches afterall...wtf!!! 😕😀🙄

Originally posted by David C
Seems to me that, despite bitpiece objections and sweeping claims of "rubbish", no-one was able to offer any sort of coherent rebuttal to most of the article's points. You seemed to acquit yourself well, though. Were you a seminary student at some point? Why the "deep reverence" for the texts?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What point are you refering too?
Kelly

Originally posted by David C
You want to work on just one? OK, how about the "Jesus was Celibate" point. Seems clear enough his "ministry" as a Jewish preacher would have been hamstrung by the "thin, neat and single" angle. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What a shock! You resort to mere insults and discrediting the writer rather than tackling the
argument (which you fail to acknowledge exists!).

And, pretending you did present an argument, if someone with some theological wherewithal
were to respond, you'd toss out some smoke bombs, try to distract and, when the person
presenting actual information were to press, you'd cry foul and give up.

You should be ashamed.

Nemesio