God?

[A.Nonymous]

There is carvings, inscriptions and hieroglyphs depicting people in the sky doing those things.

Greek Mythology is one of the best know Mythologies, with Zeus as the 'god of rain and lord of the sky'(when angry is said to hurl lightning bolts), Poseidon 'god of the sea', Hades 'god of the under world' and another of which is Aris ' god or war'.

Then how do you explain that even though we can explain all of those things in elementary terms today that belief in god is just as high as it ever was? If your theory was correct, belief in god should've disappeared centuries ago.

 

[HalfFrozen]

Then how do you explain that even though we can explain all of those things in elementary terms today that belief in god is just as high as it ever was? If your theory was correct, belief in god should've disappeared centuries ago.

It wouldn't have so many followers as it does now if they didn't re-write it as many times as they did.


Ultimately... now that we know that there is no 'rain god' or 'war god' those gods have been dismissed. Its just a matter of time till people realize how silly the idea of a zombie Jew sounds...


I can't say it any better then Mr. Dawkins.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

 

[A.Nonymous]

It wouldn't have so many followers as it does now if they didn't re-write it as many times as they did.


Ultimately... now that we know that there is no 'rain god' or 'war god' those gods have been dismissed. Its just a matter of time till people realize how silly the idea of a zombie Jew sounds...


I can't say it any better then Mr. Dawkins.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

 

[HalfFrozen]

In what ways has the Christian God been re-written? In what way has the Jewish God been re-written? In what ways has the Islamic God been re-written? These are the three major world religions and are virtually unchanged in their basic philosophy. The "zombie Jew" as you call him has been around for 2,000 years. For 300-400 years we've been able to explain natural phenomena, yet he still hangs around. And there are still Eastern religions and pagan religions who still believe in sun gods, rain gods, etc.....

The "Sinai Bible" is said to have 14,800 differences from todays Bible... From what I have read on the web(never read the Sinai Bible myself)

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod.

Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total).

The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven.

No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts.

They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles.

However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks, marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available.

The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.


The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.

The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

"The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission" seem to make any writtings held by the Church and used to justify their very existence suspect at best.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I've never heard of the Sinai Bible. I've certainly never, ever heard it presented as mainstream Christianity. The core myths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam have not been re-written to make them more appealing.

 

[HalfFrozen]

I've never heard of the Sinai Bible. I've certainly never, ever heard it presented as mainstream Christianity. The core myths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam have not been re-written to make them more appealing.

Maybe your right about not being re-written, but added to is a better subjection.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Maybe your right about not being re-written, but added to is a better subjection.

Ok. In what way have they added to Christianity, Judaism or Islam to make them appeal to the more educated masses who no longer need to believe in a sun god or a moon god? The Sinai Bible has never, ever been presented as the main stream story of Christ.

 

[HalfFrozen]

Ok. In what way have they added to Christianity, Judaism or Islam to make them appeal to the more educated masses who no longer need to believe in a sun god or a moon god? The Sinai Bible has never, ever been presented as the main stream story of Christ.

We will truly never know what was added since the Original Bible has never been found. But I will say this, anything that makes people 'ohh and ahh'(like Miracles, healing blindness, turning water into wine, walking on water and then being crucified and then resurrect) is bound to have followers.

 

[HalfFrozen]

Everyone needs to watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

 

[A.Nonymous]

We will truly never know what was added since the Original Bible has never been found. But I will say this, anything that makes people 'ohh and ahh'(like Miracles, healing blindness, turning water into wine, walking on water and then being crucified and then resurrect) is bound to have followers.

And once again, we do know what the original Christian message was when it began spreading 2000 years ago. We know what the original Judaic message was when it originated thousands of years before that. We know what the original Islamic message was. How has any of that changed?

 

[bbrosen]

He lives.........

 

[HalfFrozen]

And once again, we do know what the original Christian message was when it began spreading 2000 years ago. We know what the original Judaic message was when it originated thousands of years before that. We know what the original Islamic message was. How has any of that changed?

Do you not get that the original bible has never been found? and that NO ONE KNOWS what it actually said...?

Like me, you cant honestly say with certainty that the Modern Day Bible is ANYTHING like the Original.

 

[lunatic59]

Everyone needs to watch this video.

Just so you know, every one of those "questions" are fallacies of logic. Any educated person should know that.

For a fun and educational exercise, why not read up on the top 20 here Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and see if you can determine which logical fallacy each question commits.

BTW, assuming you are wrong in your beliefs because your argument is flawed is also a logical fallacy.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Do you not get that the original bible has never been found? and that NO ONE KNOWS what it actually said...?

Like me, you cant honestly say with certainty that the Modern Day Bible is ANYTHING like the Original.

You're missing my point. We know from historical records and first hand accounts exactly what early Christians taught. We know from Jewish tradition what early early practitioners of Judaism believed. We know from historical and first hand accounts what early Muslims believed and practiced. How has any of this changed in the past few thousand years?

You said, "It (religion) wouldn't have so many followers as it does now if they didn't re-write it as many times as they did." Of the three major religions in the world, please tell me exactly how any of them have been re-written. We know from historical records what their original teachings were.

 

[HalfFrozen]

Just so you know, every one of those "questions" are fallacies of logic. Any educated person should know that.

For a fun and educational exercise, why not read up on the top 20 here Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and see if you can determine which logical fallacy each question commits.

BTW, assuming you are wrong in your beliefs because your argument is flawed is also a logical fallacy.

How are they fallacies exactly?

 

[byteware]

I recently was called out on another Forum I frequent, saying that Atheism IS in fact a Belief/Religion.

And in turn I responded back, "No, no it isn't." And then they blew up and said not believing in one thing is believing in another.

Actually, lacking to believe something is just that... lacking... not believing. I lack to believe there is a 'god' or heaven or hell.

Just wanted to share that.

Many people make this mistake, on both sides of the argument.

There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence that God does not exist.

This is important.

An atheist that simply asserts that they do not believe in God is not exerting a positive belief, simply a lack of belief.

An atheist that asserts that belief in God is a delusion, is expressing a postivie belief (God does not exist).

There is a difference between not believing God exists, and believing God does not exist.

One is a positive belief, and one is not.

Since you have stated that belief in God is a delusion (paraphrasing) it indicates that you have a positive belief that God does not exist.

That is your belief, and because of that you belief others to be wrong.

So yes, YOU, have a belief that God does not exist.

There are other atheists, who see no reason to believe he exists.

It's a subtle distinction,but an important one.

The Bible actually uses the term son of man over and over again throughout the Bible. The term of son of man simply refers to humanity or refers to the human nature of Christ like you've stated. The term is used to refer to various prophets and people through the Bible as well. The reference in Ezekiel seems to apply to the prophet, not the king of Tyer unless I'm reading a different part of the passage than you are. What I see is something along the lines of "Son of man, take up a lamentation against the king of Tyre....." It seems clear that Son of man refers to the prophet and Ezekiel uses this term for himself over and over again.

Yes, so the term son of Man is clearly not referring to Satan.

 

[HalfFrozen]

You're missing my point. We know from historical records and first hand accounts exactly what early Christians taught. We know from Jewish tradition what early early practitioners of Judaism believed. We know from historical and first hand accounts what early Muslims believed and practiced. How has any of this changed in the past few thousand years?

You said, "It (religion) wouldn't have so many followers as it does now if they didn't re-write it as many times as they did." Of the three major religions in the world, please tell me exactly how any of them have been re-written. We know from historical records what their original teachings were.

What historical records prove that the Holy Bible is original.

What first hand accounts have been told? And by whom? And how do we know they are not lying or over exaggerating?

I think that it has been re-written in ways to be more appealing.

 

[lunatic59]

How are they fallacies exactly?

Let's just start with the first question ... It makes assumptions and then for the conclusion to be true we must accept that the primary assumptions are also true. It's called "begging the question" (I forget the Latin terminology).

These fallacies have been commonly used to "prove" or "disprove" points since the times of the Greek civilization (Hence the term 'Aristotelian Logic'). If you familiarize yourself with them, you will not only be able to recognize them when used in an argument, but you'll be able to think more logically as well.

 

[HalfFrozen]

Let's just start with the first question ... It makes assumptions and then for the conclusion to be true we must accept that the primary assumptions are also true. It's called "begging the question" (I forget the Latin terminology).

These fallacies have been commonly used to "prove" or "disprove" points since the times of the Greek civilization (Hence the term 'Aristotelian Logic'). If you familiarize yourself with them, you will not only be able to recognize them when used in an argument, but you'll be able to think more logically as well.

I am aware of fallacies, but the question in itself is questioning the biggest fallacy to date.

 

[A.Nonymous]

What historical records prove that the Holy Bible is original.

What first hand accounts have been told? And by whom? And how do we know they are not lying or over exaggerating?

I think that it has been re-written in ways to be more appealing.

One more time here. It's been re-written how? If you're going to claim that it's been re-written, then prove it. We have all kinds of records on early Christianity. Like it or not, Christianity has a had a huge influence on the history of the western world so the history of Christianity is something that has been studied in depth. There all kinds of historical accounts out there. We certainly have accounts of the past 500-600 years easily.

You stated that belief in sun gods and moon gods disappeared when science gained the ability to explain such things. You stated the only reason other religions have survived is because they've been re-written. I asked for an example of how any of the three major religions have re-written their core beliefs.

 

[lunatic59]

I am aware of fallacies, but the question in itself is questioning the biggest fallacy to date.

Apparently not, because your statement is a perfect example of a Non Sequitur.

 

[HalfFrozen]

One more time here. It's been re-written how? If you're going to claim that it's been re-written, then prove it. We have all kinds of records on early Christianity. Like it or not, Christianity has a had a huge influence on the history of the western world so the history of Christianity is something that has been studied in depth. There all kinds of historical accounts out there. We certainly have accounts of the past 500-600 years easily.

You stated that belief in sun gods and moon gods disappeared when science gained the ability to explain such things. You stated the only reason other religions have survived is because they've been re-written. I asked for an example of how any of the three major religions have re-written their core beliefs.

We are back to the general Question.. Religion.

I am simply saying, they have been changed, I don't know where, or how, but I think they have been. I am not a 100% certain that they have been... but you cannot be 100% certain they are written the same as they were when they were first written.

I could ask the same of you to prove to me that they are the same Beliefs now as they were when they were originally written.

I will search around more and more, but I cannot find any compelling evidence other then people saying "we have records!". I have never seen the records myself so I don't really believe in things I cannot see.(IBgravity)

 

[HalfFrozen]

Apparently not, because your statement is a perfect example of a Non Sequitur.

Ohh, but it is.

 

[HalfFrozen]

While looking at the bible, why not go into it a tad bit?

What is your take on god's approval of Slavery?

 

[A.Nonymous]

We are back to the general Question.. Religion.

I am simply saying, they have been changed, I don't know where, or how, but I think they have been. I am not a 100% certain that they have been... but you cannot be 100% certain they are written the same as they were when they were first written.

I could ask the same of you to prove to me that they are the same Beliefs now as they were when they were originally written.

I will search around more and more, but I cannot find any compelling evidence other then people saying "we have records!". I have never seen the records myself so I don't really believe in things I cannot see.(IBgravity)

I can easily prove that the core beliefs of Christianity have stayed the same. I can point to the teaching and writings of first century Christian theologians. They're the same teachings as you find today. Granted there are hundreds of thousands of different flavors of Christianity and all of them disagree on something. At the core though, Christians belief that Jesus came to earth, died for the sins of mankind, was resurrected the third day, ascended into Heaven and will return again one day. Those are the core beliefs of all Christians believe. Those beliefs have no changed. You can point to the writings of both Christian and non-Christian writers down through the centuries to back that up. The writings of contemporaries isn't proof to you that something is true?