Support NeoGAF

[RAÏSanÏa]

Following up on the Ptolemaic line of thinking regarding Christian origins mentioned earlier:

History of Israel: Hellenistic and Maccabean Era Rulers

catholic-resources.org

PTOLEMIES (rulers in Egypt) mentioned in the Bible (including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books):

• Ptolemy I "Soter" (a.k.a. Ptolemy Lagi) - one of the Greek generals who fought each other in the Wars of the Diodochi (not directly named, but alluded to in the dreams and visions of Daniel 2:3, 41-43; 7:20a, 24a; 8:8, 22); founder of the dynasty that rules Egypt and surrounding territories for most of the three centuries before Christ; founded the famous library of Alexandria.
• [Ptolemy II "Philadelphus" - advanced the Hellenization of Egypt and the prominence of Alexandria; had the Septuagint (LXX) translated; not mentioned in the Bible]
• [Ptolemy III "Euergetes" - not mentioned in the Bible]
• Ptolemy IV "Philopator" - the entire book called 3 Maccabees deals with three episodes during his reign in Egypt, 221-204 BCE; he is mentioned as "Philopator" in 3 Macc 1:1; as "Ptolemy" in 1:2, 6; and as "Ptolemy Philopator" in 3 Macc 3:12; 7:1;
• [Ptolemy V "Epiphanes" - his crowning is commemorated on the Rosetta Stone; not mentioned in the Bible]
• Ptolemy VI "Philometor" - his armies are defeated when Antiochus IV Epiphanes invades Egypt (1 Macc 1:16-19); he agrees to an alliance through the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra II with Alexander Balas (10:51-66); he attempts to take over the Seleucid territories, which ends in his own death and that of Alexander Balas (11:1-19); one of his teachers was the Jewish priest Aristobulus (2 Macc 1:10); his territory provided refuge for people fleeing from the Seleucids (2 Macc 9:29, explicitly names him "Ptolemy Philometor"; see also 2 Macc 4:21; 10:13; and 4 Macc 4:22); he is probably also the one mentioned, along with his wife Cleopatra, in the postscript to Esther (11:1; addition F), but several other Ptolemies were also married to women named Cleopatra.
• [Ptolemy VII "Neos Philopator" - not mentioned in the Bible]
• Ptolemy VIII "Euergetes II" or "Physcon" - receives a letter from Roman consul Lucius (1 Macc 15:15-21)
  
• Note 1: The Books of the Maccabees mention several other people named "Ptolemy," apart from the above rulers:
  
  • Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes (1 Macc 3:38); adviser to king Antiochus IV (2 Macc 4:45-46; 6:8); later becomes governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia (2 Macc 8:8); probably the same person as:
  • Ptolemy, who was called Macron (2 Macc 10:12) - supports Antiochus IV during his invasion of Cyprus 168 BCE.
  • Ptolemy, son of Abubu (1 Macc 16:11); son-in-law of Simon Maccabeus; he kills Simon and his sons Judas and Mattathias in 134 BC near Jericho (1 Lacc 16:11-18).
  • Ptolemy, son of Dositheus (Esther 11:1) - father and son together deliver a letter about the events of Purim to people in Egypt.
  • Ptolemy, father of Lysimachus (Esther 11:1 - a resident of Jerusalem whose son (Lysimachus) translated the aforementioned letter.
• Note 2: There is also a city called "Ptolemais" (ancient Acco), renamed after the Ptolemies in the 3rd cent. BCE; an important port on the Mediterranean (just north of modern Haifa); citizens of Ptolemais fought against the Maccabees and were generally hostile against the Jews (see 1 Macc 5:15, 22, 55; 10:1, 39, 56-60; 11:22-24; 12:45-48; 13:21; 2 Macc 6:8[var.]; 13:24-25); in the mid-first century CE, Paul visits Ptolemais, where there are already some Christians (Acts 21:7).

--
Ptolemy II with the translation of the Septuagint for that particular Jewish community would create lasting goodwill toward the royal line that would be remembered. Notable that it wasn't mentioned in the Bible.
The absence of this detail in the Bible is intriguing. An assumption that those reading it would know that info? Intentionally left out/removed?

This is really helping speculation that the characters and story of Jesus and Mary may be partly based on Cleopatra VII and Caesarion.

There's an interesting line currently on wikipedia regarding Caesarian:
In 34 BC, Antony granted further eastern lands and titles to Caesarion and his own three children with Cleopatra in the Donations of Alexandria. Caesarion was proclaimed to be a god, a son of [a] god, and "King of Kings". This grandiose title was "unprecedented in the management of Roman client-king relationships" and could be seen as "threatening the 'greatness' of the Roman people".[7]

The syncretics of Alexandria really created a Beast in response to Rome.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Before they were created God knew that they would fail. In the same manner anyone who is wanting to have a kid knows that at some point their child is going to hurt themself or hurt someone else. It's an inevitability.

God made it so. How can anyone resist the design of their creator? When a machine is made with a flaw and the flaw manifests itself, is it the fault of the machine or the one who made it? I didn't design children. If I had I wouldn't have made them poop. God designed His children though, so any behavior they display comes directly from Him. Even free choice is something He designed. Anything that flows from free will can still be attributed to God.

God didn't create sin.

God created everything, including sin. If He didn't want there to be sin, it would not exist. I think my argument hinges on this.

He didn't do this in the first place because then there wouldn't be a choice. God wanted us to have a choice.

But is it really a choice though? Either you do what God wants you to, or you suffer the consequences. It's like I give you the choice between eating my cookies or starving. Technically you have a choice, but starving is not a realistic alternative. You're entirely dependent on me and my cookies.

If I could prove God was real and everything in the Bible was correct would you still chose to reject Him, or would you despise Him for what you perceive to be His wrongdoings? A lot of people who argue against God would reject Him because they blame Him for the evil that is in the world, or they just can't accept that they aren't in control. There's really no point in talking to those people about God because they aren't searching for truth. They're searching for an answer that says the way they're living is fine.

If everything in the Bible was fact, then I wouldn't reject God since the Bible says He is just and kind. But His plan still wouldn't make much sense to me, and I completely understand why people could reject God. It's true that He put us in a room with evil and suffering. He also allows His children to suffer for eternity. What He says and does seem like two entirely different things. I think you dismiss their concerns a bit too easily.

I absolutely do not mind. You aren't a radical person who is hell-bent on causing trouble. These are conversations that I think are helpful. It's two sides disagreeing, and both sides giving reasons why they believe what they believe. All without resorting to nasty remarks or insults. This is the way all people should engage in discussion. Also, I know my responses are a bit on the long side. I hope that's not irritating you.

I enjoy reading long posts, so don't worry. I just hope you're not offended when I only react to certain points. I also see a lot of other people replying to you, so I try not to overwhelm you even more.

 

[Javthusiast]

Pussy is god.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Pussy is god.

with Virya, according to some tellings.

Spoiler

 

[FunkMiller]

Pussy is god.

This cannot be argued against.

 

[IFireflyl]

Tell you what, I’ll also ask you the question I’ve tried with the other Christians in this thread, that they’ve all ignored. Let’s see if you can do any better:

Why is your god correct and true, and the other gods worshipped on this planet today are false and wrong?

They all contradict each other, so can’t all be right.

So, why is your Christian god the right one? Why not Hindu? Buddhist? Sikhism? Shinto? Why is his ‘word‘ right, and theirs not?

Every other religion requires you to earn your way into Heaven/paradise/whatever they want to call it. Christianity is the only religion that says you can't earn your way to Heaven. Beyond that, the Bible has actual provable world history which supports it as a historical book. These are a couple of big reasons that Christianity is set apart from other religions.

Your made up God and the lore you LARP with it is has no objective moral standard. It's just a fiction used to establish beneficial discoveries in human relations without having to explain the details to those that can't understand the interplay of complex ideas.
What you call God is just a fiction in your head: a placeholder that you use to validate your limited world view and prejudice about reality without having the difficulty of exploring the nature of it. Which is fine, as long as you accept your lazy ignorance and don't push your personal ultimate view for your mundane life as the ultimate truth.

I'm don't responding to you. I am not posting here to be attacked or insulted as you and several others are doing.

That is not me being hostile. That is me telling you what you are doing. Please don't take it personally. You are telling me your interpretation of what the Bible says, and I'm telling you the Bible says how to conduct slavery with actual quotes from the Bible. I'll even show you.

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Anyone who beats their slave must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result. That means you can beat your slave as much as you want, as long as the slave recovers after a day or two. Why? Because the slave is their property. What is it called when one human owns another human as property? That's called slavery. And the Bible condones it.

A perfect God wouldn't allow slavery in any form.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

How hard is it for God, in his infinite power and infinite time, to just add one more. "You shall not own another human being as property because all are equal under the eyes of your creator". Why couldn't He do that? Is that specific enough?

You're looking at this from our modern viewpoint. Thousands of years ago corporal punishment was the punishment for crimes. The Bible also says you can use physical punishment on kids, and many parents across the world spank their children or slap their hands when they do something wrong. This is no different, except it's being done to a grown person in an age where you knew the punishment for crimes was physical punishment. If a slave/servant refused to work how did you expect them to be punished? But the Bible is clear that the punishment shouldn't be excessive. That's something that people didn't care about just a few centuries ago. People were far more barbaric with recent slavery than the Bible ever allowed for.

God made it so. How can anyone resist the design of their creator? When a machine is made with a flaw and the flaw manifests itself, is it the fault of the machine or the one who made it? I didn't design children. If I had I wouldn't have made them poop. God designed His children though, so any behavior they display comes directly from Him. Even free choice is something He designed. Anything that flows from free will can still be attributed to God.

Man wasn't made imperfect.

God created everything, including sin. If He didn't want there to be sin, it would not exist. I think my argument hinges on this.

Darkness isn't a separate creation than light. Darkness is simply the absence of light. Sin wasn't a creation. Sin is anything that goes against God. We were given the free will to go against God or to not go against God. If God had made us unable to go against Him then he would have created robots. If you love someone and they don't love you back, would you force them to love you?

But is it really a choice though? Either you do what God wants you to, or you suffer the consequences. It's like I give you the choice between eating my cookies or starving. Technically you have a choice, but starving is not a realistic alternative. You're entirely dependent on me and my cookies.

I think a better analogy is people who commit crimes. Before they do the crime they know they risk getting caught and punished. God told us the punishment for breaking the law, and then, knowing we would fail to uphold it, he offered amnesty to those who would accept it and follow Him. It's on the individual whether they want to accept the gift or suffer the punishment for breaking the law.

If everything in the Bible was fact, then I wouldn't reject God since the Bible says He is just and kind. But His plan still wouldn't make much sense to me, and I completely understand why people could reject God. It's true that He put us in a room with evil and suffering. He also allows His children to suffer for eternity. What He says and does seem like two entirely different things. I think you dismiss their concerns a bit too easily.

I absolutely understand the concerns, and I apologize if it sounds like I'm being dismissive of them. The Bible is huge, and the Old Testament in particular is something that is hard to wrap your mind around. A big part of this is that we are using our modern day viewpoint to determine the how and why of what was done several millennia ago when the culture was radically different than it is now.

I do understand why people would reject God. We don't fully understand Him, and that's a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow. However, the Bible does tell us enough about God through the Old and New Testament books to where I think if people really studied it (not just took certain verses and built an entire ideology around it without checking for supporting or contradicting verses in other places) they would see God is not the monster they are making Him out to be. But most people won't take the time for something they aren't leaning towards believing in the first place (which I understand).

I enjoy reading long posts, so don't worry. I just hope you're not offended when I only react to certain points. I also see a lot of other people replying to you, so I try not to overwhelm you even more.

There is definitely a lot!

 

[Chaplain]

Video: Graham Oppy, Guillaume Bignon: Rationality & Religious Experience • The Big Conversation

Graham Oppy is Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University, Australia and a well-known atheist thinker and author. He engages with Guillaume Bignon a Christian philosopher from France whose book ‘Confessions of a French Atheist’ tells the story of his adult conversion to Christianity. (7/1/22)

"1800 years ago in the second century, a man called Diognetus wanted to know what a Christian was. This letter was written to him to explain."

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Nothing stops you to believe the gods you desire i follow the neo-paganism path

I'm a Thelemite and have some overlaps with neo-pagan practices.

Liber Resh is a Thelemite ritual of four daily solar observances and like all natural observances when done outdoors with initiatory dedication creates conditions to expand awareness of apparent heavenly motions and their effects for personal, family and community planning.
Being of the world these natural observances also allow for information to be added from discovery and things like modern planetarium apps for orientation with true celestial motion/distances and points like the galactic core, supergalactic axis, and the recently discovered Earendel to provide a more accurate cosmological observance in spacetime of the universe as perceived by a directed will in a living mind.

The implied metaphysics in these discussions is so much fun.

 

[FunkMiller]

Every other religion requires you to earn your way into Heaven/paradise/whatever they want to call it. Christianity is the only religion that says you can't earn your way to Heaven. Beyond that, the Bible has actual provable world history which supports it as a historical book. These are a couple of big reasons that Christianity is set apart from other religions.

There is as much ’world history’ that supports other religious texts as there is the Bible. They are religions that have been around as long, if not longer, with millions of devout followers.

And why does the method of entering heaven matter? They believe what they believe the same way you do.

So, one more time:

Why is Christianity real and say… Hinduism false? They have as much evidence about their religion as you do about yours. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

 

[Rentahamster]

You're looking at this from our modern viewpoint. Thousands of years ago corporal punishment was the punishment for crimes. The Bible also says you can use physical punishment on kids, and many parents across the world spank their children or slap their hands when they do something wrong. This is no different, except it's being done to a grown person in an age where you knew the punishment for crimes was physical punishment. If a slave/servant refused to work how did you expect them to be punished? But the Bible is clear that the punishment shouldn't be excessive. That's something that people didn't care about just a few centuries ago. People were far more barbaric with recent slavery than the Bible ever allowed for.

Let us take a step back and analyze our discussion so far. You said that I was being hostile by pointing out that you are making excuses for slavery in the Bible. I told you that no hostility is intentioned. I am merely pointing out facts.

I said that God gives clear instructions on how to implement slavery. The actual owning of another person. I asked you how can a perfectly moral being be okay with this, because if a supposedly perfect moral being advocates for something that is obviously immoral in our eyes, then how can His system of morality be perfect? I gave you an example of a clear Bible verse that acknowledges the ownership of another human being as okay and also acknowledges that you are freely able to beat them up as long as they don't die. I pointed out that while I am providing actual Bible quotes from the Word of God, you are merely providing your own mortally fallible interpretation of these texts without any quotes of your own to back it up. To a person who values the Word of God more than the word of man, this should mean something to you.

Here is what you did:

You told me that I'm looking at it from a modern viewpoint. As if that matters to an eternal, perfectly moral deity?

You compared beating slaves to hitting children as punishment. As if that makes it okay?

You said that the Bible is clear that punishment shouldn't be excessive. As if beating them so that they don't die within a day isn't excessive? How about don't beat them at all or better yet don't own other people as property?

You said that people didn't care about it a few centuries ago. As if that matters? We're talking about the morality of God, not the cultural norms of human history.

You said that people were far more barbaric with recent slavery than what the Bible allowed for. Slavery is slavery is slavery, dude. I don't accept your "fact" that recent slavery is more barbaric, and even if I did, why should that matter at all? They're BOTH bad, my friend.


As you can see, my assessment that you are making excuses for slavery in the Bible is accurate. Your argument essentially boils down to, "But it wasn't that bad". You aren't even using scripture to make a case for rebuttal. You asked for specifics, and when I gave them, you avoided answering clearly. Here it is again, one more time, so please answer these questions clearly. Most of them are "yes or no" answers, and if you answer a "yes or no" question with anything other than a yes or a no, that usually means you're avoiding the question. Please pray for God to speak His wisdom through you and answer these questions honestly.

Does the Bible give instructions about how to own another person as property?
Is owning another person as property slavery?
Does the Bible give instructions on how to beat your slaves?
Is owning a human slave a moral action?
Is physically beating a human slave a moral action?
Is what the eternal and all knowing God considered moral in Biblical times unchanged in modern times?
Does the Bible ever condemn slavery at all?
Does God ever give clear instructions that maybe, just maybe, owning other people as property isn't a good idea?
Why couldn't God make an 11th commandment that says, "Thou shalt not own slaves"?

Please answer these questions directly. You asked for specifics and I gave them to you. Now I am humbly asking for you to return the favor.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

So, one more time:

Why is Christianity real and say… Hinduism false? They have as much evidence about their religion as you do about yours. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

Christianity's premise hinges on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. That is the entirety of the Christian argument over the rest.

 

[IFireflyl]

There is as much ’world history’ that supports other religious texts as there is the Bible. They are religions that have been around as long, if not longer, with millions of devout followers.

And why does the method of entering heaven matter? They believe what they believe the same way you do.

So, one more time:

Why is Christianity real and say… Hinduism false? They have as much evidence about their religion as you do about yours. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

Again, I'm not going to argue this point. Arguing was never my purpose in responding in this thread. I believe that the Christian God is real, and I stated the reasons I believe it. I'm not trying to convert you, and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of comparing Christianity to other religions. You're going to believe what you're going to believe. I answered your question regarding why I believe in the Bible and in the Christian God. That is as far as I will take that.

Let us take a step back and analyze our discussion so far. You said that I was being hostile by pointing out that you are making excuses for slavery in the Bible. I told you that no hostility is intentioned. I am merely pointing out facts.

I said that God gives clear instructions on how to implement slavery. The actual owning of another person. I asked you how can a perfectly moral being be okay with this, because if a supposedly perfect moral being advocates for something that is obviously immoral in our eyes, then how can His system of morality be perfect? I gave you an example of a clear Bible verse that acknowledges the ownership of another human being as okay and also acknowledges that you are freely able to beat them up as long as they don't die. I pointed out that while I am providing actual Bible quotes from the Word of God, you are merely providing your own mortally fallible interpretation of these texts without any quotes of your own to back it up. To a person who values the Word of God more than the word of man, this should mean something to you.

Here is what you did:

You told me that I'm looking at it from a modern viewpoint. As if that matters to an eternal, perfectly moral deity?

You compared beating slaves to hitting children as punishment. As if that makes it okay?

You said that the Bible is clear that punishment shouldn't be excessive. As if beating them so that they don't die within a day isn't excessive? How about don't beat them at all or better yet don't own other people as property?

You said that people didn't care about it a few centuries ago. As if that matters? We're talking about the morality of God, not the cultural norms of human history.

You said that people were far more barbaric with recent slavery than what the Bible allowed for. Slavery is slavery is slavery, dude. I don't accept your "fact" that recent slavery is more barbaric, and even if I did, why should that matter at all? They're BOTH bad, my friend.

Again, you're being the aggressor here. You're coming at this with a viewpoint that you're right and I'm wrong, and you're speaking to me in argumentative ways (like when you say that I am excusing slavery).

Does the Bible give instructions about how to own another person as property?

Yes.

Is owning another person as property slavery?

Yes.

Does the Bible give instructions on how to beat your slaves?

It doesn't say how to beat slaves, but it does say how not to beat them.

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." - Exodus 21:26-27

Is owning a human slave a moral action?

It depends on the context. Slavery in the 1700s and 1800s was immoral. That was slavery and oppression. The slavery you're mentioning in the Bible isn't oppressive.

Is physically beating a human slave a moral action?

It depends on the context. A misbehaving child can be spanked without excessive foce and it would not be considered to be immoral. On the other hand, if the punishment for that child was getting punched in the face it would be considered immoral.

Is what the eternal and all knowing God considered moral in Biblical times unchanged in modern times?

God's morality is unchanged.

Does the Bible ever condemn slavery at all?

The Bible doesn't condemn slavery, but it does condemn attitudes and actions in regards to the treatment of slaves.

Does God ever give clear instructions that maybe, just maybe, owning other people as property isn't a good idea?

No. But again, the slavery in the Bible isn't the slavery we had in the last few centuries. Slaves weren't permanently slaves unless they chose to be, and they had to be treated fairly.

Why couldn't God make an 11th commandment that says, "Thou shalt not own slaves"?

He could have. Again, slavery in the Bible isn't modern slavery. To become a slave you had to either be a criminal/prisoner of war, or to voluntarily put yourself into slavery. There were strict rules around it, and no one was a slave longer than 6 years (previously I was saying 7, but I was a year off) unless they elected to remain a slave.

A slave was part of the Israelite community:

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. - Genesis 17:12-13

A slave had the same days of rest and holidays as non-slaves:

“Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed." - Exodus 23:12

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave[a] in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. - Deuteronomy 5:13-15

And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your sons and your daughters, your male servants and your female servants, and the Levite that is within your towns, since he has no portion or inheritance with you. - Deuteronomy 12:12

Hebrew slavery was not a permanent condition unless the slave elected to remain:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. - Exodus 21:2

Non-Hebrew slaves could be owned longer than 6 years, but every Year of Jubilee all slaves were freed and all debts forgiven regardless of how long the slave had been in bondage.

I repeat: slavery that we knew in the last few centuries was nothing like the slavery the Israelite people used in the Old Testament. God expects fair and just treatment even to slaves. He expects the same level of compassion and mercy as a non-slave would have. Slavery in the Old Testament was no different than indentured servitude (for Hebrews) or prison (for non-Hebrews).

 

[nikolino840]

I'm a Thelemite and have some overlaps with neo-pagan practices.

Liber Resh is a Thelemite ritual of four daily solar observances and like all natural observances when done outdoors with initiatory dedication creates conditions to expand awareness of apparent heavenly motions and their effects for personal, family and community planning.
Being of the world these natural observances also allow for information to be added from discovery and things like modern planetarium apps for orientation with true celestial motion/distances and points like the galactic core, supergalactic axis, and the recently discovered Earendel to provide a more accurate cosmological observance in spacetime of the universe as perceived by a directed will in a living mind.

The implied metaphysics in these discussions is so much fun.

I have only one rule that Gerald Gardner (the founder of the Wicca) have stolen from aleister crowley "do what thou wilt" but he added "An ye harm none, do what ye will"

So there's no right and wrong choosing your own ideas or practice your faith

 

[FunkMiller]

Again, I'm not going to argue this point. Arguing was never my purpose in responding in this thread. I believe that the Christian God is real, and I stated the reasons I believe it. I'm not trying to convert you, and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of comparing Christianity to other religions. You're going to believe what you're going to believe. I answered your question regarding why I believe in the Bible and in the Christian God. That is as far as I will take that.

Fair enough. That’s generally the answer I was expecting. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it. It’s very uncomfortable for a person of any faith to start comparing what they believe to what millions of others believe, because it starts to raise difficult and very obvious questions.

 

[FunkMiller]

Christianity's premise hinges on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. That is the entirety of the Christian argument over the rest.

Not much of an argument then!

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I have only one rule that Gerald Gardner (the founder of the Wicca) have stolen from aleister crowley "do what thou wilt" but he added "An ye harm none, do what ye will"

So there's no right and wrong choosing your own ideas or practice your faith

In Thelema Do what thou wilt is balanced with love under will.
An acknowledgement and alignment with Agape.

Obvious ties with Christianity and world religions as well as science.
The method of science, the aim of religion. so the motto goes.
Syncretism, like in ancient Alexandria, is central.

Regaining control of the Christ egregore as part of its Second Coming reprogramming may also be contained in the Book of the Law.

 

[93xfan]

There's even New Testament passages that were used to justify slavery as recent as the 19th century.

Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

“And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” Ephesians 6:9

To add a little balance to the conversation. This sounds more in line with an employer/employee-like relationship. It’s at least ahead of the rest of the world in terms of mercy at that time.

Also, keep in mind that God said anyone who kidnaps and puts someone in chains is to be put to death.

 

[lukilladog]

Is not this entire thread about the metaphysical beliefs and it's percentages in the US? And being a discussion on metaphysics pointless as by definition unable to be proven. It can be disproven, but then that does not equal proving non existence.

The entire argument is futile. And in my opinion a 16 page exercise in both sides ignoring this fundamental fact and exercising the hubris in engaging in high level arguments while ignoring the basics just to stroke the ego of conversation is evidence of a lack of discourse and proof everyone is talking at each other instead of with each other.

Metaphysical ideas definitely exist (as a concept) and can be proven logical or illogical.

 

[IFireflyl]

Fair enough. That’s generally the answer I was expecting. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it. It’s very uncomfortable for a person of any faith to start comparing what they believe to what millions of others believe, because it starts to raise difficult and very obvious questions.

Don't twist my words. It's not that it's uncomfortable for me to discuss. You're leading me into what is nothing more than an argumentative discussion that serves no benefit. I plainly said I am happy to discuss what I believe in a civil manner. I can do that without attacking someone else's beliefs.

 

[FunkMiller]

Don't twist my words. It's not that it's uncomfortable for me to discuss. You're leading me into what is nothing more than an argumentative discussion that serves no benefit. I plainly said I am happy to discuss what I believe in a civil manner. I can do that without attacking someone else's beliefs.

I’m not asking you to attack anyone’s beliefs. Why would you think that?

I‘m asking you to tell us why your belief system is correct, and every other one is wrong.

So… why? Why is Christianity (2000 years old) correct, and Hinduism (4000 + years old) incorrect? Each has millions of worshippers. Each has holy books. Each has about as much evidence for its scripture as the other. Each has creation myths, god figures, parables, morality plays, codes of conduct, tenets etc.

Why are you right, and they wrong?

 

[Ulysses 31]

So… why? Why is Christianity (2000 years old) correct, and Hinduism (4000 + years old) incorrect? Each has millions of worshippers. Each has holy books. Each has about as much evidence for its scripture as the other. Each has creation myths, god figures, parables, morality plays, codes of conduct, tenets etc.

Or 600 AD when the Archangel Gabriel revealed the "Quran" which is the perfect word of God.

 

[IFireflyl]

I’m not asking you to attack anyone’s beliefs. Why would you think that?

I‘m asking you to tell us why your belief system is correct, and every other one is wrong.

So… why? Why is Christianity (2000 years old) correct, and Hinduism (4000 + years old) incorrect? Each has millions of worshippers. Each has holy books. Each has about as much evidence for its scripture as the other. Each has creation myths, god figures, parables, morality plays, codes of conduct, tenets etc.

Why are you right, and they wrong?

I have explained why I believe in God and Jesus. Every other religion requires you to earn your way into Heaven/paradise/whatever you want to call it. Christianity is the only religion that says you can't earn your way to Heaven, but that God loves us so He made a way for us to be reconciled with him in spite of our faults. Every other religion says that you have the ability to make it on your own. They are religions that chase self.

Additionally, the Bible isn't just a Holy book. It is also historical. The entire new Testament happened within the last 2,000 years, and there are historical documents, even non-religious documents, that confirm the existence of Jesus. Athiest scholars don't deny that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who lived and died in the first century.

Also, the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other ancient text in history. By the way, that isn't my claim. Atheist scholar Bart Herman stated this, and it is a largely undisputed fact.

Beyond being the most preserved historical document, the New Testament also has the shortest time from when the events occurred to when it was written - within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

For comparison to the above:

• Many of Buddhism's major documents were written 600 to 900 years after Buddha's death.
• The oldest Hindu text is dated between 1200 and 900 B.C.
• The Qur'an (Islam) was written between 600 and 650 A.D, which was about 600 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

After Christianity, the three religions listed above are the most popular religions. None of their texts were preserved so well as the New Testament texts. None of them were written in a timely manner from when the events in the texts occurred. The Qur'an has been around for far less time than Christian texts. Buddhist texts were around a little longer, but only by a couple of decades (and were still written centuries after the fact). Hindu texts have been around longer than Christian texts, but they're also far less historically verifiable than Christian texts as Hindu texts muddle their history with myth and theology. Hinduism is openly confirmed to have a lot of mythology intertwined in its texts.

The above leads me to the conclusion that Christianity is the correct religion. Texts are verifiable by atheists (even if they don't believe the contents). Texts were written in a very short time from when the events occurred. Many of the events are historically verified (such as Jesus of Nazareth living and being crucified). This is more than enough reason for me to chose Christianity over another (far less verifiable) religion.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Love the eschatological lyrics in this legendary song.


When they said "repent" I wonder what they meant.

You don't know me from the wind
You never will, you never did
I'm the little Jew
Who wrote the Bible
I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
But love's the only engine of survival

There'll be the breaking of the ancient
Western code
Your private life will suddenly explode (ooh, ooh)
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road

The mood generated can almost possess a person with the memories of this character.

 

[Blade2.0]

Pussy is god.

Don't forget it.

 

[Halo is Back]

We don’t loathe you. We feel bad for you, because you live under a self delusion that can cause a great deal of harm to you, others around you, and society in general.

We can’t just let people believe what they want to believe, because with that belief comes intolerance, division and hate. It should be challenged.

And no one has ‘attacked’ anyone else. You’re using snowflake language. It’s all been pretty good natured, to be honest.

Maybe religious people don't want your pity, and saying something like this really comes off as elitist and intolerant of their beliefs.

 

[FunkMiller]

I have explained why I believe in God and Jesus. Every other religion requires you to earn your way into Heaven/paradise/whatever you want to call it. Christianity is the only religion that says you can't earn your way to Heaven, but that God loves us so He made a way for us to be reconciled with him in spite of our faults. Every other religion says that you have the ability to make it on your own. They are religions that chase self.

Additionally, the Bible isn't just a Holy book. It is also historical. The entire new Testament happened within the last 2,000 years, and there are historical documents, even non-religious documents, that confirm the existence of Jesus. Athiest scholars don't deny that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who lived and died in the first century.

Also, the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other ancient text in history. By the way, that isn't my claim. Atheist scholar Bart Herman stated this, and it is a largely undisputed fact.

Beyond being the most preserved historical document, the New Testament also has the shortest time from when the events occurred to when it was written - within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

For comparison to the above:

• Many of Buddhism's major documents were written 600 to 900 years after Buddha's death.
• The oldest Hindu text is dated between 1200 and 900 B.C.
• The Qur'an (Islam) was written between 600 and 650 A.D, which was about 600 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

After Christianity, the three religions listed above are the most popular religions. None of their texts were preserved so well as the New Testament texts. None of them were written in a timely manner from when the events in the texts occurred. The Qur'an has been around for far less time than Christian texts. Buddhist texts were around a little longer, but only by a couple of decades (and were still written centuries after the fact). Hindu texts have been around longer than Christian texts, but they're also far less historically verifiable than Christian texts as Hindu texts muddle their history with myth and theology. Hinduism is openly confirmed to have a lot of mythology intertwined in its texts.

The above leads me to the conclusion that Christianity is the correct religion. Texts are verifiable by atheists (even if they don't believe the contents). Texts were written in a very short time from when the events occurred. Many of the events are historically verified (such as Jesus of Nazareth living and being crucified). This is more than enough reason for me to chose Christianity over another (far less verifiable) religion.

So much of this is not true, or twisted out of all sense, I have no idea where I’d even begin to start (you reference and misname Bart D. Ehrman for starters, but completely fail to state what he actually says about the existence of God, and the fact he clearly states that many new testament books are forgeries - link here). Your indoctrination is very complete, my friend. I’d ask you to reflect on the sources that you get your information from, but there really wouldn’t be much point.

 

[FunkMiller]

Maybe religious people don't want your pity, and saying something like this really comes off as elitist and intolerant of their beliefs.

Nice attempt to twist my words. I’m intolerant of beliefs that promote intolerance and division - of which there are many in Christianity.

No atheist would care about what religious people believe or do, if those religious people stopped interfering in other people’s lives.

You don’t want atheists to sound elitist, intolerant or dismissive?

Stop fucking telling the rest of us how to live.

 

[strange headache]

I'm a Thelemite

I've been wondering what particular crazy you've been afflicted by...

 

[kurisu_1974]

So much of this is not true, or twisted out of all sense, I have no idea where I’d even begin to start (you reference and misname Bart D. Ehrman for starters, but completely fail to state what he actually says about the existence of God, and the fact he clearly states that many new testament books are forgeries). Your indoctrination is very complete, my friend. I’d ask you to reflect on the sources that you get your information from, but there really wouldn’t be much point.

Hah same here. So much unfounded nonsense, half thruths and assumptions. This guy does obviously not want to face reality or even learn new information.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Maybe religious people don't want your pity, and saying something like this really comes off as elitist and intolerant of their beliefs.

Nothing is more elitist and intolerant than religion so yeah, no.

 

[Doczu]

I understand that this makes sense to you, but I doubt you would find anyone religious or otherwise that would take the same meaning as you do from it. Why is God existing terrifying? I would be ecstatic to find out that there is a god and an afterlife.

Well which God exists? Is it THE God? Allah? Yahwe? Is he the only one? WAS he the only one? If not, where are the others?
If he is real and afterlife is an option, will i be still me when i die? If there is an afterlife, what about sinners and deniers? Is God truly mercifull, or did we fuck up something in translation?
Is God trully all powerfull andncan he bend the material world to his will?
The mere existence of a god or a species/organism that is god like in our eyes is terrifying, would create more questions than provide answers and would change our lifes forever.

 

[FunkMiller]

Well which God exists? Is it THE God? Allah? Yahwe? Is he the only one? WAS he the only one? If not, where are the others?
If he is real and afterlife is an option, will i be still me when i die? If there is an afterlife, what about sinners and deniers? Is God truly mercifull, or did we fuck up something in translation?
Is God trully all powerfull andncan he bend the material world to his will?
The mere existence of a god or a species/organism that is god like in our eyes is terrifying, would create more questions than provide answers and would change our lifes forever.

Given that god - if he existed - is quite happy to infect tiny, innocent children with painful, fatal and horrifying bone cancer, I'm pretty sure I'd never want to meet him. What kind of psychopathic deity would you have to be to inflict that on one so young?

 

[Nobody_Important]

I understand that this makes sense to you, but I doubt you would find anyone religious or otherwise that would take the same meaning as you do from it. Why is God existing terrifying? I would be ecstatic to find out that there is a god and an afterlife.

I too would be ecstatic to find that there is a greater omnipotent being controlling everything in the universe that doesn't give a damn about me or anyone else regardless of the beliefs of the people involved. A being that allows evil to run rampant and for famine to be widespread.


In fact I can't think of anything in the world that would make me happier.


(Fucking sarcasm btw)

 

[GymWolf]

Given that god - if he existed - is quite happy to infect tiny, innocent children with painful, fatal and horrifying bone cancer, I'm pretty sure I'd never want to meet him. What kind of psychopathic deity would you have to be to inflict that on one so young?

The funny thing is that religious people always says "god never afflict humans with something they can't handle".

Holy shit the irony is through the roof.

 

[GymWolf]

I too would be ecstatic to find that there is a greater omnipotent being controlling everything in the universe that doesn't give a damn about me or anyone else regardless of the beliefs of the people involved. A being that allows evil to run rampant and for famine to be widespread.


In fact I can't think of anything in the world that would make me happier.


(Fucking sarcasm btw)

People doesn't really want to know if a god, and especially heaven\hell really exist.

Imagine how miserable life would be if you coulnd't sin anymore for fear of going to hell, who the fuck wants that?

God really existing would the most miserable news ever for majority of humanity who aren't saints on earth.

And before you ask, yes, walking and killings ants is also a bad sin, if christians fairytales are anything to go by.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The funny thing is that religious people always says "god never afflict humans with something they can't handle".

Holy shit the irony is through the roof.

Let's not forget that the imaginary friend that allows people to die from disease and famine by the billion is also the same one that passed down a set of rules by which we are judged. Rules that decide where we spend eternity depending on how "well" we lived our lives.


Maybe I am just an atheist scumbag, but the omnipotent all powerful being allowing innocent deaths in the billions might not be the best judge of what is right and wrong in my opinion.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I've been wondering what particular crazy you've been afflicted by...

What assumptions are you making that make you think you know anything about the subject?

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Don't expect an answer to that anytime soon. Vampires can't see themselves in mirrors.

 

[Chaplain]

No atheist would care about what religious people believe or do, if those religious people stopped interfering in other people’s lives.

This argument, again, cuts both ways.

“The mythology of modern liberalism has been that it merely establishes a set of background rules that are themselves somehow devoid of moral content-and morality is the decisions that we make about how to live our own lives against those rules ....Practically all laws, whether they forbid me to take your car, outlaw racial discrimination, or coerce the payment of taxes, impose somebody's morality on somebody else. Every law either prevents me from doing something or forces me to do something. The understandable American tendency is to pretend otherwise, as though laws against car theft are without moral content, whereas laws on abortion are dripping in moral judgment. This tendency assists us in evading moral argument but is, of course, deeply uncivil.” (Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter)

Therefore, secular laws also interfere with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian lives.

 

[teezzy]

I'm a Thelemite and have some overlaps with neo-pagan practices.

You kiss your mother with that mouth?!

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

You kiss your mother with that mouth?!

What happens at the masked ball stays at the masked ball.

 

[IFireflyl]

So much of this is not true, or twisted out of all sense, I have no idea where I’d even begin to start (you reference and misname Bart D. Ehrman for starters, but completely fail to state what he actually says about the existence of God, and the fact he clearly states that many new testament books are forgeries - link here). Your indoctrination is very complete, my friend. I’d ask you to reflect on the sources that you get your information from, but there really wouldn’t be much point.

I didn't misname him. My phone auto-corrected his name. I also stated that he is an atheist, so what are you talking about when you say I didn't state what he actually says about the existence of God? Atheists don't believe in God. It's right there.

Additionally, I am not about to quote everything that Bart Ehrman has ever said, but he did say what I said he said. Bruce Metzger was one of the greatest manuscript scholars of the last century. This is a quote from Bart found in the appendix of his book, Misquoting Jesus, on page 252:

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Bart Ehrman rejects God, and he is the one who twists things in his books to try and convince people there is no God. But when confronted with direct questions, and in snippets and sections he has a tendency to admit that the New Testament is well preserved, and he has done so multiple times. This is something you can easily verify.


Please go re-read my last post and quote everything I got wrong. It's easy to say, "You have twisted everything and I don't know where to begin." But that is a copout response. You asked me a question twice. I didn't want to get into it all, but YOU pressed me. Then when I responded you gave this extraordinarily simplistic reply that says I am wrong while failing to provide a counter for anything I said.


If you reply like this again just to be dismissive or argumentative then I'll add you to the list of people I'm not going to respond to because they aren't trying to learn my perspective, but instead are trying to catch me slipping up somewhere so they can tell me why my God is false. I won't engage with conversation with those people.

 

[zcaa0g]

because I think blind belief in anything is laughable, and nothing to be proud of..

80% of Americans believe in a make belief sky daddy, but some of those 80% don't believe or have hard time accepting tangible evidence and scientific theories.. again nothing to be proud of

So you are saying you're extremely uneducated then. Got it.

 

[kurisu_1974]

the New Testament is well preserved, and he has done so multiple times. This is something you can easily verify.

If you reply like this again just to be dismissive or argumentative then I'll add you to the list of people I'm not going to respond to because they aren't trying to learn my perspective, but instead are trying to catch me slipping up somewhere so they can tell me why my God is false. I won't engage with conversation with those people.

What does that even prove or do you think it proves? The wall paintings of cosmonaut gods were also very well preserved and pre-date the Bible. Does that make everything Von Däniken said right?

About the second part, there's absolutely nothing to learn because your perspective is static and quite simplistic. We are trying to understand why it is your perspective, but you won't engage with that.

 

[Halo is Back]

Nice attempt to twist my words. I’m intolerant of beliefs that promote intolerance and division - of which there are many in Christianity.

No atheist would care about what religious people believe or do, if those religious people stopped interfering in other people’s lives.

You don’t want atheists to sound elitist, intolerant or dismissive?

Stop fucking telling the rest of us how to live.

And what exactly is your stance, then? Because it looks like you look down and make fun of people for believing in religion. What exactly are they not allowed to think about that promotes hate and division and what are they allowed to believe in? Do you think there is a middle ground when you see how religion brings people together and promotes healing in communities?

 

[I_D]

Do you think there is a middle ground when you can see how religion brings people together and promote healing in communities?

I don't.

Religion, at its very core, is to support imaginary - rather than realistic - beliefs.

And because religion is based in things that aren't actually real, nobody will ever be able to fully agree upon them, and so religion will always divide people, rather than bring them together.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Do you think there is a middle ground when you see how religion brings people together and promotes healing in communities?

Even in its current ideal circumstance it's poorly understood how religion works in this manner.

There is an effect on the mind when making a genuine acceptance of Jesus Christ in a community. While this may be generated entirely from the Western human psyche with its deep subconscious cultural programming creating a powerful emotional drama it does have a lasting influence upon behavior.

While many Christians seem to be able to contextualize this experience for their own communities to operate within the democratic free world there have lately been many problems with religious zealotry increasing, as is typical historically, as a result of human progress threatening religious civil influence. Squaring the requirements for the personal psychological experience of "God" with apparant fallibility from Holy Lore goes against the hype advertising in the programming.

 

[Majukun]

I don't.

Religion, at its very core, is to support imaginary - rather than realistic - beliefs.

And because religion is based in things that aren't actually real, nobody will ever be able to fully agree upon them, and so religion will always divide people, rather than bring them together.

well, nobody will ever be able to agree on anything...philosophy, politics, the internet..plenty of proof of that.
to me it seems that humans are able to do plenty god and plenty bad with or without religion

 

[FunkMiller]

And what exactly is your stance, then? Because it looks like you look down and make fun of people for believing in religion. What exactly are they not allowed to think about that promotes hate and division and what are they allowed to believe in? Do you think there is a middle ground when you see how religion brings people together and promotes healing in communities?

Did you even read my post?

I would have no issues whatsoever with religious people or the religions they adhere to, if they kept out of everybody else’s business.

And I don’t care what religious people chose to believe. They can believe whatever they like.

The problem is when they force those beliefs on others.

And until that ends, I’ll continue to look down on the religious.

Oh, and try telling women who have had their right to choose what happens to their own body taken away from them that religion brings people together and heals communities.

FML.

 

[Doczu]

Given that god - if he existed - is quite happy to infect tiny, innocent children with painful, fatal and horrifying bone cancer, I'm pretty sure I'd never want to meet him. What kind of psychopathic deity would you have to be to inflict that on one so young?

Oh yeah, back to the sick children.

God - if he existed - told us to fuck off after we decided to eat the Forbidden Fruit.

We had to work our ass off, we felt pain, shame and got sick. There is a path for salvation, but we bear the mark of the Original Sin.

There, an answer to something you could have easily google.

Luckily we have doctors and researchers on this rock that make our life easier and find cures.

and don't even try the good old GoD dOeSnT hElP, iTs AlL tHaNkS tO tHe DoCtoRs

Nobody (bar the fanatical dumbwits) says otherwise.

Regarding the "psychopathic deity" part - who is to say God has to be perfectly nice by human standards? Going by how we "take care" of our planet and animals (specifically lifestock) AND God created us in his image... God might be the biggest asshole of us all. And i say thst as a believer.