About this "terrorism" crap

Ah, Hamma. You're a Bright. Nice to see.

I thought I was one, but after spending time on their message boards, decided it wasn't for me. Too much talk of allowing "Naturalistic gods" and spirit concepts and other garbage.

But overall, an admirable goal and a bunch of smart, smart folks. Never thought I'd see one outside their forums, heh.

 

If you are a student of the Scriptures, you would see that the Book of Leviticus is the Law as handed down to Moses for the nation of Israel from God. It is specificly for and to the Israelites.

The Word of God never assumes anything as assumption implies lack of knowledge. God knows everything so He has no need to assume. The Scriptures deal with all humanity as being equal. Men and women are equally important but with different ministries within His will. You don't hammer in a nail with a china plate and you don't use a hammer on which to serve food.

Because you are reading it wrong doesn't make it a "catch-22".

Lots of people couldn't read back then. But there were lots of people who could, and they were responsible for teaching those who couldn't. Kind of like today.

Excellent!

Okay - first of all you have made a load of assumptions within this paragraph. First of all, I don't think I ever accused you of being a "secular moron" anywhere. I think you are ignorant of certain aspects of theology, but then I am ignorant of certain aspects of plumbing. Neither of us is a moron because of that. Second, and I think this goes back to your original post, this is NOT an order to Christians. This is part of the Law for the Israelite nation. There were NO Christians in the Old Testament. Yes, God is telling the Children of Israel to stone these sinners. That was the penalty for sin - death. Third, I am not Catholic, good or otherwise. Fourth, your abhorrent statement about taking automatic weapons to kill people is asinine and offensive. Drop the dramatics and stick to the debate.

I am not attempting to explain anything away. The Law of Moses had rules and consequences for breaking those rules. Chapter 18 of Leviticus covers the Law in relation to ALL immoral relations, not just homosexual conduct. For each there is a penalty. When referencing the Scriptures, please be prepared to quote them in context and not cherry pick your favorites.

This is not a "Catholic versus the World" thing. Stop assuming that every person who studies theology or the things of God is a Catholic.

(These quotes of Jesus Christ are some of my personal favorites, actually.) Again, you are cherry picking Scriptures and not using the context in which they were written to explore what He was saying.

- In the first text from Matthew, Jesus Christ is speaking to the Jewish Pharisees, those responsible for leading and teaching the Jewish nation spiritually. He was telling them that they were in opposition to Him and His teaching thereby pitting themselves against God. He has proven His diety through many miracles and they were attributing them to Beelzebul (literally "Lord of the flies"). He made a distinction between their real intent and their feigned intent.

- In the second text from John, Jesus is instructing His disciples, more specifically in this verse Thomas, about the fact He was going to have to leave and go back to heaven once He had accomplished His work on the Cross. Thomas was worried because he didn't know where Jesus was going - he was actually displaying a lack of comprehension of who Jesus really was. So Jesus explains that He is the way to the Father - He and Him alone. You must come to know Christ through faith.

I find it amusing that someone who doesn't believe the Bible feels the need to remind someone who does about facts of the Bible.

Nope - no judgment rendering here. I simply believe what it says.

Huh? Of course there is. Any known form of communication has contextual meaning. For instance:

Take the word "root" for example. Depending on the sentence in which it is used will dictate the meaning of that word. For example:
"The root of the problem is..." or "The root of the tree was..." Same word, different context.

What you are referring to is what is called Hermeneutics, or "...the theory behind and methodology on interpretation of literature, especially of Scripture."

Actually there is no heirarchy in true Christianity. According to Scripture, all those who know Christ as Savior are saints and equally able to read, study, and understand the Bible. This comes through the indwelling, at the moment of Salvation, of the Holy Spirit.

So you agree the Bible forbids that, eh?

The mother/son worship cycle did not start with Horus, it actually began in the Old Testament with Nimrod and his wife Semiramus. Nimrod built many great cities (Genesis 10:9-10) in ancient history, but every one of them was linked to perversion and unimaginable practices. When Nimrod died, his wife carried on his rebellious religious practices and when she bore an illegitimate son, she claimed he, Tammuz, was Nimrod reborn. Semiramus made claims that Tammuz was supernaturally conceived and that he was the "promised seed"or the "savior" as promised by God in Genesis 3:15. In his reincarnated form, Tammuz is known by many different names in different cultures: Attis in Italy, Crishna or Iswara in India, Deoius in Asia Minor, Janus in Rome, and yes, our topic, Horus in Egypt.

This thread of lies is not a new tactic by those who reject God's existence.

Herbert Hoover was president. Just because you apperently didn;t listen in history class doesn't mean they didn't.

Actually, if you read the Book of Isaiah - chapter 40:22, which was written about 700 BC it says: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Some scholars believe Isaiah is describing the earth as a globe. Interesting, eh?

Based on the handed down myth I referred to above. Oh, I am sure the Jewish people heard it, but they probably laughed about it like I do since they had the real story.

A few slight differences between Jesus Christ and your toaster god, but one glaring difference that I will mention here. Jesus Christ is a legitimate, historical figure that any serious student of history would neither deny nor claim is nonexistent. Your toaster friend there doesn't have much history, as far as I know. I won't choose to deny he may as yet exist on your counter ready to toast your bread for you. I am sure he may - but one thing I can say is that there is probably more evidence for the life, death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Chris than there is of one single heating element of your toaster god.

My God loves you even though you blaspheme Him and rebel against His love with every breath you take. Yet you continue to take those precious breaths because He desires that none perish, but all come to repentance. He gives you a chance to excape that judgment. He offeres His Son Jesus Christ as your Savior if you would so choose, whether you be woman or man. But He is a just God and sin (rebellion) must be punished. His Son hung for six hours bearing your sin - all you have to do is accept that and believe it is true through faith.

Believe me when I say this - hell is nothing to laugh at and I don't. My honest hope is that not one more person on this planet chooses to go there.

 

Apology accepted. I'm anything but *mean*. I'm not diplomatic and I will call a dog a dog and a cat a cat.

I posted a link to a long and detailed list of fallacious arguments. If you prefer I will list them specifically each time such an agrument is posted. I can go into minute detail, if you wish, about how the arguement is fallacious.

As I said above, I will call a dog a dog. I will call a fallacious argument (dictionary.com ain't helpin ya there) a fallacious argument each and every time I see one.

The question was about "tainting" something unknown from a despicable source, as I recall. So, yep, I prejudge a dispicable source.

If you aren't sure what I mean when you read my writing, ASK. I'll take the time to answer as I have tried to do with pretty much every question asked of me since I entered this discussion. I'm not here to mock or ridicule anyone. Not only is that not in my nature but it is against Teachings of the Church. However, just because you put forth your "ideas" doesn't mean I am required to accept them. You are certainly free to put any and all notions and ideas you have forward, but I am under no obligation to accept them as fact any more than you are mine.

I can say with 100% I have not written anything hateful or hurtful since I entered this discussion. If you feel otherwise, please copy and paste any example where you feel otherwise.

That's good

Nope.

Laid out thru my religion? Hmmmm....no. Thru living to the best of my ability the Teachings of the Church, yes. There is an enormous difference between the 2.

I never turn down applause

 

I knew Asp would have something interesting to add to this!

 

verd...you have become laughable at this point...and i take back my apology...and im glad my applause has given you such a high feeling of self-worth...and when bringing up those fallicous arguments...don't link something that has nothing to do with the statement that you deemed fallicous...explain why you think is indeed fallicous in your eyes...i would think being a christian one would have to have some sense of diplomacy...but..what would i know right...i mean about christianity? i know far more than you think i would know im sure...not implying anything so don't get all defensive mode here...but still...diplomacy is a far better tool for reaching the masses or conveying a point that just hitting someone over the head with a stick..is it not?



oh..and itsthesheppy...*Too much talk of allowing "Naturalistic gods" and spirit concepts and other garbage.* ...a different belief does not make something garbage...it is just a different viewpoint...it may be garbage to you...but no sense in labeling or saying something is worthless..i.e my take on garbage...just because you have no use for it...

 

So am I to take from this that, since the Old Testement (which, by the way, has not been cast out of the bible by the christian church) was given to Isrealites for Isrealites and them only, then it doesn't apply to, say, Americans... then there is no basis whatsoever for claiming its inerrency and we really shouldn't be paying any attention to it at all. Or are you one of those typical moderate christians? The ones that take the good parts of the bible, cite those over and over, and ignore the rivers of blood that flow through the passages you don't like?

Tell me: Is it moral to stone a homosexual to death?

This is going to be fun.

"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Niether was man created for woman, but woman for man." 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

"One of the most sexist institutions in the Western world is the Christian church." ~John Shelby Spong, Episcopalean Bishop

The church has sought pretty much since its inception to marginalize women and keep them quiet and suppressed. They're not allowed to become priests. The only female beacon of the church is the Virgin Mary... who wasn't a virgin mother until the book of Matthew (The book of Matt, which came first, makes no reference to her being a virgin, and niether does Paul, who comes before that.) Matthew was written in the ninth decade. One is forced to wonder why such an amazing concept (Virgin mother) took sixty years after the birth of Christ to circulate. (Mary also had a miraculous birth, and this wasn't introduced into Christian dogma until December 8th, 1854, in a proclamation issued by Pius IX. Awfully long time to wait. Unless they were... gasp... making it up?) Also, Mary Magdelen (can't be bothered to check spelling atm) is theorized by many prominent theologans within the church to have been Christ's wife... and yet she is relegated to the status of a whore. A woman asks for the head of John the baptist. A woman drives a stake through the head of an army general. A woman cuts off Samson's hair and weakens him. Woman is reponsible for original sin.

Christianity has an ugly sexist track record. St. Jerome said, "When a woman wishes to serve Christ more than the world, then she will cease to be a woman and will be called a man." He also said, "Nothing is so unclean as a woman in her periods; what she touches she causes to become unclean."

Leviticus 12:2, 5 states "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean... if she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her mentruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty six days." (Though, to be fair, you've already said nothing in the Old Testement applies to the current-day Christian dogma. Which is interesting, since I don't think the Pope or any practicing priest I've ever met aggrees with you, but maybe you just havn't been discovered yet.)

The bible goes on and on. 1 Cor. 14:34 states that women are to keep quiet in church. 1 Cor. 7:9 states that men are not to marry unless they can control their passions.. 1 Cor. 11:5ff states that women should cover their heads as a sign of respect.

Hell, even the last commandment commands that men not covet their neighbors wives or oxen! What do THOSE two things have in common?

To this day, women are forbidden to be priests. Why? Because they're offensive to god? He thinks they're impure, stupid, loud, annoying, unworthy, simple... what? What possible reason could there be? Or maybe it's just the "job" of the male to be in the position of power, and the "place" of the woman to be subservient to his rule. Just like the bible teaches.

You also didn't address how Christianity somehow is the right religion and Islam and Judaism, which both claim to be correct, aren't. And please, logical arguments only. I'm not interested in what you feel "in your heart". I feel "in my heart" that you should wire me a thousand dollars, but I doubt that holds much credence to you.

Please don't respond to hyperbole like it was presented as factual evidence. I was making a point. Nice try at derailing, though.

Please show to me one non-christian historical source of evidence of Jesus' existence, please. A roman or jewish census, for example, will suffice... or some other secular piece of evidence. (Don't fret if you don't find any. There ISN'T any. All evidence of Jesus' existence is located in religious texts. And since there's a lot of texts out there claiming the legitimate existence of dragons, I think we know where they stand when it comes to value.)

But I think the crowning jewel is this:

This little freakout at the end is very typical of what happens when a religious believer is pressed. The thing is, ladies and gentlement, I don't really get upset when this happens. This is just proof positive of what happens when you try to defend the indefensile... when you try to maintain the existence of that which there is no compelling evidence for the existence of. He goes on and on as though anything he's saying makes 'sense' to me. But he may as well be giving me a voodoo hex or siccing faeries or cursing me in the name of Poseidon. It's all equally fictional, meaningless and, in a way, sad.

I say sad because its obvious you're not an idiot. But you're... addled with this worthless fiction. You can tell me how you 'feel' about it all you like... just because you super super super super super believe in an invisible sky daddy that was written about back when people thought epileptic siezures were the results of god communicating with his prophets (not surprisingly, Paul was an epileptic and only began believing in Jesus (nobody wrote about him before Paul) after having a siezure) doesn't mean I have to take any of that as though it even resembles anything like a defensible or citeable argument.

So you can bless me with fig leaves and holy water, pray for me to your invisible friend in the sky, and talk at length about my 'eternal soul'... but that doesn't necessarily make any of that real. It's all fake... smoke and mirrors, and that you, and so many others, believe in this silliness so enthusiastically only goes straight to my original point. Religion scares me, because it has the power to turn otherwise intelligent people into intellectual children, their actions dictated by texts that were written by people who thought selling daughters into slavery was a good idea.

 

As far as I'm concerned, believing in something that cannot be proven is kinda silly. It's like believing in dragons and faeries. Yeah, there's compelling evidence that they don't exist... but since it's not 100% (and let's face it, can never be) compelling (I.E. God himself showing up and saying, paradoxically, I don't exist, go back to work), people still 'believe'? What's the point?

Edit: Please don't answer that, it's rhetorical. I mean to say, there is no point.

 

Laughter is a healthy thing.

I'm glad you think your applause would do such a thing.

I'll link what I feel is appropriate and relevant. As a useful study guide, I will repost this link: List of Fallacious arguments I'll be linking from here each time I someone brings a fallacious argument to the table and I will happily break the argument down to show why it is a fallacious argument.

Of course, if a fallacious argument is not offered I won't be doing that For instance, in this particular post, I don't believe you presented one. I applaud you for this.

LOL!!! I believe I wrote clearly I would do so.

You would? Why? Christ wasn't diplomatic with the Sanheidren in the Temple. He called them hypocrits to their faces. I could be wrong, but I believe Christ called things as He saw them without concern for *diplomacy*. In fact, He spoke at length to crowds of people about the Pharisees. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matt 23:14)

Diplomatic? I don't think so

Really? Please share with us what you know of Christianity and I will gladly let you know if it is more than I think you knew. Then you can tell me what I knew before you knew that I knew that you knew something about Christianity

So your point was?

Depends, sometimes getting hit over the head with a stick will wake ya up from the boredom of listening to *diplomatic speeches*.

I've become laughable? Right back at ya, test Tis' fine. Like I said at the beginning of this post, laughter is a healthy thing.

May the Peace of Our Lord be with you!

 

1) Josephus, a Jew who commanded a force during a Jewish revolt against Rome and who after defeat wrote a history of Israel twice mentions Jesus. Josephus had no reason to be a friend of Jesus, writes this

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising facts and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He was over many Jews and many of the Greeks . He was the Messiah.
When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.
On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him, and he has still to this day not disappeared" Antiquities 18:63-64

2) Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54), the Roman historian (who historians generaly trust to supply accurate information about Roman history) writes:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for thier enormities. Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontious Pilate, procurator of Juedea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischeif originated, but through the city of Rome also. " Tacitus, Annals XV, 44.

Something a lil more recent: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica

 

you know what verd...you have chased me from this topic..not because of any of your insight...but because of your total disregard for another person...your comments are sarcastic..self-serving and in no way make anything clear what you are trying to say...

you are a christian in your eyes to your core...but to me...you are what non-christians fear...a resemblance of the ugly arrogant past of a christiondom that brought nothing but war and suffering to the masses...i have nothing nice or comprimising to say to you at this point...enjoy it...revel it in and make yourself feel better by saying or responding in some cute witty fashion which shows you are indeed a better man for your religion so be it...it makes you look more the fool...and god does love fools doesn't he? your god allows you to be an asshole...my conscience does not...

oh..i don't think you are an asshole because of your faith..not by any means...i think you are an asshole because of the way you interact with people...whole other subject...the last few posts have not dealth with religion at all..they have mostly dealth with behavior...not whether you believe or what you believe is wrong...also about opening up to different ideas...

 

Please give me a specific example from what I have written to validate your assertion.

Again, an example, please.

Actually, I'm a Catholic trying to be a Christian.

Actually, I'm sad that you've chose this particular path, test. It's a well trod path of least resistence. I'm sorry you chose to bail vs answering my simple, relevant questions. I'm sorry you've regurgitated old, flawed, factually inaccurate rhetoric regarding Christianity. I revel in nothing you have written in this particular post and hope you will return to the discussion at your earliest convenience.

Thanks for the clarification, test

If refusing to call a dog a cat means I'm an *asshole* I am 100% content with that.
If refusing to accept fallacious arguments means I'm an *asshole*, I am 100% comfortable with that.
If, after listening/reading to *new ideas* I decide I cannot accept them as valid and actually say so makes me an *asshole*, I am 100% content with that.


May the Peace of Our Lord be with you always!

 

Josephus' book of 'history' also contends that Vespasian was the Messiah and he begins his 'factual' history with the creation of Adam and Eve. This is because he was writing a history of the jewish religion based almost entirely on religious texts and dogmas, and didn't seem all too concerned with secular records. Sorry, but this one is weak sauce at best.

General Tacitus was born after Jesus' supposed death, around the time when Saul was preaching about Jesus and trying to get Christianity started. In fact, twenty years after his birth would be around the time the book of Mark was written, which was the first life account of Jesus ever written, and Tacticus would have come across it at some point. So he, too, was basing his statements on religious texts. Once again, the SOURCE of the information is religious texts, and not secular, court-admissable evidence. Sorry, but this one don't fly either.

I'm typically critical of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which was proven recently to be no more or less accurate than Wikipedia. Notice above that Brittanica boldly states that the grounds to question Jesus' existence are "inaccurate", and yet, it offers no evidence to prove them wrong. It just says the grounds were 'inaccurate' and leaves it at that. Awfully strange for an encyclopedia to conspicuously leave out necessary information, huh? Could this be because, without use of the bible, Jesus cannot be proven to have existed?

Or are we at another juvenile "Yeah, but he can't be disproven" juncture?

Well, Verdictus? It took me ten minutes to blast a few gaping holes in that post. Now that we're done fooling around, care to come up with any actual, non-religious evidence?

 

You're evidence Josephus based his account of Jesus on religious texts is?

Evidence Tacitus was basing his statements on religious texts is? What you've written is interesting speculation, but evidence of nothing. You're evidence Tacitcus ever came across the Gospel of Mark is?

So you claim. Evidence please?

I will agree with you on the matter of Wikipedia. I have never considered it a valid source. I would be insterested to see your sourcing for why/when Encyclopedia Brittanica was proven to be no more or less accurate than Wikipedia.

You did offer arguments without any real supporting evidence to validate them. Your original request was, "Please show to me one non-christian historical source of evidence of Jesus' existence, please. A roman or jewish census, for example, will suffice... or some other secular piece of evidence."

I've offered secular, non-christian evidence as per your request. Give us some evidence, not speculation these sources are invalid.

Already have done so.

 

His first item of 'history' is the birth of Adam and Eve. The bible has this happen around the time the Sumerians were inventing glue. If he wasn't basing his history on religious texts, then he was basing it on a particularly good batch of mushrooms.

That he physically could have never actually met Jesus, and the only information that existed, in the world, was the teachings of Saul and the book of Matthew. Since no other records exist, it can be the only place he got his information, other than by word of mouth, which is not a citeable source. The burden of proof is on you to tell me where Tacitus got his information. I say he got it from religious contexts, and the lack of evidence to the contrary is my evidence of this.

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story1643.shtml

Nature polled 42 experts to investigate Wikipedia's and Brittanica's information and found niether to be more or less accurate than the other.

No, what you did was cite two sources... a roman general and historian who never met Jesus, and a jewish historian who chronicled Jewish history, and who believed that the earth and universe was created in seven days, which we all know is a fictional story. Josephus' credibility is suspect at beast, and Tacitus only had religious teachings and texts as his source material. See, you can't just quote a guy. You need to investigate what his source material is. He never met Jesus, so how would he know about him? Since there is no secular record of Jesus' existence, he must have, by de facto logic that you can't prove to be false, gotten the information by religious sources. Which removes it as credible.

 

I agree with you that this is fictional. It was 6 days. God rested on the 7th.