Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

I'll just leave it at you pretending that my argument is moot. That seems to be your default setting.

Look, this is what you said:
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

I'm talking about the voluntary death of a god.

Please show me where in the Bible it is prophecised, or that the Hebrews were expecting their god to incarnate as a mortal man and voluntarily die for the sins of others.

If you can't do that, then your argument is moot.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

You simply do not understand modern physics and what in definition presents infinity with respect to relating to the singularity of a black hole. If you did then would not even suggest that your position makes any sense.

Another accusation. Thanks for that. But will you care to explain your position with information this time?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You simply didnot take the trouble to look into a conclusion that makes your point irrelevant.

I did read what you wrote, and the conclusion is that you falsely assume my position is something other than it is, and then make further false assumptions to various other things which I have already shown to you are inaccurate descriptions of what they are.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Fundamentally the issue of infinity in physics makes anything possible if you need a link to why perhaps you should educate yourself into what is common sense otherwise.

Here's a quote from the last page, where I directly agreed with you that "anything is possible".

Kashai While there is scientific support that anything is possible given the works of the best minds of this Epoch.

Ghost147
I agree....

Why are you continuing to further this position of yours when I have already agreed that "anything is possible"?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In general secularist do not demonize others in general for their beliefs.

Good for them?

You have yet to really describe how a Christian can be Secular when the two terms are incompatible.

a reply to: Ghost147

"You have yet to really describe how a Christian can be Secular when the two terms are incompatible."

Because anything is possible and in this case Atheism would not exists if it were not for Secular Christians.

Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism. It regards humanist principles like universal human dignity and individual freedom and the primacy of human happiness as essential and principal components of, or at least compatible with, the teachings of Jesus. Christian humanism can be seen as a philosophical union of Christian ethics and humanist principles.

Source

The Founders of the United States Constitution were Secular Christians. Hence the First Amendment to the Constitution with respect to Freedom of Religion.

If you feel that what Texas did violates that fundamental right, perhaps you should file what is known to most as a "Class Action", take it to the Supreme Court and see what happens.

Otherwise your point makes very little sense with exception of Bloviating.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

"You have yet to really describe how a Christian can be Secular when the two terms are incompatible."

Because anything is possible and in this case Atheism would not exists if it were not for Secular Christians.

Atheism is the default state of every human at birth, "secular christians" make no difference to this fact.

Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism. It regards humanist principles like universal human dignity and individual freedom and the primacy of human happiness as essential and principal components of, or at least compatible with, the teachings of Jesus. Christian humanism can be seen as a philosophical union of Christian ethics and humanist principles.

Source



These people are defined as either secular humanists of Christian philosophy, (who aren't really Christian by definition, even though they follow Jesus' philosophical teachings), or Humanist Christians, (who are still religious, in that they believe in God and accept Jesus as their savior).

If you accept Jesus as your saviour, you are Christian. If you don't, you are not. "Secular Christian" is therefore an oxymoron.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Because anything is possible

Not in this case, no. You might as well be saying "White is just a different color of Red. Believe me, because anything is possible". "basket balls are also Hockey Pucks. Anything is possible"

Secularism is an absence of religion. Christianity is a religion. You cannot be both.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
and in this case Atheism would not exists if it were not for Secular Christians.

Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism. It regards humanist principles like universal human dignity and individual freedom and the primacy of human happiness as essential and principal components of, or at least compatible with, the teachings of Jesus. Christian humanism can be seen as a philosophical union of Christian ethics and humanist principles.

I'm not sure how this quote is relevant. This is Christian Humanism, not "secular christianity"

originally posted by: Kashai
The Founders of the United States Constitution were Secular Christians.

Benjamin Franklin described himself as a “thorough Deist”, but can be argued to be an anti-clerical Christian
Thomas Jefferson was a Christian
The rest all staunchly apposed religion, many focusing on Christianity specifically.

originally posted by: Kashai
Hence the First Amendment to the Constitution with respect to Freedom of Religion.

The freedom of religion has nothing to do with christianity or secularism, but an acknowledgment that everyone is free to practice their religions

originally posted by: Kashai
If you feel that what Texas did violates that fundamental right, perhaps you should file what is known to most as a "Class Action", take it to the Supreme Court and see what happens.

I'm not suggesting it violates the freedom of religion. I'm suggesting it violates the separation of church and state, which it clearly does.

It is not a religious right to force their beliefs in public schools, in a secular nation, and alter facts to support their religious beliefs. That is a clear violation of the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

originally posted by: Kashai
Otherwise your point makes very little sense with exception of Bloviating.

It makes little sense to you because you have a difficulty comprehending any discussion you're a part of.

a reply to: spygeek

Nonetheless presenting that Reality can be comprehended when mankind/science understands only 3% of it. Is much like being handed a Muffler Assembly and then be expected to define an Internal Combustion Engine.

Christianity is a Philosophy that relates to dealing with day to day life. Adherents place emphasis upon forgiving others and not judging as Jesus placed emphasis upon in his teachings. Suggesting that real Christians do not support this position is like defining members of Isis as real Muslims.

Jesus Christ was clearly a Humanist why are you trying to argue otherwise?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spygeek
Nonetheless presenting that Reality can be comprehended when mankind/science understands only 3% of it. Is much like being handed a Muffler Assembly and then be expected to define an Internal Combustion Engine.

Can you quote the claim you're referring to? I do not recall anyone stating that we understand what reality is in it's totality.

If you can't quote anyone even suggesting that, then your point is moot and unfounded.

originally posted by: Kashai
Christianity is a Philosophy that relates to dealing with day to day life.

You misspelled "Buddhism" with "Christianity". But, if that is truly the case, I'm sure you can explain it, and request the US courts to remove Christianity's tax exemption for no longer being a religion.

Christianity is a religion. It has some philosophies within it, but it is a religion.

originally posted by: Kashai
Jesus Christ was clearly a Humanist why are you trying to argue otherwise?

I don't think he is arguing he wasn't. He is simply saying that Christianity is not secular.

a reply to: Ghost147

If everyone is free to practice their religion then what is the point in claiming a religion is superior.

Therefore there is no such thing as a superior system of belief as under the law they are all equal.

Seriously Ghost147 you are slipping perhaps a few days off the forum would help.

Church and State violations can and do occur in democracies. It is not a perfect system and is dependent upon Majority rule as to what truth is.

Parents have the right to teach their children what they think makes sense and in that respect it translate to voters.

Why are you suggesting that this is not exactly what is happening in Texas?

a reply to: Kashai

"You misspelled "Buddhism" with "Christianity". But, if that is truly the case, I'm su re you can explain it, and request the US courts to remove Christianity's tax exemption for no longer being a religion.

Christianity is a religion. It has some philosophies within it, but it is a religion."

Religion is related to an ideal in relation to a paternal influence that is Universal in its effort at affection and without conditions. To suggest otherwise is to imply a stereotype that in fact is more related to politics related to mankind in history than the idea that one should turn the other cheek in relation to aggression in life.

Let me present to you the exact number of Priest who insisted to the leader of a country in the past that God is not interested in conflict and survived that comment.

Exactly Zero.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

If everyone is free to practice their religion then what is the point in claiming a religion is superior.

I don't understand how this applies to the discussion at hand? You're arguing using my point in this line

originally posted by: Kashai
Therefore there is no such thing as a superior system of belief as under the law they are all equal.

Correct. That's the the actions that have been taken in Texas (and other states) that place a Christian belief (and only a christian belief) alongside Scientific studies is outrageous.

originally posted by: Kashai
Seriously Ghost147 you are slipping perhaps a few days off the forum would help.

You make absolutely no sense in your responses. What the heck are you assuming I'm saying now?

originally posted by: Kashai
Church and State violations can and do occur in democracies. It is not a perfect system and is dependent upon Majority rule as to what truth is.

Yup, I am aware of that. The whole topic started because a member asked when the last time a Christian-based-law was applied in the US, and so I gave him examples.

Why are you even arguing this if you clearly agree?

originally posted by: Kashai
Parents have the right to teach their children what they think makes sense and in that respect it translate to voters.

I don't deny this.

originally posted by: Kashai
Why are you suggesting that this is not exactly what is happening in Texas?

It has nothing to do with the voters. The issue is that the changes applied directly go against the first amendment, and there is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

How are you not understanding what is going on here?

Oh right. You're the king of False Premises.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Kashai
Religion is related to an ideal in relation to a paternal influence that is Universal in its effort at affection and without conditions. To suggest otherwise is to imply a stereotype that in fact is more related to politics related to mankind in history than the idea that one should turn the other cheek in relation to aggression in life.

How did I ever deny this? Of course Religion has philosophy within it, but that does not make it a philosophy in it's entirety. The very quote you're responding to acknowledges the fact.

Please work on your reading comprehension.

a reply to: Ghost147

"It has nothing to do with the voters. The issue is that the changes applied directly go against the first amendment, and there is a clear violation of the separation of church and state"

Science if interpreted rationally has nothing to do with God existing or not. So how can a violation of church and state occur without evidence that science supports that religion can be invalidated.

So what basis do you have to support the position that this situation in Texas is not the result of Majority rule?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Science if interpreted rationally has nothing to do with God existing or not.

True

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
So how can a violation of church and state occur without evidence that science supports that religion can be invalidated.

Because a state recognized a specific religion, and placed it in a public school, and made taxpayers pay for the textbooks.

The issue has nothing to do with the validity of any religions. The only issue is that a state placed a religions ideologies in a public school in a mandatory class and made taxpayers pay for the textbooks.

Why this is confusing is beyond me.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
So what basis do you have to support the position that this situation in Texas is not the result of Majority rule?

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! Are you actually insane? How do you not realize what is going on in this thread?

a reply to: Ghost147

So are you suggesting that the voters/taxpayers of Texas are being forced to accept a religion? In so far as taxpayers in Texas are concerned what do you think the Federal Government of the United States does with the taxes they pay?

You are suggesting that when it comes to violating the principles of Church and State what science acknowledges constitutes a determination of how science should be taught.

That is actually what is insane.

A clear violation of church and state would be to suggest as you have that science can make a determination as to what God is. The fact that as you have presented Texas disagrees with your interpretation of church and state is a matter for the Supreme Court of the United States not ATS.

AS usual you simply are presenting your ignorance as to Law in this country an how it works.

As with the subject of Physics something you perhaps should educate yourself upon rather than relating to it in stereotype.

That seems to be all you really seem to understand about most things including your own beliefs.

Your efforts to demonize anyone who disagrees with you are really entertaining in the comedic sense.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

So are you suggesting that the voters/taxpayers of Texas are being forced to accept a religion?

No. Unless you consider the students as the taxpayers. But the students are forced to study a particular religion as a fact and consider it equal to science.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In so far as taxpayers in Texas are concerned what do you think the Federal Government of the United States does with the taxes they pay?

Why would this matter?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You are suggesting that when it comes to violating the principles of Church and State what science acknowledges constitutes a determination of how science should be taught.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. But the king of False Premises continues to reign supreme it would seem.

I have already explained my position on this matter to you a number of times already, in detail.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
That is actually what is insane.

I agree, that notion would be insane. Good thing no one is making it.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
A clear violation of church and state would be to suggest as you have that science can make a determination as to what God is.

No. Science isn't the embodiment of the United States Government. So it would not violate the first amendment if science were to determine what god is (which it doesn't anyway).

If the US government were to tell religion what their religion is all about, that would be a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

'Critical Thinking' is our friend.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The fact that as you have presented Texas disagrees with your interpretation of church and state is a matter for the Supreme Court of the United States

I agree, it should be brought up there because it's clearly violating the first amendment.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
not ATS.

Why not? We discuss political issues and conspiracies within religion all the time on ATS. In fact, there are two forums dedicated to those two topics which this particular issue would fit well in.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
AS usual you simply are presenting your ignorance as to Law in this country an how it works.

As usual, you've jumped to the conclusion that I am making a specific claim and hold a specific position which I do not actually hold.

All hail the king of False Premises.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
As with the subject of Physics something you perhaps should educate yourself upon rather than relating to it in stereotype.

You lost me. I'm on a number of different threads right now, when did we bring up Physics?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
That seems to be all you really seem to understand about most things including your own beliefs.

You posted a quote about what Atheism stands for, and I agreed that that is what it stands for, and then you (in the very same post) declare Atheism is something other than the quote you posted in which you used as proof to describe what Atheism is.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Your efforts to demonize anyone who disagrees with you are really entertaining in the comedic sense.

Your efforts to form a coherent argument while using no citations for your claims and formulating every single thought you have on false premises (even after they've been thoroughly addressed to be false time and time again) isn't entertaining. It makes me want to donate some money to you to go to a therapist.

a reply to: Ghost147

Why do you single out the Christian bible? They're all a bunch of fairy tales.

a reply to: Ghost147

Why don't people just go back to the roots of animism and shamanism? Seems like it would be a lot more "pure" and not diluted/polluted with agendas?

I can listen to a cover band play a Beatles song, but there's nothing like the original thing. To me, that's what these modern (within the last 2,000 years) religions are...tribute and cover bands of much older practices. These newer faiths have a lot of baggage attached to themselves....

Can one be a religious hipster? If so, shamanism FTW all day. All that new fangled stuff is just man messing around and adding a bunch of useless showy and flashy layers...which serve to enslave and diminish the individual...

Anytime you want to gain control over a population, just reinvent the religion and claim you know all the secrets, you know what happens when you die. That's how you get a little following going, as people are terribly afraid of death. If you keep people afraid, especially over something like death and the afterlife (which can't be proved) -- you can get people to kill and die for you.

Humans, we're programmed to follow people who sound like they know what they're doing.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Ghost147

Why don't people just go back to the roots of animism and shamanism? Seems like it would be a lot more "pure" and not diluted/polluted with agendas?

I can listen to a cover band play a Beatles song, but there's nothing like the original thing. To me, that's what these modern (within the last 2,000 years) religions are...tribute and cover bands of much older practices. These newer faiths have a lot of baggage attached to themselves....

Can one be a religious hipster? If so, shamanism FTW all day. All that new fangled stuff is just man messing around and adding a bunch of useless showy and flashy layers...which serve to enslave and diminish the individual...

Anytime you want to gain control over a population, just reinvent the religion and claim you know all the secrets, you know what happens when you die. That's how you get a little following going, as people are terribly afraid of death. If you keep people afraid, especially over something like death and the afterlife (which can't be proved) -- you can get people to kill and die for you.

Humans, we're programmed to follow people who sound like they know what they're doing.

Because, if you bother to read the bible, it predates animism and shamanism.
Not that I care.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

are you familiar with "mana"? some say its the/a precursor to animism.

realpagan.net...