Why all the Jesus and Christian hate lately. There is almost as many threads about this as there are about Obama.

It is starting to feel a little biblical around here. You will be persecuted if you believe in the word of Christ!

I guess the Skeptics are the only gods here so...

Pics/vid or it didn't happen!

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Why all the Jesus and Christian hate lately. There is almost as many threads about this as there are about Obama.

It is starting to feel a little biblical around here. You will be persecuted if you believe in the word of Christ!

perhaps because christians ( mostly ) persecute everyone else they deem unholy....maybe?

persecuting christians.. i needed a good laugh right now.

About the "persecution" of christians...
It seems to me that christianity asks for it. It has become one of the most well-known religions in the world, and so everything is laid bare fore everyone's criticism. Its writings have been translated into so many languages that there is far more availability to completely analyze it, that the lies and half-truths come forward more readily than with other religions. It's a simple matter of availability so far as I see it. Of course, that's just my opinion, take it or leave it.
About the "stealing" from Sumeria:
If you actually study the bible, you'll see that Abram (as Abraham was formerly called, or so say the translations) originally came from a city called Ur, located in.... drum roll.... yep, you guessed it, Sumeria! The writings that the christians hold so sacred say themselves that this whole thing originated in Sumeria!
It was the custom of these people to choose one of the MANY gods to worship for life. They would devote their lives to this one god, so that the whole civilization had all their bases covered, so to speak. Abram did nothing different. He simply chose one of the Sumerian gods and went with it. That's where things got funny. They spent some time in Egypt, where their religious beliefs were affected by that culture as well. On and on the story goes, picking up little religious tidbits on the fly, until, today, we get "the bible".

I will spell it out for you people because most of you seem to be avoiding the point of the thread.

Sure and althought the perceptual abilities of men might be questioned, reality is based in, hopefully, logical perceptions that can then be reasoned out in a scietific local functioning of the mind.

The fact that the jews did make up their part of the bible from the more ancient sumerian records, and that their records strech back into the dark void of ancient mythology is NOT in question. This is FACT.

The fact that members of the Church that became the differing branches of "Christianity", clearly associated KNOWN and RECORDED mythological stoires around the really quite human story of a man named Joshaua. This is the reason their are several "christian churches" instead of a united one.

The Facts are there for every logical mind to see CLEARLY.

I am not bashing Christianity, because Christianity should FACE THE FACTS and readjust it's religious traditions to FACTUALLY fit into the way "God" has made the laws of nature is not saying that Christ didn't exist. It is saying that he did in fact exist, only in a more realistic way.

Until that day does come when the church opens their eyes and stops believing the lies, the christians will be doing the very pegan behavior of IDOL Worshiping.

Originally posted by moocowman
The sad thing is that so many christians would consider this article the work of their imaginary satangod, and would criticise it heavily without actually reading it.This being yet more evidence of a self deluding fear based and arrogant cult.

just wondering, it's not clear weather you are saying that to dispute the article is proof of a cult, mother teressa's strength of faith is evidence of a cult or the beliefs you think christians may hold about the article are proof of a cult.

in any case, how so?

what rubbish, this i completely unfounded speculation. there is very, very little that matches up between sumerian writing and judaic, except the flood story. the thing about the flood story is that every culture seems to have one, and so they would if the judaic story is a true account.

The ancient Canaanaite term EL was used to identify a great Lord or Lofty One - as in El Shaddai, the Lord of the Mountain from whom Moses received the tablets in Sinai. The old Hebrew text of Exodus 6:3 explains that El Shaddai was a term also used in Abrahams' day. Retained in the Vulgate Bible from c.AD 385, the description "El Shaddai" is found 48 times in the canon, but in every case has been rendered in Authorized English- language Bibles since 1611 as "Almighty". In the earlier Mesopotamian tradition, the equivalent was Illu Kurgal "Great Mountain Lord", while in Sumariian tongue El related more specifically to a "Shining One".

It is, pretty hard to ignore connections such as these and no doubt the open minded will endevour to follow up with further open minded investigadion. However the deluded or brainwashed cult followers will continue to wear anoraks and note train numbers.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by moocowman]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by moocowman
The sad thing is that so many christians would consider this article the work of their imaginary satangod, and would criticise it heavily without actually reading it.This being yet more evidence of a self deluding fear based and arrogant cult.

just wondering, it's not clear weather you are saying that to dispute the article is proof of a cult, mother teressa's strength of faith is evidence of a cult or the beliefs you think christians may hold about the article are proof of a cult.

in any case, how so?

I think I made myself quite clear I did not discuss those who would dispute the article, to dispute the article having read it is completely different to criticising with out reading it or watching the documentary.

I did not in any way imply that MTs' strength of faith (whatever that is actually supposed to be) is evidence of a cult.

Originally posted by moocowman
It is, pretty hard to ignore connections such as these and no doubt the open minded will endevour to follow up with further open minded investigadion. However the deluded or brainwashed cult followers will continue to wear anoraks and note train numbers.

describing phonetic similarities between languages originating in the same area isn't particularly enlightening seeing as A) we have absolutely no idea how sumerian sounded and B)it would be normal.

suggesting the only reason we disagree is my stupidity, being under the influence of brainwashing, inability to research or anything else is pretty dishonest. argue the point, not the poster.

I think I made myself quite clear

i don't agree and i'm still not sure what you were saying, what was the evidence of a cult you were referring to and how is it evidence?

by process of elimination i must conclude that your belief that christians would assign this article to something other than what it claims to be is evidence of a cult.

your belief is evidence of nothing more than your prejudice.

[edit on 8/12/08 by pieman]

[edit on 8/12/08 by pieman]

Originally posted by Incarnated
"God" has made the laws of nature is not saying that Christ didn't exist. It is saying that he did in fact exist, only in a more realistic way.

Until that day does come when the church opens their eyes and stops believing the lies, the christians will be doing the very pegan behavior of IDOL Worshiping.

I have faith. But people do need to challenge theirs. Seriously...what you said is something every christian needs to ask themselves, and then say, ya know...it probably didn't happen "exactly" like that. There is something I have said before on here, and I believe that one of the most peculiar things about the bible is that it appears intentionally vague explaining how things happened, and descriptive on why.

Is that bad? or is that good? well that's the thing about vagueness, it is set up in such a way, no matter the amount of investigation, your interpretation ends up making the reality. Either you have faith in the end result, or you are internally skeptical because it is vague - because it didn't tell you everything...

People must understand something about history. It is Testimonial. Before databytes and cameras it was all word of mouth - and it was all based off the memory of the testimony - something science has confirmed as very tricky and unreliable at times. - To investigate history you must use science to cross check physical references that are observable (obviously) against the testimony. When things don't add up, we double check, and check some more.

Public enemy # 1 against christianity is the "copy-cat" effect people come to when explaining origins. Until science cross-references the history of the anti-testimonies, I will say, I'm skeptical of them as any ancient testimonies were during those times - just because it was secular means you won't take it with a grain of salt? I would be more skeptical if "everything" in the bible was vague, but there are too many specific places it mentions that are real and that are verified.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by juveous]