Proof that Jesus and all Religions are False

reply to post by mike73173

Lets see...no DNA

Of who, Christ?, this would only proove that Christ rose from the dead, besides no one could know his DNA from anyone elses' in the tomb. What the heck is Easter celebrated for.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Um, if you twist my arguments it is presumptious and where in the nine hells did I say you shouldn't do it if not for procreation? I happen to enjoy regular sex with my wife and have no will for any more children, in fact we are both fixed. Also you will note those other things you were talking about often have to do with mating ritual and things pertaining to sex *you know pair bonding and etc*, which I still assert has only one natural function. Procreation.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Roark


Yes...cut in paste from contradictions in the bible...whether weak or not, you have no explanation. You provided nothing that would insinuate that you could counteract the fact that there are lies in the bible...instead, you deflected the information by calling it weak.

INSULTS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN NO LONGER RATIONALIZE THEIR THOUGHTS AND RESPONSES WITH INTELLIGENT DEBATE.

Thanks for proving my point.

I could never consider the Bible anything more than a collection of lies written by a mass of people who thought that rain happened because the "Gods were angry."

reply to post by clcreek


You must not know your bible very well. Because the bible specifically states that God is all knowing and omnipotent as well as omniscient.

You see, I used to be Christian. That was, until I could think for myself and realized that none of it made a bit of sense.

Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14
Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6
Psalm 139:7-12

It fascinates me that most atheists and non-believers in Christianity seem to know the bible MUCH better than their practitioners.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No...you avoided providing a scholarly source from the beginning. Maybe you should go back a read my original post to you. You chose to provide a name that DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH JESUS WHATSOEVER. Just like any claim, you need to back it with evidence. Giving me a name called Issa does not support the existence of Jesus, nor does it support the idea that Jesus was God.

"Me thinks" that not only have you watched too much Lord of the Rings, but, that you don't have any proof and as usual, expect people to believe in your God upon your good word. It doesn't wash today, and it won't tomorrow.

Have a good day, because this will only go in useless circles.

Originally posted by Neon Haze

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."

www.sanfords.net...

Edit: Restored the OP.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by intrepid]

Not just Jesus and Krishna, but also others from other religious affiliations throughout the world. Take a long hard look at the Sumerian Texts. Yahweh was mentioned there. He is the Elohim of Abraham.

One thing to note. As the name goes through the many cultures around the world, you are going to notice similarities between their Gods. Every single God can be traced back to the Sumerian Texts as its origin. Just remember that.

reply to post by watchtheashes


Gee...were dinosaur bones put here to throw us off as well???

Originally posted by mike73173
reply to post by Roark

 

Yes...cut in paste from contradictions in the bible...whether weak or not, you have no explanation. You provided nothing that would insinuate that you could counteract the fact that there are lies in the bible...instead, you deflected the information by calling it weak.

INSULTS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN NO LONGER RATIONALIZE THEIR THOUGHTS AND RESPONSES WITH INTELLIGENT DEBATE.

Thanks for proving my point.

I could never consider the Bible anything more than a collection of lies written by a mass of people who thought that rain happened because the "Gods were angry."

Dude, I countered one of your posts which claimed that there were no non-Biblical references to Jesus, and nothing came of it. You apparently just ignored it.

Why should I put the hard yards into refuting a cut and paste from a website? There are already published responses to that stuff by Christians. It's obvious that you put no real thought or effort of your own into it.

I don't see what I posted as an insult. I think you need to grow a thicker skin, mate. I just commented on the fact that it was weak to just post someone else's material without offering any of your own insight.

Originally posted by lawbringer
reply to post by Roark

 

source please.

For the gay animals thing?

"Homosexual Behaviour in Animals" By Volker Sommer, Paul L. Vasey

From memory, it is primarily concerned with Mallard ducks...

But I see that you already clarified your point about what kind of homosexuality we're talking about (the human kind).

Religion came into existence when "civilization" brought out-of-control population growth. You had a human population that had, before the adv ent of agriculture and animal husbandry, been forced to live a migratory existence in small bands of hunter-gatherer groups. Suddenly you're able to produce more foodstuffs than anyone could have believed possible, and you can do it while occupying the very same location for the duraton of the year. The small tribes became relatively huge city-states in very short order and the natural communal tack of the old tribes collapsed as the population grew to the point where people were strangers to one another, an altogether new phenomena for the human species since the hunter-gatherer tribes were small, tight-knit units in which everyone was familiar with everybody else.

With the human population growing by leaps and bounds, a new ordering principle was needed to control the activities within the new cities. It was because of this that the modern idea of Government came into being. But what could give these new governments the legitamacy they needed in order to effectively rule large human populations? The answer was organized religion. All of the original religions were concerned with assuring their populations that their kings were connected to the divine, either as gods or the sons of gods. In every religion the God(s) are always intimately involved with the welfare of their chosen city-state and the ruler is always divinely endorsed.

This was the ages old notion that lead to the edict of the "Divine Right Of Kings" that made the Dark Ages so abominably long and unendurable. This was the notion that our Founding Fathers sought to slay with their Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Alas their efforts have been thwarted and the notion of Divine affirmation of american rulers is alive and well, thanks to the efforts of religulous people who have no idea from whence the whole nonsense sprang and to what ends the nonsense must ultimately lead. Ignorance may be bliss, but in this case, ignorance is dangerous because it leads to our country being run by a cartel of idealogues who's faith in their make-believe space-daddy is absolute, no questions allowed. This is not the caliber of men we need running the show in the 21st century.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I'm not attacking you here...but, the mere act of "fixing" yourself or your wife goes against the laws of nature which was supposedly set by God. If God wanted you "fixed," it would have been done by God him/her/itself. So, in essence, you're proving the point of the person that you've been arguing against about the essence of a perfect God or its design for procreation and nature. If you are fixed, then you might as well be a homosexual because each path leads to the idea that you can no longer procreate...and, you might as well stop having sex.

Since I don't actually believe that argument, I can look at this objectively. A fixed man is about as useless as someone who is homosexual by nature.

Just an observation.

reply to post by mike73173


In hindsight my response was stupid and knee jerk so I am deleteing it I will be posting a different more reasoned answer shortly.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Roark


I offered my own personal insight on the first few posts. Then I provided backing for my opinions with the work of others. The cut and paste is a way of providing support up for my opinions (this is called sourcing...its nothing new) and no matter what information that I provide, whether it be my own words or someone else's, the fact stands that there are several hundred contradictions/lies in the bible that Christians cannot refute. I have seen the responses to those contradictions, and, none of them do ANYTHING to explain or justify the mass numbers of lies that the bible perpetuates.

And just so you know...I provided many of those contradictions by my own research and aided to the work of that site. Web 2.0 is wonderful. As far as growing thicker skin, I took your words at face value and nothing more. It wasn't like you hurt my feelings because I am used to those typical responses from Christians. When they cannot explain something, they resort to insults or worse...they claim that you're going to hell for questioning their faith.

I took nothing personally, so, don't worry about that. Its merely a fight or flight response for someone to react in the fashion that you did when faced with adversity.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


No...its cool. I was just presenting a counter argument. I am not a follower of any faith...especially Christianity. Like I said, I'm not attacking you and I hope that you did not take it that way.

Thanks for your response.

reply to post by mike73173


I don't look at it that way. To who's benefit is having any more children when I cannot support them? I do not hold reality *or "creation" if you will* to be perfect, in fact I am not so sure perfection is possible much less desirable as mankind's view of perfection tends to be crystaline in quality and something not very workable in nature were flexablility is key to survival. Sex's natural function is undeniable but I do not view it as a sin to take steps to avoid it's natural outcome, especially when it's best that you do. And neither do I think sex must be escewed in order to honor the "creator" as it is an very real component in the human idea of "love". All of that, and I really don't think that being we call "god" is all that judgemental and touchy. But that is of course just me.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Do you not see the social level of sex as part of its raison d'etre?

I specifically described how the Bonobos use homosexual sex between their females as a way to reduce tension between tribes. Bonobos are primates but they are not humans.

That is another reason for it's existence besides procreation.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Like I said, I don't really believe the argument that I proposed. I was just playing devil's advocate. I was just putting myself in the mind of a die hard Christian and presenting the evidence that someone as limited as them would provide. Or, something like that.

Again...I don't hold those views.

Quite the jump from seeing similarities to rationalizing "All religions are false". I would agree all social religions are false and that claims related to Jesus are classic, time tested, marketing scams. However, Krishna did exist and was the last incarnation of the Devil on earth. Jesus, who ever he was, if anyone, was not a major spiritual figure. However, the more significant an even, the higher up in the creation it is planned, therefore the "myth" of Jesus was orchestrated from a higher level for a mix of reasons, including some social benefits like general good behavior, comfort, etc., and for facilitate controlling interests and facilitate yet another arena for spirits to exercise those karma.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Um which came first? Sex as a device for procreation? Or the actions you described to me?

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by mike73173


Um, I never thought you did? I was merely answering honestly.