im incredibly sick of christians slapping a satanic sticker on everything they dont agree with

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Christians are funny to me, most of their beliefs are made up of a miss-mash of older religions. I think its best not to get involved with any organized religion, its just nosense made up by a load of fear-mongering turds in frocks. I like to think of the bible as nothing more than a medievil badly written blockbuster for the slow-witted amongst us.

I tell you one thing though, there are going to be a ton of angry Christians in the after life when they realise no-one is going to Hell no matter how they lived their lives. It makes me smile...

Still! there's nothing hotter than a fit Christian babe..........




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by ashanu90



yes i am aware that some speak against jesus, its difficult make something believable with out some one opposing it can you?





Not when they refuse it. One can question but one can not be made to believe. It is a very simple thing really. Some people want to believe, some people do not and then there are those who want someone to make them believe.
These are not Christian writings, they are separate book/papers about differnt things that have small passing references to people and places in the bible.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


can you prove these books are from where you think their from? or do you just take it all on faith?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


can you prove these books are from where you think their from? or do you just take it all on faith?



I have researched them. All I can say is that they do date back to the first century. Feel free to prove them wrong.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Quadrivium]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by strangleholder1
Christians are funny to me, most of their beliefs are made up of a miss-mash of older religions. I think its best not to get involved with any organized religion, its just nosense made up by a load of fear-mongering turds in frocks. I like to think of the bible as nothing more than a medievil badly written blockbuster for the slow-witted amongst us.

I tell you one thing though, there are going to be a ton of angry Christians in the after life when they realise no-one is going to Hell no matter how they lived their lives. It makes me smile...

Still! there's nothing hotter than a fit Christian babe..........




Just a couple of questions:
why would you think such a thing would make a Christian angry?
can you prove that your "miss-mash did not derive from judism?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


ok heres one for flavius

Josephus (c37-100 AD)


Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!


BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Josephus knows nothing of Christians

It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.

This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).

And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:

"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.

Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar:

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23.

Nothing could better illustrate the bogus nature of the Testimonium than the remaining corpus of Josephus's work.





Consider, also, the anomalies:


1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.


3. The question of context.

Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with "all sorts of misfortunes" which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the "fourth sect of philosophy ... which laid the foundation of our future miseries." That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, "which before we were unacquainted withal."

At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians" (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

"It was in Gessius Florus's time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."


"Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord." Sound a tad familiar?

Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.


Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate's attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar's ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

Immediately after, Josephus continues:

"And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."


There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was "another terrible misfortune" for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The "aqueduct massacre" now justifies "another terrible misfortune."


4. The final assertion, that the Christians were "not extinct at this day," confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.



5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."
This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.



heres a link theres plenty more
www.jesusneverexisted.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Guys can any one intelligently explain what you believe a 'Christian' is?!?!?

All these assumptions are the reason for hatred of a group of people...
NOW
admittedly some christians dont help the own cause....
Now add to that sects designed to corrupt the purity of the faith like the roman catholic church...etc to long a list...these are organization are not christian they are nothing more than a control mechanism and to corrupt the faith which have caused un-measurable problems and wrongs...but has been an absolute success to dirty Christ.

Just to make one point....a christian should is a sheep in wolfs clothing...unless you were told that I am a christian you wouldnt know...but if you saw what I have done in charity work...feeding homeless etc then the actions may be a clue.
I have no issues if I feel I need to to say to some one hey I dont agree with you or I believe what you are doing is wrong ...or thats dangerous...
You can dis-agree totally in reply ...NO PROBLEMS.....that is your God given rite....I aint going to change the way I treat or interact or what ever with you...unless you are going to cause harm to some one....

The problem is if I say hey I dont believe being gay is right,...then the whole gay moment is baying for blood...
But do you know what my Gay mates and lesbian friends I have said I dont agree with your lifestyle..but it's not for me to judge YOU, they accept my right to have my belief and I accept them and their right to free will...we still are friends and we have zero animosity...

See the problem is I believe people in todays age feel they have the right to blunt rude and judgmental but these people find no issues with this rudeness....as long as your not 'religious' sorry christian. A Buddhist or some star fairy or reptilian or ufo or etc can say almost what ever and not be screamed at for believing and announcing a perspective as fact...

This philosophy of blunt rudeness that is labeled being 'upfront' is a complete fabrication....this behavior is not honest or open at all it's usually an exaggeration of ones inpatients, rage and lack of social skills..or any empathy...at the very lest

There is many ways to be 'upfront' but also do it in a way that doesnt have to demean others...a saying goes you catch more flies with honey...
This rude upfront attitude normally doesn't work and just raises tensions and is of zero real value apart from being a release vent for the own of the rage...

I know because I use to do it to bully people to do as I wanted them to..it worked but it also caused problems...since then I have found out you can achieve the same thing but be nicer about it and also still 'get your way' and have a back door of it doesnt mater if it doesnt work out.

I can be honest, calm, and still get to the same goal as the offensive way but not cause issues.....

SO why the rant....Christians need to stop being the judges here on earth...feel free to be a voice of Gods rules but it's not your job to enforce or judge those who choose Gods gift of free will!


No belivers like OP...realize it's also people right to free speech, it also fine they allowed to present these from a Godly perspective...You guys do it every day from your perspective...but you feel you have more authority to say as you want....and in any way you want....

If a christian comes over to you one day or you read a paper and see xxxx is not of God and is of the Devil....and if it pertains to you or not....it is your right to rear it listen to it...respond to it or do none of the above....
take offense but for crying out loud stop believing that is wrong...we all are allowed to have our own views, all of us!
I cant force you to believe or stop anything...but I dont care it WONT change anything in my view of YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moral of the story look in the mirror... people like OP!!!!

And Christians you are not GOD it's not up to you to judge anyone! read the bible IT SAYS THIS!!! love is universal...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rollo
 


k.... i think i get the jist of the post about how christians need to get their act together and follow their own teachings correctly,
but you seem to refer to me as a "believer" i am an athiest actually
but yeah good post

[edit on 28-4-2010 by ashanu90]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rollo
 


Very well put. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The rewriting of history goes both ways. Nothing that involves man can ever be pure. We find a way to screw up almost everything.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by ashanu90
 


I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The rewriting of history goes both ways. Nothing that involves man can ever be pure. We find a way to screw up almost everything.

yeah that would probably be best this arguement isnt going anywhere
well that being said i wish you a
favorable statistical outcome



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
i have to say this thread is getting ridiculous. we are all believers in something. (even athiests) dont try to say your not.

i dont have blind faith because faith alone does not make a book true.

i have faith plus evidence dont ask what the evidence is because i dont want to get into another huge debate. both sides have evidence there is no denying that



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Forgive me for rudely interrupting, but I couldn't help myself. The Original Word of God was given by means of three revelation manifestations of the spirit of God. 1. Word of Knowledge 2. Word of Wisdom 3. Discerning of spirits. The Word of God rightly divided is perfect. Where so called christians come up short is when the Word of God is wrongly divided. When you see four different church buildings on the same street corner, with all of them believing differently, then what you have is four different interpretations. The Word of God says there is no private interpretation. That can only mean one of two things. Either there is no interpretation whatsoever, or the Word of God interprets itself of which I as a born again Christian have found to be true. The true church is the body of Christ. Those who have Christ-in them. Not all so called Christianity is Christian.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by the illuminator
i have to say this thread is getting ridiculous. we are all believers in something. (even athiests) dont try to say your not.

i dont have blind faith because faith alone does not make a book true.

i have faith plus evidence dont ask what the evidence is because i dont want to get into another huge debate. both sides have evidence there is no denying that


well i see your point star for you but athiesm is a lack of belief



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
So this is how a thread ends. Was it a good thread or a bad thread? Where will it end up now that it has past? Thread heaven maybe? Or thread hell? Just kidding folks. Thank you for helping me learn some of the ropes. I really enjoyed my first ATS thread



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
So this is how a thread ends. Was it a good thread or a bad thread? Where will it end up now that it has past? Thread heaven maybe? Or thread hell? Just kidding folks. Thank you for helping me learn some of the ropes. I really enjoyed my first ATS thread

both depending on your viewpoint,
this will probably go to thread reincarnation
it happens



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by the illuminator
i have to say this thread is getting ridiculous. we are all believers in something. (even athiests) dont try to say your not.

i dont have blind faith because faith alone does not make a book true.

i have faith plus evidence dont ask what the evidence is because i dont want to get into another huge debate. both sides have evidence there is no denying that


well i see your point star for you but athiesm is a lack of belief



it is not a lack of belief! you believe what you believe is true! you believe there is no God hens you believe!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a·the·ism

–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

curtsy of dictionary.com

burrrrrn lol



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by the illuminator
 


ok i see what you mean i just define it differently but i guess we can both be right



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Here is where you took over the burden of proof my friend. Instead of asking me to prove it you called it lies. This gives the impression that you know facts that would dispute what I said.


I took over nothing. You are completley giving up. If I know facts that might dispute what you said...I need your facts first to dispute them, dont I? So...you need to FACTUALLY BACK UP YOUR CLAIM.


You can not prove a negative? A student of folk logic perhaps?
You can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.


I am not going to sit here and watch you flail around in this weak complete missunderstanding of logic. You cannot prove your claim so instead you are going to pretend it is my problem.

Sorry but if you had any truth in what you said, you would not be arguing about who needs to prove what. You cannot prove your claim so you want me to prove it wrong. That is not how logic works. You made the claim, prove it.


This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
I said that the bible is historically correct. Many people places and land marks are written about in other writings from around the same time. I did not say that the Red Sea Parted, that fire rained down from Heaven, or that the sun stood still in the sky. These things I do believe though through FAITH.


I also asked you if this made Stephen King books historically accurate. The state of Maine does indeed exist and most of his stories take place there.

What is the difference?


I can and will give several of many references to back up what I said just to make you happy

1) Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is writtcalled it en:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[44]In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[48] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[49] although a minority has raised doubt
2) Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[60]


I can do the same thing with "Christine" but I am not about to start a religion about a car with a mind of its own.

You seem smart enough to know what a load of BS this claim really is.

'The bible mentions nothing! Holy crap I have actually seen nothing so the bible must be true!!!!!!'

or 'Hey the bible mentions some places on a map, so does this Clive Barker book. Now how do I choose which one to spend my life following since they are both EXACTLY AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Hellbound Heart or the bible...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Save your preaching for someone who is willing to be preached at. You have proven yourself to be no more than a liar here. You make a claim about your god and when asked to prove it, you just get defensive, obtuse, and go as far off into left field with your answer as you can.

Why should anyone believe anything about your god if when asked to prove any of it, all you can do is pout like a child and demand others prove you wrong instead.

I am sorry you made a claim you can not back up.

I am really sorry you have no clue where to begin trying to prove what you stated is a fact.

I am even more sorry that asking you to prove what you say causes you so much turmoil.

Maybe you should not make claims like that to people that might question you if simple questions do so much damage to your faith.

Can you back up your claim, or not? It is that simple.

You want to play philosophy games instead? Fine. I am simply asking you to prove your claim. That is all. I will even retract my counter statement claiming your claim is false. Happy? I took it back. Now the burden of proof only has one place to be - YOU. No debating it anymore. I am making no claims. You made claims. Can you prove them?

[edit on 28-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join