Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 May 19 2004, 08:32 PM
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
Posted by: Reach May 20 2004, 08:12 AM
QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ May 19 2004, 11:32 PM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
Everything, SF? Everything? That's news to me. *SIGH* I love you anyway, SF.
How strange that even my name means Jewish, Jewess and/or Jewish language.
How do you define the Islamic faith? Never mind, don't answer that. I doubt your answers would be politically correct.
QUOTE (Skankboy)
Labels are a tough game, they certainly make it easier to give a quick frame of reference for others to know where you are coming from, but at the same time you may end up having some of the baggage associated with the label unfairly applied to you.
Yeah, I noticed and the baggage you don't want is always heavy and often unjustly assigned.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 20 2004, 08:43 AM
QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ May 20 2004, 12:32 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
Hey I have a better one:
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
Posted by: BenjaminTC May 20 2004, 08:56 AM
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 20 2004, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ May 20 2004, 12:32 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
Hey I have a better one:
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
Haha. Very clever.
Posted by: chefranden May 20 2004, 09:20 AM
Space Falcon, Mandy,
chef
Posted by: Lokmer May 20 2004, 12:09 PM
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 20 2004, 09:43 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
It's unbelievably rude to follow a response to an insult (posted by a valued member of our community who took offense at something but responded with class) with a strengthening of the insult she was responding to.
A mod should know better.
-Lokmer
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 20 2004, 12:33 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 20 2004, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 20 2004, 09:43 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
It's unbelievably rude to follow a response to an insult (posted by a valued member of our community who took offense at something but responded with class) with a strengthening of the insult she was responding to.
A mod should know better.
-Lokmer
Yes, it is rude isn't it? To be honest I wasn't trying to be rude but I wasn't trying to be nice either.
Since you want to take this issue up with me I will address you frankly.
Personally, I detest ALL religion not only Christianity. I thought later about what I wrote and I was going to edit it further . . . Religion: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything. In fact, I was even thinking about using it as my signature. I still am.
Reach apparently felt the need to defend Christianity and that is her choice. I will not defend any religion. I also will not censor myself just to appease someone on this site who happens to be a Christian even one who is as you put it "a valued member of our community".
I like Reach; she's cool. In fact, she is one of the 'better' Christians but if she took offense to what SpaceFalcon2001 & I wrote then so be it . . . this is not a support group for Christians. I am not here to attempt to be someone that I am not and being politically correct is not exactly tops on my agenda. I am not here to sugarcoat my words.
I am actually pissed that some of you have chosen to chastise me for my words. "A mod should know better" ??? Why do you say this, Lokmer? Simply because I am a mod does not mean I do not have an opinion . . . it does not mean that I am going to suppress my opinion. If you really want to know how I feel I will tell you all - as a mod who is an EX Christian I really do not give a flying fuck.
By the way, if anyone wants they can take this issue up with the webmaster, Dave. However, I highly doubt that he is going to make me stand in a corner or repeatedly write, "I will NOT offend Christians" on a blackboard.
your pissed the fuck off mod
mandy
Posted by: Reach May 20 2004, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 20 2004, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 20 2004, 09:43 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
It's unbelievably rude to follow a response to an insult (posted by a valued member of our community who took offense at something but responded with class) with a strengthening of the insult she was responding to.
A mod should know better.
-Lokmer
My beloved friend Lokmer, let me clarify for you one thing. I did not take offense. I believed the statement of our friend, SF, was incorrect. Now, I may be wrong about that but the statement is what I took issue with.
He said: "Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish."
To that I replied: Everything, SF? Everything? That's news to me. *SIGH* I love you anyway, SF."
I took it as an exaggeration and as an editor, I'm compelled to be honest with my words. I am sometimes found to be wrong but my integrity demands that I am honest. I hope I've made myself more clear this time.
Warm regards,
-Reach
Posted by: Reach May 20 2004, 01:35 PM
For the record, let me state again that I do not defend Christianity™ and neither do I believe in doing so. It is my personal conviction that a follower of Christ ought to represent the person or character of Christ. I do not believe it's possible to both defend Christianity™ which is quite nebulous in definition and represent Christ at the same time. In fact, I feel so strongly about not defending Christianity™ that I started the topic in the hopes of covering the subject. Additionally, it is because of the fact that I don't defend the faith that I take a lot of abuse from our driveby seagull fundys and some of our Xtian members, on occasion.
I've made these statements before and they can be found in these threads along with many others.
http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3065
http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3072
I do believe in defending truth, wherever and whenever I find it.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 20 2004, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (reach @ May 20 2004, 05:35 PM)
For the record, let me state again that I do not defend Christianity™ and neither do I believe in doing so. It is my personal conviction that a follower of Christ ought to represent the person or character of Christ. I do not believe it's possible to both defend Christianity™ which is quite nebulous in definition and represent Christ at the same time.
It appeared that you were defending Christianity, reach and if so that is your business. You say you weren't - so be it. I don't care one way or the other.
If you were offended by either SpaceFalcon2001's or my words there is nothing that I could do. I cannot change my opinion of Christianity and more importantly religion as a whole. It is nice to know that you are not offended though. Offending people is not usually my intent.
Thanks for your words. Much of the time you put things into a clearer perspective.
as always
a much happier
mandy
Posted by: PriorWorrier May 20 2004, 02:16 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 20 2004, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 20 2004, 09:43 AM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
It's unbelievably rude to follow a response to an insult (posted by a valued member of our community who took offense at something but responded with class) with a strengthening of the insult she was responding to.
A mod should know better.
-Lokmer
So just for the enlightenment of an interested bystander, what are the unspoken rules of etiquette for a mod? Should they refrain from mixing things up with the regulars by reacting passionately to a post? Kind of like a barkeep not drinking with the customers?
I'm a fan of both of you (well, at least your words here) and don't quite understand what the flap's all about. Is this spillover animosity from another thread or something?
Peace out, man...lady.
Posted by: TruthWarrior May 20 2004, 02:33 PM
The matter of religion is offensive by nature you silly people! It's inevitable that someone will get offended at the very thought of their strongly held beliefs (or lack of beliefs) being wrong. Same with politics.
If anyone didn't want to offend anyone else at all, they would avoid the topic altogether, and no one would ever talk here. I suppose one can strive to "offend less", but I don't see the need to sugar coat words and feelings here.
Just roll with it.
Posted by: Lokmer May 20 2004, 06:36 PM
QUOTE (PriorWorrier @ May 20 2004, 03:16 PM)
So just for the enlightenment of an interested bystander, what are the unspoken rules of etiquette for a mod? Should they refrain from mixing things up with the regulars by reacting passionately to a post? Kind of like a barkeep not drinking with the customers?
It's bad nettiquette to insult someone in general. Just holding a differeing opinion isn't a good reason to assault someone with it. There really isn't difference between a mod and a regular peon in what one should expect from a civilized adult, but in that the mod is in charge of (among other things) keeping the board orderly and civil - hence "a mod should know better."
Not trying to stir up more shit here, just answering a question
-Lokmer
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 20 2004, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 20 2004, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE (PriorWorrier @ May 20 2004, 03:16 PM)
So just for the enlightenment of an interested bystander, what are the unspoken rules of etiquette for a mod? Should they refrain from mixing things up with the regulars by reacting passionately to a post? Kind of like a barkeep not drinking with the customers?
It's bad nettiquette to insult someone in general. Just holding a differeing opinion isn't a good reason to assault someone with it. There really isn't difference between a mod and a regular peon in what one should expect from a civilized adult, but in that the mod is in charge of (among other things) - hence "a mod should know better."
Not trying to stir up more shit here, just answering a question
-Lokmer
I am sorry Lokmer but you can ask Dave and "keeping the board orderly and civil" was not on the list of mod responsibilites.
However, if you must know as a mod I do try to keep the board orderly and civil. Most of the time I too try to be orderly and civil.
Apparently, if I did not offend reach then no one else (including you) should have an issue with my statement which was a spin off of SpaceFalcon's original words . . . "Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish."
I know nothing so how exactly do you suggest that I "should know better"? I never claimed to be all knowing. Fuck "nettiquette" this is just who I am.
Let us now get our panties out of a wad, okay? I like you Lok, let's not argue over something so petty . . . ?
Posted by: exatheist May 20 2004, 06:50 PM
I was wandering what you guys thought of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. notorious atheists (or just people who didn't believe in any deity or spirituality) They murdered millions upon millions and they didn't need the so-called "excuse" of religion?
What I am trying to say is that yes religion in general has been used for evil purposes (the crusades, other religious atrocities), but also there are people who didn't believe in the spiritual (saddam, etc..) who equaled and in some instances eclipsed that of religious atrocities. Therefore I see it as a problem with the race of humanity not in a certain belief or what not. I do believe it's unfair to say:
-----------------------------
Hey I have a better one:
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
-----------------------------
I'd say "Man:The perversion,defemation, mutilation, AND CORRUTPION of everything"
And when I say "man" I mean women and men alike.
Posted by: chefranden May 20 2004, 06:55 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 20 2004, 08:50 PM)
I'd say "Man:The perversion,defemation, mutilation, AND CORRUTPION of everything"
And when I say "man" I mean women and men alike.
Of course it is people, since there is no god. Nevertheless people polluted by religious ideology or political ideology, or, Newman help us, by both are the trouble.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 20 2004, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 20 2004, 10:50 PM)
I was wandering what you guys thought of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. notorious atheists (or just people who didn't believe in any deity or spirituality) They murdered millions upon millions and they didn't need the so-called "excuse" of religion?
What I am trying to say is that yes religion in general has been used for evil purposes (the crusades, other religious atrocities), but also there are people who didn't believe in the spiritual (saddam, etc..) who equaled and in some instances eclipsed that of religious atrocities. Therefore I see it as a problem with the race of humanity not in a certain belief or what not. I do believe it's unfair to say:
-----------------------------
Hey I have a better one:
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything.
Simply everything.
-----------------------------
I'd say "Man:The perversion,defemation, mutilation, AND CORRUTPION of everything"
And when I say "man" I mean women and men alike.
Yes, humans do tend to perverse, mutilate, defame and corrupt things but when you add religion which would not exist without humans you end up with one nasty equation.
Posted by: Cerise May 20 2004, 07:14 PM
"We are not humanity."
Posted by: exatheist May 20 2004, 09:02 PM
Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
------------------------------
Now I would say that God uses certain people to reveal more insight of his word, or otherwise many people would be in the dark of the true nature of God, Jesus, etc.. but I do agree that people who feel the need (religiously) to somehow prove that Jesus performed miracles and such are a little extreme. I am not "backing up God" in the way that many people usually perceive. I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people.
----------------------------------
MANDYLIBRA1979:Yes, humans do tend to perverse, mutilate, defame and corrupt things but when you add religion which would not exist without humans you end up with one nasty equation.
------------------------------------
But do you guys get what I am saying? In essence it is "humans" fault all the way. Alot of people who commit great actrocities do them regardless of a deity. Most people will do them with any excuse. Hitler used God as propoganda and quickly replaced all bibles with his "Mein Kumpf" and replaced the name of God, with his own in churches. So he was basically making himself "God." He was also a devout evolutionist who thought in the inferiority of darker skinned races.
But I do see the point that you guys are trying to make that religion in general does ENCOURAGE and in some cases promote bad behavior and therefore is a hindurance in some form. So all in all I do agree to an extent.
-------------------------------------
CHEFRANDEN SAID:Of course it is people, since there is no god.
-------------------------------------
I was curious as to why you believe that there is no God? Again I am only curious as to why you believe this.
Posted by: Reach May 20 2004, 09:18 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 21 2004, 12:02 AM)
Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
I agree. If God wants to defend Christianity™ let him do so. It's his problem, not mine. If it's his invention, he can deal with it. I will never defend Christianity™ without an entire mental overhaul.
For any new people here, I do not call myself a Christian™ either. The term is nauseating to me.
Welcome ExAtheist.
Posted by: Bill Johnson May 20 2004, 09:20 PM
QUOTE
Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
A non-existent God can't inspire a book let alone stand up for himself.
QUOTE
Now I would say that God uses certain people to reveal more insight of his word, or otherwise many people would be in the dark of the true nature of God, Jesus, etc.. but I do agree that people who feel the need (religiously) to somehow prove that Jesus performed miracles and such are a little extreme. I am not "backing up God" in the way that many people usually perceive. I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people.
That's nice an all, but we have heard it all. "Knowledge of the scripture," would mean that you believe the Bible is a fraud. I have real "knowledge of the scripture," and I would slaughter you in a debate; but then you might think that since I am claiming that I can slaughter you in a debate, I must know how informed you are; this is incorrect, because proving the Bible valid or showing that the prophecies were fulfilled is an indefensible position, so therefore my statement is valid.
QUOTE
I was curious as to why you believe that there is no God? Again I am only curious as to why you believe this.
This was addressed to chefranden, but I will state my answer to the question. We do not believe there is a God because there is no evidence for a God.
Incorrect: Atheists believe there is no God.
Correct: Atheists do not believe there is a God.
Posted by: exatheist May 20 2004, 10:38 PM
REACH SAID:For any new people here, I do not call myself a Christian™ either. The term is nauseating to me.
------------------------
Well, I myself don't mind it. I mean if you want to label it that whatever, you know. But thanks for welcoming me REACH!
------------------------
BILL JOHNSON SAID:That's nice an all, but we have heard it all. "Knowledge of the scripture," would mean that you believe the Bible is a fraud. I have real "knowledge of the scripture," and I would slaughter you in a debate; but then you might think that since I am claiming that I can slaughter you in a debate, I must know how informed you are; this is incorrect, because proving the Bible valid or showing that the prophecies were fulfilled is an indefensible position, so therefore my statement is valid.
------------------------
Well, I will admit that I am not the smartest apple out there nor the most knowledgeable when speaking of the bible. Now because you see fault with the scripture and you claim to have knowledge doesn't absolutley make the bible false by any means. There are many very knowledgable people that I know that can beat me in a bible knowledge showdown that believe that the bible is God's inspired word.
--------------------------
THE QOUTE BY BILL:Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
MY RESPONSE:Now I would say that God uses certain people to reveal more insight of his word, or otherwise many people would be in the dark of the true nature of God, Jesus, etc.. but I do agree that people who feel the need (religiously) to somehow prove that Jesus performed miracles and such are a little extreme. I am not "backing up God" in the way that many people usually perceive. I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people.
----------------------------
Now, I didn't mean to offend if I did at all. If anyone has a problem God than that's fine. But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all. I clearly stated above "I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people." So I am not looking for an argument or a debate. But thanks for correcting my grammer! Like I said I am not the smartest.
--------------------------
I am curious BILL; were you a pastor at one point? Or did you just read the bible alot? I was wandering because you said that you had alot of knowledge of the bible. thanks
Posted by: Cain May 20 2004, 11:05 PM
QUOTE
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
WOW. The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of a lie.
Honestly, how the hell is Judaism any better? Isn't it too just a smash up of legends and false promises from an incredibly violent warring tribe from yesteryear?
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 May 21 2004, 12:08 AM
QUOTE (Cain @ May 21 2004, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
WOW. The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of a lie.
Honestly, how the hell is Judaism any better? Isn't it too just a smash up of legends and false promises from an incredibly violent warring tribe from yesteryear?
Before I start:
1. This thread went way off. People say plenty of not quite so nice things about christianity here, but should one relate it to Judaism it is suspect? None of you can say that the quote was out of line, or that Mandy's quote is any diffrent than a majority of your views. I know that plenty of you are disgusted by any religion/God idea irregardless of base. At least some of you do, in fact, know the aspects of other religions enough to be able to appreciate them in their own way.
Judaism is a pretty good religion when you realize that it's not christianity without Jesus. Isn't that what I'm here to help you remember? That it isn't christianity without Jesus? That is only the tip of the iceberg.
2.How is calling something a perversion of it's past saying the past it's better? The past could have been the worst thing in the world and they made it many times worse.
On to the real information of value:
How is Judaism better? Hmm. Certainly in many ways. Particularly in the not forcing religion on other people, not sending people to hell forever, and encouraging knowlege. It's progressive, and can evolve, it is not stuck in "yesteryear".
It's not about bible literallacy, nor is it about promises. Simply rules for a certain people on how to live. Period. Do you hate vegitarians for choosing a non-meat lifestyle? It's often based in their own God or simply because they value the life of animals. Does that make it right for everyone? Certainly not. Does that even make it right for anything more than a small minority of people? Probbly not.
As for incredibly violent, certainly no more or less violent than any other people of the time. We've seen far worse in our time. Would you blame a caveman for not being good at chemistry?
If any of the Judeo-spawned religions are right, you'd better hope it is Judaism, as it's the only one of those three that won't send you to hell for all eternity for being an Athiest/Non-believer/Infidel.
Posted by: Fweethawt May 21 2004, 12:15 AM
Hey Space,
I forgot to even mention The Jewish Guy in http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4197
Perhaps you might get a chance to download that before you lose your phone connection? It's a good read. Trust me. You'll like it.
Posted by: Reach May 21 2004, 12:18 AM
SF,
Thank you for a very gracious post.
It just goes to show you that you never can tell what can happen around here in one day. Writing a short post got you starting a topic you hadn't intended on starting. Then of course there are several hours when all these posts were removed from the board. Strange place indeed!
It's always great to see you, friend! *hugs*
-Reach
Posted by: Cerise May 21 2004, 03:06 AM
QUOTE
THE QOUTE BY BILL:Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
Erm...not to be picky or anything but...that's my quote.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 21 2004, 08:50 AM
QUOTE (reach @ May 21 2004, 01:18 AM)
For any new people here, I do not call myself a Christian™ either. The term is nauseating to me.
I am far from new but I never realized that you did not want to be called a Christian, reach. I was reading your profile just a moment ago and noticed that you prefer the label, "follower of Christ", right? Anyhow, I apologize if I have referred to you as a Christian.
Oh and exatheist, Welcome to the forum . . .
as always
mandy
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 21 2004, 08:56 AM
Speaking as someone who knows Judaism very well, I’d say the differences between it an xianity are so vast you could write many a book about them, and I may just do that.
SF is completely correct, virtually all the flaws found in xtinity and especially those brought up here are absent (for the most part) in Judaism. It is more like Buddhism or Sikhism sometimes, in that it is more principle based than absolute dogma, some Jews believe in reincarnation, others in language and numbers based magic, there are so many different forms, and they aren’t at each others throats like in xtinity.
They base their biblical understanding on mass education, and open debate, the very opposite of the churches position for many centuries, in fact for nearly a thousand years the Jews along with the more enlighten Muslims were the rational and educational light of the western hemisphere. There is no hell in Judaism, no judgement day, no call to holy war, there are many violent acts in the Torah (OT) but I don’t believe they really happened, and many Jews would rather they hadn’t. Since the Babylonian Talmud they have been considerably more enlightened that the morals displayed in the Torah, as they have an oral law to counterbalance and explain the written, this has been their true ethical standard. Whereas xtinity has only the written, and often a very crude and literal interpretation of it as well, not to mention badly translated. The Jews regard xtinity as being the kind of polytheist idolatrous and immoral faith they sought to rid themselves of so many thousands of years ago. It is in every way a step backward, what few virtues it has are entirely due to Jesus’s plagiarising of Talmudic principles, not anything new or original in xtinity itself.
exatheist
What you and all theists fail to realise is, it is the constant reference to a blameless “higher” authority that keep the cycle of violence going, as the “source” of faith itself remains blameless, just “further proof of the inherent flaws in mankind”, and “proof we so badly need god”.
An so on…
As I keep saying, belief in god is the reason all theistic views are immoral as they regard humanity secondary to their precious deity, thusly we are demeaned and abused. True, the reason is always mankind, but thanks to your non-existent god, we have a permanent non-existent but still often used reason to fuck things up. God is an excuse, just like communism, religion is just the tool, but because we cant get rid of god like we can communism, or fascism, or one day capitalism we are stuck with your eternal green light for genocide, and anything else that can be legitimised from the bible.
Posted by: Reach May 21 2004, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (mandylibra1979 @ May 21 2004, 11:50 AM)
QUOTE (reach @ May 21 2004, 01:18 AM)
For any new people here, I do not call myself a Christian™ either. The term is nauseating to me.
I am far from new but I never realized that you did not want to be called a Christian, reach. I was reading your profile just a moment ago and noticed that you prefer the label, "follower of Christ", right? Anyhow, I apologize if I have referred to you as a Christian.
Mandy,
I thank you for your apology on that but it's not necessary. I do not find it offensive when others refer to me as a Christian, generally using the label for expediency and clarity. It's just that I don't choose the term for myself. After several years of studying deception in the church, church history and Christianity™ I find myself so appalled by it, especially the western version, that I can no longer use the label Christian™ applied to myself.
Some things just make you want to vomit.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on this for any who might read this.
-Reach
Posted by: Bill Johnson May 21 2004, 09:15 AM
QUOTE
BILL JOHNSON SAID:That's nice an all, but we have heard it all. "Knowledge of the scripture," would mean that you believe the Bible is a fraud. I have real "knowledge of the scripture," and I would slaughter you in a debate; but then you might think that since I am claiming that I can slaughter you in a debate, I must know how informed you are; this is incorrect, because proving the Bible valid or showing that the prophecies were fulfilled is an indefensible position, so therefore my statement is valid.
------------------------
Well, I will admit that I am not the smartest apple out there nor the most knowledgeable when speaking of the bible. Now because you see fault with the scripture and you claim to have knowledge doesn't absolutley make the bible false by any means. There are many very knowledgable people that I know that can beat me in a bible knowledge showdown that believe that the bible is God's inspired word.
The facts make the Bible false. SpaceFalcon was correct when he said, "Christianity: The perversion." Christianity perverted the Old Testament (Jewish) in order to create "prophecy fulfilments." A New Testament authors says an Old Testament passage predicts a future application, but when you read the passage the author is referring to in context, you realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the future; further examination and honest translation even show that some of the passages in the Old Testament are present tense. e.g. The famous "virgin birth prophecy" in Isaiah says in my honest NRSV translation...
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Bad translations of Isaiah 7:14: Matthew, NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, NLV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, KJ21, ASV, YLT, DARBY, NIRV, NIV-UK.
Matthew perverts Isaiah...
23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,"
Micah 5:2...
2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel.
Perverted by Matthew...
6 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'"
QUOTE
THE QOUTE BY BILL:Regarding apologetics - It just seems odd to me to find all these people "backing up God" like Arnold the Tank’s little brother in a bar fight. God’s a big boy. He should stand up for himself.
I was quoting you and then I wrote a remark afterwards. You should take advantage of the boards features so that you don't confuse someone into thinking that I wrote that.
QUOTE
Now, I didn't mean to offend if I did at all. If anyone has a problem God than that's fine. But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all. I clearly stated above "I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people." So I am not looking for an argument or a debate. But thanks for correcting my grammer! Like I said I am not the smartest.
Everyone gives up in a debating session with me anyways; either they confuse themselves or just stop responding. I'm not saying you would do this, but it is most likely to happen since your position is indefensible. Now you might ask why it's indefensible; well, there is textual evidence in support of the Old Testament being perverted, but there is absolutely none that is in support of let's say, "prophecy fulfilments." (I am a "prophecy" freak) I also bring up Matthew a lot because he is known to see fulfilment in everything, and I have deconverted a few people by showing them how he ripped passages out of context and perverted their meaning. I have studied lots of "prophecies," but I have only gotten around to discussing a few of them on this board. Recently, Cheyenne brought up the Zechariah 9:9 "prophecy," and I debunked it and as usual Cheyenne stopped responding. Soon I will write about the "prophecy fulfilment" Matthew made, saying that Herod's decree to kill all male children under the age of two in and around Bethlehem, fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremiah.
QUOTE
I am curious BILL; were you a pastor at one point? Or did you just read the bible alot? I was wandering because you said that you had alot of knowledge of the bible. thanks
I have never been a pastor and I am far too young to be one anyways. I just wanted to know the truth so I studied the Bible. I didn't want it to be false, it just happened to be false. When I am debunked the Bible I give credit where I believe it is due; and when I make an error, I admit to it and make a correction. (I find that most Christians are unwilling to do this)
Forinstance, if part A of the Bible supports part B of the Bible, and part C of the Bible isn't in support of part B, I will not just include part B and C, I will also include part A.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 21 2004, 10:48 AM
QUOTE
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Bad translations of Isaiah 7:14: Matthew, NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, NLV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, KJ21, ASV, YLT, DARBY, NIRV, NIV-UK.
Did you just get that from the beginning of SNATCH?
I wonder whether the Rabbis at the beginning are responsible for others looking into the false claims in NT. I loved seeing people in a film confirm my findings. The amount of "confirmations" in Mat are so over done they're almost funny. It's clearly later rationalising after the fact, yet they put Mat first! Did they think we wouldn’t notice the fact that it’s just a puffed up Mark?
Posted by: Bill Johnson May 21 2004, 11:04 AM
QUOTE (A. Uiet Bhor @ May 21 2004, 01:48 PM)
QUOTE
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Bad translations of Isaiah 7:14: Matthew, NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, NLV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, KJ21, ASV, YLT, DARBY, NIRV, NIV-UK.
Did you just get that from the beginning of SNATCH?
I wonder whether the Rabbis at the beginning are responsible for others looking into the false claims in NT. I loved seeing people in a film confirm my findings. The amount of "confirmations" in Mat are so over done they're almost funny. It's clearly later rationalising after the fact, yet they put Mat first! Did they think we wouldn’t notice the fact that it’s just a puffed up Mark?
What the fuck are you talking about? My avatar might be from snatch or some other movie (only thing in relation to what you are speaking of), but when I talked about bad translations of Isaiah 7:14, I was referring to the book of Matthew and a bunch of Bible translations.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 21 2004, 12:12 PM
I know, I just wondered whether the scene at the beginning of snatch had anything to do with your interested in new Testament misquotes.
I assumed you knew about scene in the beginning where a group of rabbis are discussing that very quote from Isaiah, and complaining about the Roman Catholic Church being the result of it.
It amused me because I happen to be studying exactly that line, as well as all the other contradictions between the old Testament and the new I know full well with what you're talking as I am doing the same thing. There are lots of Jewish counter missionary sites that specialise in showing that the old Testament does not backup the new in case were after extra information.
Posted by: Bill Johnson May 21 2004, 12:37 PM
Sorry, I understand now. I must have missed the beginning of Snatch. I got confused, because I believe the guy in my avatar smashed some guy's head in a car door in either Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 21 2004, 01:26 PM
Your avatar is from halfway through snatch when he gets hired for the job.
I get annoyed when the Christians quote from the old Testament claiming it backs up their absurd illusions about the N T. Even Paul used mistranslations from the Greek OT, and some fundamentalists even claim that somehow the Greek version is more inspired than the original Hebrew. The Bible is a complete mess, now most Christians have never read the original material and are unaware of all the errors, very difficult to argue with people ignorant of their own religion, their own doctrine. Sometimes I wonder why I bother because every time I begin to argue with Christians have the start from scratch and give them the lowdown on their own religion.
We atheists have to put in ten times more effort as we have to educated our opponents before they can argue with us. Then they just ignore everything you say the just carry on preaching. Just once I'd like to meet a Christian who knows as much about Christianity as we do, and has some good counter arguments instead of just replying with "oh, I didn't know that!, Let me get back to".
Posted by: chefranden May 21 2004, 01:51 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 20 2004, 11:02 PM)
Now I would say that God uses certain people to reveal more insight of his word, or otherwise many people would be in the dark of the true nature of God, Jesus, etc.. but I do agree that people who feel the need (religiously) to somehow prove that Jesus performed miracles and such are a little extreme. I am not "backing up God" in the way that many people usually perceive. I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people.
=======================================
But do you guys get what I am saying? In essence it is "humans" fault all the way. Alot of people who commit great actrocities do them regardless of a deity. Most people will do them with any excuse. Hitler used God as propoganda and quickly replaced all bibles with his "Mein Kumpf" and replaced the name of God, with his own in churches. So he was basically making himself "God." He was also a devout evolutionist who thought in the inferiority of darker skinned races.
=======================================
But I do see the point that you guys are trying to make that religion in general does ENCOURAGE and in some cases promote bad behavior and therefore is a hindurance in some form. So all in all I do agree to an extent.
======================================
CHEFRANDEN SAID:Of course it is people, since there is no god.
-------------------------------------
I was curious as to why you believe that there is no God? Again I am only curious as to why you believe this.
You are correct about people being in the dark about the true nature of god. Most, if not all, Christians belong to that category, since the true nature of god is non-existence.
======================================
Of course the social problems of humanity can, mostly, be laid at the feet of humanity. Humans invented religious ideology and political ideologies for which they are willing to kill other humans for. And it is not any god's fault, because there isn't one to be at fault.
Where do you get this, "Hitler... quickly replaced all bibles with his "Mein Kumpf"" Documentation please. (Tocis, is there any truth to this, or is it just another fundy invention?)
And if he did replace the bibles, so?
=======================================
I'm impressed that you admit it. There may be hope for you.
======================================
If a god can self exist then the universe can self exist. There is no evidence that a god exists. There is evidence that the universe exists. Therefore the self existent thing is the universe.
As for XianGod, it is logically impossible by definition in the same way that there aren't any round squares.
Argument From Evil against the existence of the God described by mainstream Protestant Sects and the Roman Church: hereafter AFE
QUOTE (ChefRanden)
Definitions
Gratuitous evil: That evil that comes about outside of that evil which may possibly be necessary to preserve free will. Examples, birth defects, Ebola, famine, mosquitoes, weapons of mass destruction, hurricanes, earthquakes, war, genocide, ptsd.
Condition G: the condition such that the amount of suffering and premature death experienced by humans at this time due to gratuitous evil being non-existent or nearly so.
Then AFE, making reference to condition G, can be expressed as follows:
(A) If the Christian God described by mainstream Protestant Sects and the Roman Church were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
(1) being able to bring about condition G, all things considered;
(2) being all loving therefore wanting to bring about condition G, i.e., having it among his desires;
(3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about condition G as strongly as it;
(4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).
If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then condition G would have to obtain.C) But condition G does not obtain
D) Therefore [from
& C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).E) Therefore [from (A) & (D)], God as described by mainstream Protestant Sects and the Roman Church does not exist.
Posted by: chefranden May 21 2004, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 21 2004, 12:38 AM)
Well, I will admit that I am not the smartest apple out there nor the most knowledgeable when speaking of the bible. Now because you see fault with the scripture and you claim to have knowledge doesn't absolutley make the bible false by any means. There are many very knowledgable people that I know that can beat me in a bible knowledge showdown that believe that the bible is God's inspired word.
======================================
Now, I didn't mean to offend if I did at all. If anyone has a problem God than that's fine. But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all.
=======================================
I clearly stated above "I am on here simply to share my knowledge of the scripture and experiences with Christ, and to chat a little with intelligent people." So I am not looking for an argument or a debate. But thanks for correcting my grammer! Like I said I am not the smartest.
Nor does the fact that you don't find fault make the traditional cannon true.
I am a very knowledgable person (on the cannon, theology, food) that doesn't find it true. If I beat you at a bible knowledge contest will you believe it is not true? No? Then why do you believe it is true for the same reason? Can you say, "confirmation bias"?
=======================================
You might as well say that God sent you me to illuminate you to the fact he isn't. But let me ask this about that: Why the hell didn't God just say what he meant instead of sending illuminators? Who would you consider a better illuminator, John A.T. Robertson, or Pat Robertson?
======================================
Well this is the debate forum, so you might want to prepare for debate. What are your "bible knowledge" credentials?
Posted by: nightbreeze May 21 2004, 04:07 PM
QUOTE
I was wandering what you guys thought of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. notorious atheists (or just people who didn't believe in any deity or spirituality) They murdered millions upon millions and they didn't need the so-called "excuse" of religion?
Ok, one more time.
Christians have no right, no fucking right, to invoke "Stalin", "Pol Pot" or whoever in making a moral argument. Why? Because according to christianity, most of those tyrant's victims will writhe in eternal flames. So the difference between those tyrants and those they murdered is small, seeing how they both receive the same punishment, an eternity in hell.
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 May 21 2004, 10:32 PM
QUOTE (Bill Johnson @ May 21 2004, 01:15 PM)
Bad translations of Isaiah 7:14: Matthew, NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, NLV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, KJ21, ASV, YLT, DARBY, NIRV, NIV-UK.
To bad translations also add 1917 JPS.
Soncino is not nessicarily bad, but it is more confusing than it should be sometimes.
Good Translations: 1985 JPS, Stone Tanach.
You know what's even better? An actual torah scroll. True it's not a translation, but it is impressive. Each is hand written by a scribe over the course of a year. No mistakes may be made. Every letter (and there are 304,805 of them) must be copied exactly, for example some are larger in certain places than others, such as the first letter of the Torah (ב). If a mistake is made on a segment, the entire segment must be removed and rewritten, hence the scribes have to be extremely good at what they do. Typically these scrolls weigh 40 pounds (18.8 Kilos), and cost about $10,000 on average.
(http://www.safrus.com/alephbet.html and some information on being a scribe)
The Torah, unchanged in over 2,100 years, as proven by the dead sea scrolls.
Posted by: exatheist May 21 2004, 11:04 PM
thanks for the replys guys!
I clearly stated "But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all." I never said that I was the one sent. But like I said I am not the smartest apple, so credentials are way out of my league.
Thanks for the reply
Posted by: AzAtheist May 21 2004, 11:20 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 22 2004, 12:04 AM)
thanks for the replys guys!
I clearly stated "But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all." I never said that I was the one sent. But like I said I am not the smartest apple, so credentials are way out of my league.
Thanks for the reply
Cop out
Posted by: Quicksand May 22 2004, 03:22 PM
QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ May 19 2004, 08:32 PM)
Christianity: The perversion, defamation, and mutilation of everything Jewish.
At least with the OT for sure. But Christianity has also "perverted" Gnostic texts and incorporated other religions like Zorastrism, for its own ends too.
As much as we appreciate SF comments here-n-there he tends to turn this into judiasim vs christiaity relationship.
IMHO, we shouldn't overlook how Christianity is an organism of incorporated myths.
Posted by: Quicksand May 22 2004, 03:27 PM
QUOTE
"But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all."
I think you mean illuminate. Or do you mean allude? I will guess that you mean illuminate.
exathesit, you are 100% correct! Absolutley. I couldn't agree more.
This is why God created this board, to illuminate the message of a false, erronous, errent, and contradictory messages and history of the Bible.
Bravo!
Posted by: chefranden May 22 2004, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 22 2004, 01:04 AM)
thanks for the replys guys!
I clearly stated "But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all." I never said that I was the one sent. But like I said I am not the smartest apple, so credentials are way out of my league.
Thanks for the reply
You might as well say that God sent you me to illuminate you to the fact he isn't. But let me ask this about that: Why the hell didn't God just say what he meant instead of sending illuminators? Who would you consider a better illuminator, John A.T. Robertson, or Pat Robertson?
Posted by: mandylibra1979 May 22 2004, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (exatheist @ May 22 2004, 03:04 AM)
thanks for the replys guys!
I clearly stated "But sometimes I BELIEVE that God will send certain people to alluminate his biblical message, that's all." I never said that I was the one sent. But like I said I am not the smartest apple, so credentials are way out of my league.
Thanks for the reply
So . . . are you suggesting that you are here to illuminate god's message?
If your god is oh so powerful then please tell me why he needs piss ants such as yourself to illuminate anything for him?
thank you
::steps off podium now::
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 May 22 2004, 09:47 PM
QUOTE (Quicksand @ May 22 2004, 07:22 PM)
As much as we appreciate SF comments here-n-there he tends to turn this into judiasim vs christiaity relationship.
Oh so those messianics at my door waiting to tell me about the wonders of Jesus are my friends?
True, often it is christianity vrs. the world. However, we are "the old ones", essencially the living proof that christianity is bunk. Everything else that was relevent to the period was absorbed. We are their #1 target. Why do you think they want us so much?
Three mainstream christian ideas exist about what to do about the Jews:
Absorb them/crush them, support them long enough in order to bring about the second coming of christ, i.e. "christian zionist" (at which point they go to hell for being non-believers).
In many ways it is Judaism vrs christianity, if only slightly more so than anything else vrs christianity.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 23 2004, 04:23 AM
You are right as usual SF. The Jews are (apart from critical thinkers, who have analysed the NT using the scientific method) the only people who truly understand that the one certainty in the universe is that there are no way you can reconcile the NT and OT. At least no way without compromising your intellectual integrity, and reason.
They have had to use not just theology and metaphysics to keep the two separate, but rational and secular methods, in every way the NT is an illegitimate corruption of the Torah's theology and prophetic message, and I don’t even believe any of it. To me all religion is fraud, but even I can comprehend the internal logic of Judaism and correctly understand the original intensions of the Hebrew scholars who wrote the Tenach, and xtianity owes far more to Gnosticism and the pagan faiths than Judaism. Most of the salvation message bares no resemblance to Judaism at all, but is a cult tactic that has hijacked the far more consistent and integrated theistic concepts of a better faith.
Posted by: Java May 23 2004, 04:49 AM
I love so many things in the Jewish religion. The openness, the debate, the lack of the thought borders Christianity sets up, the poetry of the Old Testement in Hebrew, the respect...
I have no problem with some Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Hey, at least then they could assasinate Chick and Falwell, eh? In seriousness, of all three of the Abramic religions, I trust Judaism to be honest.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 23 2004, 05:24 AM
Hear Hear!
We have to remind ourselves that not all religions are a stain on humanity, some deserve respect, and can help those incapable of belief understand that religion has some benefits, for a certain type of person.
I also like Buddhism and Sikhism, and am looking for other faiths I can study without losing my lunch. I hate going against people beliefs but I feel I have no choice, my ethics require me to stand against immoral world views, theistic or other wise, and I, and sometimes other rationalists mustn’t lose site of the fact that this is an ethical and truth seeking dilemma, not exclusively theological, as there are faiths that have never stood against our search for truth, and morality.
Posted by: Quicksand May 23 2004, 06:08 AM
QUOTE
Oh so those messianics at my door waiting to tell me about the wonders of Jesus are my friends?
I never stated anything remotely like this in my last post. But, yes, I agree doorstep christians are not you're friends to anyone they try to convert.
QUOTE
True, often it is christianity vrs. the world. However, we are "the old ones", essencially the living proof that christianity is bunk. Everything else that was relevent to the period was absorbed. We are their #1 target. Why do you think they want us so much?
Christianity want's everyone. In a Christian mind you are only 1-step removed.
QUOTE
Three mainstream christian ideas exist about what to do about the Jews:Absorb them/crush them, support them long enough in order to bring about the second coming of christ, i.e. "christian zionist" (at which point they go to hell for being non-believers).
Everytime a Crusade was called for, Jews were slaughtered throughout Europe and in the middle east (as well as Muslims). Evidence in history of Christians "amity"toward Judasiam. "Christian-Zioinist" I couldn't think of a better word for George W. Bush.
QUOTE
In many ways it is Judaism vrs christianity, if only slightly more so than anything else vrs christianity.
I do not disagree there. When I said
QUOTE
As much as we appreciate SF comments here-n-there he tends to turn this into judiasim vs christiaity relationship. andIMHO, we shouldn't overlook how Christianity is an organism of incorporated myths.
Again, we shouldn't overlook that Christians have not only absorbed (as you put it) Judasim but have absorbed and perverted other religions as well. I think one of our apologist friends said it best that the Bible was written over 150 years with 40 different literally styles. Christianity completely destroyed Greek and Roman paganism and absorbed what it could. Destroyed what it could not effectively killing the religion(s) off. I am essentialy agreeing with you SF.
I hestitate to release this chart in the public domain. I put it together as a study guide for myself. I still need to double check alot of the information. The chart shows how many elements the Jesus story incorporated.
Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 23 2004, 08:19 AM
Pretty good.
Will you include Horus, Krishna, Odin and Marduk?
Not to mention the dual natured Fang god.
The there's all the virgins goddeses, anat etc.
Posted by: Quicksand May 23 2004, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (A. Uiet Bhor @ May 23 2004, 08:19 AM)
Pretty good.
Will you include Horus, Krishna, Odin and Marduk?
Not to mention the dual natured Fang god.
The there's all the virgins goddeses, anat etc.
Thanks! Like I said, I still need to verify more of the information for myself by comparing different sources. Its a quick overview.
As far as the others, I don't know their individual biographies all that well so I went with what I knew best. Later versions could compare biographies from different national Gods to Jesus/Christianity. I just have to find reliable sources of information to do this, that is, widely accepted as scholary research. I prefer books over internet sources, the biblographical information is extremely more indept.
All suggestions and critism is welcome.
Posted by: chefranden May 23 2004, 09:33 AM
QUOTE (Quicksand @ May 23 2004, 11:11 AM)
All suggestions and critism is welcome.
I hope that you continue the project and make the updated info available here from time to time. Thanks for your work.
Posted by: Rameus May 23 2004, 09:53 AM
Quicksand,
Horus and Krishna are must haves for your list. Unfortunately I have not found any particularly reliable books that accurately compare Krishna and Christ. All of the ones I have read greatly overstate the case, and in many places twist the scriptures to fit the facts. Which is very unfortunate, because there really is an excellent case to be made for the parallels between Christ and Krishna. The case has lost some of its credibility because of authors like Graves who like to grandstand.
The Horus case requires a tremendous body of knowledge and ideally some formal study to make accurately. But I think you can make a very compelling Krishna case by reading:
The Bhagavad Gita
Mahabharata: technically it has the same account, but read anyway. If you don't have time to read the 5,000+ pages you can start out with one of the highly condensed versions, like Buck's.
Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Part I
Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Part II
It's probably a good idea to read some of the other Vedic literature as well, just to get a grasp on the philosophical system. It's not a short body of reading to be sure, but I think it can help you develop a whole new dimension of understanding regarding the development of the Christ fable.
A pity more apologists haven't done this reading [objectively], I suspect there wouldn't be quite as many of them in the world.
Rameus
Posted by: Quicksand May 23 2004, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ May 23 2004, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (Quicksand @ May 23 2004, 11:11 AM)
All suggestions and critism is welcome.
I hope that you continue the project and make the updated info available here from time to time. Thanks for your work.
Thanks Chef! But I did this for myself to get my feet wet. It's premilinary. But I am realizing if this is to be a project, its beyond me to qualify as completly accurate. I used a number of popular books on the subject as well as my readings in classical studies and art history (having a minor in it).
I created this chart over a month ago from notes I had taken from over the last year and in college.
Posted by: Quicksand May 23 2004, 07:05 PM
QUOTE (Rameus @ May 23 2004, 09:53 AM)
Quicksand,
Horus and Krishna are must haves for your list. Unfortunately I have not found any particularly reliable books that accurately compare Krishna and Christ. All of the ones I have read greatly overstate the case, and in many places twist the scriptures to fit the facts. Which is very unfortunate, because there really is an excellent case to be made for the parallels between Christ and Krishna. The case has lost some of its credibility because of authors like Graves who like to grandstand.
The Horus case requires a tremendous body of knowledge and ideally some formal study to make accurately. But I think you can make a very compelling Krishna case by reading:
The Bhagavad Gita
Mahabharata: technically it has the same account, but read anyway. If you don't have time to read the 5,000+ pages you can start out with one of the highly condensed versions, like Buck's.
Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Part I
Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Part II
It's probably a good idea to read some of the other Vedic literature as well, just to get a grasp on the philosophical system. It's not a short body of reading to be sure, but I think it can help you develop a whole new dimension of understanding regarding the development of the Christ fable.
A pity more apologists haven't done this reading [objectively], I suspect there wouldn't be quite as many of them in the world.
Rameus
I once dedided to be Krnshna....after a week of reading, I couldnt do it anymore. But in those days (early 90's) Krnsha had made headway into straight-edge and american hardcore.
Every book you mentioned is on my backburner. I know you've read Underworld, so I after finding agreement with that, I have to read these books for myself and qualify them. I suspect that Hinduisum, despite its present form, records the memoris of times long gone.
You wrote a post awhile back comparing Krnsha to Jesus. I never forgot it.
Other than genetics....language is the only other bridge to past we have.
Posted by: Quicksand May 23 2004, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Quicksand @ May 23 2004, 06:08 AM)
QUOTE
Oh so those messianics at my door waiting to tell me about the wonders of Jesus are my friends?
I never stated anything remotely like this in my last post. But, yes, I agree doorstep christians are not you're friends to anyone they try to convert.
QUOTE
True, often it is christianity vrs. the world. However, we are "the old ones", essencially the living proof that christianity is bunk. Everythi