On a somewhat related note, I messaged this random chick cause she was vegetarian and her profile said she loved animals I'm like, "Hey that's cool I do also!" Then she messaged me back basically saying Christ is the truth and tried to convert me.
Completely off topic here, but lol at the "heathen punkbag" thing.Yes, that was the highlight of my hatemail.
Give them this link and walk away victorius. http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/
I am dead serious.
Well, this isn't some sort of grand dragon quest to defeat Christianity and wipe it from existence. A lot of people who subscribe to widely held ideas simply will not change their minds no matter how well your present your opinion, and I'm well aware of that.
On a somewhat related note, I messaged this random chick cause she was vegetarian and her profile said she loved animals I'm like, "Hey that's cool I do also!" Then she messaged me back basically saying Christ is the truth and tried to convert me.
I don't know what makes her seem more unstable, being a h4rdc0re christian that randomly tries to convert myspace peoples or being a vegitarian.
wow dude this site is really interesting! good call
Even Moses isn’t safe for the wrath of God. In Exodus 4:24, we read how “the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him”, for no apparent reason. Zipporah manages to appease God by circumcising her son and touching Moses’ ‘feet’ with it (scholars point out that ‘feet’ are a eufemism for ‘genitals’).
she's 61 years old dude why are you trying to ARGUE with her. just let it go!hahahhaha how dare you say this you fucking guy!! you would argue with a tree stump if it could kinda put together sentences
yeah, seriously. she's 61 years old dude why are you trying to ARGUE with her. just let it go!Um, she's asking me to. I had no idea who she was until she messaged me and was all like "hay let's do internets debate"
Um, she's asking me to. I had no idea who she was until she messaged me and was all like "hay let's do internets debate"
you better start studying the bible (http://tomatoland.org/index.php/THE_BIBBLE)haha awesome i made that one
Goddamn those Christians trying to convert people to Christianity, they're interrupting me converting people to atheism! Graaaaaaaaah!!!!!!This is the best post I've seen so far. :mellow:
And religions aren't the only thing you can convert people to.
I'm an atheist, but I hate the CONVERSION WAR shit. Everyone leave everyone the fuck alone--that goes for atheists AND christians.
It is NOT the typical "ARG I'M CHRISTIAN" versus "LOL FUCK UR GOD" shit.
Overall, as I stated earlier, this is just a debate to prove that two people from completely different backgrounds can discuss a sensitive topic without wanting to kill one another.
Man, you guys keep getting the wrong idea about this whole thing. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I don't care what people believe, and I don't feel like I have some sort of responsibility to ENLIGHTEN.I like your stance on this issue, The Mike.
Overall, as I stated earlier, this is just a debate to prove that two people from completely different backgrounds can discuss a sensitive topic without wanting to kill one another. There are quite a few people here on GW who could benefit from that idea. I'm also hoping to get more ridiculous responses from uber-Christians who want to save my soul or see my burn in hell or whatever. It is NOT the typical "ARG I'M CHRISTIAN" versus "LOL FUCK UR GOD" shit.
But it will turn out like that. They always turn out like that. Two people with radically different views can not get anywhere in an argument without it becoming a shit fest. This is fact and I base this on absolutely no research.Nah, they don't always turn out like that (but they can easily get there--I can base that on field research). In fact, if you want a legitimate discussion (debate implies there's going to be a winner) about Christianity, I'm willing to put out...
And religions aren't the only thing you can convert people to.
I'm an atheist, but I hate the CONVERSION WAR shit. Everyone leave everyone the fuck alone--that goes for atheists AND christians.
Nah, they don't always turn out like that (but they can easily get there--I can base that on field research). In fact, if you want a legitimate discussion (debate implies there's going to be a winner) about Christianity, I'm willing to put out...
I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say. :naughty:
But, The Mike, if you bring a topic like that to forums like this one you're going to get stupid comments from the under-educated peanut gallery composed from the mindset of Atheism for Show: many of these self-proclaimed atheists are probably the teenaged sons of good Christian people who are trying to rebel against God and Man just to prove that they can--they'll snarl all through the sermon and everything. Spouting websites that claim to single-handedly prove the Bible wrong is tripe--as much tripe as the born-again Christians who say that God personally wrote the Bible with His own ethereal, three-in-one/one-in-three hand and has ensured it to be an utterly flawless book that contains every word God has ever uttered or will utter, so we'd better memorize 7-10 passages way out of context and build a church on it. :fogetpope:
That said, if the masses want some good natured discussion, I'm down. :sly:
Why don't you read that website before you tear it down, and then try to explain how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity. I don't know how you can say "I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say." and then go on lumping me and others into the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD" category in one fell swoop. I grew up in the church and I also know what the scriptures say. And THAT is why I choose to not believe. Climbtree said the site was ridiculous but I didn't bother asking why because I assumed that was just his opinion. But if you actually read the site they list and cite all their reference and source material. Unless you actually review the site (and refute every single one of those sources), you shouldn't just assume it is "tripe".You seem think that I think exactly like the die-hards I already separated myself from. I don't. I didn't assume it was tripe. It is tripe.
"Outside of the bible, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind wasn’t put on the planet by God, but gradually evolved from a now extinct ape forebear over the last 5 million years. The evidence for this is massive." (No citation)This point is still argued by scientists. The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing". It's a hypothetical animal at this point. This is not the fact it purports itself to be.
"The Tower of Babel did exist! But it wasn't demolished by God - but by Alexander the Great."Can you show me in the nine verses about the tower at Babel that God demolished the tower? This assertion by the author(s) of your site preys on misinformation and incorrect verbal tradition of the tower. The top of that page does say "In the city of Babel, a ‘Tower of Babel’ was built. It was meant to reach out to the heavens. But God punished the vanity of the people of Babel by tearing down the tower. Then He punished the people some more, by giving them different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other and spread them across the globe. (Genesis 11:1-9)" offering a "synopsis" of the passages. But they've added concepts to the synopsis that aren't in the verses cited. The author(s) are intentionally misleading (read: flat-out lying to) people to plant false ideas and banking on the notion that most people will not verify a source that's offered.
This point is still argued by scientists.
The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing". It's a hypothetical animal at this point. This is not the fact it purports itself to be.
You seem think that I think exactly like the die-hards I already separated myself from. I don't. I didn't assume it was tripe. It is tripe.
I never named names on who the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD[ren]" were. I don't know who they are. I never said you were one of them. (And I really don't know how that ties into me not considering myself a die-hard born-again--unless the paragraph separation and the rest of the ANGSTY CHILD sentence was lost on you.) In fact, I said "most" of them "probably" are making for a pretty vague generalization that wouldn't necessarily include you. More on the word "most" a little later...
My (very short) explanation on "how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religion\s that are 1000+ years older than christianity": The Christian Bible as we have it today came from councils, many of which occurred several hundred years after the latest of the events recorded (one example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)). That doesn't mean the account in Genesis was written then, it was assembled as part of the Canon (and rest assured that any book not in adherence to the council's voted-on beliefs were not included) at that point; It was written well before. It has been translated into many languages and into even more languages from the multiple translations. I personally own four English translations (among others) that have very different wording. Obviously, the Bible did not escape 100% flawless and intact--I won't claim otherwise--but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it whatsoever. Verbal and logical contradictions are rife throughout the book. But, I don't rest my belief on the teachings therein on the hard-headed idea that it is a flawless book.
You site says "Most scholars agree that Genesis was only written three or four centuries BC" and offers absolutely no citation. "Most" is a great giveaway that you're reading speculation instead of fact. What scholars are these? Why should I believe them? How did they determine this hundred year window portraying 6000 year old events?
Other phrases that aren't cited and indicate similar sentiments:
"Outside of the bible, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind wasn’t put on the planet by God, but gradually evolved from a now extinct ape forebear over the last 5 million years. The evidence for this is massive." (No citation) This point is still argued by scientists. The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing". It's a hypothetical animal at this point. This is not the fact it purports itself to be.
"The Tower of Babel did exist! But it wasn't demolished by God - but by Alexander the Great." Can you show me in the nine verses about the tower at Babel that God demolished the tower? This assertion by the author(s) of your site preys on misinformation and incorrect verbal tradition of the tower. The top of that page does say "In the city of Babel, a ‘Tower of Babel’ was built. It was meant to reach out to the heavens. But God punished the vanity of the people of Babel by tearing down the tower. Then He punished the people some more, by giving them different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other and spread them across the globe. (Genesis 11:1-9)" offering a "synopsis" of the passages. But they've added concepts to the synopsis that aren't in the verses cited. The author(s) are intentionally misleading (read: flat-out lying to) people to plant false ideas and banking on the notion that most people will not verify a source that's offered.
And that's just a few instances from just a few pages of your "Give them this link and walk away victorius [sic]" site. It's not well researched, it's misrepresentative, and attempts to make half-truths look like full truths. And it certainly does not "cite all their reference and source material" like you claim it did. Have you read the citations? Have you researched the scriptural passages they reference to check the context and applicability? I flipped through a few of the citations they do offer, and wasn't particularly impressed by their use.
But if you think I'm going to point-by-point argue every point made in every reference, you're mistaken. I've done enough reading of the site and have seen sufficient lies and foolishness that I don't need to bother.
Additionally, how can I take seriously any site that advertises it's own Christianity-mocking comics? Really...? Is it even trying to be scholarly? I chuckled at a couple of them, but this doesn't make the site any more reputable than a Bible-bashing website on Geocities complete with animated .gifs every two lines.
If the site claims that showing contradictions or logical untruths will prove the Bible isn't accurate, it just fell prey to its own contradictions and untruths.
Don't expect me to comment any further on that site (or any similar). But, if you have any of your own points that aren't based on poorly researched concepts, I'd love to hear them.
Climbtree said the site was ridiculous but I didn't bother asking why because I assumed that was just his opinion. But if you actually read the site they list and cite all their reference and source material. Unless you actually review the site (and refute every single one of those sources), you shouldn't just assume it is "tripe".
this site is really ridiculous. why was God apeased by a circumcision? god was going to kill moses because he hadn't circumcised his sons. he's kinda a stickler for obedience. also there's a fair few spelling mistakes and a lot of the science is outdated
ahahaha, did you know Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December??
that website would work well for face to face stuff but when you have a little time to think about it, or even to look it up yourself you can find it's pretty far-out. i would not recommend it for a myspace debate!
But there is also some evidence that Jesus was noticeably ugly. In Byzantine citations of a now lost text of the Roman historian Josephus Flavius, Jesus is said to have been three cubits tall (that’s three human underarms tall – almost a midget!), crooked and dark-skinned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
In fact, the texts explicitly describe Jesus as being very ugly. He was almost completely bold, had a long nose and eyebrows that touched each other. Jesus looked much older than he really was, the Byzantine texts read.i take it that's meant to be bald, and he's only references the one work so that should be 'text.' (the first part is an innocent typo probably, the second part is important because he implies a larger support)
They came up with a broad face with short, curly hair, a prominent nose and a dark skin. An average peasant from those days would have been 5 foot and 1 inch tall (1,55 meter).an average peasent son of a carpenter (wealthy) who was a descendent from the line of david. blending in is different to being the same as everyone, and perhaps people didn't know what jesus looked like because they didn't exactly have TV back then??? roman soldiers (who were well paid) gambled for his clothing, and i doubt it was for its religious significance.
First, we know for sure that Jesus didn’t have long hair. The New Testament explicitly calls it ‘a disgrace’ if a man had long hair (Cor 11:14).
The Bible:
Jesus looked like this:
However, in other sources such as the Book of Jubilees, Cornelius Alexander (frag. 10), Abydenus (frags. 5 and 6), Josephus (Antiquities 1.4.3), and the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 117-129), God overturns the tower with a great wind.
i pointed out two of the most ludicrusQuotethis site is really ridiculous. why was God apeased by a circumcision? god was going to kill moses because he hadn't circumcised his sons. he's kinda a stickler for obedience. also there's a fair few spelling mistakes and a lot of the science is outdated
ahahaha, did you know Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December??
that website would work well for face to face stuff but when you have a little time to think about it, or even to look it up yourself you can find it's pretty far-out. i would not recommend it for a myspace debate!
but here's some extras for kicks:
But there is also some evidence that Jesus was noticeably ugly. In Byzantine citations of a now lost text of the Roman historian Josephus Flavius, Jesus is said to have been three cubits tall (that’s three human underarms tall – almost a midget!), crooked and dark-skinned.
In fact, the texts explicitly describe Jesus as being very ugly. He was almost completely bold, had a long nose and eyebrows that touched each other. Jesus looked much older than he really was, the Byzantine texts read.
i take it that's meant to be bald, and he's only references the one work so that should be 'text.' (the first part is an innocent typo probably, the second part is important because he implies a larger support)
an average peasent son of a carpenter (wealthy) who was a descendent from the line of david. blending in is different to being the same as everyone, and perhaps people didn't know what jesus looked like because they didn't exactly have TV back then??? roman soldiers (who were well paid) gambled for his clothing, and i doubt it was for its religious significance.
First, we know for sure that Jesus didn’t have long hair. The New Testament explicitly calls it ‘a disgrace’ if a man had long hair (Cor 11:14).Quotethis is iffy! i think this is a passage where paul is saying it's a disgrace for a man to pray with his head covered, and this is well after jesus died (that very site says that they never even met). the jews used to have their head covered constantly
However, in other sources such as the Book of Jubilees, Cornelius Alexander (frag. 10), Abydenus (frags. 5 and 6), Josephus (Antiquities 1.4.3), and the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 117-129), God overturns the tower with a great wind.Quotethese are all apocryphal book, but regardless there were plenty of ziggurats built. I'm pretty sure if the tower of babel existed and the bible said it was destroyed then a lot less people would have followed judaism way back then (using your dates alexander the great came after the old testament)
For some reason I keep thinking this topic title says "Dating a 61-year-old".Glad I'm not the only one. Though I might be the only one who gets an erection over it.
i'm hella tired but i know for sure most christians take Cor 11:14 as a condemnation against long hair. i'm not sure why you kind of lied dogg butThat is awesome.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm
also a lot of the links were to say JESUS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY SAID BECAUSE NO ONE SEEMS TO AGREE which I think is true.
i'm hella tired but i know for sure most christians take Cor 11:14 as a condemnation against long hair. i'm not sure why you kind of lied dogg
i think this is a passage where paul is saying it's a disgrace for a man to pray with his head covered' date='[/quote']
ugh WHAT A LIAR I AM i knew corinthians talked about head coverings etc but i didn't have my handy dandy bible on me, and i didn't bother with a google search because the main point was: corinthians was written after jesus, the other stuff about head coverings was just to give more support that maybe he could have long hair? my conclusion was only a maybe which is part of why i said iffy.I didn't respond to this earlier because I just didn't know what you meant by it. I don't know which page talks about that particular circumcision and I'm not going to re-read every page just to find the word. I did a quick ctrl F for "circum" on all of the Moses pages and it didn't come up. So what exactly are referring to then? And why the laughter with Jesus not being born on Xmas? You disagree or what? So that was why I didn't respond when you first posted it, there was just too much you left out.it's on the god page, here's what he said:QuoteEven Moses isn’t safe for the wrath of God. In Exodus 4:24, we read how “the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him”, for no apparent reason. Zipporah manages to appease God by circumcising her son and touching Moses’ ‘feet’ with it (scholars point out that ‘feet’ are a eufemism for ‘genitals’).like even reading this without knowing the rest of it you can kinda logically determine that if god was appeased by the circumcision, than maybe god was angry that moses hadn't circumcised his children yet???
also he spelt euphemism wrong and he didn't cite a source for the feet to genitals thing (which seems like a really unnecessary connecion anyway)Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesushe is only refering to the josephus writing in the section when he says "texts," he's certainly not refering to his CNN link when he says Byzantine texts. the wiki link says right at the top
Again, what exactly is your point here? You give that link right after talking about his looks but a quick skim of that page and I didn't see anything related to that dept. Do I REALLY need to read the whole freaking wall of text, or could you just quote the specific part?
At the bottom of the Appearance page on Jesus, there are THREE sources listed. And gay, I just found out ctrl F doesn't work in frames. I don't really know why you are talking about this one when that particular article seems to be pretty clear on the issue. You aren't being clear enough for me to understand what you are trying to get across.QuoteIts authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that is was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolveddodgy text (OH WELL SO IS THE BIBLE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE HARRY POTTER TOO HUH WHY NOT FELLATE DUMBLEDORE??)QuoteWe're talking about THE BIBLE and you want to make distinctions on which religious books are DOUBTFUL in their nature? Come on. The fact of the point is that several books explicity mention God as being the one responsible for the destruction of Babel. And I really doubt destroying Babel would be seen as worse than the flood. Or any of the other atrocities in the bible which are a hell of a lot worse than God giving out different languages and destroying a building. That was a really horrible point.ugh what are you talking about?
chaos whatever said the bible never said the tower of babel was destroyed you linked to apocryphal books (books which are purposefully not in the bible (they're not just left out to save space))
the passage quoted was from this page http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/g_babel.html questioning the bible
not the one on whether god was good or not, so it's moot how worse it is for whatever reason.
i also pointed out that if the tower of babel existed when the bible was written then maybe people back then would've said "HEY!" back then???
also it is a REALLY HORRIBLE POINT that since the bible's authenticity is questionable, if you accept the bible as true you have to accept all the others too (specifically, ones that weren't included because they're too questionable)
also i remember hearing a joke in sunday school when i was like 6
a girl is in kindergarten coloring very fervently. the teacher comes over and asks "what are you drawing there sport?" and the kid says "i'm drawing jesus" and the teacher says "nobody knows what jesus looked like" and the girl says "they will in a second!
of course they could have just swapped jesus and god, but the joke in that is that they'd discuss religious matters in a school
also the xmas thing:QuoteThe Bible: Jesus was born on December 25ththe bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)
also the xmas thing:the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)For the Americans you could go with: George Washington wasn't born on the 3rd Monday in February. Or that the pilgrims didn't celebrate the subjugation of the native Americans *only* on the 4th Thursday in November. :)
three different stories/books were all written before the bible. The oldest of of those being written in 1700 BC, still 200 hundred years older!When do the events in these stories take place? MANY BIBLE SCHOLARS AGREE (that's a fun phrase) that Adam & Eve were cast from the garden of Eden around 4000 BC (give or take a few years--the record is pretty scarce :rolleyes:). So, a few thousand years later separate civilations have similar stories... Perhaps they all came from a similar source?
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htmthis is so good (did the romans write that)
ugh WHAT A LIAR I AM i knew corinthians talked about head coverings etc but i didn't have my handy dandy bible on me, and i didn't bother with a google search because the main point was:
like even reading this without knowing the rest of it you can kinda logically determine that if god was appeased by the circumcision, than maybe god was angry that moses hadn't circumcised his children yet???
also he spelt euphemism wrong and he didn't cite a source for the feet to genitals thing (which seems like a really unnecessary connecion anyway)
he is only refering to the josephus writing in the section when he says "texts," he's certainly not refering to his CNN link when he says Byzantine texts. the wiki link says right at the top
dodgy text (OH WELL SO IS THE BIBLE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE HARRY POTTER TOO HUH WHY NOT FELLATE DUMBLEDORE??)
ugh what are you talking about?
chaos whatever said the bible never said the tower of babel was destroyed you linked to apocryphal books (books which are purposefully not in the bible (they're not just left out to save space))
the passage quoted was from this page http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/g_babel.html questioning the bible
not the one on whether god was good or not, so it's moot how worse it is for whatever reason.
i also pointed out that if the tower of babel existed when the bible was written then maybe people back then would've said "HEY!" back then???
also it is a REALLY HORRIBLE POINT that since the bible's authenticity is questionable, if you accept the bible as true you have to accept all the others too (specifically, ones that weren't included because they're too questionable)
also the xmas thing:the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)
I am not a close-minded christian but everything I have posted says otherwise.
Who Saved the Saviour? (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&blogID=322939067&Mytoken=DA08106B-8DB4-4404-8C5780DE7BBA9A59167742310")
I ran across a piece on google today that suggests Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and went on to live in India afterwards. Some of it is a little weird, but makes for a cool read.
And lol. Who gives a shit what Jesus really looked like? I mean, it's kinda funny to picture him bald with a unibrow, but c'mon, what does it really matter?
Ok, Ex 4:24 IS the source for the genitals to feet. Ok, it's actually 4:25. And that, I am willing to bet without even checking for sure, was probably under the "Wrath of God" section. That section I belive is just trying to show how God can be an angry tyrant at times. "Hey! You did not cut your penis I KILL YOU!" So I don't see how anything is wrong with that piece of writing.in the bible god punishes people for disobedience a lot harsher than this (he assaulted that woman who turned back to see soddom and gommorah heh heh heh). circumcision is meant to be done around 9 days after birth, as commanded by god to the sons of abraham. if i remember right his sons were like 30 years old or something so that is an awful lot of lee-way!
Alright. But how does that negate the other sources? Or are you just pointing out the misleading nature of "texts"?uhhh what?
Ok, WHO says those books are doubtful in nature? Again I feel I have to stress that the POINT is that there are books that DO state that God destroyed the tower of Babel. Here (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tower_of_Babel_-_In_other_scripture/id/600898) is another link which supports those exact three books, which I found by searching for "god destroyed babel". It really sounds to me like you are arguing that the bible needs to be the only book considered when discussing its history, which I don't think is an accurate route to take.here's a quote from your link:
Ok, so you thought it was funny because it was such common knowledge. I still fail to see why you think the site is as ridiculous as you are making it out to be. Yes there are errors but I have yet to see anything that is blatantly mis-represented. I will step-back and say that I was over-zealous in my "walk away victorius" comment. The site is heavy on the humor and even if the errors are minor, they are there and it does add an unproffessional air to it (as does the humor). Still, I feel the overall message of the site is clear and accurate even with the mentioned errors.
And religions aren't the only thing you can convert people to.
I'm an atheist, but I hate the CONVERSION WAR shit. Everyone leave everyone the fuck alone--that goes for atheists AND christians.