God cannot exist...sue me!

[Achronos]

TheJackel, you obviously have no understanding of the Bible, or history for that matter.  You claim religions to be "copy and paste" of each other, but your arguments are nothing but a copy and paste of the most unscholarly stupidities online.  IQ 20 points higher?  Are you sure you didn't see that arrow upside down?  Your arguments are nothing but misrepresentations, whether intentionally (which is trolling) or unintentionally (which is stupidity in your part).  Either way, it's pointless to continue with this discussion because either you don't understand my arguments or you're turning a blind eye.  I mean look at this:

Incorrect. You tried to rationalize it's stupidity. The only person here being in denial is you..

Let's assume this can be taken literally.  Again, in its context, we're talking about the Garden of Eden, and then after Adam sinned, thorns started to show, a fallen world where poisonous fruits occur.  Shows how much you're stupidly ignoring context in the Bible.

Incorrect. You don't seem to even understand your position.

LOL!  Now I must admit, you did make me laugh on this one.  Shows a character of supreme IQ to truly understand my position that I apparently don't understand  

In both the Bible and "my position" you're looking for something that's not even there.  How sad.

[DJAkuma]

While some religions aren't derivative of older ones (like scientology) many, if not most are. In the book of mormon whole passages are plagarized almost verbatim from the bible (KJV) and a few other books, in the bible there are many parallels in older religions from the epic to gilgamesh to greek and egyptian mythology. It's like an ancient game of telephone where the details change over time.

[Achronos]

So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

[Davin]

So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

That is why there is a report button on each post.

[TheJackel]

So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

That is why there is a report button on each post.

I never said he was on drugs, it's highlighting the fact that his argument made no logical sense. So for anything against his position to which he can't seem to handle intelligently, it becomes a hominem attack.  

[Davin]

That is why there is a report button on each post.

I never said you were he was on drugs, it's highlighting the fact that his argument made no logical sense. So for anything against his position to which he can't seem to handle intelligently, it becomes a hominem attack.  

My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

[AnimatedDirt]

My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

[TheJackel]

Who's "they"?  Orthodox theologians that you've obviously never read?  Anyway, this actually proves my point, they don't really "care" because they don't have to.  Nothing is hingeing on the Bible's authenticity for Orthodoxy.

It does. For one the Ark story is completely taken from Gilgamesh. Jesus Story is hardly original (take the time to actually study it, and his rivals). You really seem unable to deal with how fabricated the bible really is. The bible's authenticity is only authentic to where you can establish that it was written by man. It's Authenticity stops there son. The Orthodoxy does not explain the bible's origins in detail, and makes quite a bit of assumptions.

Let's just explore the problems with calling the bible a "historical document of truth". Let's start with inconsistency in Genesis alone, and why it's all fabricated nonsense by some moron that didn't know anything about the real world or how it really came to be. Unless of course Genesis is reference to the 24 hour day and night cycle, and common events like floods with a little over the top embellishments.. In that context it would at least make semi sense while still failing to make complete sense. Such as the fact that there is no way there is enough water on Earth to rise any higher than 250 - 350 ft above current sea level. So let's examine some of this below:

To save myself time, I am going to quote from another source even though I had written my own articles here on Genesis:

---
In the first chapter of Genesis, there is a legendary account of the creation. These legends contradict each other at every point. In the first, the earth is represented as coming into existence completely enveloped in water. In the second, it is represented as being originally a dry plain, lacking even moisture. 1 (Gen. 1:2, 9; 2:6) According to the first account, all the fowls of the air were created out of water-

-"and God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth"

. . .

and the waters brought forth "every winged fowl after his kind." But according to the second account, the fowls were created out of the ground "

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." 2 (Gen. 1:20, 21; 2:19) The first story has it that the trees were made on the third day, and that man was formed three days later. The second story declares that man was made before the trees. 3 (Gen.1:12,13, 26-31; 2:7,9.)

If the first account is true, the fowls were created before man. If the second is correct, they were created after man. 4 (Gen. 1:21, 27 2:7,19) The first tale distinctly teaches that man was created after all the beasts. The second is as positive in its assurance that man was formed before the beasts. 5 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7,19) In the first account, we are told that man and woman were created at the same time, by one act of creation, and after all other things had been made. In the second story, it is explained that the man was made alone; that the woman was not formed until the man had failed to find a wife among the beasts, and that the making of the man, before the beasts, and of the woman, after the beasts, constituted two distinct acts of creation. 6 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7, 20-22) According to the first account, the man and the woman were given the freedom of the world, and were told to subdue it. According to the second, they were confined within the narrow limits of a garden.

-----

And that is just a few examples with concerning the Bibles Authenticity.

Ad hominem. Nice. Am I trained or am I self-inventing?  Or did I train myself?

You seem to be both.. I know I was when I was a Christian. I don't preach nonsense anymore, nor do I self-invent my own interpretations of the bible and then preach it like you do.

I'm sorry, did I say this somewhere?  I'm a prime example because, what, I've been appealing to the accuracy of the Bible for something?  Where and when?

So you appeal to the accuracy of the bible without actually questioning and examining it's accuracy correct? You might want to work on that accuracy problem with the bible. And even if those who wrote the bible managed to get it right, it still wouldn't give the bible authenticity!

LOL.  You've demonstrated yourself to be a poor historian (and poorer philosopher), so why should this statement be treated as a credible one?

Should I point out examples in the bible itself then? LOL.. There are plenty examples I can go by to show it's a cult. Hardly a poor historian either because the 300 years of burning wasn't a magical fairy tale, neither were the Crusades.

You do understand that your percentages are (a) not grounded in reality (not even from an Atheist's perspective), and (b) not worth the electrons they've wasted in their existence. Sounds like somebody needs to go back to Jr. High and get re-acquainted with basic math and percentages...

Really, please verify the core to your bible as being 100% truth. Ahh, you can't can you! GJ!

Sounds like you're still in that phase to me. "Tis better to have loved and lost then never loved at all."

Incorrect, it's better to know a lie than to blindly follow one. And love has nothing to do with this discussion.

Which source from "The Orthodoxy" are you referring to?

The origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" This is essentially true.  Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text, or the Textus Receptus , and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.

The other problem you have is this:

The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers over a period of over 1,600 years. So it's pretty damn funny when you read the bible. The bible itself is a assumed as GOD's Word! Please feel free to authenticate that! .. What's worse, religious people try to authenticate it through vague prophecies. Talk about gullible! It get's worse when many of the prophecies fail to come to be (such as many prophecies surrounding Jesus's own birth), or when they proclaim the obvious like the end of the world!.

Surely you don't have documents younger than the Bible in mind?  If you have more ancient sources that have parallels with the Bible, I'd love to read them.

Go read up on other religions far more ancient than Christianity son! Hello! Even the nativity scenes are similar to that of Egyptian nativity scenes (as a small example).

I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.

Then you won't be afraid to read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming and then actually re-read the bible or observe how religion operates on a daily basis. If you really are so sure about your position you won't have much to worry about.

If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. You obviously have no clue how it works, since you've misapplied the label and certainly the methodology.

I'm not rabid, I'm being very direct with you. And any animosity shown here in this thread is due to your circular self-invented avoiding arguments, or preaching. Not once have you actually addressed any points made here with any sort of honesty. When you can manage to drop the act and actually engage a discussion without being dishonest, you let me know.

BTW Your regurgitating a tired rhetoric that has been debunked by even the most radical Biblical critics doesn't endear you to anyone  such as myself.

BTW your regurgitating circular arguments. And sorry, nothing I've stated has been debunked by the most radical Biblical critics. Nice try though.

LOL. I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.  If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. Your posts reek of it.

I'm not actually atheist by choice, I'm materialist or a realist. You might want to realize that atheism is pretty much automatic attribute of both of those. And on all accounts you have failed to address any arguments I've made without circulating your head in the clouds of irrationality, dishonesty, avoidance, deflection, and nonsense.

-----

So again:

 Much of the stuff you will find in the bible will have parallels in regards to the Egyptian's, and older religions. Even nativity scenes ectra have shown to be pretty similar to Christianity. And I wasn't referring to copy paste vs copying the ideas, stories, and folklore and molding it into the making of the bible itself. Much of what you read in the bible is and was heavily influenced by much older religions. There are reasons why such parallel's exist that are hardly even original. Even Jesus's own story is hardly original! .. For Pete's sake, take the time to actually compare your bible to other ancient religions and literature!

[TheJackel]

And it might help if you could verify which version of the bible is "authentic"

http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp

Which one do you read and follow?

[Davin]

My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

I don't think it matters what his preconceptions were, he should have tested it to verify before publicly accusing the mods and specifically Whitney, of being unfair towards him. It's never good to accuse another person of poor behavior without reasonable evidence.

[AnimatedDirt]

My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

I don't think it matters what his preconceptions were, he should have tested it to verify before publicly accusing the mods and specifically Whitney, of being unfair towards him. It's never good to accuse another person of poor behavior without reasonable evidence.

Agreed.  However, people are fallible and sometimes let emotion drive them at some point.  I'm also guilty of this.  I'm not perfect but strive to not fall into this again.

[Davin]

Agreed.  However, people are fallible and sometimes let emotion drive them at some point.  I'm also guilty of this.  I'm not perfect but strive to not fall into this again.

I agree, that is why I offered a reminder instead of once again (I did previously jump to accusations of dishonesty for something that appeared to be blatant plagiarism from Achronos), not giving the benefit of doubt for what could have been an honest mistake.

[Achronos]

Should I point out examples in the bible itself then? LOL.. There are plenty examples I can go by to show it's a cult. Hardly a poor historian either because the 300 years of burning wasn't a magical fairy tale, neither were the Crusades.

Funny you should bring those up, as they weren't perpetrated by our church.  Again, "poor historian," and linguist, to boot.  Why must you be provided with even the most basic of information?  From a sociological perspective, Orthodox Christianity, and Christianity in general, are not "cults."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult  It's Sociology 101, man - go back to school.

Really, please verify the core to your bible as being 100% truth. Ahh, you can't can you! GJ!

Straw man; Orthodox Christians don't bring 100% into the equation when comparing the Bible to history.  Your argument - laughable as it is - is that 99% of the bible is false, a point I would contend is worthy of ridicule, and which you surely need to prove rather than assert.

Incorrect, it's better to know a lie than to blindly follow one. And love has nothing to do with this discussion

There are no blind men (well, very very few, thanks to speech-to-text technology) on an internet discussion, and there's no lie presented by Orthodoxy.  And, since we're talking about faith, Love has everything to do with the discussion.

BTW Your regurgitating a tired rhetoric that has been debunked by even the most radical Biblical critics doesn't endear you to anyone  such as myself.

I've yet to see a circular argument in here; but I should admit that your tired posts have bored me enough to "change the channel" a number of times.

And sorry, nothing I've stated has been debunked by the most radical Biblical critics. Nice try though.

"We know where the Authors of the bible got their inspirations from, and that was from other religions and folklore/beliefs. It's entirely a cut and paste form of creative writing to which is a text book example of servitude to power."

Let me give you a basic one, since I have neither the time nor inclination to point out to you the volumes of work on the subject: critics have been claiming that Christmas on Dec 25th was in order to take over a pagan holiday; historians have demonstrated that the celebration of Christmas was on Dec 25th at least 1 century before the celebration for Sol Invictus was added to the Winter Solstice.  Christmas has been a big attack point for those who wish to ridicule Christianity; while the "spirit of the holiday" may have been taken over by commercial interests for many people, the date has been "tradition" far longer than pagan celebrations during that period of time, and indeed has likely been a magnet drawing other attention to that season (e.g. the aforementioned feast for Sol Invictus' rise, the over-emphasis on Hannukah, which isn't even a top-5 feast for Judaism, etc.).

Im not rabid, I'm being very direct with you. And any animosity shown here in this thread is due to your circular self-invented avoiding arguments, or preaching. Not once have you actually addressed any points made here with any sort of honesty. When you can manage to drop the act and actually engage a discussion without being dishonest, you let me know.

There should be no animosity; you bring anger because you don't fully understand what you're arguing against, but you're dead-set against it regardless of the arguments.  If you spent your "Christian" life as a Protestant, you have no clue what historical Christianity is about; even if you were RC, you've got no concept of where the Orthodox Christians are coming from.

You keep claiming you were a Christian; I'm sure your faith was well-informed and well-studied. *chuckle*

People escaped Jonestown when folks started dying.  Yet, thousands and thousands have died for the Christian faith, including over 80 eye-witnesses to what you would have us believe is a hoax (the Resurrection).  Would each of those people die for a lie - not just die, die painful, drawn-out deaths?  Crucifixion, stoning, etc. - that's not lethal injection, or beheading.  Their Christian faith led them to take care of society's undesirables, led them to take care of the extremely ill and poor, and led them to stand firm when others wished to persecute them out of existence.  Say what you will of those who call themselves Christian but are so only in name; there have been many millions of Christians who have raised humanity from barbarism because of the convictions of their faith.  We can go back to our pre-Christian society, if you wish: exposing our undesired children until they die, killing all our political dissidents and prisoners, raping our captives, neglecting our widows, enslaving our orphans, etc.  Of course, since you hold a philosophical position contrary to the majority (i.e. atheism), you'd be among the first on the hemlock list...

Much of the stuff you will find in the bible will have parallels in regards to the Egyptian's, and older religions. Even nativity scenes ectra have shown to be pretty similar to Christianity. And I wasn't referring to copy paste vs copying the ideas, stories, and folklore and molding it into the making of the bible itself. Much of what you read in the bible is and was heavily influenced by much older religions. There are reasons why such parallel's exist that are hardly even original. Even Jesus's own story is hardly original! .. For Pete's sake, take the time to actually compare your bible to other ancient religions and literature!

You're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold.  Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

TheJackel, I'm going to use the plainest language I can muster, ok?  I'll say it slowly too:  Nothing. In. Orthodoxy. Hinges. On. The. Reliability. Of. The. Bible.

The authenticity of the Bible is not what Orthodox appeal to for their tradition.  Since you enjoy accusing me of making things up, I'll quote perhaps the most popular Orthodox theologian of our time, Fr. Thomas Hopko:

"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible."

I'm genuinely sorry you spent so much time typing out a vendetta against the Bible only to be met with mild amusement, but that's all you're going to find here.  Attack it all you want, it in no way weakens my position.

[TheJackel]

You're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold. Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661


And I made this just for people like you

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation-

[AnimatedDirt]

And I made this just for people like you
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation-

Information: The material physical Cause of causation as being discussed here on HAF.