If the God of the bible were real, then I'd want everything to do with his destruction

[Taverner]

I mean shit - have you read Joshua? Genocide after genocide, kill every last man woman and child. Kill witches, kill teh gay, kill seafood eaters, kill people who make fun of their parents, kill kill KILL!!!!

Then we have some really weird books like Ezikiel who in today's world we would call "mentally ill" - and god tells him, among other things, to eat shit and then die (I am not making this up.)

Then we get the New Testament, where god's bloodlust hasn't really been tamed, but the Jesus guy shows up, says some nice things and then his followers go on to blame the Jews for killing him. And there's more death, some of it real (book of Acts) and some of it masturbatory fantasy (Revelation)

And the Devil? Only thing he EVER did wrong was try to educate us. And for that, he loses his legs.

Fuck that!

I'm in with Beezelbub!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taverner]

2. OK then, tell me how the bible DOESN'T say those things...

I can cite chapter and verse for every single one of them

[murray hill farm]

3. Great rant!

And said so well! Love it!

[Rageneau]

7. Okay, then please cite the Bible chapter and verse for your statements about ...

... the followers of Jesus killing the Jews (not saying it didn't happen historically; I'm saying there's nothing that says that -- certainly nothing that orders that -- in the Bible. Also, where in the Bible does it say that Satan is either (a) trying to teach us anything, or(b) has gotten his "legs cut off."

I know full well that when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, God ordered them to kill every person living there -- which, although it was harsh -- would have prevented most of the problems Israel is having today.

Also, Ezekiel wasn't told to EAT human dung. He was told to COOK with it -- IOW, to use it as fuel, perhaps because there was no other fuel around.

Second-guessing the Almighty is fun, but it accomplishes nothing.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. So you advocate genocide?

I know full well that when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, God ordered them to kill every person living there -- which, although it was harsh -- would have prevented most of the problems Israel is having today.

Remember, the Bible clearly stated that the Israelites destroyed whole peoples, genocide by anyone's definition, are you saying that it is justified?

[Taverner]

11. Give me a while

I said I would do it - I didn't say how long

If anyone wants to jump in here and knock off a few easy ones go right ahead...

I have two screaming kids wanting to be fed, loved and made to feel valuable

Because that's how I roll....

[Mariana]

5. The Bible is truly ugly to read.

It contains plenty of religious bigotry, for example.

[Taverner]

22. R'amen!

[GKirk]

72. N'oodle!

[emilyg]

4. So don't believe in God.

[Taverner]

21. I don't...

But even if you find the bible true - who's side is the right side?

[ZombieHorde]

6. The Holy Bible's ethics are very different than my ethics as well. nt

[rug]

8. It's Ezekiel.

And Beelzebub.

[okasha]

10. So how do you feel about the American government,

which has committed real, not fictional, genocides a lot more recently than 3500 years ago?

[Taverner]

12. I think it's a horrible precedent!

And I think we should do everything we can to reverse this trend!

But that takes all of us...

[okasha]

13. So you think fictional genocide merits destruction

but the real thing is merely "a horrible precedent."

Amazing.

[Taverner]

14. Can we go back in time and change it? No... OK...

Can we make it better NOW?

Yes? OK, then let's go for it

Can we prevent this from happening again by not relying on its plans?

Yes? OK cool....

[Kurmudgeon]

15. Did you read the New Testament, and how Christ was sent to correct things?

Of course not, continue your ever lasting anti-faith rants....

[darkstar3]

16. I read it. I read about how Christ was sent only to the chosen of God.

I read about swords instead of peace.

I read about how women should be silent in the church.

I read about wheat and chaff, about sheep and goats, and the less said about God's return, the better.

The alleged Jesus and his supposed father, as described in both testaments, are divisive characters with sadistic tendencies.

[Taverner]

20. Thank you!

[Kurmudgeon]

24. And if anyone should read and try to understand Christ's Words, it should be you, Taverner!

Have a nice day, God does love you.

[laconicsax]

25. Aren't you sweet!

:puke:

[Kurmudgeon]

61. Wouldn't hurt you either, laconicsax

[laconicsax]

69. Spare me your evangelizing. n/t

[Kurmudgeon]

75. That'll spare you all that hard reading too.

[Kurmudgeon]

23. Apparently you read it without understanding.

Just the mention of Christ here seems to start a ruckus while other in the past have certainly drawn weapons and broke God's Law over offense at Christ's Words.
The instruction about women being silent in church is from Corinithians, which was after Christ ascended into Heaven. As such, it wasn't an instruction from Christ and is more a sign of the times than anything. Blame Paul for that one, I'm not a Paulist and feel he overstepped himself in that matter, IMHO.
Too bad about your not understanding the instruction about the separation of the chosen from the rest.
As for Jesus being alleged, that shows just how intellectually incurious you may truly be. Believe or don't believe His Testimony, but the Romans most certainly crucified Him. It's in their records unless you don't believe that Rome exists/existed either. As for calling Him a sadist, I just hope you never meet a true sadist so you learn the difference.

[laconicsax]

26. I'd like to see these alleged Roman records.

Especially since they aren't known to exist. There aren't any known contemporary Roman records of Jesus, so if you have them, you're sitting on a goldmine.

[darkstar3]

27. And apparently you read it through rose-colored glasses.

I'm not even going to bother engaging you point by point here, because you clearly don't give a flying rat's dingleberry about someone else's view on your most holy of books.

But I will say that the claim "the Romans most certainly crucified Him" is incredibly laughable. We have no extra-biblical proof that Jesus existed, let alone was crucified, and the Romans were impressively meticulous record-keepers. And on that subject, don't you think that if even half of the fantastical phenomena that was written about in the Bible had actually happened, one of the many Roman scribes would have written that shit down?

[laconicsax]

28. I'm sure the Romans didn't write about the zombies in Jerusalem for a legitimate reason.

You know, maybe there were more interesting things going on. Or maybe...

The records from that era didn't survive because the Roman army accidentally destroyed them while supressing the zombie menace.

Either way, it certainly wasn't because the whole thing is fiction.

[Kurmudgeon]

31. All the same tired excuses while you ignore history, can't say I'm surprised.

[laconicsax]

36. So Roman historians DID write about zombies in Jerusalem?

Who wrote about them and where can I read it?

[Kurmudgeon]

39. Seeing you somehow think this is about zombies, I doubt your ability to read.

Do your own research, lazy, however, I expect you'll stay blind till the end.

[laconicsax]

42. What end?

You don't believe that Jesus is going to come back and the world will literally end during your lifetime, do you?

BTW: You made a claim and despite multiple requests for you to substantiate it, you've yet to do so. Pony up and provide these alleged Roman records of Jesus and his alleged crucifixion. (You may recall that your Bible says that zombies came out to play when that happened.)

[Kurmudgeon]

55. My faith is based on Christ's Testimony in The Bible. Do your own research.

And if you had researched, you'd know that He said that "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. "
I don't know if the world will end in my lifetime, no one mortal does. However, you're supposed to live your life that way because you have no way of knowing when the end will be. And even if the world doesn't end, YOU will at some point, so act accordingly.
Is there a nicely type written or chiseled stone tablet out there with a concise description of The Crucifixion? Why no.
I guess you have to disbelieve all ancient human history then if it's not in a convenient form for you.

BTW, "zombie" is a Haitian term. Haiti was found much later in 1492 by Columbus, long after the events in the New Testament.
Your misuse of terms shows you may lack understanding of the subject. I hope you don't drag in Thor next.
Entertaining movie by the way.

[laconicsax]

56. In other words, you made it up.

No Roman records of Jesus or his alleged crucifixion. No records of an earthquake followed by the dead coming out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem.

You know the 9th commandment, right? I think you've just admitted to breaking it.

[Kurmudgeon]

60. Nope, the New Testament has existed for centuries, You however, trust the Romans.

The ancient Romans slaughtered lots and lots of people of many different nations and races, not exactly the people I'd use to back up much of anything actually.
Oh, and the Romans are not "my neighbor" and I did not lie. However, you should reread the 9th Commandment and understand what it really says.
For example, if someone is slaughtering people of a certain persuasion and I lie to save their life, I am not bearing false witness AGAINST them but for them. I can give other examples, but I expect you understand the concept better than you're willing to let on.

[laconicsax]

68. The New Testament is an exceedingly unreliable historical source.

None of it was written during Jesus' lifetime or by anyone who had first-hand knowledge of him. It's possible that Paul didn't regard Jesus as a real person, and Matthew was possibly written as allegory, not fact. Even if we take the Gospels as historical fact, they are filled with so many contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods that they cannot be treated as reliable.

There are no extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus that aren't hearsay or fabrications. You talk about research, yet you seem to have no idea about the sketchy history of your holy book (maybe you just don't care) and regard the notion of outside corroboration as irrelevant. You claimed that there are records, yet when asked to provide them, you refuse and the cite the Bible as source material to support itself.

I like how you take the first 9th commandment not as a prohibition on lying. Remember what your Savior said of it (Matthew 19:17-18), he doesn't make the distinction you do, so I maybe you should go back and check that inspired word of God.

BTW: The other 9th commandment reads, "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God." Remember, it's the 9th commandment that Moses carved in that second set of tablets that were "identical" to the first. I'm willing to bet you don't follow most of that second set and never have. What's more, I'll bet you have a convenient excuse that doesn't apply to other commandments (there are 613, you know) consistently.

[Kurmudgeon]

76. Because you or biased sources you like say so.

Meanwhile, you never say what you don't like about Christ's sayings. Got any quotes of Jesus you care to show that you find objectionable?
I get kind of tired of the good ole mining of Leviticus stuff. What do you have to say about the Messiah's actual words?

[laconicsax]

79. No, it is a matter of fact.

The gospels are inconsistent and contradictory. All you need to do to find this out is actually read them. I'm not interested in following your attempt to change the subject. This isn't about what Jesus allegedly said, it's about the fact you made a false claim.

[provis99]

45. How Christian of you.

Why don't you condemn him to hell while you're at it? After all, Jesus does.

[Kurmudgeon]

54. How self righteous of you, I condemn no one to anything.

We're all responsible for our actions and out beliefs. A person's actions and attitude are what condemn them, not on any opinion of mine.
Perhaps my phrasing was harsh, but I consider the constant "zombie" reference as an intentional insult.
laconicsax threw in something that is a known intentional insult, so I responded to their rudeness.
Of course, maybe that's just Atheist of some people.
Sorry for responding to the insult though.

[laconicsax]

57. I'm sorry I don't have a better term for the events of Matthew 27:52-53.

Nice to see you using atheist as an insult.

How's that golden rule working out for you?

[Kurmudgeon]

62. Just doing unto you what you did to me. I hope I didn't hit enter too hard for you.

[laconicsax]

70. Matthew 5:39

:hi:

[Kurmudgeon]

74. "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." :D

[backscatter712]

34. Considering that Jesus was plagiarized from Mithra, Hermes, Horus, etc. etc. etc.

why would anyone think he actually physically existed.

These other gods all had bits and pieces of the Jesus story - born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, fed multitudes, healed the sick, etc. etc. etc. Recycled mythology.

[okasha]

38. Wrong.

Mithras was born from a rock. Horus was the son of Isis, who'd been married to Osiris literally for eons. No indication the marriage was celibate--quite the contrary, in fact. Hermes was born because his mother had sex with Zeus. Perhaps the rock might qualify as a virgin, since. well, rocks don't generally have sex.

None of them was crucified,died, buried or rose again the third day.

If you want to argue about this,produce the original sources. Those do not include Zeitgeist or S. Acharya's rantings.

[darkstar3]

43. Really?

Let's see...

Here's a site DEDICATED to Christian apologetics which lists the similarities between Mithra and Jesus:
http://carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false

Religioustolerance.org, a great resource for this sort of thing, also states that Mithra was allegedly born of a virgin (along with many other religious figures).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

And there are many, many more places on the internet to find this information.

[okasha]

51. Both those sites use outdated and inaccurate information.

That's why I asked you to produce the original sources to support your assertions. You have not done so. Just in case you're not clear about original sources, I mean sources contemporary with the Mithraic religion, Egyptian literature relating the alleged parallels with Horus, Greek references to Hermes "crucifixion" (no, the caduceus is not a crucifix.) I am not surprised that you were unable to do so. I've seen these assertions made many times, never with any credible support.

[darkstar3]

59. Once again, we all look the same to you people.

[Kurmudgeon]

63. Easier to give excuses and spout prejudice than answering the question, I see.

[darkstar3]

65. BTW, speaking of sources, I didn't see you offer any.

If you're going to complain about the massive preponderance of sources that give this information on Mithra, perhaps you could pony up some of those "original sources" you claim tell a different tale...

[okasha]

77. Well, well.

Where's all the argument now about the burden of proof being on the person who makes the positive claim, in this case that Jesus is "just like" Mithras, Horus and Hermes? Just conveniently forgotten?

I have never seen anyone able to produce original sources to support these claims. It doesn't look as if it's going to happen now, either. And there's a good reason for that; there are no such sources. It's all woo.

[darkstar3]

78. It is pervasive. So much so that it saturates internet searches about Mithra.

The problem here is that you are offering an alternative hypothesis. I haven't even seen you provide a link for that alternative hypothesis, let alone an original source. You wouldn't be holding people to a standard you refuse to meet yourself, now would you?

[provis99]

46. so you write lies, and expect other people to refute your lies?

That's not how things work.

[okasha]

52. I have no idea what you're talking about.

But then, that's two of us.

[Kurmudgeon]

64. If you accuse someone of lying, it's expected you point out the lie and how it is so.

[Kurmudgeon]

67. This has been debunked so repeatedly, I'm amazed people still trot it out.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. This doesn't make sense, unless you are a Gnostic Christian who thinks the god of the old testament

is the demiurge, a malevolent god of the material, who screwed things up and you believe Christ was sent to help humans transcend the material world.

[Taverner]

18. Well - yes, it's not a bad idea

Evil Creator - especially if you take the OT into account...

Death, death, death, death, LUNCH, death, death....

You're a very busy MAN!

[Taverner]

19. In the Acts of the Apostles, an 'apostle' is struck dead for not paying their tithes...

Acts has a bunch of other unnatural 'acts' - but Revelation is where it starts getting bloody...

And it's not just bloody, but a future "this is who we should kill" bloody...

===============================

I would love to discuss this with you, but keep in mind the NT is a bloody document...

[Kurmudgeon]

32. Blaming Christ for Saul and John of Patmos, eh?

Apparently you can't read with understanding.

[Goblinmonger]

33. So Paul's not a "real Christian"?

Nice cherry picking when you first said "So you haven't read the new testament?"

[Kurmudgeon]

40. Is Paul equal to Christ? Or do you take orders from the handyman instead of the boss?

If anything you should take Paul to task for not following Christ's instruction.
However, that's one thing you never see an anti-faith person do. It'd be too truthful.
The Bible is many books by many different people. That's why I say try to read with understanding.
Next thing you know, you'll be pulling things out of ancient Levitican Priest Law and saying they are Christian.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Are you saying that the old testament

has nothing to do with christianity?

[Kurmudgeon]

53. Of course not. Remember it's a history as much as it is instruction.

Look at any past action of believers and if it broke the 10 Commandments, then it was wrong.

[laconicsax]

58. Which ten?

The first ten of 613 in Exodus 20 or the ten actually labeled "The Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34?

I regret to inform you that most believers break both sets routinely, yourself included.

[Kurmudgeon]

66. Exodus 20, though the account in 34 is just Moses replacing the ones he threw earlier in Exodus 32.

As for breaking Commandments, Yes, I am a sinner. I've never implied otherwise, please pardon me if you think I have.

[laconicsax]

71. You realize how ignorant that statement makes you look, right?

The set in Exodus 34 is labeled "the ten commandments," and is radically different than the ten given in Exodus 20, yet Christians and Jews cite those ten in Exodus 20 as the ten commandments. If the ten in Exodus 34 are identical to the first set, why don't they appear earlier and why don't your brethren cite them as the ten commandments?

Have you even read the Bible?

[Kurmudgeon]

73. Nah, just shows you find excuses to call names. Nice try though...

[provis99]

47. so you don't accept parts of the New Testament? They are lies?

Then the Gospels must be lies, too.

[white_wolf]

82. Paul and John were both considered apostles of Christ.

They were believed to speak for Christ. Secondly the Book of Revelation is considered to be a revelation from Christ himself.

[trotsky]

30. Correct things?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

[laconicsax]

37. That part's metaphor.

You see when Jesus said "until heaven and earth disappear," he meant that figuratively. Heaven and Earth can be said to disappear every night when you close your eyes, so that's what he meant. He came to uphold the law until that evening when he went to sleep.

[provis99]

48. that's what makes liberal Christians more goofy than the fundamentalists.

At least the fundamentalists claim to take everything in the Bible literally; they at least try for consistency. But liberal Christians are massive hypocrites, because the stuff they like in the Bible the often claim should be taken literally (like Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection) while stuff they don't like should be taken as metaphorical.

Of course, they have the truth of the Bible, and not anyone else.:eyes:

[laconicsax]

49. They're not any goofier.

Both groups do their best to ignore and explain away parts they don't like.

[Leontius]

80. What do you think "until everything is accomplished" means?

[provis99]

44. except Jesus condemns most of humanity to hell.

Even the Old Testament prophets weren't this vile.

[Ninjaneer]

29. Amen to that, brother. n/t

[backscatter712]

35. Lewis Black has some words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Remember the story of Abraham? "HEY ABRAHAM!!! COME HERE!!! COOOOOME HERE!!! BRING YOUR SON, LET'S BARBECUE HIM!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

[struggle4progress]

50. Go Down Moses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0CRAavN4EI

[white_wolf]

81. I love how all the Christains are ignoring the fact that Roman records make no mention of Jesus.

The Romans were very meticulous with their records. You would think Jesus would at least be mentioned as would the dead rising from their graves. Also a poster mentioned that he thinks Paul overstepped his bounds when he said woman shouldn't speak in Church, but I thought the whole Bible was considered to be the word of God by Christians, I didn't know you could ignore authors you don't like.

[laconicsax]

83. Everyone does it.

All Christians pick and choose which parts they take at face value, and realistically, it's a good thing. If not for cherry-picking, there wouldn't be liberal Christians.

A case could be made that if not for cherry-picking, there wouldn't be Christians at all, since it's obvious to anyone who can read that Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies, meaning he's not the Messiah and since he made predictions that didn't come true, the Old Testament says that he's a false prophet.