The Flaw of Monotheism (3 Viewers)

[Titburger]

The idea of ignoring the other words of your holy book and THEN filling in the blanks is even funnier.

What did you think of my idea of deism, anyway?

I find it interesting that you say that you don't believe in deism because there is no good reason to. This is exactly why I gave up my religious beliefs a couple of years ago. I feel that the mystery surrounding the creation of our universe and our eventual fate is imperative and I feel no need to substitute in a supernatural being simply because I cannot explain these things myself. If I am to be punished for eternity for not accepting belief in the absence of evidence than this is certainly an insult to human intelligence - seems like some pretty shitty 'intelligent design' to me

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

As I showed a page or two back, Christianity has, since the writing of the Gospels, been naturally unconcerned with the words of Christ, the historical and political realities of the day and other such concepts as long as it suits their agenda to ignore them. Why stop now?

 

[Teclis]

I expected this argument. The Ancient Greek word used to describe this relationship between Jesus and David via Joseph is literally "sperma" or "seed". It clearly refers to a very physical, biological connection, and not one by law. So even if these genealogies, once again, were included, they are rendered entirely irrelevant by the later addition of the concept of virgin birth.

So you're an Ancient Greek scholar now? Can you actually read it or did your just read that in a book? Because from what I understand of ANY translation, and particularly languages that are dead is that you have inconsistencies. English does not have a Plural you for instance, whereas Ancient Greek does. Makes for very interesting issues in translating when for instance Paul directs a statement at "you" and the translators fail to specify which you it was in the Greek.

No, it is made up and we can be sure. The things you listed, with the possible exception of Stonehenge, can be very reasonably explained, and we're quite aware of what happened.

We know how they achieved it... we don't know how with their knowledge of Science they actually figured it out.

Well yes and no. We expect it to a certain amount in historical records, but the Gospels would not pass any basic test to establish themselves as reliable historical records at all, based on the contradictions and clear fabrications.

In terms of historical sources, our main sources for the time are Tacitus and Josephus. Tacitus was a Roman historian whereas Josephus was a Jewish one who wrote in Greek. We also have writings of Pliny the Younger and Suetonius. It is on the basis of this extensive understanding of the history of the day that I can make the assertions related to events that operate externally to the internal logic of the New Testament; that is, Herod's slaughter, the census, the Mithraic cults (about whom Plutarch wrote in his "Life of Pompey" which predates Christianity by some 60 years).

I do actually know Josephus' Jewish antiquities, I know about Tacitus' Histories and Annals, I also know about Pliny the Younger's writings to Emperor Trajan, I know about Suetonis' Lives of the Caesars.

We could also talk about Thallos, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus... references in the Talmud to events in the New Testament.

I do actually know a little about this subject...

 

[Tavin]

It has too many holes to be true, yet there isn't much out there that is better.

You seem to be an athiest, and I'm against monotheism, so i'm wondering what your views on something like pantheism are.

So..?

 

[80bjws]

i'll firstly like to say that all u that don't believe in god are a bunch of stupid idiots,secondlyur points are also stupid and don't make sense,thirdly there is only one god and mohammad(pbuh) is his messenger .

 

[Bereie]

i'll firstly like to say that all u that don't believe in god are a bunch of stupid idiots,secondlyur points are also stupid and don't make sense,thirdly there is only one god and mohammad(pbuh) is his messenger .

Mohammad was a pedophile.

 

[Teclis]

i'll firstly like to say that all u that don't believe in god are a bunch of stupid idiots,secondlyur points are also stupid and don't make sense,thirdly there is only one god and mohammad(pbuh) is his messenger .

Fail troll is fail

 

[Sadiah]

Mohammad was a pedophile.

Lol, getting two seperate pictures and merging them into one.

How lame can you posibly get.

And what are you trying to prove from that stuffed up picture of yours?

 

[mirakon]

Mohammad was a pedophile.

That was pretty uncalled for. Your lame trolling has gone a bit too far.

 

[Scorch]

So you're an Ancient Greek scholar now? Can you actually read it or did your just read that in a book? Because from what I understand of ANY translation, and particularly languages that are dead is that you have inconsistencies. English does not have a Plural you for instance, whereas Ancient Greek does. Makes for very interesting issues in translating when for instance Paul directs a statement at "you" and the translators fail to specify which you it was in the Greek.

I originally read it in a sourced, scholarly article on the New Testament but yes, I can read Ancient Greek. Your point about English is largely irrelevant.

We know how they achieved it... we don't know how with their knowledge of Science they actually figured it out.

Sure we do. It's all geometry and angles which, you may be surprised to know, the Greeks and Egyptians knew rather a lot about.

We could also talk about Thallos, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus... references in the Talmud to events in the New Testament.

I do actually know a little about this subject...

Sure, throw names about. What do you hold that any of this proves? A veiled reference to a 'darkness' that no one else in the world mentions, a vicious criticism of both Christianity and Judaism and a reference to a 'wise king' honestly prove nothing at all beyond that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, at one point in time, which is fairly self-evident.