Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please, by all means demonstrate for me how Christianity is a lie, or any religion for that matter. I respect no view that demands others that are doing no harm succumb to another belief or denounce their own beliefs.
The Bible is demonstrably false. The creation is nonsense, the flood in pointless and unhistorical. exodus also looks untrue, archeaology and Bible criticism suggests the separation of a Caananite tribe rather than the sojourn in Egypt.
Given the rough accuracy of the historical events, the religious take on them is unpersuasive. The prophecies of Babylon, Tyre and Daniel are polemic exhortations, not prophecies at all. They do not predict the future correctly (Babylon was not a ruin until after the fall of Rome).
The prophecies of Jesus are demonstrably used to built up the gospel story. The nativity and death of Judas are touchstone examples. The original story of a messianic Jew (I tend to think historical) has been fiddled and elaborated by the synoptics on a common original text and John on some other source. John as a control shows that the bulk of the Galilee material (between the healings at a distance and the feeding of the 4/5,000) were added by the writer of the synoptic original.
The bulk of the parables were written by Luke, the bulk of Jesus' teachings are of Christian polemic origin, not Jesus' own. The clean food business is back to front, with Paul arguing for clean food, Peter in acts needing to be convinced and Jesus authoritatively pronouncing about it.
That, together with Paul's fiddling, tweaking and misrepresenting of scripture to push his own messianic theology - not of a incarnate god, but a chosen man like Adam - is enough to show that the Christian gospel of an incarnated god with a dislike of Judaism is based on Paul, not Paul on the gospels.
Finally, and most damning, the resurrection accounts are demonstrably incoherent and contradictory and the original story was just an empty tomb as in Mark and probably the synoptic original did not (as in John) even have the angel explaining that Jesus was risen.
That is a very short account of the case. I don't expect you to buy it on such a short account, and indeed the longer (but not full) account in AA (show and tell) would probably not persuade you. I just say that I have darn good reasons for not buying the Bible as reliable and that means that Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and all Bible religions fall. If they are not rue, then 'Lie' (sorry) is a valid term.
The Hindu gods I do not believe in any more than I believe in the norse, egyptian or greek gods. Why should I? Buddhism I rather liked but Karma does not work as a natural force. It could not possibly distinguish correctly between good and bad deeds in view of a very mobile human morality.
Those main ones out of the window, Scientology having a traceable history of fraud and deception, what religion should I take seriously?
The Bible is demonstrably false. The creation is nonsense, the flood in pointless and unhistorical. exodus also looks untrue, archeaology and Bible criticism suggests the separation of a Caananite tribe rather than the sojourn in Egypt.
Given the rough accuracy of the historical events, the religious take on them is unpersuasive. The prophecies of Babylon, Tyre and Daniel are polemic exhortations, not prophecies at all. They do not predict the future correctly (Babylon was not a ruin until after the fall of Rome).
The prophecies of Jesus are demonstrably used to built up the gospel story. The nativity and death of Judas are touchstone examples. The original story of a messianic Jew (I tend to think historical) has been fiddled and elaborated by the synoptics on a common original text and John on some other source. John as a control shows that the bulk of the Galilee material (between the healings at a distance and the feeding of the 4/5,000) were added by the writer of the synoptic original.
The bulk of the parables were written by Luke, the bulk of Jesus' teachings are of Christian polemic origin, not Jesus' own. The clean food business is back to front, with Paul arguing for clean food, Peter in acts needing to be convinced and Jesus authoritatively pronouncing about it.
That, together with Paul's fiddling, tweaking and misrepresenting of scripture to push his own messianic theology - not of a incarnate god, but a chosen man like Adam - is enough to show that the Christian gospel of an incarnated god with a dislike of Judaism is based on Paul, not Paul on the gospels.
Finally, and most damning, the resurrection accounts are demonstrably incoherent and contradictory and the original story was just an empty tomb as in Mark and probably the synoptic original did not (as in John) even have the angel explaining that Jesus was risen.
That is a very short account of the case. I don't expect you to buy it on such a short account, and indeed the longer (but not full) account in AA (show and tell) would probably not persuade you. I just say that I have darn good reasons for not buying the Bible as reliable and that means that Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and all Bible religions fall. If they are not rue, then 'Lie' (sorry) is a valid term.
The Hindu gods I do not believe in any more than I believe in the norse, egyptian or greek gods. Why should I? Buddhism I rather liked but Karma does not work as a natural force. It could not possibly distinguish correctly between good and bad deeds in view of a very mobile human morality.
Those main ones out of the window, Scientology having a traceable history of fraud and deception, what religion should I take seriously?
The bible was written by man, what do you expect? The inaccuracies in the bible does nothing but make the bible questionable. It does not mean there is no god.
There is no evidence to offer proof, so I can understand why you doubt any god exists, but there is no evidence to disprove them either, so logic would tell you it is pointless to argue over such things, believe what you want, and leave the rest be.
For religions that have a traceable history and the creator of that religion has actually said, he made it up... yeah, this one is kind of obvious.
Buddhism and karma, I do believe in karma. Sometimes it just takes a bit longer to catch up to people.
If god is not logical, then it is pointless to discuss god at all because, without logic, god is completely and utterly incomprehensible. Without logic, true can be false, and any statement is meaningless because the interpretation of any statement is based on the stability of logic.
Seriously, if god is not logical, he could say, "believe in Jesus and be saved" and then damn you for believing in Jesus. You might say that is unfair, but I'd answer if god doesn't have to be logical, then lying can be telling the truth.
If god is illogical, seriously there is nothing you can count on. You can only understand and count on things within a logical environment. If god is not logical, he is irrelevant, because there is absolutely nothing we can know about him and no predictable way to influence him or count on him, so there is no point in talking about him.
The only god worth discussing or thinking about at all is a logical god.
If god is not logical, then it is pointless to discuss god at all because, without logic, god is completely and utterly incomprehensible. Without logic, true can be false, and any statement is meaningless because the interpretation of any statement is based on the stability of logic.
Seriously, if god is not logical, he could say, "believe in Jesus and be saved" and then damn you for believing in Jesus. You might say that is unfair, but I'd answer if god doesn't have to be logical, then lying can be telling the truth.
If god is illogical, seriously there is nothing you can count on. You can only understand and count on things within a logical environment. If god is not logical, he is irrelevant, because there is absolutely nothing we can know about him and no predictable way to influence him or count on him, so there is no point in talking about him.
The only god worth discussing or thinking about at all is a logical god.
Actually, even logic can be false.
Donald is a duck
All ducks quack
donald quacks
All men think about is sex
Jacob is a man
jocob is thinking about sex
Even if Donald never quacked, this statement based on logic is valid. Even if Jacob was not thinking about sex, this statement is valid if based on logic.
All men think about is sex
Jacob is a man
jocob is thinking about sex
Even if Donald never quacked, this statement based on logic is valid. Even if Jacob was not thinking about sex, this statement is valid if based on logic.
No, neither statement is valid...The trouble is, what you have posted here is not logic, but logical fallacies...
Not all ducks quack, and men do not always think about sex.
The bible was written by man, what do you expect? The inaccuracies in the bible does nothing but make the bible questionable. It does not mean there is no god.
There is no evidence to offer proof, so I can understand why you doubt any god exists, but there is no evidence to disprove them either, so logic would tell you it is pointless to argue over such things, believe what you want, and leave the rest be.
For religions that have a traceable history and the creator of that religion has actually said, he made it up... yeah, this one is kind of obvious.
Buddhism and karma, I do believe in karma. Sometimes it just takes a bit longer to catch up to people.
I'm going to say it one more time, so please listen and do not waste my valuable time. You asked me to substantiate my claim that Christianity was a lie. If the Bible and especially the Gospels, Acts and Paul are demonstrably not believable, Christianity goes down the drain.
About a nature-god..who knows? I am agnostic about that. I just say that there are very good reasons to reject religions as untrue. As for karma, as I say, people can be completely deluded about their motives, so how is Karma to know what's a good deed and what not? Buying pension credits with handouts to monks doesn't cut it for me and I reject good deeds with Buddhism as meaning anything more to Karma than good deeds within Shintoism. Just makes no sense and I think Buddhism was invented to enable the Khsatryas to undermine and supersede the brahmin caste anyway.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-26-2011 at 01:30 PM..
All men think about is sex
Jacob is a man
jocob is thinking about sex
Even if Donald never quacked, this statement based on logic is valid. Even if Jacob was not thinking about sex, this statement is valid if based on logic.
Of course logic can be false. E.g a logical construct based on a false assumption (e.g the existence of a god) is never going to be logical. Logic is a tool and like all tools, you need to read the manual before you use them.
Your constructs above are actually flawed. A flawed logical construct, even if we know that it is right, is still flawed. If the intention is to throw doubt on logic it has failed. Logic is only as good as the person using it.
No, neither statement is valid...The trouble is, what you have posted here is not logic, but logical fallacies...
Not all ducks quack, and men do not always think about sex.
Ah, but in any logic class they will teach you that even false logic can be valid. The logic you use is:
Without evidence nothing exists
There is no evidence for god
God does not exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
