Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why christianity still exists...


BuddhistCommunist

Recommended Posts

I was watching something on History Channel today and they were hypothesizing that Jesus was actually John the Baptist's follower and assistant [assuming he existed].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • daniel_1012

    25

  • Gnosis of Disbelief

    22

  • willybilly30

    22

  • MQTA

    21

Which, btw... I am interested in someone defining what blindly following really is. 

99021[/snapback]

 

"Blindly following" is not asking too many questions. Like how come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. Or, where did Cain find his wife? Or thinking that when you read Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis that you're getting the full scoop.

 

"Blindly following" is not daring to look into the pagan origins of christianity. Being uneducated about historical writings that completely fail to point to a historical jesus.

 

"Blindly following" is getting up at four o'clock every morning to study the bible and pray and managing to think you're actually accomplishing something.

 

"Blindly following" is giving up your annual vacation because the church needs to build on a new wing.

 

"Blindly following" is witnessing to people about the love of "Jesus" and warning them about hell - making an ass out of yourself, and being proud of it.

 

You should know all about "blindly following", Daniel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems like jesus and his followers adopted ideas from other religions and made a new religion.  its amazing how intolerant christians are of other religions when their religion is a mix of diffrent faiths.

99030[/snapback]

 

I actually had thread based on the difference But not many responded to it :(

 

 

 

Why Jews Reject Christ(Differences btw OT and NT)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good little article about how the concept of Satan developed within christianity, and where the idea of the Satan/God duality originated.

99013[/snapback]

 

 

Another great link! Though I thought that originally, Satan as "the adversary"

was derived from the Egyptian god Set, when the Egyptians dominated the

area that would later be known as Canaan. Set was sometimes depicted as

a snake in Egyptian mythology, hence the talking snake of Genesis. His

character later went through the changes described at the link, reflecting the

different belief systems of the different powers that would come to dominate

Canaan (first the Babylonians, then the Medes and Persians). I'm definitely

going to have to read up on Zoroastrianism and Mithraism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Satanic Bible many years ago, but I clearly remember thinking that LaVey (was that his name?) did not actually believe in Satan. He did seem to want to have fun, including poking a lot of fun, and he didn't like Christianity very much, but he did not seem to believe in the big, bad guy at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually had thread based on the difference But not many responded to it :(

Why Jews Reject Christ(Differences btw OT and NT)?

99034[/snapback]

 

the website agnostic reveiw of christianity has alot of interesting stuff on it. i have noticed alot of things not in the old testament thats in the new testament. alot of stuff i dont get in the oldtestament. how does an all male god create? then a woman has a child with out a man. did the people back then not know about sexual reproduction? guess not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that most of Christianity is willfull self-retardation... but at the same time, you tell us we are raised that way so we just believe the things we were brought up in.

 

So which is it... are we retarded by choice, or is it our upbringing which subjects us to no other viewpoint, that we accept blindly (of course ignoring the countless conversions of those who did not grow up Christian).  Which, btw... I am interested in someone defining what blindly following really is.  Everyone followed something to end up where they are.  All of us have grown up in a culture, and all of us have been influenced by written works of some kind, view points of others (who themselves have been influenced), and until finally we arrive at where we are now... wherever that is.

 

One moment it's, "ah, you're just forcefed jibber-jabber since the day you are born," and the next minute it is because of willful self-retardation.  Are these one in the same?  Or, which one is it?

 

Can then the Bible be so far off when it says you are walking, in self-retardation, into hell?  Or is this view exclusive from the latter mentioned, because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?  Do you also just simply believe what you want to believe?

 

We, we?

99021[/snapback]

 

 

Ultimately, it is by choice. What others here were pointing out was that it can be

very difficult to make that choice, given the severe peer pressure and indoctrination

that people like yourself can impose on those around you. But even so, people

have left your faith, because it no longer made sense to them. So, ultimately, it is

by choice.

 

I've seen a lot of your posts and the cute little games of semantics that you try to

play. Here's what I am trying to say in a little more detail. Most of you christians

have never studied other religions, only what other christians say about other

religions. Most of you christians have never studied philosophy or history, other

than what other christians have to say about them. And, these days, most of you

christians don't seem to understand your own religion too well, you just like to

parrot whatever it is that you hear from the pulpit. So, yes, you are blindly

following; you're too damned lazy to go out and think for yourself!

 

And as far as your lame attempt at proselytizing, what part of "I don't believe in

your crappy, Bronze Age desert god" do you not understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the old testament and new testament are completely diffrent on alot of things. i think jesus just wanted his own religion.

99031[/snapback]

 

 

If those really were Jesus' sayings. I used to think that Jesus was an obscure

historical personage whose life was later exaggerated beyond all recognition by

his followers. Now I think I'm more and more on Mythra's wavelength with

regard to the Jesus story of the New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, G.O.D.

 

Hey buddy!

 

Are you..

 

Naw. Can't Be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, G.O.D.

 

Hey buddy! 

 

Are you..

 

Naw.  Can't Be.

99043[/snapback]

 

 

Nope. I just like to make fundies choose between making

my name an acronym and advancing their carpal tunnel

syndrome.

 

:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If those really were Jesus' sayings.  I used to think that Jesus was an obscure

historical personage whose life was later exaggerated beyond all recognition by

his followers.  Now I think I'm more and more on Mythra's wavelength with

regard to the Jesus story of the New Testament.

99042[/snapback]

 

i have a hard time beleaving jesus was a real person. he was born of a virgin,walked on water,raised the dead, made blind see and lame walk,calmed storms and rose from the dead. i dont know any people whove done that. and i looked up virgin borth on the net i couldnt find any cases. i think hes probally a myth or possible a myth put on a person. its hard to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a hard time beleaving jesus was a real person. he was born of a virgin,walked on water,raised the dead, made blind see and lame walk,calmed storms and rose from the dead.  i dont know any people whove done that. and i looked up virgin borth on the net i couldnt find any cases.  i think hes probally a myth or possible a myth put on a person. its hard to tell.

99045[/snapback]

 

You're right, willbilly. It is hard to tell for sure. It's hard to prove anything, but it's easier to add up the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what makes the most sense.. When you list the miracles the way you just did, what do you think are the chances that all of these things happened, and no one wrote about them for about 40 years after "Jesus" supposedly died?

 

Even Paul apparently didn't know anything about these miracles.

 

Doesn't add up in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....i looked up virgin borth on the net i couldnt find any cases.  i think hes probally a myth or possible a myth put on a person. its hard to tell.

99045[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, come on, you've got Apollo, Hercules, Zoroaster.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, willbilly.  It is hard to tell for sure.  It's hard to prove anything, but it's easier to add up the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what makes the most sense..  When you list the miracles the way you just did, what do you think are the chances that all of these things happened, and no one wrote about them for about 40 years after "Jesus" supposedly died?

 

Even Paul apparently didn't know anything about these miracles.

 

Doesn't add up in my book.

99051[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah, especially, when even christians can only come up with 4 or 5 highly

suspect, non-Christian references in their defence. Jesus was supposed

to feed thousands of people from just a handful of fish and loaves? Given

the tenuousness of life back then, with starvation only one severe drought

away, you'd think he'd have people lining up for miles to partake of his

bottomless food basket. That's not the sort of thing pagans would ignore,

either. It's easier for me to look at that as a Gnostic allegory than an

actual, historical event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it... are we retarded by choice, or is it our upbringing which subjects us to no other viewpoint, that we accept blindly (of course ignoring the countless conversions of those who did not grow up Christian).  Which, btw... I am interested in someone defining what blindly following really is. 

99021[/snapback]

 

 

Blindly following is never asking what in the hell chicken eggs and a rabbit have to do with a dead man and some popsicle sticks. Blindly following is never stopping to consider how a "Christian" leader can tells thousands of people that anyone who isn't of the faith should be killed. Blindly following is never wondering why the hell you have to go to church weekly when God should know what's in your heart without needing the trip to a brick building. Blindly following is never questioning why the church or the TV fundy needs your money, yet the Bible tells you the rich have about as much chance at getting into heaven as a that proverbial camel through the needle eye. Blindly following is never connecting the dots when you see your pastor drive by in his Mercedes as your twelve-year-old Toyota is about to die.

 

Blindly following is never once considering the fact that your religion isn't the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:grin:   Hello Willy Billy!

 

I've read The Satanic Bible awhile back and found it to be a big proponent of self empowerment, enjoying life, AND maintaining integrity. I was quite surprised at how much of it with which I could agree.... that is till it asserted a lifestyle of orgies. I was happy to read they didn't sacrifice animals or anything like that. Is that how you interpreted it too?

 

I understand Satan in a different light, yet I was surprised when I recently related that I don't think hell is forever, nor Satan is the bad guy... how some fundamentalists responded... 'then why should we follow God then?'  :twitch:

99002[/snapback]

 

Yep, pretty much the same. IT was a real eye opener. Everything is for show. There's no bogeyman, just men and DRAMA.

 

The mind is very very creative. God created us to Think and not trust any book or man, yet so many people do and are bilked out of money and their leisure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems like jesus and his followers adopted ideas from other religions and made a new religion.  its amazing how intolerant christians are of other religions when their religion is a mix of diffrent faiths.

99030[/snapback]

 

I always thought Christianity was an extention of Judiasm, I though the NT was supposed to be he next step from the OT.

 

But apparently Christianity has the roots in what they point fingers at NOT being, and the only relation to the OT is that they hijacked it, plagiarized it, combed it to create much of the NT, and then added Helenistic ? ideas and a mishmash of Pagan and whatever else they thought they could use to control people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Satanic Bible many years ago, but I clearly remember thinking that LaVey (was that his name?) did not actually believe in Satan. He did seem to want to have fun, including poking a lot of fun, and he didn't like Christianity very much, but he did not seem to believe in the big, bad guy at all.

99036[/snapback]

 

No, it was a reflection of the beliefs of Christianity he as writing about. Not that Satan existed, just that the Church created this big bad dude. That anyone who followed his Church was more making a dramatic statement against Christians, than For Satan.

 

It was to show the folly of religion, rather than to add to any evil that may already exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a hard time beleaving jesus was a real person. he was born of a virgin,walked on water,raised the dead, made blind see and lame walk,calmed storms and rose from the dead.  i dont know any people whove done that. and i looked up virgin borth on the net i couldnt find any cases.  i think hes probally a myth or possible a myth put on a person. its hard to tell.

99045[/snapback]

 

the full picture of Jesus, and his life, was created from OT texts. The Greek translation of the Hebrew OT with the apparent attitude of "If Jesus existed, what would he be like, what would he have had to do to make it fulfill some prophesies" then they combed things they could twist into prophesy.

 

The author of Mark wrote like Jesus was just a man, Paul wrote like Jesus was just a vision, and the author of Matthew took the Mark writings and embellished, agrandized and expanded. He just didn't have a good grasp on the hebrew language and mistook a few things figurative and descriptive for literal (hence, riding in on 2 asses)

 

Hosanah doesn't mean in the OT what they use it as in the NT.

 

He was never named or called Immanuel, and the NT has it as Emmanuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Satanic Bible many years ago, but I clearly remember thinking that LaVey (was that his name?) did not actually believe in Satan. He did seem to want to have fun, including poking a lot of fun, and he didn't like Christianity very much, but he did not seem to believe in the big, bad guy at all.

99036[/snapback]

Correct.

 

How it is today, I'm not sure, but this how I interpreted it a while back...

 

Satanism was in the begining more intended as a kind of egotism and atheism, not a belief. It was more the belief in yourself.

 

"Satan" is just the idea of how our mind have a free will to choose its destiny. We are free from God and God's demands and laws, and have the right and freedom to decided on our own what is right for us. Satan is the image of the "first being" that broke free from the bondage of religion and "God" ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, yes, you are blindly

following;  you're too damned lazy to go out and think for yourself!

99039[/snapback]

 

Forgive me while I quote from the movie Napoleon Dynamite.

 

ND: "This is pretty much the worst video ever made."

Kip: "Napoleon, like anyone could even know that..."

 

Kip is right. In order for Napoleon to know that this is the worst video ever made, he would have had ot have seen every single movie ever made -- including those that have only been seen by one person. Unless he has seen every single video ever made, he couldn't possibly make this statement and hope that it be a fact; morever, even if he did see every video, his conclusion would still be merely opinion.

 

When you say I blindly have followed anything, or that I'm too damned lazy to go out and thank for myself... you are basing that on a plethura of ignorance. You don't know me, my life, my conversion, my struggles, my research, my prayers, or my experiences... and yet, I feel even if you did... that would still be just a matter of opinion, because Christianity does claim that it is folly to men... so are you so surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are such a goddamn hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are such a goddamn hypocrite.

99088[/snapback]

 

God has to exist for anything to be God damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God has to exist for anything to be God damned.

99094[/snapback]

 

Very cute.

 

Don't play the fool, stupid being worn by stupid just doesn't look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, willbilly.  It is hard to tell for sure.  It's hard to prove anything, but it's easier to add up the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what makes the most sense..  When you list the miracles the way you just did, what do you think are the chances that all of these things happened, and no one wrote about them for about 40 years after "Jesus" supposedly died?

 

Even Paul apparently didn't know anything about these miracles.

 

Doesn't add up in my book.

99051[/snapback]

 

i doubt any of them happened. no one knew about the stuff we know today so they probally misinterpreted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.