Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

@Pinochet73,

"They made the bible"
The bible was already around a long time before the Roman Catholic Church was. As said before it was't called the bible and it was just a series of scrolls.

Christianity was a branch of judaism as was muslim. Another reason why i am sceptic, they're all three very similar.

As for the post about speculating the Gospels, This man who Wrote this article said what he thought to be true based on the culture of the time it was written and the time Jesus was alive. Diffrent things that differentiate the speperate tribes of the time. The only thing i can say is proven is that those people did infact exist. Due to census and historical Roman Writtings. There is no absolute proof that there is a God. Not to say there is no God, there is just no proof. Never in history has anyone seen God and had a way to prove it. Other than fairy tales.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15490 wrote:

What do you mean, how it was meant to be? They made the Bible. There was no 'how it was meant to be', they chose the books that they would believe in, so now you criticize people for deciding what they believe?

Ludicrous as to claims of who wrote the Gospels. You seem to think it so ridiculous already, what do you care about it anyway?

Exactly my point. Some religious leaders a long time ago, took some ancient writings, and assembled them as they saw fit, and somehow today, this is taken as the "word of god".

Ludicrious.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;15494 wrote:

Constantine remained Pagan and ruled over the council, that should tell you exactly what was up. On his death bed, too week to move, a priest sprinkled water over his head and blessed him, that is the "conversion" that is spoken of...

It was the forceful installation of Pistic Christianity over the Roman empire to get everyone on the same page.

The Story of Jesus happens to be going on right at the point in history where Rome really starting to plug the world into each other and a meshing of religion occurred. There are Ancient accounts of "Zeus-Ammon" the hybrid overgod of both Greece and Egypt. Eventually this melting pot yielded a "super religion", and as you might have guessed it came from an area in the perfect middle of the ancient world. Look on a map, Rome, Greece, Egypt, & India all surround Israel.

This is why you have Buddha quoting Paul 500 years before Paul's birth

This is why Hercules's death Matches Jesus's to include the last words

This is why the 10 commandments can be found in the Egyptian book of the Dead (for shame Mosses)

Have you read about Krishna? A god on earth born of a virgin mother, who was hunted early in life by the king, who performed miracles (to include healing and walking on water) and murdered? Haven't heard that one before...

all of these predate Christianity by at least 500 years. Many predate the Exodus as well.

and Propaganda Pinochet? Really now? That is something generated to debunk something *after* it was made. The things I posted came well before Christianity. By definition is cannot be propaganda...

Wow. And the similarities stop there. The Book of the Dead didn't have all of the Ten Commandments, and those that it had were rather common sense rules of society. Besides, it was in the form of a recitation of the dead stating their innocence, not a set of rules to follow.

So, two different people can't be crucified? Maybe the phrase was made up, but that doesn't mean it was part of some plan to get the pagans to participate. It's not as though its a major part of the theology.

And Krishna seems similar as you describe it, but that's Krishna in a nutshell in a nutshell. there are no similarities past what you say and there was hardly enough contact between India and the Roman Empire to have deep rooted Hindu theology widespread in it. What would be the purpose, though, anyway, of incorporating it into Christian theology. Te Roman Empire, when Christian, didn't rule over many Hindus.

I know everything you said about Constantine. Why does it matter? He brought Christianity into the Roman Empire because he felt he owed it to the God who helped him win the Empire. He left theology of Christianity up to Christians.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15521 wrote:

He brought Christianity into the Roman Empire because he felt he owed it to the God who helped him win the Empire.

This comment is simply untrue, Constantine remained a Pagan worshipper of the Son God until he died and did not consider Yahweh the one true God. Please provide documentation

1 Reply

@trappedbyparties,

trapped.by.parties;15495 wrote:

"They made the bible"
The bible was already around a long time before the Roman Catholic Church was. As said before it was't called the bible and it was just a series of scrolls.

Christianity was a branch of judaism as was muslim. Another reason why i am sceptic, they're all three very similar.

As for the post about speculating the Gospels, This man who Wrote this article said what he thought to be true based on the culture of the time it was written and the time Jesus was alive. Diffrent things that differentiate the speperate tribes of the time. The only thing i can say is proven is that those people did infact exist. Due to census and historical Roman Writtings. There is no absolute proof that there is a God. Not to say there is no God, there is just no proof. Never in history has anyone seen God and had a way to prove it. Other than fairy tales.

The books of the Bible existed but were not known as the Bible and were not put together until the Council of Rome, and it really was their choice what they believed, so yeah, they could 'assemble them as they saw fit' and 'take them as the word of 'God' because they were deciding what they believed in based on their knowledge and evidence. If you don't think this is right then you're basically saying that the people who are going to believe in something once it is fully established have no right to define what they will believe.

If you want to call Christianity related to Islam and Judaism in theology closely, then go ahead, just don't assume you're right.

I assume this is why those who do not see but believe are blessed. I suppose with the passing of time anything can be called a 'fairy tale'. Miracles have happened, stigmata, healing the uncurable, etc... Scientists offer weak explanations that are too often left to randomness and chance to apply more than once or twice.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;15522 wrote:

This comment is simply untrue, Constantine remained a Pagan worshipper of the Son God until he died and did not consider Yahweh the one true God. Please provide documentation

Well, he called himself a Christian at age 40, and was formally converted when he died (I believe this should be in his wikipedia article under... "Constantine and Christianity.") But anyway, you seem to be saying he didn't bring Christianity more widely into the Roman Empire after he fought a battle in which he had a dream which caused him to paint a symbol of Christianity on the shields of his soldiers and won despite being outnumbered? Because I never said anything about him becoming Christian himself, which you seem to be very anxious for me to say so you can attack me.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

The interesting thing is that throughout Ancient Europe widespread conversion is generally the result of some type of physical conflict. Quite odd for a living God who was known for his Pacifism...

You said "He felt he owed it to God" I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume he didn't convert his empire to Christianity because he felt he owed it to "His" God, which during the council of Nissa was the Sun God. You implied he was Christian when you said this.

Wikipedia is a great resource but you should not accept it as the ultimate truth. I could go there now and change the council of Nissa article to provide documentation that Big Bird was elected god. Generally these articles are maintained by Christian sources with an agenda, non Christians generally have less interest in the council then those who rely on it to validate their faith...

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

I implied that he attributed his victory to the Christian God, which he did.

I thought you would say something of the sort, but you frequently use Wikipedia. Anyway, they are also mantaine by historians and wrong edits are freqeuntly corrected which applies more because the article I site is on Constantine, not the council of Nicaea. Your source certainly has an agenda, what's the difference.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Silverchild, your anti-Christianity is funny. Millions like you have tried before in vain to eradicate The Truth, but it will never die - only your kind will.

1 Reply

@Pinochet73,

Reagaknight;15526 wrote:

I thought you would say something of the sort, but you frequently use Wikipedia.

Actually should you do a short search through the religious sub forum I believe you will find I most often quote the Holy Bible, NIV. The Bible itself is probably the most useful tool available in illustrating the imperfections of the religion. Notice I said imperfections, I do not consider Christianity a bad faith walk other then the fact that it's a bit of a Just-Us League. My problems lie in the constant denial of Christians to admit that they in fact follow the portions of the Bible they find appealing, rather then the NT in it's entirety...

Pinochet73;15575 wrote:

Silverchild, your anti-Christianity is funny. Millions like you have tried before in vain to eradicate The Truth, but it will never die - only your kind will.

I am not Anti-Christianity, I'm merely just not "Pro Christianity". The problem is your religion is of a "either you're with us or against us" mindset (see Just-Us League).

My kind will die? What a lovely judgment you have placed on me. If we're keeping score your personal Christian values neither comply with the "turn the other cheek" or the "judge not" commands given by the person you call the living God. Thanks for proving my point to Reagaknight :cool:

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

I don't worship the Bible, why should we follow everything to the word? Tradition is also something to follow. The Bible is inevitably in many places only a guide for how the people that were living at the time should have conducted their lives.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15649 wrote:

I don't worship the Bible, why should we follow everything to the word?

2 Timothy 3:16

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

I personally agree with your statement. But from the stance of Christianity, and the stance of what the Bible says about following the Bible, you would be very much incorrect and following "man made" teachings rather then "God-breathed"

and really when you look at Christianity from the 3rd person, the only thing it owns that isn't a product of man is the Bible. My personal opinion aside, according to the Bible itself the Bible isn't a work a man but a work of god scribed by man...

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Of course, Timothy could hardly know that he and the letters of the Apostles and the Gospels would later be regarded as scripture and this verse was talking in a contemporary sense, IMO. It is God breathed, but God held the people of the time in greater need than those of the distant future.

And man-made teachings are wrong, but Apostolic tradition is different and the Bible's directions for worship leave much to be filled in. And anyway, Jesus gave peter authority to 'loose' or 'tighten' things on Earth, which would subsequently be 'loosed' or 'tightened' in heaven. Taking into account that the Church and the Popes are held to be the Church of Peter and the successors of Peter, this would refer to his successors.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

so you would conclude that the Pope, by biblical standards, speaks for God?

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

He has a closer connection with God than anyone else, unless he is corrupt, which has not happened recently. Perhaps not quite as strong as Peter's connection with God is sure to have been. Not by biblical standards, more like history, there really isn't anything about a person heading the church besides Peter, but one is obviously necessary. The Pope is certainly the leading person on Earth to do God's will or do what is right for the Church if he is not corrupt.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;15525 wrote:

Wikipedia is a great resource but you should not accept it as the ultimate truth. I could go there now and change the council of Nissa article to provide documentation that Big Bird was elected god. Generally these articles are maintained by Christian sources with an agenda, non Christians generally have less interest in the council then those who rely on it to validate their faith...

Yeah right. Any source that isn't hard copy should be suspect. Hard copy is bad enough for falacy or being deliberately misleading/propaganda. How do you know who updates the articles in Wiki? Are you an editor there? If so, do the editors poll people who post there and verify their religion? Master debater my eye.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

"This comment is simply untrue, Constantine remained a Pagan worshipper of the Son God until he died and did not consider Yahweh the one true God. Please provide documentation"

It's futile to argue this issue. Scholars have always wildly disagreed on it. I say he was Christian, in as much as he was raised by a Christian mother, and threw so much weight into promoting Christianity after his victory at Milvian Bridge (312) -- another event many disavow. Before the sacrament of confession was conceived, it was common practice for Christians to convert on their deathbed. They expected to sin during their lives, and didn't want to spend eternity in Hell, as a result. So, they waited until just before they died to officially convert. I'm sure most of you already knew this.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;15523 wrote:

The books of the Bible existed but were not known as the Bible and were not put together until the Council of Rome, and it really was their choice what they believed, so yeah, they could 'assemble them as they saw fit' and 'take them as the word of 'God' because they were deciding what they believed in based on their knowledge and evidence. If you don't think this is right then you're basically saying that the people who are going to believe in something once it is fully established have no right to define what they will believe.

If you want to call Christianity related to Islam and Judaism in theology closely, then go ahead, just don't assume you're right.

I assume this is why those who do not see but believe are blessed. I suppose with the passing of time anything can be called a 'fairy tale'. Miracles have happened, stigmata, healing the uncurable, etc... Scientists offer weak explanations that are too often left to randomness and chance to apply more than once or twice.

christianity and muslim are both branches of judaism. Look it up. All three books that define the religions are very similar. Of course, the similarities don't make them branches of one another. And honestly i don't care what religion people choose to believe in! I just don't like being told that the way i choose to practice the religion is wrong. And i point out that The religion itslef(mine and yours) could have been nothing more than fairy tales. This is all i really have to say about the subject.

BTW: i'm really not trying to sound sarcastic.

2 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

I think if you believe in something, then to you it exists. And if the church says it speaks for God then to them it does. So if those of us who believe in one God, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever, that's OK too!
To me he is all the same, and just maybe if we all thought that, we would not have half the crap, religious indifference has caused over millenia!
Look at it this way,the army has hundreds of different regiments, all serving one system! Regimental rivalries exist, but they work together when needed. Under one supreme commander!

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Quote:

"This comment is simply untrue, Constantine remained a Pagan worshipper of the Son God until he died and did not consider Yahweh the one true God. Please provide documentation"

I was taught that Constantine chose to convert to christianity because it was easily observable at the time how the christian faith tied together it's believers, and they leaned on each other, and since Rome was in a difficult situation, and needed unity, Constantine converted to strengthen Rome.

0 Replies

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know