A Final Proof Against Christianity

[§outh§tar]

Hmm....



Do you think that takes one to know one too?

From "not smart" to "profound intellectual" in less than a week!

Thank you very much for your kind words. I've never been good with recieving compliments, so I don't know what else to say.

No problemo. As for tiassa, we all recognize his love for wordiness.

 

[Dragon_Lady]

I would be grateful if you provided contextual evidence for this eigesis.

DL
Huh? You provided the context yourself when (whoever wrote it) said

'We must first ask, does “every scripture” refer to the Bible? A quick reference to the New Testament reveals that neither the canon of the Catholic nor the Protestant Church was being referred to by the writer of 2 Timothy but rather the Jewish scriptures available to him. In doing so, we may now sweep aside this “defense” as utterly useless.'

Why should 'every scripture” refer to the Bible', it was not in existence when the scriptures were written. Same with the Catholic and Protestant Church. In relation to Timothy reading Jewish scriptures, have you never heard of the term Judeo-Christian?

BTW What do you mean by eigesis? Did you mean egises? Which contextually, still wouldn't have made sense, but at least would be spelled correctly...

SS
What would the chapter be?

DL
2 Tim 3:15.

SS
Then you agree that there Bible contains mistakes. As to what you arbitrarily label "major differences in theology or history", assume what you please.

DL
No, I am not 'agreeing' with that statement. I am merely pointing out, that the reference to a large number of texts, is not basing its reliability on the fact that there are a large number of texts, rather the fact is, there are large number of texts, (from different periods) which say the same thing.

SS
Pick and choose then.

DL
From what? You havent listed any that you claim to have debunked. Very lazy of you.

 

[§outh§tar]

I would be grateful if you provided contextual evidence for this eigesis.

DL
Huh? You provided the context yourself when (whoever wrote it) said

'We must first ask, does “every scripture” refer to the Bible? A quick reference to the New Testament reveals that neither the canon of the Catholic nor the Protestant Church was being referred to by the writer of 2 Timothy but rather the Jewish scriptures available to him. In doing so, we may now sweep aside this “defense” as utterly useless.'

Why should 'every scripture” refer to the Bible', it was not in existence when the scriptures were written. Same with the Catholic and Protestant Church. In relation to Timothy reading Jewish scriptures, have you never heard of the term Judeo-Christian?

I'm afraid you are switching the onus.

I am not the one who made the claim that Timothy was referring to the Bible in the verse. I was only rebutting what I have heard.

BTW What do you mean by eigesis? Did you mean egises? Which contextually, still wouldn't have made sense, but at least would be spelled correctly...

Eisegesis.

SS
What would the chapter be?

DL
2 Tim 3:15.

Christianity, before it blossomed to its fullness, was a Jewish sect. The Way, it was called. Therefore your point is nullified.

SS
Then you agree that there Bible contains mistakes. As to what you arbitrarily label "major differences in theology or history", assume what you please.

DL
No, I am not 'agreeing' with that statement. I am merely pointing out, that the reference to a large number of texts, is not basing its reliability on the fact that there are a large number of texts, rather the fact is, there are large number of texts, (from different periods) which say the same thing.

The apologetic does not follow. Again, you are switching the onus.

SS
Pick and choose then.

DL
From what? You havent listed any that you claim to have debunked. Very lazy of you.

For once, STOP switching the onus.

 

[water]

Exegesis?

 

[ghost7584]

IMO, you haven't disagreed at all.

The main problem I have with theists is that the generalization of one's individual belief in god necessitates the insistence that one must presume god in order to proceed. It simply isn't true. Perhaps you must, but that's your issue. I'd say if you're interested in the idea of god, the very worst thing you could possibly do is presume it exists, or that you know anything about it. If you do, you're presuming "goddidit" and your investigation is inherently biased toward the outcome you favor. That's fine if you're not interested in truth, but at least be honest to yourself that you've given up your pursuit of it in favor of the presumption that your perception of it justifies a belief.

God seems to count refusal to believe Him as an act of disobedience in itself. It says Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. The converse of that is disbelieving God can be counted as disobedience. Example: An angel told John the baptist's father that he would have a son in his wife's old age. Because his father did not believe that, the angel smote him with being unable to talk till the child was born as a punishment for the unbelief.
Refusing to believe God's Word is a first act of disobedience. The other acts of disobeying God, in your life, will follow from that.


1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Just suppose for a moment that there is a God. Everything He says is the truth. He wants to help you to do what is right so that you can be rewarded and not punished. He preserved His Word for every generation, so that you could have it. {His word is the King James version bible.}
Now, you refusing to believe that Word, is your error. God did no wrong.
Refusal to believe it, is an act of disobedience. The reason He allowed you to know His word is because He wants you to believe it. Refusing to believe it is disobeying what He wants.

 

[ghost7584]

Who has experienced God?

I did. See my thread titled, scientific reasons for God.
The apostle Paul said that he did. The writers of the New Testament, said that they did. However,

 

[§outh§tar]

Exegesis?

Dammit. Eisegesis I say.

 

[wesmorris]

God seems to count refusal to believe Him as an act of disobedience in itself.

Uhm... how do you know? I say you're full of shit.

It says Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness.

What if I don't care what it says? What if I think it's the cause of the fact that you're full of shit?

The converse of that is disbelieving God can be counted as disobedience.

So your invisible sky daddy wants his due eh? If you're buying this, you're a cultist.

Example: An angel told John the baptist's father that he would have a son in his wife's old age. Because his father did not believe that, the angel smote him with being unable to talk till the child was born as a punishment for the unbelief.

That is some stupid shit.

Refusing to believe God's Word is a first act of disobedience.

Baaaaaaaaaaah. Bah. How's the grass over there?

The other acts of disobeying God, in your life, will follow from that.

But uhm... god is a projection of yourself into your imagination. He's not a he. He's an it. It is an extension of that which you've come to value through your experience. Most likely, people you love taught you all about god as an impressionable youth, and you bought it because of your dependence on, and love for them, as they bought it because of their dependence on those they love(d). And so on and so on. Of course there are other ways to create this projection, but it's all the same line of crap. Geez things don't make sense unless uhm.... you know. Goddidit. See? Says so right here in the bible.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

How utterly irrelevant. Claiming something is valid by citing that something is like, totally lame. Fer sher.

Just suppose for a moment that there is a God.

How would I know? Apparently, you think he'd make guys write books about him? LOL.

Everything He says is the truth.

But how can you, a human, trapped in a four dimensional dynamic pattern of energy... possibly hope to understand or hear what it said?

He wants to help you to do what is right so that you can be rewarded and not punished.

can you say... indocrination? no wait, how about selfishpomorphization? You honestly think that if there is a god, you could possibly describe him in your own petty terms? my god man, the ego.

He preserved His Word for every generation, so that you could have it. {His word is the King James version bible.}

You're so steeped in your horseshit, as you must be to be a believer, that you don't see how goddamned stupid it is. Lemme tellya, it's REAL fucking stupid. I'm a genius you know. LOL. No but seriously, that is retarded. You don't know shit, but spout all of this crap like you're somebody. You need this retarded goddamned book to make you somebody. Good luck with all that.

Now, you refusing to believe that Word, is your error.

Fuck you. Do you believe my word?

God did no wrong.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it almost makes my head spin. Who says? What is god? How would you know? Why should anyone believe you?

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO SURE? It's completely unwarranted, but your ego commands otherwise because without this intimate knowledge, you have no power and man, you wouldn't be shit as far as you see it so you cling to it with a fucking death grip. And we wonder why there are suicide bombers?

Refusal to believe it, is an act of disobedience.

That is simply disgusting in that you seem to think obedience is a desirable trait. Are you my dog? Am I your god? Bow down bitches. I got a little something for you. Eternal salvation at the low low price of quality fellatio. Get it while it's stiff. Baaaaaaaaaah.

The reason He allowed you to know His word is because He wants you to believe it.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Who says it's his word? You? Can you prove it?

Refusing to believe it is disobeying what He wants.

I don't refuse to believe. If god wanted me to believe, I would. Ya following me here? Yeah well you can have your silly book mister cult member. Please just try to resist the duty to blow yourself up in the name of your sky-daddy.

 

[wesmorris]

I mean like, how do you know I'm not god? Eh?

 

[thelight]

word of god,huh?no thnx
www.evilbible.com/

wrong
love is an emotion.

God is a imaginary being

that is true,
but then you contradict yourself with


if God was Creator of ALL wouldnt you think WE would be part of God then?
how could our hearts,be separate from god/creator?
(btw whoever uses their HEARTS to hear???

god as defined by the bible cannot exist
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.html

is that why he kills millions of them in huricanes,floods,starvation,sicknesses and so on all the time?

souls,spirits,afterlife its all just a wishfull thinking,invented by primitive people long time ago before science showed us what we are made of
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

If the word of God is so primitive, how is it that the beginning is listed so precisely in what is called the "first creation story". It is answered questions long before science supposedly showed up, how the heavens and earth are devided, day and night that was a specific and logical seperation, the firmament, outer atmoshpere which separates the waters above and the waters below. This seems fairly scientific for such a primitive people and this creation story stands true even today.

 

[thelight]

In regard to God killing people as a ploy for how evil God is if he really exsisted, I would ask that you actually take an objective read of the Bible. It is explained over and over how the end, be it 100 years or the next 10,000 years, will be raviged with floods, famine, earthquakes and war. These are the beginning signs of his coming. Out of Love, he has given us evidence of and an account of the end and a guide to ultimate existence.

 

[§outh§tar]

If the word of God is so primitive, how is it that the beginning is listed so precisely in what is called the "first creation story". It is answered questions long before science supposedly showed up, how the heavens and earth are devided, day and night that was a specific and logical seperation, the firmament, outer atmoshpere which separates the waters above and the waters below. This seems fairly scientific for such a primitive people and this creation story stands true even today.

Does that follow for Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel myth?

 

[Dragon_Lady]

I'm afraid you are switching the onus.

I am not the one who made the claim that Timothy was referring to the Bible in the verse. I was only rebutting what I have heard.

DL
OK so now you're saying that you have no idea if what you are speaking of is correct or not?
Just to remind you, you wrote "If the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God, it certainly is extremely foolish to reject its precepts. The recent surge in insistence by certain members of the forum has caused me to pen this essay in an effort to examine the Word of God and “give it a chance to speak to my heart.The first in a series of evidences used by Christians to uphold this belief is that the Bible “claims to be from God” and usually entails this Scripture:
(2 Tim. 3:16).
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

We must first ask, does “every scripture” refer to the Bible? A quick reference to the New Testament reveals that neither the canon of the Catholic nor the Protestant Church was being referred to by the writer of 2 Timothy but rather the Jewish scriptures available to him. In doing so, we may now sweep aside this “defense” as utterly useless"

So it matters little whether you first heard this claim from someone else, because it is you claiming the above 'rebuttal' as "A final proof against Christianity"!
Timothy was saying every 'scripture inspired of God' not 'The Bible'. However the Bible is composed of scriptures inspired of God. Therefore it is not necessary for Timothy to be referring to the Bible, Catholic or Protestant Church. As far as proving that the Bible is not the inspired work of God, we may now sweep aside your “rebuttal” as utterly useless.

SS
Eisegesis.

SS
Christianity, before it blossomed to its fullness, was a Jewish sect. The Way, it was called. Therefore your point is nullified.

DL
Not at all. The Way did not conform with Jewish doctrine.

SS
The apologetic does not follow. Again, you are switching the onus.
DL
Your argument does not follow. "The next proof employed by Christians is the sheer amount of New Testament manuscripts available today...Without critical review, we may at once dismiss this claim too as invalid for the amount of manuscripts is simply not proportional to the integrity and accuracy of the document".
You made a basic mistake by assuming that the claim of 20 000 texts referred to the sheer number of texts to confirm the validity of the texts therein. Try studying 'manuscript authority' and you may understand the claim better.

SS
For once, STOP switching the onus.
DL
I will remind you of your words in your opening post...
"This will be updated and revised as time goes on. I challenge all Christians and nonbelievers to take up their swords and poke every hole in this essay as it expands as it is obviously far from perfection and completeness, which we strive for"

I am poking holes in your arguments, as in my opinion they are weak and flawed. You are the one that made the claim of "A Final Proof Against Christianity' THE BURDEN OF PROOF (ONUS) IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT. My rebuttal of your arguments are not changing the onus as it was always yours!

 

[wesmorris]

If the word of God is so primitive, how is it that the beginning is listed so precisely in what is called the "first creation story".

The "word of god", or the bible, isn't necessarily primitive, but is based on a the original primitive lack of context. Imagine the first person to think and that nothing had an explanation. In order to ease the masses, someone needed to look like they were in control... thus: God did it.

It is answered questions long before science supposedly showed up, how the heavens and earth are devided, day and night that was a specific and logical seperation, the firmament, outer atmoshpere which separates the waters above and the waters below.

Uhm... that seems pretty eronious. You're asserting the bible explains something? How are the heavens and earth divided? How are day and night specific and divided? What firmament do you mean? The outer atmosphere separates the waters above and the waters below? How does that explain anything? I don't see this as an explanation for anything.

This seems fairly scientific for such a primitive people and this creation story stands true even today.

How do you figure?

 

[§outh§tar]

Dragon Lady,

I am afraid your illiteracy impairs your better judgement. If it were a "final" proof, I would not require believers and non believers to poke holes and give suggestions. You read into things too much.

 

[thelight]

The "word of god", or the bible, isn't necessarily primitive, but is based on a the original primitive lack of context. Imagine the first person to think and that nothing had an explanation. In order to ease the masses, someone needed to look like they were in control... thus: God did it.

With that explanation, why must there have been a God at all. If the first person to THINK and then EXPLAIN to the MASSES what was around them, and how it was formed, could he not then say that he is all knowing? ie God himself? That said, It is my understanding that there were already beliefs of Sun worship and Mother Goddess, in fact Hinduism "the devine knowledge in Sanskrit" was written around 250 years before Exodus. The difference that I try to point out with the Bible as apposed to the then eccentric, and chaotic religion of Hinduism is how the Bible starts with a percise beginning and explains it in a way that is clear and shows inteligent thought.

Uhm... that seems pretty eronious. You're asserting the bible explains something? How are the heavens and earth divided? How are day and night specific and divided? What firmament do you mean? The outer atmosphere separates the waters above and the waters below? How does that explain anything? I don't see this as an explanation for anything.

Remember the time in which it was written. It explains a beginning before man, and continues thru a revelation of the end. If humans were sold as products, this would be the insturction manual by which you understood its use. Gen 1 And the earth was unformed and void and darkness was over the face of the deep..... How many could say in that time that they knew the earth had once been void? Have we not scientifically found this to be true? How long did it take since the first word of God was written? How could a people of that time have this kind of understanding? I mean, how long did it take before we actually believed the earth was round and revolved around the sun? The illustrations I use are simply to give you an understanding of how profound this, BASIC MESSAGE as you put it, was at the time of writing. Try reading Genesis 1 and grab what it sais.

 

[Dragon_Lady]

Dragon Lady,

I am afraid your illiteracy impairs your better judgement. If it were a "final" proof, I would not require believers and non believers to poke holes and give suggestions. You read into things too much.

LOL Resorting to personal insults now! I guess you don't like me poking holes in your shallow reasoning. Here's a thought for you, if it were really 'A Final Proof' and not just a fancy title, there would be no need for me to critique your poor effort. As for illiteracy, well, I don't believe you have ever had the opportunity to point out any spelling mistakes on my behalf...

 

[§outh§tar]

LOL Resorting to personal insults now! I guess you don't like me poking holes in your shallow reasoning. Here's a thought for you, if it were really 'A Final Proof' and not just a fancy title, there would be no need for me to critique your poor effort. As for illiteracy, well, I don't believe you have ever had the opportunity to point out any spelling mistakes on my behalf...

Illiteracy does not pertain to writing alone, don't you know..

I am sorry if it came off as a personal insult but you really do seem to be missing the point. Like I said, if what I wrote were a "final proof" then there would be no need to ask both parties to poke holes and give suggestions. So yes, I suppose the title was premature given my intentions. But don't say I didn't already tell you that previously.

 

[asphyxiation]

If the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God, it certainly is extremely foolish to reject its precepts. The recent surge in insistence by certain members of the forum has caused me to pen this essay in an effort to examine the Word of God and “give it a chance to speak to my heart”.
Regardless of whether Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant or not, the ecumenical body of believers asserts that the Bible is useful for instructing the nonbeliever on Christ and the way to God.
The first in a series of evidences used by Christians to uphold this belief is that the Bible “claims to be from God” and usually entails this Scripture:
(2 Tim. 3:16).
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

We must first ask, does “every scripture” refer to the Bible? A quick reference to the New Testament reveals that neither the canon of the Catholic nor the Protestant Church was being referred to by the writer of 2 Timothy but rather the Jewish scriptures available to him. In doing so, we may now sweep aside this “defense” as utterly useless.

The next proof employed by Christians is the sheer amount of New Testament manuscripts available today. Says Josh McDowell in his book More than A Carpenter, “over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament (48).” The assumption by these apologists is clear: the more manuscripts a text has, the more its “authenticity and general integrity” is established. Without critical review, we may at once dismiss this claim too as invalid for the amount of manuscripts is simply not proportional to the integrity and accuracy of the document.

The third proof we shall examine is the claim that prophecies and miracles described within the Bible prove its validity. Using unproven miracles and vague, metaphorical prophecies to prove the Bible is monstrously circular and dishonest.

Having reviewed the more naive defenses used by apologists we shall turn to the Bible itself for what better evidence of divine origin for a Holy Book than the Holy Book itself?
The internal evidence shows that the New Testament was NOT written by eyewitnesses of Jesus. There are various anachronisms detailed elsewhere on the internet which evince this but I cannot address these here as they are not relevant as such to the topic.
The very fact that Paul and other apostles within the New Testament claim to be under the influence of the Spirit is simply no basis to believe ANY of their claims. Such an arbitrary decision demands that the same rationale be applied to other religious books. Any failure to do so is simply dishonesty.

Other topics to address as time goes on:
Science
Contradictions
Apparent agreement of the Old and New Testaments
----------
The very gist of this essay is: Christians (fanatic or not) base their beliefs one way or another in the claims made by New Testament authors. As the claims of these authors have not been corroborated and often times have been shown to be dubious, it is simply dishonest to accept their claims "hook, line, and sinker" and in the same token reject the doctrines of other religions.

An argument from faith is simply null and void as we would again come to the question of why the Christian believes the claims of the writers simply because they say so.
---------------

This will be updated and revised as time goes on. I challenge all Christians and nonbelievers to take up their swords and poke every hole in this essay as it expands as it is obviously far from perfection and completeness, which we strive for.

Actually you are wrong my dear The gospels were written by Jesus' apostles. They knew him, were friends with him. The accounts of Christ's life were finished during the lifetime of people who had witnessed him.These people could have confirmed whether or not the books were lying.

 

[§outh§tar]

The gospels were written by Jesus' apostles..

Ok. Yea.