I don;t know what you mean popular , but Old beliefs modern called religion . The Inhabitant in Patagonia or the American indian they believed in a supreme spirit . I would not thumb them down . My point is I believe there is some power beyond us , and as long people respect the other human-being that is good . The American indian welcomed the pilgrims , they had some humanitarian feeling and the believed in the great spirit, and that is an old belief but we would call it in modern time religion.
What is Christianity?
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
I don;t know what you mean popular , but Old beliefs modern called religion . The Inhabitant in Patagonia or the American indian they believed in a supreme spirit . I would not thumb them down . My point is I believe there is some power beyond us , and as long people respect the other human-being that is good . The American indian welcomed the pilgrims , they had some humanitarian feeling and the believed in the great spirit, and that is an old belief but we would call it in modern time religion.
No, I'm aware of the history of the various writings.
Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s.
The Vulgate was the Catholic version, probably considered heresy by the person who prepared the video referenced in the OP. The Vulgate was commissioned in the year 382, meaning it was the actual Christian scripture for over 1,000 years.
Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that the Son of God was too busy to write anything down. Do you suppose he was able to read and write?
People witnessed and wrote about many things taking place in Jerusalem during the time. Yes not even one of them mentions that they witnessed the ascent of a man int the sky on a cloud.
Yet the Romans were documenting facts at that time, as were educated Jews. Not one of these people mentions that a man was seen floating in the sky. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the New Testament ever personally knew anyone named Jesus. What's odd about them not having time is that they had approx 40 years to do it. Besides, some of the writings that survived were letters, and some of them are short enough to write quickly. You would think there might be one letter from a Hebrew or a Roman, to the effect: "I saw a man floating in the sky today. I'm not crazy. Hundreds of people were in the streets, shouting and pointing." (or something like that.)
It's Thomas Paine's point, not mine, but I pass it along for the scientific method applied to analyzing a fact set. The Ascension is not a historical fact. If it were, both Romans and Jews would have recorded it. It would have been much more important a fact to commit to writing than some of the trifling matters actually recorded. But your point is well-taken: no witness wrote down any of the facts in real time. It's all legend, handed down orally before it was written down. For all we know it was a script to a play that was discarded, someone later found it, and it tok root as a new legend. Anything is possible. Excpet, f course, that a man ascended into orbit on a cloud.
Sometimes we believe a thing until disproven. You believe the land is flat until disproven by evidence that the earth is a sphere.
Prostitution, mentioned in the text, has lasted all of that time. The Pythagorean theorem, too. Virgil's Aeneid, Plato's Republic, the Almagest, the writings of Confucius, the Vedas, and Beowulf. They must all be writings from God, or they, too, would have faded away. But by your reasoning the Vulgate wins as God's official version of Christianity. All other versions must be considered fraud.
II don't understand why are you so bitter about about God and why are you fighting so hard, there are billions of people who are happy in believing of God , do you think you are more happy then the millions .
Why don't you explain what is that you want
Jesus does not exist to the atheists. If atheists had been in charge of record keeping, in the first centuries, and say Jesus did exist and was influencing the crowds, would the atheists have been honest with the information, or would they have tried to purge the records to protect their own interests? Today, if the atheists could control information would they like to purge Christianity.
Atheism is a mirror religion; if Christianity says X the mirror will say Y. There is nothing, including scientific evidence among scholars, that can be seen for what it is, in the atheist mirror.
Atheism is a mirror religion; if Christianity says X the mirror will say Y. There is nothing, including scientific evidence among scholars, that can be seen for what it is, in the atheist mirror.
From Wikipedia.
You completely ignored his question. What about religions that don't have a concept of God? The point, which apparently is flying over your head, is that just because a religion remains alive today after so long, it does not mean that said religion is true. And, to speak against your point, you can't simply point to any of these extant religions and say they're just a different version of what you practice. So your argument that Christianity is true because it's still around is fatally flawed.
Shall we post examples of the sins of religion? While you are being so happy, other people are being persecuted, dragged to death and having acid thrown in their faces for the same words. We just want religion to leave us alone.
As I mentioned before Christianity for me is based on Matthiew chapter 5, 6 .7 If we act according to those teaching, there would not be massacre, no genocide nor inquisition, I assume you read what Jesus Said " forgive them they don't know what they are doing after he was crucified.
Read Matthiew chapter 5.6.7. those who follow those teaching are christian "" faith without action is death " so thera are among us many pseudo Christians
Everybody basically wants the same thing: truth. I am not at all bitter about God, but I consider the folks who are brainwashing people to be a serious threat to the health and well being of their victims.
I don't see myself fighting anything, however I do see Fundamentalists fighting very hard in the US as they have been doing very stridently since the Reagan era when Creation Pseudoscience began its reincarnation as Intelligent Design.
I'm talking about people who actually tie up the courts, the ones who waste time in the chambers of government, stealing priority, stealing resources from the essential work of public policy.
As a person with an interest in science, I am also interested in understanding this phenomenon. Is it mental illness? Probably not, not per the legal definition, although it does seem like a dangerous place for mentally ill and mentally disabled people to congregate. A person who is already delusional needs only the pathological inducements concerning guilt, evil, depravity and the relentless force of Satan, to send the vulnerable person out to commit murder and mayhem. One that comes to mind is the mother who drowned all of her children after having psychotic delusions of the presence of Satan. Does it mean she would not have killed them if the notion of Satan was not introduced to her? Not necessarily, but the only evidence available suggests that this caused her meltdown.
I'm quite sure I wouldn't have much to say at all if the Fundies hadn't attacked science, education and the public policy forums. But with that in mind, don't you think it's a good idea to stamp out the lies and propaganda, to teach people that truth really matters? That's one thing I really like about the essays by Thomas Paine. He shows remarkable insight for a person of the colonial era. Anyone alive today who reads him must sense his ingenuity, his art of language and his gift for logic. Of course reading Paine would be a typical requirement in a high school or college English class, or perhaps civics or social sciences, that would accompany the core competency coursework for the BS degree. I guess I would say I can no longer dismiss Paine's analysis than that of Newton or any other great thinker. Would you?
If we were apply our minds to the task, we could analyze Paine's ideas in terms of a flow chart or logic diagram of some kind. We could do exactly the same thing with a Creation Pseudoscience essay. That kind of analysis doesn't flow from bitterness or a battle against religion in general, but from a desire to show irrational people how many other ways to think that there are, to share ideas and bring them to a new sense of understanding, perhaps to contribute to their own edification in case they never had a chance to learn very much about the history of religions, and the history of the debate, including this one from Paine.
Seriously: if man were ever to float in the sky, it would be widely seen and reported. As Paine noted, it was a heavily populated region, and other things were being recorded. The Jewish historian Josephus, who would have been alive during such an incident, never mentions it nor any other trace of magic or miracles or strange unexplained circumstances that would have at least traveled like wildfire among the populace. He does mention, however, how much people gossiped and spread rumors.
From a strictly scientific point of view, we simply want to weigh the available information and arrive at an interpretation that points to the best evidence. If that points to the Jesus story as a fable, then so be it. It's a small price to pay for the benefit of not believing fables to be actually literally true, and then shaping public policy around the fable. This, I think, is one of the best ways to undermine the lies and propaganda of Creation Pseudoscience.
Remove pseudoscience and propaganda from Christianity, and all of my immediate arguments go away. That's why they're here to stay, centuries after Paine brought them to the world's attention.
I have given a reply to this post 3 times and this is the forth one , for some reason the management of this forum does not like my reply so the apparently filter it out. This is the freedom of information they believe .
To answer the OP there's no need to visit an outside link. Christianity is a set of cults that variously agree or disagree on many points but have a single common belief which is that a mythical character referred to as Jesus Christ essentially committed suicide for the "sins" of humanity.
Amazingly enough, such nonsensical thought still exists among human beings, creating hundreds if not thousands of cults that think they have the correct way to worship a mythical character from a story invented over 2,000 years ago.
Amazingly enough, such nonsensical thought still exists among human beings, creating hundreds if not thousands of cults that think they have the correct way to worship a mythical character from a story invented over 2,000 years ago.
You must an 2000 year old since you are so positive , or otherwise you are a charlatan
False dichotomy. Typical of the undereducated.
Wow. That is so biased and misrepresented that it is hard to image why you were ever made moderator of the Religion forum.
Biased? Sure. In favor of reality.
Misrepresented? How so?
Misrepresented? How so?
You couldn't even begin to hope to understand--typical of the underprivileged.
This is a discussion forum. Discuss. Please. How have I misrepresented the various cults of Christianity?
Indeed. What you need is a nursery school, unfortunately you do not possess the requisite humility required for admission.
heh.. so in other words, I was accurate, but starkly so and without the bias of superstition and you really haven't anything of substance to say. You just know you don't like my characterization of Christianity since it doesn't come with superstitious baggage.