No, that is quite untrue again. The Jews did revolt several times, but this was generally following a period where their religious freedoms were infringed upon (ie the Temple in Jerusalem was being converted to a pagan temple, certain religious practices were being done away with, etc). There were a whole host of complicated reasons for the Jewish revolts, but there was definitely an underlying anti-Jewish sentiment.
Allright, let's say they did. But do you really think the jews would be the only ones? Certainly not.
You have never shown that it is called a sin to interpret the Bible. . . So no I see no contradiction.
I thought you had some knowledge of Christianity of your own, sorry..
My misstake, didnt realise I had to point everything out to you.
Well, go research, you sure as hell need it.
How would you even begin to estimate the number of prayers and the number of unanswered prayers? You simply can't. Making up statistics like that _is_ simply stupid.
Allright, let me say it like this so you can understand.. How many documented cases of mulberry trees uprooting themselfs and getting planted in the sea after prayer are there? None, and everyone who managed that would surely document it, since it is undisputable evidence the Christian faith is correct. How many people has asked for it? Surely a lot of people (or with almost 100% certainty atleast a handful) ; about every passage in the bible has been "tried" at some point in history btw.
So the success rate in procentage is 0%, that's even less than 0.001% so I hope you're happy now.
Wow, that is so convoluted a silly I don't even think I will respond. I will just let it stand as a shining beacon of silliness.
Christian communism & donkey stealing right here:
"As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?" tell him, "The Lord needs it." Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" They replied, "The Lord needs it." They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it." (Luke 19:29-35 NIV)
^ This is usually called "theft".
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35 NIV)
^ Rejection of personal owning, and a strong community redistributing possessions according to need...
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
" (Acts 2:42-45 NIV)
^ Redistribution according to individual need is one of THE VERY DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNISM.
Hmm. . . So if I asked God to destroy the world (certainly an anti-Christian request) he should grant it? Hell, even Jesus’ prayers go unanswered (when he is begging for mercy on the cross). If you actually read the Bible you will see that prayers are answered based on the wisdom of God, not on the wishes of man.
Yes, doesnt it contradict itself? In one passage it clearly says that you will receive anything you ask for, and in another it says that if you doesnt receive then it's the "will of god". Yet another excuse for this god's obvious lack of power and yet another fatal contradiction. Dont blame me, or try to reason.. Christianity isn't based on reason, you should know that by now.
The Bible is quite clear in saying much of what is taught is a parable. . .
Ah.. The good ole' "The Bible proves the Bible right argument". Circular reasoning rings a bell?
No it’s not. It is an "observation". Scientists understand that our perception of the world can be easily distorted and that what we believe can be erroneous. Also the idea of the sphere is a human creation and so can be altered to fit whatever you want (for example you could define a sphere to be a shape like the earth, which would make the statement the earth is a sphere correct but only trivially).
So just cause it is an observation, it can't be true?
You're not making much sense, and this is my last answer to you..
I usually dont argue with religous extremists cause they tend to never listen if you dont agree with them (or rather with you).
As for the earth being round, well lets think about it, man has actually been in space and everywhere on the surface of the planet you know so lets draw some logical conclusions;
1. You cannot "fall off" the earth. Thus it has no visible "end".
2. You can only "fly off" the earth. (going always up)
3. This would indicate a sphereical form.
4. If that isn't enough, Earth has been observed from space, and has been verifeid as a round object.
There are more, but these are probably the most obvious ones.
Again, these are observations. At one time people thought it was a "fact" that the earth was the unmoving center of the universe. History is full of "facts" that were simply wrong. Science has wisely decided it is not infallible and that we should realize that what may look like a certainty may well be nothing more than an illusion.
Yeah, and who taught them that eh? Christianity, and Judaism did..
Thanks for providing more facts to the argument that Christianity is a religion with no base in reality, reason, or even intelligence.
Where have I lied? And I am carefully responding to each of your points, so I don't think you can accuse me of not debating.
Yeah well, maybe you shouldn't reply when you dont got anything useful to reply with.
Umm. . . That has nothing to do with the statement you quoted. . .
You stated that Christians don’t see these contradictions; I just pointed out that they are constantly debating them. That is I showed your statement was quite incorrect.
I never said that all christians fail that see them. But those that do see them, tries to come up with excuses for them.
Its content is not, but the actual writing and compiling of it is a fact which can be used to explain many of the contradictions. Each of the authors of its books had their own agenda for writing what they did. Like any man these agendas colored their presentation of Jesus’ teachings and lead to many contradictions.
You're saying the way the bible is written is a fact?
No, it is not. Most translations move the verses a bit..
That which is passage 1:2 (not a real passage obviously, just a demonstration) might be passage 1:3 in another translation.
And btw, according to you, that the earth is round isn't a fact but only an observation so I could, using that very argument, claim that the bible doesnt even exist if I wanted to act just as stupid as you have.)
And Jesus doesnt need apostels (or anyone else) to contradict him, he contradicts both himself and the O.T several times.
No (assuming the fact is actually a fact), but the conclusions we make regarding facts certainly can, which is what is at issue here.
Yes, but people that are biased (fighting for their religions honor for instance) has a tendecy to let their beliefs cloud their judgement and draw more false conclusions than other people.
I don't usually quote the Bible because it tends to lead to the wrong conclusions (well it tends to lead to whatever conclusion you want it to, right or wrong). You can find a Bible verse and twist in such a way as to support pretty much anything you want. I don't feel it is at all useful to do this. I have actually studied the Bible (I even have some sort of certificate from a course I took at my church around here somewhere, as well as a couple of medals I earned in Boy Scouts for taking Bible study courses) not that I would have needed to to debunk your arguments.
So your conclusions, those of the practicing christian with a religion to defend are automatically more correct than mine I take it?
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds..
I also find it rather disgusting that you would insult my faith.
Like I care one fuckin bit.. Christianity is total shit, there I said it again.. hehe.
Christianty thinks nonbelievers should be killed so Im going to tkae the right to atleast insult your faith;
"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."
Yeah, an insult is much worse than stoning people to death.
Or maybe this is a parable, or "not literal"!
Not true, there was a lot of science going on; it just had not advanced all that far at that point. That said you cannot fault people for a poor understanding when science says no different. Today it is silly for people to believe in Creationism, but back then science said no different. In 2000 years people will undoubtedly look back at us and comment on how little we understood too.
No, I cannot fault people for a poor understanding. But I can fault people who are nothing but mindless sheep like you, and give up their own reasoning & understanding for the sake of a worthless book only good as toilet paper.
Not, much of a scientist are you. . .
As long as there are no other forces at work on the object its mass doesn't affect its movement (at least in the way we are talking about). For example if you drop a ball that weighs 100kg and another ball of the exact same size that weights 10kg from the same height they will hit the ground at the same time. There mass does not affect their movement.
For something to be of infinite mass, it must also be of infinite size, cause a limited size cannot hold an unlimited mass.
Movement got nothing to do with it, but something of unlimited mass (and automatically size) will take up all the room and there will be nowhere to move it to, thus an object of infinite mass cannot be moved.
This is very simple and easy reasoning, maybe you should actually think before your fingers start to type.
In any event I mentioned Zoroastrianism to provide an example of a monotheistic religion that existed before Christianity. Regardless of what you feel about its origins, there was a monotheistic form of Zoroastrianism before Christ.
Yeah, and there were about 15 other "saviors" before Christ that preached pretty much the same message he did. Maybe I should bring all of them up every time we mention Jesus.
I looked at the other sites and they had nothing interesting to say. Most as far as I could tell did not dispute the authenticity of the books, but took issue with what they saw as contradictions in it. They questioned the editing of the book. Their contradictions didn’t seem like contradictions to me.
Looks like you didnt even read them.
And for someone who has been selectively quoting the Bible it is pretty rich that you now criticize me for quote selectively.
Like I said this is probably my last post, but if you could have brought up A SINGLE PASSAGE like I urged you to do, then we could have discussed it.
This was the only place where the authenticity of the book was discussed on that website, so I quoted it. I am sorry if it contradicts your views, but there it is.
Right, you just proved you didnt really read those links..
How can you say I am evading the issue? I am directly addressing it! I have just provided evidence and support for my contentions while you have. . . done pretty much nothing to support your contentions. The support you have provided has in fact not supported you arguments and your facts have generally been wrong. If it makes you feel better to believe I am evading the issue fine, but it is rather obvious I am not.
You're not adressing it, if you choose to take a 3-4 sentences long piece out of context and then ignore the other 20+ pages of text..
None of which prove that the book is not legitimate and at least one of which proves that the book is legitimate.
Like I said, It's obvious you havent even read them all..
They are a book store they sell. . . wait for it. . . books! They don't endorse the authenticity of that book. And if you look at the reviews there is ample discussion of its fictional nature.
No shit? But it's passed of as AUTHENTIC, and the site doesnt argue against it, only the user reviews, atleast most of them..
But the same book is also sold on Yahoo for instance, and there all the user reviews called the book authentic and were positive..
However if you look, they actually have an editorial review of "Hitler's Table Talk" and the user reviews support the contention that it is legitimate (for what they are worth).
The user reviews are not worth shit.
Actually they don't sell books, they collect them. And unless you are a member of Congress they don't let you take the books outside the building generally.
So you agree they lease books, good.
And your point?
That they collect books, or lease them, or even eat them if they would want to do that, doesnt say that the book is authentic like you claimed.
You're the one who brought up the bookstore thing (you said only Yahoo books carried it). I was simply demonstrating that you were yet again completely wrong.
No, I said Yahoo sold the Necronomicon, and that was the only place I know of that sold the Talk table (but I havent really looked for it to be honest, I dont take much interest in forgeries.)
My point is, that the book (or anything really) is being sold doesnt mean it's real. You claimed it to be authentic cause you seem to think Amazon claim it to be real.
Book stores sell books, they dont care if they are real or not, as long as people are interested in buying it.
No, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. I think it is clear the Hitler believed in a god, he just did not believe the teachings of Christianity (or any religion is seems).
usually indicate that someone, me in this case, was being sarcastic.. You said he wasn't an atheistist now (even though you claimed he was earlier) and I did not dispute it. My whole point is that he was a religous man, a Christian. So why should I argue against the fact the man wasn't an atheist?
Firstly, we are debating religion, you yourself said there were no facts when dealing with faith, so I don't think you can blame me for not arguing facts in that regard. Second I have had to go out of my way to correct your near constant inaccuracies and your use of made-up or otherwise incorrect facts. I have provided sources that support my contentions and have shown that even your own sources don't agree with you. It seems you are simply lashing out at me because you have nothing better to do.
Beliefs are not about facts, true.. Although a few are based on facts, these are usually non-religious kind of beliefs (ideologys)
However, I can demand you to throw that which has been debunked of your religion out of a discussion Im desperatly trying to keep somewhat intelligent. And you have not provided any sources, except a link to wikepedia about Zoroastrianism, that you claim, is a special type of Zoroarstrianism that's monotheism, and not dualism.
That has not proven me wrong in any way.. How could it?
And this argument is finished, my theory that sense and christian heads just dont go together has been verified once again..
The only thing that belongs in a christian head is hollow points.
Now take care christian boy.
@ doormat, Im not confused at all. I dont care what muslims call it, I didnt even know they called it the law of Moses, neither do I care. I only know they are similiar. ALL THINGS in these 3 religions are extremly similiar, in truth they are nothing but copies of each other.
And the Sharia is no less "divine" than the law of Moses, they are both man-made crap ment to serve human purposes (usually the purposes of those in power).
And a "fundamentalist" is someone that is MORE religous than most, it is the very thing about them. Religion dominates the life of a fundamentalist.. For most people, it doesn't.
And you might think it leads him towards understanding and love for all things, but sorry, the world is not black and white.. It's grey.
There are no absolutes, and even something you do for a "good higher cause" can bring quite alot of suffering for those that "stand in the way" for whatever "glorious & loving plan" the fundamentalist might have for the world. Im not going to say that killing people with stupid opinons isn't the way to go but I'd rather kill people for a reason than cause some higher cause tells me too.
Have you ever read Papillon? The Abydessa (sp?) of the monastery somewhere in latin america is a good example of good intentions gone wrong.