| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2006 05:16:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
The very foundation and basis for the Christian religions are the Bibles.
The Bibles are a collection of documents by 66 or more authors of unknown
veracity, selected by church leaders from hundreds of documents by many
others, on the subject of gods and religion.
You CLEARLY have no clue about the history of the Bible. If you did,
you wouldn't make such an ignorant and uninformed statement.
NONE of the original Bible
documents exist.
This is most likely the ONLY true statement you have made in your
whole post! ;-(
They have deteriorated into non-existence many centuries
ago. They are all hand copies of copies of translations etc. of unknown
authenticity, accuracy and veracity created many centuries before the
invention of the printing press.
Hand copied documents (not of translations), THOUSANDS of them from
all over the middle east, with an exact agreement rate of something
like 97%! Not a bad error rate for hand copies. Perhaps rather than
spouting off about things you don't know, you should do some actual
homework!
Myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay by hundreds of sheep herders
with only a miniscule knowledge of the Universe and science are not valid or
accurate evidence of the reality or existence of any Gods or their commands,
desires and instructions. The Bibles are replete with numerous impossible
and implausible tales.
It is clear that you have never even READ the book, but are willing to
spout off loudly about something you know nothing about.
Don't you feel stupid, embarassing yourself like this?
The objective fact is that all Christian religions are founded on nothing
more than myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay. This is why there is such a
huge variety of religious beliefs and religions.
More clear evidence that you know nothing of the Book, the religion,
the God. You have a lot of opinion for a person who knows so little
fact. . .
I pity you.
Parakaleo
.
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
12 Jul 2006 07:45:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:16:09 -0600, parakaleo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay by hundreds of sheep herders
with only a miniscule knowledge of the Universe and science are not valid or
accurate evidence of the reality or existence of any Gods or their commands,
desires and instructions. The Bibles are replete with numerous impossible
and implausible tales.
It is clear that you have never even READ the book, but are willing to
spout off loudly about something you know nothing about.
Um, Bill, like most of the rest of us here in alt.atheism, as indeed read
your precious book, as have I. He's right, you're wrong. Why don't _you_
read it sometime, only this time with your brain turned on.
Don't you feel stupid, embarassing yourself like this?
Don't you?
Followups directed _out_ of alt.atheism.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
13 Jul 2006 08:58:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:45:54 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:16:09 -0600, parakaleo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay by hundreds of sheep herders
with only a miniscule knowledge of the Universe and science are not valid or
accurate evidence of the reality or existence of any Gods or their commands,
desires and instructions. The Bibles are replete with numerous impossible
and implausible tales.
It is clear that you have never even READ the book, but are willing to
spout off loudly about something you know nothing about.
Um, Bill, like most of the rest of us here in alt.atheism, as indeed read
your precious book, as have I. He's right, you're wrong. Why don't _you_
read it sometime, only this time with your brain turned on.
Hmm. You think he is right, when he has the number of writers wrong,
clearly doesn't know that the New Testament contains several DIFFERENT
witnesses to the existance of Jesus Christ, etc? You think he has
read the book when He has no idea what it is about?
Part of the problem with many of you atheists is that you _assume_
that everyone else is stupid. That of course demonstrates the depth
of your understanding of the real world.
Don't you feel stupid, embarassing yourself like this?
Don't you?
Nothing for me to feel that way about. I have studied the book, read
the book, examined the history of the book and know what I am talking
about. You and Bill obviously have not, but you have strong opinions
anyway.
Go figure.
parakaleo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
13 Jul 2006 09:39:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:58:50 -0600,
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:45:54 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:16:09 -0600, parakaleo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay by hundreds of sheep herders
with only a miniscule knowledge of the Universe and science are not valid or
accurate evidence of the reality or existence of any Gods or their commands,
desires and instructions. The Bibles are replete with numerous impossible
and implausible tales.
It is clear that you have never even READ the book, but are willing to
spout off loudly about something you know nothing about.
Um, Bill, like most of the rest of us here in alt.atheism, as indeed read
your precious book, as have I. He's right, you're wrong. Why don't _you_
read it sometime, only this time with your brain turned on.
Hmm. You think he is right, when he has the number of writers wrong,
clearly doesn't know that the New Testament contains several DIFFERENT
witnesses to the existance of Jesus Christ, etc? You think he has
read the book when He has no idea what it is about?
Look up the word "hearsay".
There are no witnesses, outside the imagination of desperate believers
who don't know what the word means.
You have a book whose authorship is unknown making baseless claims
many of which are simply impossible, that is a member of a large class
of other books including the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Vedas, the
Eddas and even the Greek, Norse, Celtic, Chinese, Native American
myths etc.
They're all records of what different religions believe. Which doesn't
make them fact.
And your one has been heavily edited over time. It's a work of
religious propaganda for the members of that religion.
Part of the problem with many of you atheists is that you _assume_
that everyone else is stupid. That of course demonstrates the depth
of your understanding of the real world.
The problem with you Christians is that you can't think outside the
box, and have no understanding of the real world. And that this makes
you lie about people outside your religion to their faces.
And YOUR problem is that you demonstrate you are stupid.
Don't you feel stupid, embarassing yourself like this?
Don't you?
Nothing for me to feel that way about. I have studied the book, read
the book, examined the history of the book and know what I am talking
about. You and Bill obviously have not, but you have strong opinions
anyway.
No, you don't.
You will find that many atheists became atheist after they studied it,
and know a heck of a lot more about it than you do - which is why they
became atheist.
Go figure.
Go figure.
parakaleo
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
14 Jul 2006 09:54:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:39:01 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:58:50 -0600,
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:45:54 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:16:09 -0600, parakaleo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Myths, legends, fables, folklore and hearsay by hundreds of sheep herders
with only a miniscule knowledge of the Universe and science are not valid or
accurate evidence of the reality or existence of any Gods or their commands,
desires and instructions. The Bibles are replete with numerous impossible
and implausible tales.
It is clear that you have never even READ the book, but are willing to
spout off loudly about something you know nothing about.
Um, Bill, like most of the rest of us here in alt.atheism, as indeed read
your precious book, as have I. He's right, you're wrong. Why don't _you_
read it sometime, only this time with your brain turned on.
Hmm. You think he is right, when he has the number of writers wrong,
clearly doesn't know that the New Testament contains several DIFFERENT
witnesses to the existance of Jesus Christ, etc? You think he has
read the book when He has no idea what it is about?
Look up the word "hearsay".
There are no witnesses, outside the imagination of desperate believers
who don't know what the word means.
Look up "eye-witnesses." Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, each
of whom wrote about Jesus in the Bible.
You have a book whose authorship is unknown making baseless claims
many of which are simply impossible, that is a member of a large class
of other books including the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Vedas, the
Eddas and even the Greek, Norse, Celtic, Chinese, Native American
myths etc.
No, I have a book whos authorship is mostly known, by many more than
one author, about events in many cases they saw firsthand.
They're all records of what different religions believe. Which doesn't
make them fact.
No, they are all records of what Christianity has. Other religions
may have some of the things we have, but not all, clearly.
And your one has been heavily edited over time. It's a work of
religious propaganda for the members of that religion.
We have over 5,300 manuscripts, including some from the first and
second centuries (New Testament texts) that agree with what we have
today. . .people who haven't done their homework take the position you
are claiming.
Calling it names like "religious propaganda" does not change its
nature from scripture to anything less. The use of such "loaded"
terms is nothing more than self-talk, you are trying to convince
yourself of something.
Part of the problem with many of you atheists is that you _assume_
that everyone else is stupid. That of course demonstrates the depth
of your understanding of the real world.
The problem with you Christians is that you can't think outside the
box, and have no understanding of the real world. And that this makes
you lie about people outside your religion to their faces.
Part of your _assumption_ that Christians are stupid. No bobo, we do
understand the real world, do "think outside the box," and no, you are
not the only intelligent person in the world. . .
And YOUR problem is that you demonstrate you are stupid.
Don't you feel stupid, embarassing yourself like this?
Don't you?
Nothing for me to feel that way about. I have studied the book, read
the book, examined the history of the book and know what I am talking
about. You and Bill obviously have not, but you have strong opinions
anyway.
No, you don't.
You will find that many atheists became atheist after they studied it,
and know a heck of a lot more about it than you do - which is why they
became atheist.
I have known many atheists, a few of whom have actually read the
Bible. Most of them have not, and of those who have, virtually NONE
of them have studied it to the lengths that we Christians do.
And that is only logical. Why would you atheists read a book about a
God you believe does not exist? Why would you "study" it if it means
nothing to you? You wouldn't, of course.
No, you don't know more about it than I do. IF you have read it
through at all (you may CLAIM you have, but I don't believe you have),
you certainly have not studied it daily for over 47 years as I have.
For you to claim that your superficial reading/study would equate to
47+ years of intensive study would be ludicrous.
But we know. . .you atheists are "smart" and the rest of the world is
stupid. . .
LOL!
parakaleo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
14 Jul 2006 11:24:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 wrote:
Look up "eye-witnesses." Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, each
of whom wrote about Jesus in the Bible.
Of those apostles you named above, Mark is the only "eye-witness" who
is believed by recognized Biblical scholars to have written about Jesus
in the Bible. The Gospels purport themselves as being stories related
by or handed down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospels
themselves do not make any claims as to their actual authorship. Each
of the four books of the Gospels bear titles like this: "The Gospel
According to [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John]". "According to" in this
sense means "as told by". It does not mean "as written by", nor does
it imply that the author heard the story first-hand directly from the
original "eye-witness".
Also there is nothing in the Bible where it says that Paul ever saw
Jesus in the flesh. Paul says that he saw Jesus only in the form
of a vision or an apparition. Paul is a dreamer, not an "eye-witness".
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS |
15 Jul 2006 10:57:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:24:54 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 wrote:
Look up "eye-witnesses." Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, each
of whom wrote about Jesus in the Bible.
Of those apostles you named above, Mark is the only "eye-witness" who
is believed by recognized Biblical scholars to have written about Jesus
in the Bible.
Which "recognized Biblical scholars" are you referring to? The ones
who "vote" by dropping marbles into a jar to determine whether Jesus
actually said something or not? LOL! <G>
A LOT depends upon the level of "scholarship" you are willing to
recognize as makes up your choice of "Biblical scholars."
The Gospels purport themselves as being stories related
by or handed down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospels
themselves do not make any claims as to their actual authorship. Each
of the four books of the Gospels bear titles like this: "The Gospel
According to [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John]". "According to" in this
sense means "as told by". It does not mean "as written by", nor does
it imply that the author heard the story first-hand directly from the
original "eye-witness".
Hmm. So If I have a document that says "My will according to <my
name>," it must have been written by someone else, and has nothing to
do with what I have written or said, huh? Hahahaha.
Also there is nothing in the Bible where it says that Paul ever saw
Jesus in the flesh. Paul says that he saw Jesus only in the form
of a vision or an apparition. Paul is a dreamer, not an "eye-witness".
Beginning with the first century there have been thousands and
thousands of people who have given their lives because Paul knew Jesus
(Peter considered Paul's writings to be "gospel"), and because they
believed the eye-witness accounts of the Gospel writers.
parakaleo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
