Sorry, they don't represent our religious beliefs

reply to post by jiggerj

reply to post by jiggerj




F&S jiggerj, especially for pointing out the ol' 1-2 attack method of religious violence:

1-

people perform atrocities in the name of religion, ...

2-

then others step forward to say, "That's not how the majority of us interpret the bible (quran, torah...)".

and these folks are either blind or think we are blind

the chorus of group 2. serves only to whitewash the actions of group 1

when they were seeking power, they had no trouble at all exterminating those who did'nt interpret the bible, quran, torah
correctly, they simply labeled them heretics and put them to the sword and the flames.

now that they are in power, they suddenly can't police themselves, can they?
when a xtian bombs a clinic NOBODY steps forth and demand that the bombers sect/denomination be declared non-xtian
when a muslim fanatic commits an atrocity NO imams come forth, declares them heretics, and issues a fatwa NEVER.

either they start policing themselves or stop claiming persecution
when their violence returns unto them

reply to post by DeadSeraph


1) Slaves and the Pyramids

The Pyramids were monuments to the everlasting power and authority of the Pharaoh. They were built by Egyptians, hired for the sole purpose of building them, and then receiving honors in the Afterlife for their contributions. The Pharaoh would not have trusted foreign hands to build his everlasting monument.

The construction of the pyramids were also accompanied by religious rituals and rites, as well as stellar alignments based on Egyptian mathematics. The goddess Seshat was invoked during all of these rites as well. The Pharaoh would not have trusted foreigners to build their monuments to perfect precision, and to properly perform their vocal and visual dedications.

This awesome article here also points out some interesting things. The quoted text below can be found about half-way through the article:

The biggest and most obvious evidence — the pyramids themselves — are an easy starting point. Their age is well established. The bulk of the Giza Necropolis, consisting of such famous landmarks as the Great Pyramid of Cheops and the Sphinx, are among Egypt's oldest large pyramids and were completed around 2540 BCE. Most of Egypt's large pyramids were built over a 900 year period from about 2650 BCE to about 1750 BCE.

We also know quite a lot about the labor force that built the pyramids. The best estimates are that 10,000 men spent 30 years building the Great Pyramid. They lived in good housing at the foot of the pyramid, and when they died, they received honored burials in stone tombs near the pyramid in thanks for their contribution. This information is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was only discovered in 1990. They ate well and received the best medical care. And, also unlike slaves, they were well paid ...[SNIP]...

It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt, and they were neither Hebrews nor Israelites. They were a garrison of soldiers from the Persian Empire...

2. David Rohl

David Rohl's "New Chronology" is widely discarded by historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists as being revisionist history, and subjective, not objective. It is an example of bad science. Rohl's goal was to revise history to fit his predetermined conclusion—that Biblical figures existed in Egypt—instead of revising his hypothesis to fit the evidence which emerged—Biblical figures did not exist in Egypt.

As for the book he wrote that you mentioned, that has also met scrutiny and criticism. Eric Cline, historian par excellence, had this to say concerning Rohl's book:

his suggestions have not caught on with the scholarly establishment. His argument is not helped by the fact that it depends upon speculations regarding the transmission of place-names for both the various rivers and nearby related areas from antiquity to the present. In the end, while Rohl’s suggestion is not out of the question, it seems no more probable than any other hypothesis, and less likely than those suggested by Speiser, Zarins, and Sauer."

David Rohl is a bad pick for "proving" that Hebrew slaves built the pyramids.

3. Moses

Egyptian culture is exceptionally concerned with words and names. In their breakdown of the soul, the ren, meaning name, is incredibly important. That's why Egyptian's recorded names and events so dependably. Writing, words, and names were of the utmost importance to them. Hieroglyphics were considered a sacred gift from the god Thoth.

Speaking of Thoth, and your stance that Moses would not have been called "Moses," did you know Thoth had a family of Pharaohs dedicated to them? Their name: Thutmose... or Thutmosis, Tutmosis, Tuthmosis. Moses could have easily been an Egyptian individual. But there's no record of his having ever been there.

4. & 5. Bethlehem & the Census

I do admit I wrote too quickly here. It is Nazareth, not Bethlehem, which did not exist.

Also, see this article here for the possibility that Bethlehem and the census were also fake. There's even a specific section on whether Bethlehem was a town, a tribe, or an individual about halfway in.

And beneath that, a section on Herod and the census.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

See the New Testament.

and don't bait or troll..

Your NT is very connected to the OT.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
If I walk into a room of believers in a god, I would have no idea if one of them would attack me or not.

What a ridiculous statement.

Geez, walk into any mainstream Christian church filled with believers in God, and you can be fairly well assured that you're not going to be assaulted. I suspect the same would be true for mainstream Judaism and Islam.

All of this "oh, there's so much hatred in religious texts" is just a shallow argument that's entirely supported by cherry picking the text -- reading what you want to believe in literally, and ignoring everything that disputes it, which in the case of Christianity, means that the "God is evil" nuts take about 5% of the Bible literally, and throw the rest of it out the window.



If that ain't irrational, I don't know what is.

This isn't a church, but these are your decent, peace-loving, upstanding, Catholics worshiping the god of their bible. If you were a Protestant would you DARE enter their church?

Video of Belfast RIOTS: RELIGIONS WAR The Police Service of Northern Ireland has released video of July 12-13th overnight Belfast riots which they say wounded 20 officers. The violence by Catholic nationalists followed a token Protestant parade past a militant Catholic area, an annual confrontation that has triggered street fights for four straight years.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen
All of this "oh, there's so much hatred in religious texts" is just a shallow argument that's entirely supported by cherry picking the text -- reading what you want to believe in literally, and ignoring everything that disputes it, which in the case of Christianity, means that the "God is evil" nuts take about 5% of the Bible literally, and throw the rest of it out the window.

If that ain't irrational, I don't know what is.

This isn't a church, but these are your decent, peace-loving, upstanding, Catholics worshiping the god of their bible. If you were a Protestant would you DARE enter their church?

So, to counter my statement that you use a ridiculously small sampling of the Bible to justify your pre-biased conclusion, you use a ridiculously small sampling of Catholics to do the same thing?

Nice job, bigot. Who else are you prejudiced against? Women? Gays? Hispanics?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen
All of this "oh, there's so much hatred in religious texts" is just a shallow argument that's entirely supported by cherry picking the text -- reading what you want to believe in literally, and ignoring everything that disputes it, which in the case of Christianity, means that the "God is evil" nuts take about 5% of the Bible literally, and throw the rest of it out the window.

If that ain't irrational, I don't know what is.

This isn't a church, but these are your decent, peace-loving, upstanding, Catholics worshiping the god of their bible. If you were a Protestant would you DARE enter their church?

So, to counter my statement that you use a ridiculously small sampling of the Bible to justify your pre-biased conclusion, you use a ridiculously small sampling of Catholics to do the same thing?

Nice job, bigot. Who else are you prejudiced against? Women? Gays? Hispanics?

ADJ, I'm disappointed. I didn't know you were that ignorant. Christians do bad things to Protestants. Protestants do bad things to Christians. Muslims do bad things to, well, everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on since all through biblical history. Does this make me a bigot for suggesting that all negative aspects of religious texts be erased?

Originally posted by jiggerj
ADJ, I'm disappointed. I didn't know you were that ignorant. Christians do bad things to Protestants. Protestants do bad things to Christians. Muslims do bad things to, well, everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on since all through biblical history. Does this make me a bigot for suggesting that all negative aspects of religious texts be erased?

You are the very definition of the term "prejudiced" by claiming that some small subset of a group is representative of the whole, which you're continuing to do.

It's not "Catholics do bad things to Protestants", it's "SOME Catholics do bad things to SOME Protestants, for reasons which may or may not have anything to do with matters of religion." Not much of an argument that way, but it's not much of an argument anyway.

See how that works?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
ADJ, I'm disappointed. I didn't know you were that ignorant. Christians do bad things to Protestants. Protestants do bad things to Christians. Muslims do bad things to, well, everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on since all through biblical history. Does this make me a bigot for suggesting that all negative aspects of religious texts be erased?

You are the very definition of the term "prejudiced" by claiming that some small subset of a group is representative of the whole, which you're continuing to do.

It's not "Catholics do bad things to Protestants", it's "SOME Catholics do bad things to SOME Protestants, for reasons which may or may not have anything to do with matters of religion." Not much of an argument that way, but it's not much of an argument anyway.

See how that works?

No. How it works is, some people see one message in religious texts, and others see a different message. In the OT, didn't god command the annihilation of the Canaanites and Amalekites? Doesn't this clearly imply that god chooses sides? That god approves of war? How does one get a message of love and peace from this?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
ADJ, I'm disappointed. I didn't know you were that ignorant. Christians do bad things to Protestants. Protestants do bad things to Christians. Muslims do bad things to, well, everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on since all through biblical history. Does this make me a bigot for suggesting that all negative aspects of religious texts be erased?

You are the very definition of the term "prejudiced" by claiming that some small subset of a group is representative of the whole, which you're continuing to do.

It's not "Catholics do bad things to Protestants", it's "SOME Catholics do bad things to SOME Protestants, for reasons which may or may not have anything to do with matters of religion." Not much of an argument that way, but it's not much of an argument anyway.

See how that works?

No. How it works is, some people see one message in religious texts, and others see a different message. In the OT, didn't god command the annihilation of the Canaanites and Amalekites? Doesn't this clearly imply that god chooses sides? That god approves of war? How does one get a message of love and peace from this?

How about, instead of reading the 5% you think supports your hatred of Christianity, you read the other 95% and see what that has to say? Or instead of crowing about a minuscule number of Christians who act violently, you spend some time working at a food shelf, woman's shelter, disaster relief, or any other of the thousands of institutions that Christians operate, without preaching religion, in order to better the world?

The only way to lose one's bigotry is to get beyond the hatred. I challenge you to think about doing that.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
ADJ, I'm disappointed. I didn't know you were that ignorant. Christians do bad things to Protestants. Protestants do bad things to Christians. Muslims do bad things to, well, everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on since all through biblical history. Does this make me a bigot for suggesting that all negative aspects of religious texts be erased?

You are the very definition of the term "prejudiced" by claiming that some small subset of a group is representative of the whole, which you're continuing to do.

It's not "Catholics do bad things to Protestants", it's "SOME Catholics do bad things to SOME Protestants, for reasons which may or may not have anything to do with matters of religion." Not much of an argument that way, but it's not much of an argument anyway.

See how that works?

No. How it works is, some people see one message in religious texts, and others see a different message. In the OT, didn't god command the annihilation of the Canaanites and Amalekites? Doesn't this clearly imply that god chooses sides? That god approves of war? How does one get a message of love and peace from this?

How about, instead of reading the 5% you think supports your hatred of Christianity, you read the other 95% and see what that has to say? Or instead of crowing about a minuscule number of Christians who act violently, you spend some time working at a food shelf, woman's shelter, disaster relief, or any other of the thousands of institutions that Christians operate, without preaching religion, in order to better the world?

The only way to lose one's bigotry is to get beyond the hatred. I challenge you to think about doing that.

Gloves are off. For years I've donated my free time to driving handicapped veterans to where they needed to go, so don't go pulling that 'only religious people do good' crap.

What you seem determined to deny to yourself is that certain religious texts KILL people. Are you such a moron that you can't see that??? Go ahead, tell me you're a christian or muslim, and then say, "OH! Those people that kill in the name of MY god and MY religion have nothing to do with ME!!! They are not MY responsibility. After all, am I my brother's keeper?"

No need to respond. I've had enough of you.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, but you DO need religion in order to KILL in the name of god or allah, or whichever make believe god you worship.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Gloves are off. For years I've donated my free time to driving handicapped veterans to where they needed to go, so don't go pulling that 'only religious people do good' crap.

That's what I mean about bigotry blinding you -- where did I say "only religious people do good"? No, what I said was your belief that "religious people only do bad" was untrue.

What you seem determined to deny to yourself is that certain religious texts KILL people.

I challenge you to show me any Bible that's killed anybody. Show me the copy of the Quran that picked up a gun and shot someone.

No need to respond. I've had enough of you.

Yeah, well I haven't had enough of refuting your prejudice. As I am fond of saying, if you don't want to defend lies, then don't post lies.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, but you DO need religion in order to KILL in the name of god or allah, or whichever make believe god you worship.

Which is a ridiculously shallow point. People kill in the name of nationalism, you want a One World Order and ban all nations? Jealous people kill for "love" and they kill out of rage, you want to ban emotion? People kill to gain money, should we get rid of money and join communes?

More people are killed an average month of African tribal warfare than died in the whole of the vaunted Catholic Inquisitions -- what does ethnic warfare have to do with religious texts?

Face it, people kill each other for a myriad of reasons, and the only reason you treat religion like it's the sole cause of suffering is because you, personally, do not like it. That's called scapegoating.

However, I will make the more salient and civil point that if people actually DID follow what Jesus taught, no religious person would be killing anyone, and the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by jiggerj


I'm calling on Muslims and every religion to open up their books and start ripping out anything and everything with a message of hate, intolerance, and violence. These things are utterly in contradiction with love thy neighbor and goodwill toward men.

Jesus said, I didn't come to bring Peace but a Sword Matthew 10:34- He even told the disciples to arm themselves with swords because things were going to get rough. Luke 22:36/37

You would have that taken out of the Bible and ignored in the context in which it was written? These passages tell an account of history and give examples of how we should live in those same situations. This isn't about hate, it's about doing whats right and protecting yourself.

What you propose to do is to create your own religion. I think we have a hard enough time understanding the ones we have now. You can't simply expect people with long held beliefs to simply discard them. Love thy neighbor does have it's place but that doesn't mean you can't throw the money changers out of the temple. You need to understand the difference and the context for each situation.

Originally posted by HamrHeed
reply to post by MastaShake

 

Christianity isn't based on fear.

Of course it is. Like all religious mythology with an afterlife attached. It comes with an inbuilt "naughty or nice code" to dictate who gets the good seats.

Without fear of failure/punishment/death, or in one word consequences, there is no power of control in religion.
Without fear there is little reason to obey the many ridiculous and often illogical(in this day and age) edicts and rules held precious by the controlling bodies of the major religions, not just christianity.

Based on fear ? Its very foundations are built of fear.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Based on fear ? Its very foundations are built of fear.

For some, probably. The "30 Minutes in Hell" guy doesn't sell his books to the hopeful, lol.

That said, I've known a lot of Christians in my life, and none of them were motivated by fear.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Based on fear ? Its very foundations are built of fear.

For some, probably. The "30 Minutes in Hell" guy doesn't sell his books to the hopeful, lol.

That said, I've known a lot of Christians in my life, and none of them were motivated by fear.

The majority of religious mythology, as I stated, is built on fear with a side order of fear. Rationalize it as you will. the ultimate truth of of them all is:

"Behave in the dictated fashion and obey the rules...or else!"

Irrespective of whether you call it Heaven, Jannah, Valhalla, Tian etc etc etc. The reward for being good little sheep on earth is a golden ticket to "paradise".
Fear of not achieving entrance is what underpins the faith of the "faithful".

I repeat, rationalize it as you will, those are the cold hard facts of the matter.

Also, why the fixation on one mythology? There are many and have been many, many more in the history of mankind. All state they are the one "truth" and none yet have ever actually shown any evidence of that being the case.
Your christianity is simply one amongst a multitude and one which has fractured into a thousand or more sects each with little in common with another, and all beyond recognition when compared to the original mythology.

reply to post by Noncompatible


Well, I don't know about you, but I get positive impact in my daily life, as a result of my practice of personal prayer and recital of the "Liturgy of the Hours", as well as spending a fair amount of time reading a variety of scripture and philosophy, in order to refute moronic statements like "God is evil".

No fear there, sorry.

What role does fear play in your life?

reply to post by jiggerj

S & F !

Best part of the OP!
In My Not So Humble Opinion!

"I'm calling on Muslims and every religion to open up their books and start ripping out anything and everything with a message of hate, intolerance, and violence. These things are utterly in contradiction with love thy neighbor and goodwill toward men"

reply to post by jiggerj

There's a simpler solution.
Everyone should just convert to the napkin religion, because it is after all, the one true religion.
It needs no pages ripped out:

www.napkinreligion.com...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jiggerj

 

S & F !

Best part of the OP!
In My Not So Humble Opinion!

"I'm calling on Muslims and every religion to open up their books and start ripping out anything and everything with a message of hate, intolerance, and violence. These things are utterly in contradiction with love thy neighbor and goodwill toward men"

I now label you a Jiggerite. LOL

I thought you were a more critical thinker than this. The statement, " These things are utterly in contradiction with love thy neighbor and goodwill toward men" is false. I thought you would have been well read enough to realize that. ( out of anyone here) I tried to show that in my post.