The Contradictions (and complete misunderstandings) of Christianity

reply to post by azza5540


Canon was debated at the council of Trent. Not the council of Nicea. More uninformed atheist jibberish. Go Google it. You also have a bad understanding of how the Bible is translated.

They don't translate Bibles from one language to another to another. We still have the manuscripts in their original language. The assumption that we translate through multiple languages usually is based on the false premise that we lost all the manuscripts in their original language. But we haven't.

We have manuscripts of the Bible written in their original languages. We have manuscripts of the NT written in the original Greek. We have manuscripts of the OT written in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Consider the dead sea scrolls for example. All modern translations are done directly from the source language and are not translated anything like you think they are.

Good modern day Bible software even has the Bible in its original languages. Anyone can use any modern day Bible software and see what the orignal manuscripts said in their original language and tranlsate it themseleves if they so desire. If you think they got it wrong get yourself a good Bible program and restranslate it for yourself. It's available to anyone. Even atheists.

Both show you have no clue about the Bible. Only misinformation you heard from other misinformed atheists online. Perhaps you should rethink the Bible since your thoughts on it and your atheism stems from misinformation.

Being an atheist is one thing. But being one because you've been misinformed isn't a good thing.

reply to post by azza5540

d I`ll Believe what I research and study with an open mind.

That is what has been lost over the years. There is a war against kids in our country. We are made to believe things and taught not to question it starting at a young age. Not all but most people just take what they learn in grade school as the complete facts and leave it at that. If you research yourself you can expand your knowledge way beyond what is expected.

I am astounded at your lack of understanding of Christianity and Judaism, especially because you claim to possess such understanding. After reading your post it is quite apparent that your anger, which is how it comes across, stems from both your lack of understanding, and your personal bias against these two religions. You could have realized that many of these questions have obvious answers, if you truly understood the teachings of these religions. But I will enlighten you to both what you don't understand, as well as to the arguments you pose that have no direct bearing on these religions to begin with.

The Bible teaches incest is wrong, but Adam and Eve's family had to have sex with one another.

You are obviously not understanding logic here. IF one believes in one man and one woman, then there would have to be incest of course to reproduce. However, incest occurring at this time, and the laws later given from God, are two different things. Just because incest occurred at one point does not mean it is "right."

And like other people, YOU too are misunderstanding something very important. There were initial laws that were supposedly given to the Jews from God. However, there were many laws that were added later, that were not originally from God. And from what you are saying, like others, I assume you do not understand the point of "laws" in the first place. Laws are not there as the "word of God." Laws were given simply so that the people would understand sin.

-The Cross is really our crossing the galactic plane, when the Sun will die.

Even IF this were the case, the story of Jesus' death on the cross is the only reason Christianity gives it significance. So I don't even know what you are talking about really. The Romans crucified people on crosses. They crucified Jesus, and that is how the cross came to be significant.

Of course there are only so many symbols available to mankind, so symbols get used and reused. Trying to link two obviously different things through a symbol is ridiculous. It is similar to saying that some Asians are Nazis because they use the swastika in their religious iconography.

-The real Sabbath is Saturday, because that is Saturn, the reason why the Jews honor it on Saturday.

The Sabbath is on saturday, but show me where the Jews state this. They claim the Sabbath as holy because it was God's day of rest, having nothing to do with Saturn. Again, this is probably a case of associating things that are not related to one another.

-The Bible teaches in one God, yet the Christians worship 3.

This is just ignorance on your part. Christians do NOT worship three gods. I have heard others make this same mistake. Christianity DISTINCTLY teaches that there is one God, in 3 distinct forms. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same. Thinking in earthly terms this is impossible, but we are not talking about anything "earthly." In fact, this stems directly from Judaism, so why are you attacking Christianity and not Judaism as well? The prophets of the Old Testament allude directly to a Holy Spirit, and a Messiah.

-Jesus = Lord Zeus or Isis or Horus

Again, WHERE in the world do you get this? Jesus was a historical figure. Even the majority of scholars accept this to be the case. Nowhere else in the Bible are figures simply "made up," and the likelihood of this being the case regarding Jesus is virtually nil. The fact that so many different people not only had direct contact with Jesus, but went on to write about Him, suggests His reality.

-God is love but the God of the Old Testament was a war-monger.

The only way one can understand this "apparent" contradiction is to learn the more in-depth teachings of the religion. It is not really something that can be adequately explalined in a paragraph.

-Christians are supposed to let their light shine, but too often they just run their mouths.

How does that prove anything regarding Christianity? Whether or not people choose to follow the tenets of the faith is their personal choice, and has no bearing on what is being taught.

-They'll argue the Bible is the Word of God, using the Bible.

Apparently you think all Christians are morons, who don't know anything about anything except the Bible. There are many people who argue different apsects of Christianity from a historical standpoint as well, which is all one can do. If you would stop to think about it, how can anyone argue based on something that cannot be proven? Faith and religion cannot be proven, otherwise they would be called science. THAT does not mean anything as to whether they are real or not. In fact, you are doing the EXACT same thing you are condemning in others.
And again, how certain people who claim to be Christians behave has no bearing on the religion itself.

I am out of space, so I will stop here. But the rest of your arguments fall victim to some of what I already said.

reply to post by azza5540


Also the Bible doesn't copy anything from the Sumerians. It's simply retelling their stories. While Moses is the writer of Genesis, he would have been told the story orally as it was passed down through the descendants in Genesis.

Moses' ancestor was Abraham. Abraham was from Ur which most scholars believe to be Mesopotamia, the southern part of which contained Sumeria. That's where Abraham came from. Of course his stories are similar. That's where the stories took place.

And when you realize most scholars believe the Sumerians worshipped a giant snake God we get a little more incite into the serpent in the Garden story.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by azza5540

 

Canon was debated at the council of Trent. Not the council of Nicea. More uninformed atheist jibberish. Go Google it. You also have a bad understanding of how the Bible is translated.

They don't translate Bibles from one language to another to another. We still have the manuscripts in their original language. The assumption that we translate through multiple languages usually is based on the false premise that we lost all the manuscripts in their original language. But we haven't.

We have manuscripts of the Bible written in their original languages. We have manuscripts of the NT written in the original Greek. We have manuscripts of the OT written in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Consider the dead sea scrolls for example. All modern translations are done directly from the source language and are not translated anything like you think they are.

Good modern day Bible software even has the Bible in its original languages. Anyone can use any modern day Bible software and see what the orignal manuscripts said in their original language and tranlsate it themseleves if they so desire. If you think they got it wrong get yourself a good Bible program and restranslate it for yourself. It's available to anyone. Even atheists.

Both show you have no clue about the Bible. Only misinformation you heard from other misinformed atheists online. Perhaps you should rethink the Bible since your thoughts on it and your atheism stems from misinformation.

Being an atheist is one thing. But being one because you've been misinformed isn't a good thing.

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

1) I never said or alluded that i am an Athiest, as I am not, a bit narrow minded of you, Perhaps thats how you read all things, the way you want it to read and not how its written, your rant towards Athiest`s does show your true personality though.
2) Don`t remeber mentioning Canon anywhere and was Using Nicaea as an Example of how Christianity used its power of Bishops.
3) I have the Software at home I have the Bible at home and on my Ipad
4) If you read my post properly I say that i don`t take what people tell me and I Research with an Open mind.

Unfortunately you seem to be ranting like a typical biased Christian with a closed mind and an huge open mouth, But hey each to their own, you can keep being the bigoted loudmouth misreading, misquoting fool that you are and i will keep my never ending search for the truth with my open mind willing to listen and take in logical arguments and that is willing to learn new things, But even more to the point is that the Christians here are spending more time argui9ng with each other rather than discuss what the OP said in the first place of which my original post is trying to point out if you had bothered to read and understand it in the first place

Are you trying to argue that incest is okay at one time but not others?

That's just the sort of ridiculous, outrageous logic that turned me into an atheist.

This reminds me of how muslims think its OK to jail or kill women when they get raped.

reply to post by azza5540


Yes you did mention Canon. You said that's where they deleted Gospels from the Bible. That's what Canon is. Deciding which books get put in and which books get taken out. That's what deciding Canon is.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by azza5540

 

Also the Bible doesn't copy anything from the Sumerians. It's simply retelling their stories. While Moses is the writer of Genesis, he would have been told the story orally as it was passed down through the descendants in Genesis.

Moses' ancestor was Abraham. Abraham was from Ur which most scholars believe to be Mesopotamia, the southern part of which contained Sumeria. That's where Abraham came from. Of course his stories are similar. That's where the stories took place.

And when you realize most scholars believe the Sumerians worshipped a giant snake God we get a little more incite into the serpent in the Garden story.

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Correct, that is what I am getting at. but to Add to that is the other books relating to Gods words that have been lost. as in the book of Adam, there is so much missing from the bible nowdays that would help make the bible a more complete book and show a truer story line, unfortunately the blanks are filled in by other peoples imaginations and is why i don`t take the bible literally but as a tool for further research. But you are still not getting what I am saying here.

You are still falling for what the OP has done here. all that you are doing is arguing with other people and "NOT" proving the OP wrong, you are actually supporting him by arguing with other Christians, you have not shown him anything to prove him wrong, you have not debated him at all to prove him wrong or at least to get him to show you how you are wrong

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I am astounded at your lack of understanding of Christianity and Judaism, especially because you claim to possess such understanding. After reading your post it is quite apparent that your anger, which is how it comes across, stems from both your lack of understanding, and your personal bias against these two religions. You could have realized that many of these questions have obvious answers, if you truly understood the teachings of these religions. But I will enlighten you to both what you don't understand, as well as to the arguments you pose that have no direct bearing on these religions to begin with.

Finally, someone here who wants to actually debate with the OP, will be watching to see both sides of the thread, hope you both use references to back up your argument.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Canon was debated at the council of Trent. Not the council of Nicea. More uninformed atheist jibberish. Go Google it. You also have a bad understanding of how the Bible is translated

WTF? Where do people keep coming up with these absurd notions at? I swear I see this false claim about as often as I see people claiming Christ never existed. The Nicaean Council addressed the Arian heresy and nailed down a date for Easter. The canon wasn't even discussed, and by the time that Council was called the canon we have today was generally accepted, with the apocrypha included.

reply to post by azza5540

You are still falling for what the OP has done here. all that you are doing is arguing with other people and "NOT" proving the OP wrong,

Well, unfortunately that's not how logic works. The OP's assertions were arbitrary, meaning "unsupported". Therefore, the burden is first on the OP to prove his assertions true before the onus falls on critics to prove them wrong. Attempting to make others prove arbitrary assertions false is called "shifting the burden of proof", a fallacy of logic.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

So are you trying to say that incest is fine in the Bible now?

I think you're confusing "fine" or "ideal" with "necessary at one point in time". Kinda like how cannibalism is frowned upon generally, but if stranded in the Alps after a plane crash people may have to engage in the practice for a short time to preserve life and it's viewed in a different light based on that extreme circumstance. That's one reason why incest was necessary for a time, but later when no longer necessary God commanded His people to no longer engage in the practice.

Originally posted by kimish
Catholic priests are referred to as 'Father' and I believe Christ said that there is no Father but the one in Heaven. So then why are priests called 'father'?
That is a misunderstanding I have.

So I sin when I address my dad as such?

Context is always the primary key to sound hermaneutics

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by azza5540

 

Yes you did mention Canon. You said that's where they deleted Gospels from the Bible. That's what Canon is. Deciding which books get put in and which books get taken out. That's what deciding Canon is.

Biblical canon
Main article: Development of the Christian biblical canon

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[68] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[69]

In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[70][71] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".

you are correct in describing the Council of Trent for taking out scriptures, my bad on that, but then you just showed me what I am getting at, the Bible has been Bastardized from Sumerian Scripture that was handed down from word of mouth for how many years? some say the first book of the OT was written about 1500 BC (thereabouts) and Sumerian 3300 BC, Thereabouts as well, seems a huge gap for oral stories to be told correctly, but I personally think it was a bit closer than that, more likely only 600 years, still a huge time to tell a story orally and get it all correct before starting to write it down.

reply to post by tinfoilman

And sometimes when their practices seem to slightly contradict what the Bible says, they'll say, well there's church tradition to consider on the matter.

Which is an odd position to take considering Christ tackled that issue in Mark chapter 7.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Canon was debated at the council of Trent. Not the council of Nicea. More uninformed atheist jibberish. Go Google it. You also have a bad understanding of how the Bible is translated

WTF? Where do people keep coming up with these absurd notions at? I swear I see this false claim about as often as I see people claiming Christ never existed. The Nicaean Council addressed the Arian heresy and nailed down a date for Easter. The canon wasn't even discussed, and by the time that Council was called the canon we have today was generally accepted, with the apocrypha included.

Council Of Trent: between 13 December 1545, and 4 December 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods.

First Council of Nicaea: was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325

reply to post by azza5540


I know this.

My question had to deal with people claiming the canon was voted on at Nicaea. Another crazy claim I hear quite often is that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well I don't know I'm not Catholic. I Protestant lol. All I know is they take their tradition seriously.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Does it really matter that people get one council confused with the other if the point they are trying to make is " A Council was convened to take the bible apart and put it back together the way they wanted it, not how God had it? and then destroy all books they didn`t want, or anyone else or their religious beliefs if they had those said books? If they can`t read it, they can`t believe it.

reply to post by azza5540


While some of what the OP posts is Zeitgeist crap or misconceptions, most of what the OP posts is just opinion about things he doesn't like with either the Bible or Christians.

While I can debate facts, there's not much to be said about opinions. If he doesn't like the Bible he doesn't like it. My main point was simply not liking it doesn't mean it is or isn't true.