Religion is an initial circular argument.

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

You said "Do you think the biblical Israelites/Hebrews/Jews were purple and green or black people? They resembled the Syrians, Turks, and Iraqis of today. They are whites. The only biblical character described in detail is the Jesus character, in Revelation"
How do you know what they looked like if the Bible does not describe what they looked like?
Do you believed the "biblical Israelites/Hebrews/Jews" actually existed?

I am not going to address your appeals to authority. I am only addressing your claim that they Bible supports white supremacy.

Do you not know that white supremacy (as you have described it) is a modern construct. You project this modern construct onto a culture from far away and thousands of years ago.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo, Jo, Jo, Jo, - Why do

@Jo, Jo, Jo, Jo, - Why do you keep putting yourself into these idiotic double binds? THE BIBLE SUPPORTS WHITE SUPREMACISTS Just ask any good white supremacist. "It's relativism" DOES NOT COUNTER THE CLAIM. Counter Cherry Picking the verses you like is just doing the same fucking crap that the white supremacists are doing. OPEN YOUR FRIGGING EYES. The bible is used to support all sorts of crazy fucking shit because it is full of crazy fucking shit.

THE SIN OF WHITE SUPREMACY, CHRISTIANITY, RACISM & RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY IN AMERICA
"Hill Fletcher begins by tracking what she designates as not merely "white" but "white racism back well before the beginning of slavery, to the inscription of Christian supremacy — 'no salvation outside the Church' — into third-century Christian theology, the Crusades, and Columbus's 'discoveries.' "

Then, in our own "Christian" nation, white college presidents, professors, legislators and clergy went on to apply this supremacist worldview to social and economic systems. And while white racist discourse may be less explicitly Christian today than it once was, Hill Fletcher explains that the "theo-logic" of Christian supremacy — the claim that Jesus Christ is the "only-begotten Son of God" — still supports the racist judgment that some humans are intrinsically superior to others.

The primary function of this Christian white supremacist ideology was, and is, to justify the material dispossession of non-white people. This is so powerfully the case that Hill Fletcher describes it, following the work of James Perkinson, as a form of witchcraft. Whether it is through slavery, manifest destiny, the exclusion of indigenous students from land-grant universities, the Chinese Exclusion Act or the redlining of people of color from home ownership, the white supremacist racial hierarchy in the U.S. shapes virtually everything."

https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/author-argues-connection-between-...

Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is a racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist interpretation of Christianity which holds that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites. ( "Christian Identity". www.splcenter.org. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 31 August 2018.)

Prophets of the Apocalypse: White Supremacy and the Theology of Christian Identity

Abstract
Many white supremacist organizations in the United States (such as Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and innumerable militia groups) draw their inspiration from a theology known as Christian Identity, which argues that the white race of North America is descended from the lost tribes of Israel and is hence the Chosen People spoken of in the Bible. This philosophy also posits that Jews are the direct descendants of the Devil and that blacks are the product of interbreeding between people and animals. This paper discusses the main theoretical principles of Christian Identity, and how its absolutist belief system encourages high activity forms of organization, in-group favoritism, and the demonization of all out-groups. The paper argues that the underlying ideology of Christian Identity and its organizational manifestations are inherently cultic. In this context, fundamental principles of social psychological theory concerned with attribution, stereotyping, prejudice formation, and uncertainty reduction are applied to the Identity milieu to explain its apparent hold on significant numbers of people.

https://culteducation.com/group/871-christian-identity/3692-prophets-of-...

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

Your entire post is mostly one big causal fallacy. Because some people use the Bible to justify their evil, sinful, unchristian, and irrational white supremacy, therefore the Bible supports white supremacy? If someone used atheism to support white supremacy, would that mean that atheism supports white supremacy? It does not follow in either case.

You quoted some people who said the following:
"Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is a racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist interpretation of Christianity which holds that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites."
"Many white supremacist organizations in the United States (such as Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and innumerable militia groups) draw their inspiration from a theology known as Christian Identity, which argues that the white race of North America is descended from the lost tribes of Israel and is hence the Chosen People spoken of in the Bible. This philosophy also posits that Jews are the direct descendants of the Devil and that blacks are the product of interbreeding between people and animals."

These anti-Semitic white supremacists believe that Aryans are descendants of Abraham. What? Anti-Semites believe they are descendant of Semites? They are crazy! They also believe whites in North America are descendants of the Jews, but the Jews are direct descendants of the devil. More craziness They are obviously delusional and irrational. Yet you use their beliefs to support your claim that the Bible supports white supremacy.

Cognostic's picture
@ JO - wake the hell up!!!

@ JO - wake the hell up!!!
Your entire post is mostly one big causal fallacy. Because some people use the Bible to justify their ignorant belief in sky daddies, magic, or heaven or hell, and irrational Christian superiority, it does not follow that the Bible supports those ideas. YES IT FOLLOWS!

RE: If someone used atheism to support white supremacy, would that mean that atheism supports white supremacy?
HOW DO YOU USE ATHEISM? There is no dogma, no sacred texts. Atheism says nothing about anything other than non-belief in God or gods. WHY HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED THAT YET. LESSON NUMBER ONE ON THIS SITE. WHAT IS ATHEISM. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. (Stalin was an atheist. Communism was the system of government. There is nothing a group of atheists have in common unless it is communism. Atheism is not a binding force.

They are no more delusional that the idiotic Christian beliefs. Yes! Just like Hitler, they believe the Adrian Race is GOD'S CHOSEN RACE. They are the true Jews. The Bible Supports their views in the very same way it supports your views, the views of the Mormons, the views of the Catholics and the views of the other 1500 distinct Christian denominations and their 30.000 sects.

You are using the very same shit to support your assertions that they are using to support theirs. "The NO TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLACY." and a whole lot of "MOVING THE GOAL POSTS."

I will tell you what. When you come up with the definitive Christian religion that all Christian organizations can believe and support, then you will have a leg to stand on.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

You said "They are no more delusional that the idiotic Christian beliefs. Yes! Just like Hitler, they believe the Adrian Race is GOD'S CHOSEN RACE. They are the true Jews. The Bible Supports their views in the very same way it supports your views, the views of the Mormons, the views of the Catholics and the views of the other 1500 distinct Christian denominations and their 30.000 sects."

Where does it say in the Bible that the Aryans are the chosen race?

Here is the fallacious argument you and Dio are using.
John is a racist.
John uses the Bible to support his racism.
Therefore, the Bible supports racism.

If you substitute the Bible for almost anything else the fallacy is obvious.
John is a racist.
John uses science to support his racism.
Therefore, science supports racism.

Here are some more examples:
John is a racist.
John uses the humanist manifesto to support his racism.
Therefore, the humanist manifesto supports racism.

John is a racist.
John uses Bertrand Russel's philosophy to support his racism.
Therefore, Bertrand Russel's philosophy supports racism.

John is a racist.
John uses Darwinism to support his racism.
Therefore, Darwinism supports racism.

Just because someone uses something to support their claim, doesn't mean it actually does support their claim.
Just because someone beleives something supports their claim, doesn't mean it actually does support their claim.
Just because someone says the Bible supports their white supremacy, doesn't mean it actually does.

In Spirit's picture
If I may interject...Hi Jo

If I may interject...Hi Jo

You're missing the point that just as Jews believe they are the elect, Christians, Jehovahs, Aryans, NAME ANY OTHER SECT OR RELIGION...they all think they are the chosen ones and the rest are excluded.

You ask... "Where does it say in the Bible that the Aryans are the chosen race?"
It doesn't say it directly but each religion interprets it to their advantage. Where does it say that Christians are the elect and if so which sect of Christianity?

On racism in the Bible...yes it does support it. Let me know if you want verses.

Jo's picture
@ In Spirit

@ In Spirit

Yes, I agree that lots of people think they are they chosen ones and the rest are excluded. I am addressing the claim that the Bible supports white supremacy. Lots of people claim lots of things, but does that make their claims true? Lots of people think the Bible is true and that the God of the Bible is real. Does that make it true?

You say the Bible does not "directly" say that Aryans are the chosen race. Then how do you know it does? Can you give me any evidence?

Yes, please send me a verse in the Bible (you pick the best one) that supports racism.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio

Of course I love you. Your batshit craziness is one of your most endearing qualities.

But this post is not BC, it is informative and I am so stealing the content! Thank you.

Diotrephes's picture
Old man shouts ...

delete

In Spirit's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"You say the Bible does not "directly" say that Aryans are the chosen race. Then how do you know it does? Can you give me any evidence?"

First of all I will not claim that it does because it does not. That is a fantasy belonging to the Aryans. Just as Catholics, Jehovahs, etc all have their own fantasies putting themselves at the top in their own special groups.

It is believed that the Old testament God chose the Israelite aka the Jews. The Aryans will say that the way Jesus handled himself with the Jews was contrary to the old testament God. According to them, Jesus had a bone to pick with them and was telling them that they would be left out of God's promises. Their view is that he was anti semite and therefore not a real jew. Not a far stretch when you think how easily the bible can be mistranslated, misunderstood, misinterpreted. (what is the real interpretation?...that's another issue) They also believe that because God created Hierarchies in his creations giving man dominion over the earth and the animals that God also created hierarchies in races. Again, not a far stretch when things can be read this way.

They created their own new testament, leaving out that parts that did not suit them, for starters. When religion can do this, you can put your race at the top, the chosen ones. They associate Jesus to Galilee known as Galilee of the Gentiles. From this they conclude that Jesus was not Jewish and not here for the Jews and that he was white and came for the whites.

I think you get the drift of how easily the bible can be interpreted. Who is right? That's your challenge not mine? Where is the evidence that Christ belongs to the Jehovah? The Protestant? The Catholic? The Jews? There is no evidence that Christ belongs to any group, yet you all claim him and give yourself a Name so as to divide yourselves from other Names. Why not the Aryans? They can interpret the bible just as any other denomination.

RACISM/DISCRIMINATION:
Genesis27:46..Then Rebekah said to Isaac, "I'm disgusted with living because of these Hittite women. If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land, from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living."

I suggest you reread the wars of Moses. I don't blame you for not seeing the racism when and if you read it. When I was a believer I had closed my eyes and logic to those parts. Read. how Moses is instructed to kill not because they are enemies but because they are different. I am tired and off to bed.

Jo's picture
@ In Spirit

@ In Spirit

It does not say why Rebekah was disgusted with the Hittite women. You are reading in to it when you assume it was because of racism.

See Exodus 34:11–16, and Deuteronomy 7:1-6 for the reasons why. "Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods."

The Hittites were their cousins. See Gen 10:15-19. They were the same race. So were many of the people in the "war of Moses".
Where does it say that Moses was instructed to kill because they were different?

In Spirit's picture
@Jo

@Jo

I am not assuming anything . What I mean is I don't believe a single word I wrote about how others interpret the bible because I don't buy into any interpretation. In the case of the Hittite women, the Aryans are using it to their advantage by ASSUMING that it is because of race, otherwise why mention the race. I am not making this stuff up, Just read up on Aryan Christianity and their beliefs. I don't buy it but it's as plausible as any other denominational interpretation. Everyone believes they have it right.

"See Exodus 34:11–16, and Deuteronomy 7:1-6 for the reasons why."

Two excellent points on what is clearly discrimination. And also racism? Can it be? Obviously Moses thought his race was superior to those of his enemies. Can discrimination be an aspect of racism? Read on....

United Nations defines racism as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. So treating people different because they are from a different tribe or ethnic group is racist.

Racism is a theory of races hierachy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/internatio...

The bible is full of examples of God denouncing mixed marriages or even living with other tribes with different gods, However killing them is justified.

Deuteronomy 23:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

Once again..... a different race is not allowed to enter their faith and congregation. Sounds like a superiority complex thing going on to me

Jo's picture
@ In Spirit

@ In Spirit

I think you are missing my point. You have to look at the reasons given in the text and not assume it is racism. The Ammonites and Moabites were close relatives of the Israelite's. What is the reason the texts give for not allowing marriage or entrance? Not what you believe it is, what does the text say are the reasons?

The next verse after your quote tells you why they were not allowed to enter. Deut 23:4 "These nations did not welcome you with food and water when you came out of Egypt. Instead, they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in distant Aram-naharaim to curse you."

Why were they not allowed to marry certain people or allow them to enter? Not superiority, racism, or discrimination. Read the text and consider the reason it gives. Not marrying was because "they will lead your children away from me to worship other gods."

In Spirit's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Let me agree with you for a moment and say your versions are the correct ones. It is a scary belief. On that basis, the Israelite have the god given right to annihilate so many nations who have not helped them throughout their history, nations that go to war against them or other nations who do not follow the same god. On that basis, world peace will come around only after all nations are converted to the Israelite god or destroyed if they refuse. Not very different than the jihad movement or The Final Solution.

I don't understand how a "loving" God can ask his people to annihilate an entire people including women and children. Whatever reasons God gives, there is an element of racism. Not seeing that is a scary notion.

I don't understand how a "loving" God can give his people the 6th commandment and then ask them to break it on his behalf.

You said: "Why were they not allowed to marry who certain people or allow them to enter? Not superiority, racism, or discrimination. Read the text and consider the reason it gives. Not marrying was because "they will lead your children away from me to worship other gods."

How can this not be discrimination? If the political leader in your country decreed that you Jo have no right to marry someone who does not follow the God of your country what do you call that?

Jo's picture
@ In Spirit

@ In Spirit

The reason God did not want the to marry them was not because of their race. That is why it is not racism, because the prohibition was not because of someones race.

Lets say you want to marry someone from X. The X's are the same race and ethnicity that you are. They just live across the street. God knows that all of the X's are pyromaniacs. He knows that if you marry one of them, you will eventually become a pyromaniac. So he tells you not to marry an X's. It is not racism, it is because he doesn't want you to become a pyromaniac. It has nothing to do with X's race.

Has there ever been a war or killing of another group that had nothing to do with race?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: FK. Now you are just

@Jo: FK. Now you are just being dense.
The bible is a collections of books written by people who were obviously prejudice. as is evidenced by their writings. Christianity is an "in group / out group" faith; just like Islam and the Jewish faith, you are either a member and saved or special in some way, or you are a non-member, not saved, and excluded. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF PREJUDICE. My group is special and you are not a member.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

I agree that some people in the Bible were prejudice. There are some atheist that are prejudiced. There are some scientist that are prejudiced. What does any of that show?

According to the Cambridge Dictionary the definition of prejudice is "an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling formed without enough thought or knowledge." I am a member of the Atheist Republic blog. Does that make me special? Are non-members excluded? Is AR prejudiced because only members can post? I don't think so, but just following your logic.

I noticed you skipped my evidence of the fallacy Dio and others are committing. Here is the argument again.
John is a racist.
John uses the Bible to support his racism.
Therefore, the Bible supports racism.
(Dio and other use this line of reasoning)

If you change out Bible for many other words the fallacy becomes clear.
John beleives in the Bible.
John uses science to support his belief in the Bible
Therefore, science supports belief in the Bible.

John is a Christian
John uses logic to support his Christianity.
Therefore, logic supports Christianity.

Do you see the fallacy?

Cognostic's picture
If John is a Christian then

If John is a Christian then he is a Bigot by definition. Quite possibly a racist as well. You can not profess belief in the bible and then pick and choose. Why not just be honest and admit that you believe in the verses you like and you do not believe in the verses that you don't like. At least that demonstrates you are trying to work around the bigotry and racism in the book.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Jo

@Jo

What Cog has posted here is exactly what we (or I) have been saying; If the bible can be interpreted many different ways the content is worthless as a moral guide, or a guide to a benevolent godhead.

Fact is the bible is a deeply racist anthology and you have been (once again) outgunned and proven wrong in your basic assumptions.
Let's examine a couple more:
The magical divine Jesus (as described in the gospels) did not exist
There was NO eyewitness evidence to the events attributed to the jesus figure
NO historians wrote about the jesus figure as a witnessed event
The form of Christianity you espouse is a Second Century flawed construct based on much altered texts.

All the above have been evidenced to you, but you still maintain your apologetics. Is that "living a life in truth"? Or have you been lying about that since you came on these forums?

arakish's picture
Adding to Cog and Old Man

Adding to Cog and Old Man

Delaware: “What is the purpose of your inconsistency?

Try asking this question while you are looking in the mirror...

Delaware: “I am glad I can count on you to frequently ask me when I will start living in truth. I have not abandoned my quest for truth.

Just being a Religious Absolutist means you have already abandoned all search for the truth to simply prove you are fucking gullible enough to believe in plagiarized lies.

Delaware: “You don't have any problems with Diotrephes posts on white supremacy in the Bible? He commits no logical fallacies? His arguments are rational? I know he is not a theists, but is he being honest?

Nope. Why should I? Please explain why I should have any problem with Diotrephes's analogies between the "supremacy" of the Hebrews over all other peoples of the Earth with the "white supremacy" you probably also support yourself. Not saying you do support such, but with ALL you posted, you have proven your are a Religious Absolutist bigot. What is your opinion on the LGBTs?

My problem is with persons who are otherwise seemingly intelligent who sacrifice all their humanity to show they are instead stupid and gullible enough to believe in book of plagiarized lies that are wholly written by men even more fallacious than their followers and are also megalomanical psychotic sociopaths.

Delaware: “I should not have gotten defensive when you called me dishonest.

But you are dishonest. You are also a fucking liar. See my other posts where I did say you are a fucking liar.

Delaware: “maybe I said something that was dishonest, maybe you think a theist by definition is dishonest,

By definition, ALL theists ARE liars. I posted this for you several times. How easy the liars forget what they wish not to remember when it is the truth. You, Delaware, have matched literally every one. Think Critically about it.

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state, regardless of how inaccurate.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perverted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

Delaware: “I was wrong and I will try to do better.

And this is another lie. Until you wake up and smell the roses of reality, you are still going to be the Religious Absolutist you came here as.

Delaware: “I have never tried to be dishonest on any post on this site. I may have been wrong, and I could have said things better many times. But I have never been intentionally dishonest.

Another lie. You understand nothing, comprehend nothing, know nothing. You truly do not understand what is meant by dishonesty and honesty, integrity and lies. Anything religious that you post is also intentionally dishonest and lies because that is the very nature of religion. No honesty or integrity.

Delaware: “I agree that some people in the Bible were prejudice.

Should have been worded, "I agree that some religious people were prejudice."

Were? Were?! I am beginning to think you are not pretending to be as dense as I thought you were pretending to be. By definition, ALL religitards are prejudiced and bigots.

Delaware: “There are some scientist[s] that are prejudiced.

Please provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, or this is another lie. There is not one modern scientist that is prejudiced. Remember, assertions MUST be backed by evidence, or it is preposterous lie.

Of course, you are going to say I am prejudiced against you. Again, you would lie. I have no prejudice and/or bigotry except against those who are bigots themselves, the Religious Absolutists.

============================================================

Delaware, Jo, Whothefuckever,

When will you grow up and gain enough knowledge to truly understand that ALL religions are nothing more than lies created by megalomanical psychotic sociopaths as a form of control over the masses?

"Religion is not merely a tool to oppress the masses, it is a self perpetuating scam that leads the masses to oppress themselves." — Micheal Sherlock

And quit lying. Especially about me.

And still quit being a coward and address this: God's Nastiest Turd. Or, just admit that your god is the most horrible and terrifying monster created by humans in all of history.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

If "the Bible can be interpreted many different ways",how am I wrong? Why is the way you are interpreting it the right way, and mine is wrong? Isn't both just as valid according to your standard of many different interpretations?

Isn't what you are saying also apologetics?

There has been a lot of evidence given that people have used the Bible to support their racists view, but none that the Bible itself supports their views. I think I have provided evidence and arguments to the contrary for every claim that the Bible is "deeply racists".

I am trying to focus just on your claim that the Bible is racists, and not go down rabbit trails,at this time. But I will briefly address your other claims. The four assumptions you mentioned are all claims that are refuted by most of the experts in the field. I have previously provided this information. Should I believe you instead of them?

"The magical divine Jesus (as described in the gospels) did not exist." That is a very extrodinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

"There was NO eyewitness evidence to the events attributed to the jesus figure." Except for the eye witnesses in the Bible. The only possible explanation is that the events never happened?

"NO historians wrote about the jesus figure as a witnessed event." The only possible explanation is that it never happened?

"The form of Christianity you espouse is a Second Century flawed construct based on much altered texts." Wasn't all of the NT written before the second century? Do you have the original copies to know they were altered? How are you so certain?

Does living a life in truth mean that I should believe claims that I know to be false, or unconvincing, just because a few people on RC said so?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Oh do come on....Are you serious? I know you are blinkered and also wear your bible glasses all day...but really?

There has been a lot of evidence given that people have used the Bible to support their racists view, but none that the Bible itself supports their views. I think I have provided evidence and arguments to the contrary for every claim that the Bible is "deeply racists".

I gave you several quotes illustrating the racism in the NT. Others quoted you deeply racist verseseven worse than my examples which you have failed to refute. .

Yet you reject them all. It says volumes for your "desire to live in truth"

The four assumptions you mentioned are all claims that are refuted by most of the experts in the field. I have previously provided this information. Should I believe you instead of them?

Again you are wrong. You have committed a fallacy, i.e an appeal to authority...but you don't specify the authority. "Most experts" are divided on each of my assertions, if we remove theologians fro the "expert " category then the preponderance of modern opinion seems to be that a magical jesus as described ion the gospels has no historical foundation. That a human jesus figure or conglomeration of figures existed to give rise to the fanciful stories you like so much is a moot question.

"The magical divine Jesus (as described in the gospels) did not exist." That is a very extrodinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

Providing evidence for the non existence of a thing is not required. You claim the existence of a magical, divine Jesus. you claim to live your life by it. But yet you have no contemporary evidence for its existence. Nothing.

"There was NO eyewitness evidence to the events attributed to the jesus figure." Except for the eye witnesses in the Bible. The only possible explanation is that the events never happened?

We have been through this. There were no eyewitnesses. There are later unfounded unprovable claims in the bible. None of them have been corroborated.
Therefore it is safe to make the conclusion that supernatural, or extraordinary unrepeatable unlikely events did not happen.

"NO historians wrote about the jesus figure as a witnessed event." The only possible explanation is that it never happened?

Firstly I never said because historians did not write about the alleged extra ordinary events surrounding your jesus figure's live that they "did not happen" The fact that there were no eyewitnesses, historians did not comment on the extraordinary events claimed and there are no third party accounts of any of them make the accuracy of the much later gospel accounts unlikely for a very human jesus and improbable for a magical divine being.
Please do not misquote me again.

"The form of Christianity you espouse is a Second Century flawed construct based on much altered texts." Wasn't all of the NT written before the second century? Do you have the original copies to know they were altered? How are you so certain?

Did you not read my earlier posts to you? We KNOW that 1st century versions of Matthew and Luke sans the birth narrative were in wide circulation from about 90CE. How do we know? because their enemies, the founders of YOUR form of Christianity wrote about them extensively...dear oh dear Jo once again your extensive ignorance is on display for the forums to see...

Does living a life in truth mean that I should believe claims that I know to be false, or unconvincing, just because a few people on RC said so?

No it means when you are presented with facts that contradict your fond beliefs , you, like an adult, research them thoroughly. Not just look up the "Big Book of Apologetics for the Lazy" which it seems is your bedtime reading.
The claims I have made regarding Historical Fact are easily researched whether you like it or not.

What is obvious is you have no intention of living your life in truth, rather living a lie and spouting terminological inexactitudes.

(Edit Tags)

Jo's picture
@ Old man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Yes, I skipped over the verses you gave. I was intending to come back to them, but forgot to tell you. I was planning to address them on another post. I will soon. I am trying to answer the claim that the Bible is racist, and answer all of your other claims later.

You skipped over some questions I asked. Here they are again.
If "the Bible can be interpreted many different ways",how am I wrong? Why is the way you are interpreting it the right way, and mine is wrong? Isn't both just as valid according to your standard of many different interpretations? Isn't what you are saying also apologetics?

My "appeal to authority" was in response to your appeal to the authority of Philo and others who have posted on this forum.
If we remove the theologians as experts, and only have atheists, how is that objective. Only theists can be biased?

You made the claim that the divine Jesus did not exist. You made the claim, so you have to provide the evidence for your claim. You are not going by your own rules, that the one making the claim has to provide the objective evidence.

We an discuss the rest later. I am trying to stay focused on your claim that the Bible supports racism and is racist. Should I just take what you say a few verses mean as the truth? I want to thoroughly address the claim you have made.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

ou skipped over some questions I asked. Here they are again.
If "the Bible can be interpreted many different ways",how am I wrong? Why is the way you are interpreting it the right way, and mine is wrong? Isn't both just as valid according to your standard of many different interpretations? Isn't what you are saying also apologetics?

Apologetics
noun (used with a singular verb)
the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.

So, no, what I am saying is clearly not apologetics.

What I said, quite clearly is that your bible is absolutely useless as a moral or historical guide when verses can be interpreted to suit anyone's arguments. Including someone as one eyed as you, or bat shit crazy like Dio....
Then we get served up the tired and woeful; apologetics of "context" "metaphor" "allegory" and of course the old chestnut "that was then this is now". All served up as an excuse for the bible's instructions for genocide, infanticide, torture, racism, slavery and various other crimes against humanity.
Just read the books and what they say...that is all the interpretation anyone should need.

My "appeal to authority" was in response to your appeal to the authority of Philo and others who have posted on this forum.

I did not appeal to authority when I mentioned Philo (who would almost certainly mentioned those amazing events fantasied in the gospels, if they had occurred). That is not a fallacious appeal tot authority, that is an historical conclusion, bearing in mind Philo did mention other lesser occurrences contemporary to your alleged Jesus figure.
Learn to distinguish proper historical research and your personal fantasy.

If we remove the theologians as experts, and only have atheists, how is that objective. Only theists can be biased?

Theology
Definition of theology
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience
especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

Need I say more? You demonstrate a failure to reason every time you reply to me.

You made the claim that the divine Jesus did not exist. You made the claim, so you have to provide the evidence for your claim. You are not going by your own rules, that the one making the claim has to provide the objective evidence.

Really? Man you just get worse. No one can prove a negative. There is a severe lack of evidence for the jesus figure as described in the gospels. The same amount of evidence exists for a magical Jesus as for Harold the Rainbow Farting Unicorn Who Lives In My Garage.
You disprove Eric and I will use the same method on your Jesus figure.

Sheesh! Do they teach you nothing nowadays?

We an discuss the rest later. I am trying to stay focused on your claim that the Bible supports racism and is racist. Should I just take what you say a few verses mean as the truth?

I gave you a few examples of blatant racism in Matthew, there are many more examples as you have seen with Nyar and Dio.
The fact that you keep your mind firmly closed and keep spouting from the Big Book Of Apologetics (see the definition above) shows me your claims of living in truth are mere herrings in your red sea of terminological inexactness.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I suppose a simpler example

I suppose a simpler example of racism (that I didn't think of until just now) in the bible is the Passover: when (according to the mythology) god killed the first born son of everyone (even slaves!) except for members of one racial group.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Nyar

@Nyar
Oh, well, just go on and steal my death blow to Jo's "arguments". I was saving that one. But hey, there are many incidents of racism in that foul anthology. When will "Jo" start to "live in truth?"

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlothotep

@ Nyarlothotep

What is the reason given in the text for the death of the first born? It was to force Pharaoh to let the slaves leave. It was not because of racism. When slave owners are punished as part of an effort to free slaves, I don't think that qualifies as racism. It would make more sense to say God was punishing the Egyptians for their racism. It resulted in a huge "mixed multitude" being freed, not just the Israelite.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "What is the reason given

Re: "What is the reason given in the text for the death of the first born? It was to force Pharaoh to let the slaves leave. It was not because of racism...." (And all the other sewage that followed...)

Oh... Holy... Shit.... You have got to be fucking kidding me... *staring in wide-eyed disbelief*... I'm trying my best to wrap my meager little brain around this, but that shit just ain't computing. Surely, though, I cannot be the only one who sees the disturbingly glaring problem here.... Wow.... I mean, just... Wow...

Ummm, let me see if I am understanding this correctly. The Pharaoh is refusing to release people that God wants released. And God (being the omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent entity that it is) comes up with an incredibly BRILLIANT plan. Oh, certainly, God could very easily just zap the disobedient Pharaoh out of existence, or perhaps punish the Pharaoh directly in some fashion, right? Hell, that would even be the logical thing to do. But, nooooooo.... That would be too easy. Not nearly dramatic enough. Instead, let's show that nasty Pharaoh who's the REAL boss by reaping wholesale slaughter on an untold number of totally innocent newborn baby boys who have done absolutely NOTHING wrong. (Oh, and let's not forget about the unimaginable suffering and grief of the parents of those children as they stood by helpless and watched their innocent baby being brutally murdered just because some super-rich and powerful asshole disobeyed God.) Geee, thanks, God!... *thumbs up*...

However, believe it or not, that's not really the worst part. What disturbs me the most is that Jo's ONLY concern here is that others are trying to say it was a racist act. Otherwise, he does not seem to have any trouble with the method used by his omnipotent/omniscient God to "teach that evil Pharaoh a lesson." Really?.... REALLY???... *shaking head in utter amazement*....

Ya know, Jo, I've said this to a couple of other "Christian" theists on here before, and now it looks as though you get the "honor" of joining their ranks. Here we go... As I was growing up in the church, I was ALWAYS taught that Christians should always behave toward and treat people in ways that would present a positive image of Christians and draw them toward the Lord. And I was also taught that anybody who acted and spoke in ways that turned others away from Christianity were committing one of the worst sins possible. With that being said, I want to sincerely thank you, Jo. Because after reading so many of your posts and observing how you so willfully turn a blind eye to so many obvious atrocities, you (and others like you) simply help to reinforce that my breaking free from religion and becoming an atheist was one of the best things that has ever happened to me. Again, thank you. You and your God should be proud... *tipping hat*...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM

Lets not forget that god himself "hardened Pharoahs heart" so god could go on his racist killing spree of children.

Wow...and that is not evil?

That is in the book ....and of course it is all a nonsense tale of racist superiority of the Hebrew God; the Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, the Egyptians left them behind when they moved their borders from the Levant.

What is distressing, and I am 100% with you TM, is that Jo and others on these pages have shown themselves to be far more concerned with protecting the image of their belief and particular sect than they are in openly condemning atrocities.
Like the Catholic Church and the scandals that have recently engulfed it, they will lie, deceive, and do anything to preserve their delusions. Even when staring the facts of their sects errors and wrongdoings they would rather condemn the messenger than the horrendous acts exposed.
The ignorance demonstrated by Jo, and the deception that he has engaged in is so unbearably commonplace in the world of apologetics it is hard to see where their fantasies end and their lives begin.

One thing is for sure, they ain't desiring to "live in truth"

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.