• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Tromps said:
Ok so what you're saying is that it's one huge conspiracy that was put together by educated intellectuals (for their times), physicians, scholars, many varying people, that knowingly made up a myth and even were willing to die horribly for the myth they knew was a forged lie? Sure, makes sense. 8)
Click to expand...

About as much sense as God being so small that he would only belong to your particular flavor of Christianity. I guess that you have never heard of the Jesus seminars but that aside, I like how this guy turns a phrase.



If you respect Joseph Campbell, you will know that to him, Jesus was just another of the Hero's Of 1,000 Faces.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
That does not applyto living organisms that have to follow instincts.

The baby reaching forthe tit does not ask right or wrong. He asks, survive or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

He inadvertently goes to the cooperation mode as thatenhances his chances of survival.
Stranger that we must learn to compete and do evil onlylater, while good comes naturally when we are young.

As to your last, ifthere is a design, then there is no right or wrong in the moral sense to God,--- unless he learned it from man, ---and scriptures say that God does notlearn anything new. I change not, says God.

That also fouls your(new law), theory.

You will know thatmorals are only created by a species as a requirement of living in peacetogether with your own king, primarily, and will all other life, hopefully.

God was all alone forwho knows how long and had no need to develop a set of moral standards.

Perhaps that is why God’sfirst judgement was to have his son uselessly murdered. Quite the fool thatGod. That is also why secular law has scrapped your God's poor laws for man'sbetter ones.

If you get yourmorals from the bible then you are not a moral man.

Just look atChristian and Muslim attitudes and that fact becomes quite plain to those witheyes to see and ears to hear.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

So you cannot give me an objective right or wrong, but you can tell me that people of Abrahamic faith are immoral? Makes total sense. Thank you for your enlightened view.
 
Morality is not and can not be an objective thing.. just like humour or happiness.. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You can, however, come to some sort of consensus of what is right and wrong.. Rape, murder, slavery.. All very prevalent in the Abrahamic religions.

The story of Noah and the great flood exists in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.. That's basically a story about a God that created man, knowing what man was going to do, got pissed off when they did it so murdered them all..
 
rickolasnice said:
Then comes Mark. Mark comes along almost a century later, after the church and religion written about by Paul was becoming popular..
Click to expand...

Lol a century later? I wish you were joking but this is sad. Where do you get fed this sewage? Please tell me you made a typo. 8(

Mark's gospel was one of the earliest writings in the New Testament, written around the year 50 A.D. Though, most scholars tend to date Paul's letter to the Galatians as the earliest writing, around 48 A.D., but no later than 50 A.D. It's possible that the gospel of Mark was written no earlier than 45 A.D., but its more likely they were written within a couple years of each other. They lived during the same time period. A quick Google search will provide many consistent and reliable resources.

I didn't bother reading through all of your super long text because for one, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about, you have no source, and by skimming through some of it - in my eyes it's fulfilled prophecies.

On another note. If you're going to discredit the authenticity of the Bible, you'll have to disregard the manuscripts and ancient writings of famous philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, etc, as well. Let me give you some examples.

Plato's material was written in approximately 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy of his writings? 900 A.D. Time span between original and copy? 1200 years. 7 Copies.
Aristotle. Written in 450-385 B.C. Earliest copy around 1100 A.D. 1400 years between his original writings and copies. 49 copies.
Homer. Written in 900 B.C. Earliest copy is 400 B.C. 500 years between original and copy. 643 copies with 95% accuracy among them.

Now, lets look at the New Testament. Written between 50-100 A.D. Earliest copy is 130 A.D. Less than 100 years between original writings and copies. Nearly 5600 copies with a ~99.5% accuracy among them.

New Testament documents have been better preserved, are more numerous, and have more internal consistency than any other ancient writings. If the New Testament writings aren't reliable information, than neither is any other philosophers writings. In a court, the evidence to support the authenticity of the Bible vastly outweighs the evidence for the authenticity of any other ancient writings. The same applies for historical texts we have for people such as Alexander the Great and Caesar. The history of the Bible is far more reliable.

Source: http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence with references.

Like you said yourself "once you have the [correct] information, the truth is right in front of you."
 
Still ignoring the evidence that Marks story was ripped directly from ancient Jewish scripture? (Ignoring the additional stolen mythical attributes)

Mark 13 is clearly not a prediction. The author knows of the destruction of the temple in 70AD and added that in as a convenient "prophecy".
 
RichardMooner said:
So you cannot give me an objective right or wrong, but you can tell me that people of Abrahamic faith are immoral? Makes total sense. Thank you for your enlightened view.
Click to expand...

But I did. "then there is no right or wrong in the moral sense to God,--- unless he learned it from man,".



Regards
DL
 
Tromps said:
The evidence that you came up with? Yup.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was evidence I come up with?

It's irrelevant.. It's evidence all the same.

And sorry I missed the part of your post where you say they are fulfilled prophecies.. That'd make sense if they were prophecies.. but most of them aren't.

The source? The bible itself.

And to say "I'm going to ignore that because you don't know what you're talking about" is stupid.. How do you know i don't know what I'm talking about if you don't read what it is I'm talking about?

Mark was written using ancient Jewish scripture.. It was not the fulfilment of prophecy.. It was plagiarism.

Don't believe me? Read it.
 
Last edited:
The reason I said you don't know what you're talking about is because you said Revelation and Acts were written by Paul, but they were not. And you said Mark came along a century after Paul, which he didn't.

I would love to ask you some questions just to see what else you claim to know, but I'm afraid you would probably just Google it.

I don't mean to come off as aggressive, but if you're going to make absurd statements about the bible you should check to see if you're actually right first.
 
You're right i was mistaken about the author of revelations and acts..

And the century may have been exaggerated.. but it was written JUST before 70AD or after.. Jesus "see's" the destruction of the area saying something along the lines of he feels sorry for any pregnant women.. seemingly "prophesying that the destruction was imminent.

Have you read War of The Jews by Josephus Flavius?

And apologies.. but my brain is not what it used to be.. some information gets a bit jumbled in my head..

Regarding the works of Paul.. why does it seem he talks of Jesus as a metaphorical being? He doesn't seem to think Jesus was a man.. let a lone a man that was on earth a decade or two before his letters / gospels.
 
rickolasnice said:
You're right i was mistaken about the author of revelations and acts..

And the century may have been exaggerated.. but it was written JUST before 70AD or after.. Jesus "see's" the destruction of the area saying something along the lines of he feels sorry for any pregnant women.. seemingly "prophesying that the destruction was imminent.

Have you read War of The Jews by Josephus Flavius?

And apologies.. but my brain is not what it used to be.. some information gets a bit jumbled in my head..

Regarding the works of Paul.. why does it seem he talks of Jesus as a metaphorical being? He doesn't seem to think Jesus was a man.. let a lone a man that was on earth a decade or two before his letters / gospels.
Click to expand...

You ought to read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered". I think it's $2.00 or so on Amazon.
 
I have read a lot but prefer to think for myself. I do not idol worship as you seem to.

I do not see any objective morality and see all morals as subjective.

What objective moral do you see?

Give a few examples.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
I have read a lot but prefer to think for myself. I do not idol worship as you seem to.

I do not see any objective morality and see all morals as subjective.

What objective moral do you see?

Give a few examples.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

Without God, I don't see any. As there aren't any, and cannot be. So truly, nothing is actually right or wrong? If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly right, or wrong, correct? Well, that sums it up it for me. Even if I was Christian, I wouldn't be immoral because morality is only defined by what I believe, and if I do not believe that I am immoral, then I am not.
 
RichardMooner said:
Without God, I don't see any. As there aren't any, and cannot be. So truly, nothing is actually right or wrong? If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly right, or wrong, correct? Well, that sums it up it for me. Even if I was Christian, I wouldn't be immoral because morality is only defined by what I believe, and if I do not believe that I am immoral, then I am not.
Click to expand...

Except that a morality standard is a community decision and not an individual one. The individual makes his decisions with others in mind. That is why it is subjective and not objective.

That is also why I was looking for examples or objective morality, I cannot think of any.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
Except that a morality standard is a community decision and not an individual one. The individual makes his decisions with others in mind. That is why it is subjective and not objective.

That is also why I was looking for examples or objective morality, I cannot think of any.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

But that still does not make anything necessarily right, or necessarily wrong.
 
RichardMooner said:
But that still does not make anything necessarily right, or necessarily wrong.
Click to expand...

From here, I agree. We cannot know. From being a participant in whatever is being decided, then only they can know as it is a consensus.

How do you know if you are not doing the moral thing? You cannot know if you do not know the standards of those around you.

Marriage is a good example of this at work.



Note the variety and some we would call immoral, off the top of our heads, so to speak, because the custom is not like ours, but we would be quite wrong if debating a particular marriage custom with those who have developed the custom.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
From here, I agree. We cannot know. From being a participant in whatever is being decided, then only they can know as it is a consensus.

How do you know if you are not doing the moral thing? You cannot know if you do not know the standards of those around you.

Marriage is a good example of this at work.



Note the variety and some we would call immoral, off the top of our heads, so to speak, because the custom is not like ours, but we would be quite wrong if debating a particular marriage custom with those who have developed the custom.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...


So once again, Christians are not actually immoral.
 
RichardMooner said:
So once again, Christians are not actually immoral.
Click to expand...

The Christian religion is based on human sacrifice and adherents trying to profit from a fool of a God who has his son needlessly murdered instead of just forgiving sinners outright like any loving father would do.

Any person who does not see the bible God as immoral does not know morals.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top