• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are quite wrong. Historians have gleaned a wealth of information from the biblical accounts. Archaeologists refer to biblical texts to guide them in research and reassembling the past.

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." - Dr. William F. Albright

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen." - Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
That claim is ridiculously hilarious. Sorry but I can't take this guy seriously now.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Ok.. I'll go with 'misunderstood!', then. ;)
I clearly remember your defenses of Islam and the poor, abused Muslims, though.

You said,
, so i assumed you included muslims. Are you excluding them now?

Of course I defend Muslims.. Most of them are just like us.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
I am sorry, but that one is quite obvious. You just need to read the first page to realize the nonsense in it. Earth created at the beginning? Before the stars? What? A first homo sapiens without ancestors but with nipples and a silent gene to grow tails? Lol.

Even a third grader would see that.

Unless you demote to figurative everything that is obviously wrong. In that case the Bible would be tautologically true. Alas, you just need the same amount of fantasy, and every other book would become true, too.

Ciao

- viole

There are mythical creatures in the bible does this not prove the bible as myth? Unicorns are in the bible.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
As requested by a poster, i am listing a set of what i perceive to be caricatures and phony narratives about Christianity.

This assumes a specific, exact, historical definition of Christianity, as defined by the Founder.

1. Christians hate science.
2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.
3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.
4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.
5. American Christians want a theocracy.
6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.
7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.
8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.
9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.
10. America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who saw the evil of Christianity and tried to keep them from meddling in the lives of others.
11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.
15. Hitler was a Christian.
16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

There are more, and i am sure the helpful posters here will chime in with additional false narratives. We can debate the merits of each charge, to see if there is any validity, or if they are bigoted smears, from a competing ideology.

I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.
"Founder"

Who is this founder, name him please? Is it Jesus or Paul, please?

Regards
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
That claim is ridiculously hilarious. Sorry but I can't take this guy seriously now.


i have read and seen where some archoelogists use the bible as a ways to locate a river or once they found pompei or another roman city twin cities that were similar to Pompei and used the bibles description of sodom and gomorrah. They thought maybe Sodom and gomarah could have been base don that.

Historians have used the bible as resource. But that's because the places in the bible are true, the holy land, etc etc , certain events people like Pontius Pilate and other places in the bible are real so the bible can be used in the way it describes certain places to find certain rivers that type of thing.

But it does not make the stories true. Its still a mythical story. But there is info on uh like ,,maps to deserts that type of thing you can use the bible for.

Its not a true story but the bible is good. Its good info in it for living and spirituality but not literally true, But the maps that type of thing have been used.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
i have read and seen where some archoelogists use the bible as a ways to locate a river or once they found pompei or another roman city twin cities that were similar to Pompei and used the bibles description of sodom and gomorrah. They thought maybe Sodom and gomarah could have been base don that.

Historians have used the bible as resource. But that's because the places in the bible are true, the holy land, etc etc , certain events people like Pontius Pilate and other places in the bible are real so the bible can be used in the way it describes certain places to find certain rivers that type of thing.

But it does not make the stories true. Its still a mythical story. But there is info on uh like ,,maps to deserts that type of thing you can use the bible for.

Its not a true story but the bible is good. Its good info in it for living and spirituality but not literally true, But the maps that type of thing have been used.

Pompei is nowhere near Jordan or the Dead Sea.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable. John Duncan (1796-1870)

The assumption for the trilemma is that Jesus was a real, historical human being.
This is a false trilemma. It doesn't include the most plausible explanation for what we now have. Legend.

Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend.
None of this was at all documented until many years, decades even, after the events. And then, the earliest Christian writings were from Saul of Tarsus, who never even met Jesus. Styling himself an Apostle doesn't change the facts.

There is no evidence to refute this, so it is as reasonable as assuming Raamses or Caesar.
There is no doubt that Jesus existed. It was a fairly common name in 1st century Judea. The question is how closely did any of the many Jesus's match the Gospel accounts.

The thing about historic figures like Alexander the Great and Ceasar is the huge evidence for their existence. Even if we didn't have records of their names, the effects changed history. Hellenic culture exploded across the Middle East, and Hellenic kingdoms were established, within a few years.
Not so for Jesus. He went virtually unnoticed, despite the hugely dramatic events described in the Gospels. There are virtually no records of His existence predating Paul. Given the drama described in the Gospels, "recorded" decades later, I cannot believe that the supernatural parts even happened.
Was there a Jesus who was executed for anti-Roman treason? Sure. Was He a social reformer? Probably, there were lots of them then, just as now.

Did He Rise from the Dead, after being publicly and brutally executed amidst great portents, and appear to hundreds of people across Judea, without this being noticed by zillions of people?
Not so much.

The most plausible explanation for what we have is that His followers made up the legends afterwards for their own purposes. Then, a few centuries later, Roman emperors commissioned a group of bishops to pick the Christian writings/legends that best supported their ambitions. Define all the other various and sundry beliefs and scriptures as heresy.
And traditional Christianity came to be.

Tom
 

sooda

Veteran Member
This is a false trilemma. It doesn't include the most plausible explanation for what we now have. Legend.

Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend.
None of this was at all documented until many years, decades even, after the events. And then, the earliest Christian writings were from Saul of Tarsus, who never even met Jesus. Styling himself an Apostle doesn't change the facts.


There is no doubt that Jesus existed. It was a fairly common name in 1st century Judea. The question is how closely did any of the many Jesus's match the Gospel accounts.

The thing about historic figures like Alexander the Great and Ceasar is the huge evidence for their existence. Even if we didn't have records of their names, the effects changed history. Hellenic culture exploded across the Middle East, and Hellenic kingdoms were established, within a few years.
Not so for Jesus. He went virtually unnoticed, despite the hugely dramatic events described in the Gospels. There are virtually no records of His existence predating Paul. Given the drama described in the Gospels, "recorded" decades later, I cannot believe that the supernatural parts even happened.
Was there a Jesus who was executed for anti-Roman treason? Sure. Was He a social reformer? Probably, there were lots of them then, just as now.

Did He Rise from the Dead, after being publicly and brutally executed amidst great portents, and appear to hundreds of people across Judea, without this being noticed by zillions of people?
Not so much.

The most plausible explanation for what we have is that His followers made up the legends afterwards for their own purposes. Then, a few centuries later, Roman emperors commissioned a group of bishops to pick the Christian writings/legends that best supported their ambitions. Define all the other various and sundry beliefs and scriptures as heresy.
And traditional Christianity came to be.

Tom

Does it seem to you that Peter and Paul were rivals, not friends?

An Introduction To The Book Of Romans | Bible.org
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Does it seem to you that Peter and Paul were rivals, not friends?

Yes.
In fact, I think that an important secondary reason for writing the Gospels was to tell the story of Jesus and make it clear that "Apostle" Paul wasn't part of it. He never even met Jesus, regardless of claims to being an Apostle.
Tom
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
this is a phony narrative, to smear Christianity by association with Hitler. It is a 'reductio ad Nazium' fallacy. But he esteemed islam much more, as a warrior ideology.

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? ~Adolf Hitler

I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. ~Adolf Hitler

Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so. ~Adolf Hitler

Good article here, and the info is widely available to any who seek truth, not just affirmation of the narrative.
Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim
Did Hitler become a Muslim by accepting Islam as the truthful religion or he remained a Christian, please?

Regards

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
This is a false trilemma. It doesn't include the most plausible explanation for what we now have. Legend.

Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend.
None of this was at all documented until many years, decades even, after the events. And then, the earliest Christian writings were from Saul of Tarsus, who never even met Jesus. Styling himself an Apostle doesn't change the facts.


There is no doubt that Jesus existed. It was a fairly common name in 1st century Judea. The question is how closely did any of the many Jesus's match the Gospel accounts.

The thing about historic figures like Alexander the Great and Ceasar is the huge evidence for their existence. Even if we didn't have records of their names, the effects changed history. Hellenic culture exploded across the Middle East, and Hellenic kingdoms were established, within a few years.
Not so for Jesus. He went virtually unnoticed, despite the hugely dramatic events described in the Gospels. There are virtually no records of His existence predating Paul. Given the drama described in the Gospels, "recorded" decades later, I cannot believe that the supernatural parts even happened.
Was there a Jesus who was executed for anti-Roman treason? Sure. Was He a social reformer? Probably, there were lots of them then, just as now.

Did He Rise from the Dead, after being publicly and brutally executed amidst great portents, and appear to hundreds of people across Judea, without this being noticed by zillions of people?
Not so much.

The most plausible explanation for what we have is that His followers made up the legends afterwards for their own purposes. Then, a few centuries later, Roman emperors commissioned a group of bishops to pick the Christian writings/legends that best supported their ambitions. Define all the other various and sundry beliefs and scriptures as heresy.
And traditional Christianity came to be.

Tom
Most parts of one's post are close to reality.
Regards
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Did Hitler become a Muslim by accepting Islam as the truthful religion or he remained a Christian, please?

Regards

Regards
Well, i never knew the guy, but as near as i can tell:
Neither.

He was a chameleon, and mostly intrigued by the occult.

But really.. you think he was a bible thumping Christian, driven by mandates in the bible, to do his dastardly deeds?
:shrug:
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
This is a false trilemma. It doesn't include the most plausible explanation for what we now have. Legend.
Legend is a prejudicial leap. It is not based on evidence or history.

Sure, people can believe that, but it is a smear.. a dismissal to avoid the hard facts.

If you pick 'legend!', then all of the nt is a lie, Jesus never existed, the nt is a fabrication. All this, with no evidence.. all real evidence is contrary to this prejudicial belief.

'Legend!' is not a rational conclusion. It is blind dismissal, in the face of overwhelming evidence.
 
Top