Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[RedDragon94]

How does 'Christianity', promote wars and oppression?

Us vs. them mentality.

 

[RedDragon94]

Can you source the justification from the Founder?

The founder isn't around.

Translations are not 'copies'. The copies, fragments, and extant sources of manuscripts all corroborate the historical accuracy and validity of the bible. It has NOT changed. That is a false narrative, indoctrinated by competing worldviews.

Hundreds of 'translations', into almost every human language, have been made. That does not change the originals, nor the actual exegesis of the texts.

Until you start getting into the specifics of the manuscripts and their language. Then people start to play favorites. If all of them say the same things why keep translating the various manuscripts?

 

[columbus]

You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology.

Both free will and submission are crucial to Christian theology.

Free will necessary to plaster over The Problem of Evil. Without it, Christians can't put the responsibility for all the suffering in Creation on humans. They have to face the fact that an omnimax God is truly responsible.

Of course, submission is also crucial. According to Christian theology, we are born in an excruciatingly low state due to the behavior of our ancestors. There is no hope of bettering our situation, except submitting to our superiors in hope of being granted something, later.

Our "superiors" being the aristocracy of people who claim to speak for God. Do as you're told, suffer as you must, and God will reward you with Heaven(after you die). Very convenient for the temporal masters.

I've heard of Christianity referred to as the " religion of slaves".

Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, the Founder has spoken to us. His followers recorded His words and life story for subsequent generations. He has given an exact, precise, 'definition' of historical Christianity. Offshoots and outlier ideologies can hijack the name, but that does not prove orthodoxy.

..not arguing against atheists, at all. This is a challenge for evidence, for any accusation. I've listed a few false ones.


All the evidence says the bible is unchanged, from the earliest msnuscripts. Any accusation of 'change!', is false, and unevidenced.


Ad hom irrelevance. Irenaeus quoted much of the early manuscripts. Someone has compiled the data and stated 21 of the 27 nt books.

The point is, ALL his quotes verified and corroborated the manuscripts that were used by the early church, and they have remained consistent and accurate to this day. There is NO EVIDENCE suggesting, 'changes!' in the content of the biblical canon. That is a false accusation.. a phony narrative, to discredit Christianity.

And, i have read a lot of Irenaeus.. not that it matters.

I'm not arguing for the 'truth!' of the manuscripts, or the biblical canon, just their accuracy and historicity. People can (and do) believe whatever they wish. It helps if those beliefs are based on truth, instead of lies.

This thread has nothing to do with atheists. Why do some people think everything is about them?

I am refuting false accusations. If you believe a charge is valid, where is your evidence?

Knock yourself out. Add to the list, or evidence whatever complaint you have. I will address any actual evidence or arguments, but i can only dismiss unevidenced assertions.

Thanks for confirming this narrative. How does 'Christianity', promote wars and oppression? Can you source the justification from the Founder?

Translations are not 'copies'. The copies, fragments, and extant sources of manuscripts all corroborate the historical accuracy and validity of the bible. It has NOT changed. That is a false narrative, indoctrinated by competing worldviews.

Hundreds of 'translations', into almost every human language, have been made. That does not change the originals, nor the actual exegesis of the texts.

Yes, so the narrative goes.
perception becomes reality, sometimes.. justified or not. I believe this to be a propaganda meme, to smear xtian ideology.

No, it has not. You have no evidence for this, just the propaganda narrative.

'Christianity', is the target, here, not hypothetical individuals. I'm sure you can find someone who might agree with all the points.. at least this person can be imagined or fabricated, to create a boogie man.

'Christianity', is the target, here, not hypothetical individuals. I'm sure you can find someone who might agree with all the points.. at least this person can be imagined or fabricated, to create a boogie man.

Uh, you mean like the hypothetical straw-man that you imagine holds all of the views about Christianity in your OP? And Christianity doesn't hold ANY of those views... it is individual Christians who sometimes hold such views.

 

[Left Coast]

I will agree about tedium..

The point, i repeat, is that these affirm the manuscripts . They do not indicate change.

They affirm which manuscripts? The major codices do not agree, which I documented.

I don't appreciate the, 'you ignore!', when i have replied to your posts.

Oh for the love of Pete. Replying to my post in some fashion does not mean you actually responded to the content of what I said.

I asked you what exact definition of Christianity your "founder" gave you. No response.

I linked you to a list of the numerous differences between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. No response.

I pointed out to you that the Greek NT editions sitting on your bookshelf openly admit they depend on those very codices from the 4th and 5th centuries, because those are the oldest complete NT texts we have. No response.

I asked you why any of this matters if what the Apostles said wasn't true. No response.

So no, you haven't responded to the evidence I've actually presented or the questions I've asked.

Those are variants.. there are thousands of them in the biblical manuscripts. Typos, copying mistakes, perhaps even a zealous fixer of some perceived ambiguous passage. They have been clearly noted and documented, over the centuries. Both major greek texts note them.

No, they're not. They're passages that were inserted whole cloth into the text, that are not original to it. That's not a spelling mistake.

Again, both your "major Greek texts" admit openly that their editions are dependent on the complete codices of the NT from the 4th and 5th centuries.

A variant is not an 'error!', or a 'change!' They may be questioned, or dismissed, but they do not alter the central message of the book, and it is a false impression to accuse, 'The bible has been changed!', over textual variants.

Ahh so NOW we get to the meat of it. The Bible has been changed, but the changes "dont alter the central message of the book."

Much like your claim about the ECFs, and your claim about a first century manuscript, your perspective looks less and less credible the more evidence we discuss.

Secondly, a variant is an error and a change, by definition. It may be minor, but it's a change to the text and an error in transmission of what the original text said.

So your claim that the Bible hasn't been changed "AT ALL" is straight up not true, full stop.

decent article on variants:

These places where the manuscripts differ from one another are called variants. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences.

Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. That means there are almost three variants per word.

Do you feel the weight of this challenge? You should. No other document from the ancient world has this many textual variants. Yet, I believe that the New Testament is the most reliable document from antiquity. How can this be?

When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.

There are four kinds of textual variants. Variants are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is viable only if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A variant is meaningful only if it changes the meaning of the text.
..
Most variants are trivial, affecting nothing. In fact, more than 99% fall into this category.

There are only a small number of meaningful variants that are viable. But even these affect no cardinal doctrine. The New Testament has an impressive transmission history that should give Christians confidence that we have the words written by the apostles.

Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters | Stand to Reason

You've gotten in trouble already on this thread depending on apologists to give you accurate information. Continuing to do so suggests you're not being very critical with where you get your information about these topics. I would suggest looking at peer reviewed academic research.

Everybody can believe whatever they want, about the content of the biblical manuscripts. But it is a false narrative and distortion to accuse, 'Bible! Change!', when it is the most credible historical group of documents from that era.

It's a false narrative to claim "no change!" and then when shown changes, to claim, "well that's not a real change!" Its actually a logical fallacy, there's a name for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, the Founder has spoken to us. His followers recorded His words and life story for subsequent generations. He has given an exact, precise, 'definition' of historical Christianity. Offshoots and outlier ideologies can hijack the name, but that does not prove orthodoxy.

..not arguing against atheists, at all. This is a challenge for evidence, for any accusation. I've listed a few false ones.


All the evidence says the bible is unchanged, from the earliest msnuscripts. Any accusation of 'change!', is false, and unevidenced.


Ad hom irrelevance. Irenaeus quoted much of the early manuscripts. Someone has compiled the data and stated 21 of the 27 nt books.

The point is, ALL his quotes verified and corroborated the manuscripts that were used by the early church, and they have remained consistent and accurate to this day. There is NO EVIDENCE suggesting, 'changes!' in the content of the biblical canon. That is a false accusation.. a phony narrative, to discredit Christianity.

And, i have read a lot of Irenaeus.. not that it matters.

I'm not arguing for the 'truth!' of the manuscripts, or the biblical canon, just their accuracy and historicity. People can (and do) believe whatever they wish. It helps if those beliefs are based on truth, instead of lies.

This thread has nothing to do with atheists. Why do some people think everything is about them?

I am refuting false accusations. If you believe a charge is valid, where is your evidence?

Knock yourself out. Add to the list, or evidence whatever complaint you have. I will address any actual evidence or arguments, but i can only dismiss unevidenced assertions.

Thanks for confirming this narrative. How does 'Christianity', promote wars and oppression? Can you source the justification from the Founder?

Translations are not 'copies'. The copies, fragments, and extant sources of manuscripts all corroborate the historical accuracy and validity of the bible. It has NOT changed. That is a false narrative, indoctrinated by competing worldviews.

Hundreds of 'translations', into almost every human language, have been made. That does not change the originals, nor the actual exegesis of the texts.

Yes, so the narrative goes.
perception becomes reality, sometimes.. justified or not. I believe this to be a propaganda meme, to smear xtian ideology.

No, it has not. You have no evidence for this, just the propaganda narrative.

'Christianity', is the target, here, not hypothetical individuals. I'm sure you can find someone who might agree with all the points.. at least this person can be imagined or fabricated, to create a boogie man.

So the Bible was always as it is today? Really? The New Testament was written at the same time as the Old Testament, but was not released until the events recorded there actually took place? Good luck with that.

 

[usfan]

So the Bible was always as it is today? Really? The New Testament was written at the same time as the Old Testament, but was not released until the events recorded there actually took place? Good luck with that.

Exactly. Both were written on ad 00.

Where in the world did you get that, from any of my posts?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly. Both were written on ad 00.

Where in the world did you get that, from any of my posts?

What? You seem a little confused.

 

[usfan]

The founder isn't around.

Until you start getting into the specifics of the manuscripts and their language. Then people start to play favorites. If all of them say the same things why keep translating the various manuscripts?

So people can read them in their native language.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The first Muslim hospital was an asylum to contain leprosy, built in the early eighth century, where patients were confined but, like the blind, were given a stipend to support their families. The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid.
History of hospitals - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

All the major religions have made wonderful contributions to society. These were all the result of love for humankind born of the love of God and the desire to serve humanity.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Actually, many of those so-called "lies" are at least partially correct. However, I agree with you that Islam is potentially more harmful than Christianity. This, however, does not mean that Christianity is not harmful. I like to call Christianity Islam Lite.

 

[sooda]

Actually, many of those so-called "lies" are at least partially correct. However, I agree with you that Islam is potentially more harmful than Christianity. This, however, does not mean that Christianity is not harmful. I like to call Christianity Islam Lite.

Fear of change.. Fear of modernity ...drives a lot of fundamentalism... and/or literalism. Its like a giant step backwards. for Muslims or Christians.

Opinion | The Day Christian Fundamentalism Was Born - The ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/the-day...
May 25, 2019 · A Minneapolis Baptist preacher named William Bell Riley organized the meetings. A tall, austere and uncompromising man, Riley was a natural-born crusader, who rarely saw a religious fight he did ...

 

[RedDragon94]

So people can read them in their native language.

Ok, you're sure that you don't have a favorite translation of the Bible?

 

[usfan]

So your claim that the Bible hasn't been changed "AT ALL" is straight up not true, full stop.

If it pleases you to believe variants are 'changes!' in the bible, go for it. It is in keeping with the indictrination, and promotes your precious anti-Christian narratives.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, as you distort my points, ignore the rebuttals, and just keep pounding the anti-christian propaganda drum. I'm sure we could do the same thing, with all the other points, as you seem very devoted to discrediting Christianity.

But many have tried, before you, and are forgotten, while the life giving, soul redeeming power of Jesus continues to change lives, in spite of the ceaseless efforts of hostile enemies, intent on destroying the only hope for a dying world.

There is a difference between Truth and lies, even if the waters are muddied by deceivers.

Anyway, its all just beliefs and opinions, and I'll leave you with yours. Good luck.

 

[usfan]

Ok, you're sure that you don't have a favorite translation of the Bible?

? Your point? Different translations, in different languages does not indicate 'error!', or 'change!'

 

[usfan]

Actually, many of those so-called "lies" are at least partially correct. However,

Evidence? It's easy to smear a competing ideology with lies and distortions. But that is all you have, without facts.

Fear of change.. Fear of modernity ...drives a lot of fundamentalism... and/or literalism. Its like a giant step backwards. for Muslims or Christians.

Hi sooda.. long time no see. did you know i was banned by the mod founder at that other forum we used to chat on? ..caught me by surprise..

Fear is common to man, and is not exclusive to xtians. In fact, a good argument is that xtians have been historically fearless, in the face of hostility and persecution, for their entire history.

And yes, a ny times critique of fundamentalists is very amusing..

 

[loverofhumanity]

The 'No True Scotsman' defense.

1John 4:20

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:

This says it all. A true Christian doesn’t hate. And if he does he’s not a real Christian.

 

[sooda]

Evidence? It's easy to smear a competing ideology with lies and distortions. But that is all you have, without facts.


Hi sooda.. long time no see. did you know i was banned by the mod founder at that other forum we used to chat on? ..caught me by surprise..

Fear is common to man, and is not exclusive to xtians. In fact, a good argument is that xtians have been historically fearless, in the face of hostility and persecution, for their entire history.

And yes, a ny times critique of fundamentalists is very amusing..

Take a minute to read up on Cyrus Scofield and Samuel Untermyer and the Peck letters from Woodrow Wilson.

 

[usfan]

Both free will and submission are crucial to Christian theology.

Free will necessary to plaster over The Problem of Evil. Without it, Christians can't put the responsibility for all the suffering in Creation on humans. They have to face the fact that an omnimax God is truly responsible.

Of course, submission is also crucial. According to Christian theology, we are born in an excruciatingly low state due to the behavior of our ancestors. There is no hope of bettering our situation, except submitting to our superiors in hope of being granted something, later.

Our "superiors" being the aristocracy of people who claim to speak for God. Do as you're told, suffer as you must, and God will reward you with Heaven(after you die). Very convenient for the temporal masters.

I've heard of Christianity referred to as the " religion of slaves".

Tom

Are you adding some false narratives to my list? !!

We'll have to number them, and put them each in a one liner for ease of repetition! Narratives need to be simple, for propaganda purposes!

But, i think i covered one of them...

16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

 

[RedDragon94]

? Your point? Different translations, in different languages does not indicate 'error!', or 'change!'

Various manuscripts with different word choices yield to obscure meaning. Doesn't that make sense?