The following things about your religion aren't special...

[omega2xx]

"By the gods... Brace for impact!"


Firstly, it's not the census that is the contradiction. It is who incited David to enact it; Samuel says Yahweh, Chronicles says Satan. Contradiction.

Secondly, it is the exact same census. Perhaps you should read your bible in context? Although Chronicles does not mention Judah, we get a report of their numbers as well. And guess what? Contradiction.

"And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." 2 Samuel 24:9 (Total: 800,000/500,000)
"And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. 1 Chronicles 21:5 (Total: 1,100,000/34,000) ("threescore" is 60: 400 x 60 = 24,000)

Ah, and with Chronicles we also get another contradiction. Samuel says that in Israel, 800,000 men "drew the sword". Yet in Chronicles only 100,000 men drew the sword. In Judah, the totals don't add up in any instance - whether they drew the sword or didn't.


Do explain how a marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his sister-in-law explains away this contradiction?


In Matthew, Jesus is likening Elijah's suffering to his own suffering to come. He is saying that John the Baptist is Elijah. John apparently disagrees. Contradiction.


Of course you're not.

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:3-8
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:15-20

Double contradiction there, in both the manner of Judas' death, and the reason why the field is named the "Field of Blood."
Then there is also the account in the Gospel of Judas that says he was stoned to death by the other apostles. Lastly, the early Christian leader Papias accounted that Judas "walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Contradictions abound.


The Ninth Commandment of your god: Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness.


And you have no evidence that he did. What we do have is the fact that men compiled the canon. If your god only wanted the four "Canon Gospels," then why are there so many others?


Oh, but we do. The canon gospels more or less agree with one another, especially concerning the divinity of Jesus. The other gospels? Less so. As they threaten this narrative and doctrine, they are deemed "heretical". Yet they exist none the less, and some are even dated to when Jesus would have actually lived, not 60 years after the fact.


The Bible in English: its history and influence goes into detail as to the manner in which the KJV was translated. Such limitations were to intentionally limit Puritan influence on the translation (why would this be needed on a "pure word of god"?) and translators were given strict instructions to not place notes explaining verses in the margins; notably because King James found two marginal notes "offensive": Exodus 1:19, where the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives was commended, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where King Asa was criticized for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah.

Translators were also given instruction by the King that the new translation would conform to the ecclesiology of his Church of England. This included the manner in which words were translated, such as "church" not being translated to "congregation."


Nor did I say it did. (Hint: what you've done here is an example of strawman). I said that divorce was the reason that King Henry the VIII formed the Church of England.


Biblical Gymnastics: 3/10.


On the contrary. That I - and Scotsman - have invited you to show evidence for your claims, provide explanation for any of your beliefs, etc is testament to extreme flexibility. You're the one in this exchange who flung verbal feces around like an irate baboon and provided nothing save "my god says so." Well bully for you.


Yes, coming from someone who believes that his god came down to write one of 42,000+ books. Side-splittingly hilarious. Yet show me the correlation between Thor and zero evidence for a tribe of 2.5-3.5 million Hebrews wandering around for 40 years.


As Scotsman mentioned, you'll find all the information you need in the Religion section - the 200's according to the Dewey Decimal system.


I have provided far more evidence here than you have, omega.


Preposterous. I can absolutely know that you don't know enough about me to be able to factually claim that you know yourself better than I know myself.


You have no knowledge, as you've told us. Your religion tells you that they're "false", and that's enough for you.


And how would you know, knowing nothing of other religions because it's a "waste of time"?


And do tell, what teachings are those?


"Proven internally" makes them absolutely useless outside your group. It certainly does not make your spiritual concepts infallible enough to support your statements here, or refute many things that have been presented to you.


Good thing I haven't said that. You, on the other hand, have. You've repeatedly said that my religion is false and a "waste of time," that my God is not a God, etc. Thus, it is up to you to prove it. As you say, this is not a one-way street, though this conversation has been up until now. You've provided nothing to support your accusations and claims.


As Scotsman pointed out, in reply to you accusing me of worshiping myself as a god, I refuted you in that Thor is my God. Let me explain this grammar to you, since it seems to be problematic for you.

A "god" is that which is worshiped. Nothing more. "God" is not the name of your deity, it is identifying him as the being that you worship. Capitalizing it is nothing more than a symbol of respect. I could say that Thor is my god or I could say that Thor is my God. Nothing about that sentence changes, and the fact remains that Thor is my God. I have not said - as you have - that my God is true and all other gods are false, and as such I have nothing regarding this to prove to you.

You, on the other hand, have full responsibility to back up your claims, as they have been presented definitively about other peoples' beliefs and gods as fact.


No, actually it does not. The bible says that Yahweh is the god of the Israelites, and that they should not worship foreign gods before him. Which could mean that they're not to worship them above him (as he claims to be superior,) or that they're not to worship those gods in Yahweh's presence - i.e. in his temple.


"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version)

And I know that Presbyterians use the KJV.


Yes you have. By stating that all non-Christian religions are false, you heavily imply that Christianity is the only truth.


Rejecting a religion is not the same as slandering it, or saying that it's false and a "waste of time." Religions are ultimately personal things, so if someone rejects a religion they are - at best - saying that the specific religion is not right for them. This is not saying that it's false. This is not slandering the religion, as you've done by saying that other religions are a waste of time.


And what - past "they're bad, m'kay?" - do you know.

Worse still, you have shown Christianity in a very poor light.

YAWN

 

[omega2xx]

Unless you have actually tried that religion yourself, or learned more about it to make an educated judgement, you most certainly are bearing false witness by saying that it's false. And we know - from your own testimony - that you have not learned about other religions in the slightest.

Unless you have actually tried that religion yourself, or learned more about it to make an educated judgement, you most certainly are bearing false witness by saying that it's false. And we know - from your own testimony - that you have not learned about other religions in the slightest.

I know about other religions. I know enough to call them false.

Yes, it is. Judaism is formed from the Cult of Yahweh, which developed from the Canaanite religion - a polytheistic faith. There is archeological evidence (read: physical things) that show quite clearly that Yahweh was espoused to Asherah, the goddess of the sea. Ironically, the bull was a symbol of Yahweh - the "golden calf" in Exodus was in honor of Yahweh (the god that Moses was having a chat with).

Not one word of that is true. It seems know more about religions based on myths than you know about Judaism.

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. This has been shown to you, and you are plainly wrong. Other religions have trinities; Christianity is not unique in this.

If there was, you would have named at least one by now. You haven't because you can't.

You have admitted to not taking the time to study other religions; why should the same be offered to you? (Aside from this, many of us have studied Christianity.) Secondly, you think our religions are easy? Get over yourself.

I have given you my reasons. If you don't accept them, I couldn't care less. It does no good to study Christianity, unless one is converted to it. One needs to be born again to understand the spiritual aspects of Christianity.

Yes, it is. Judaism is formed from the Cult of Yahweh, which developed from the Canaanite religion - a polytheistic faith. There is archeological evidence (read: physical things) that show quite clearly that Yahweh was espoused to Asherah, the goddess of the sea. Ironically, the bull was a symbol of Yahweh - the "golden calf" in Exodus was in honor of Yahweh (the god that Moses was having a chat with).

The golden calf was an object of worship and it was identified as Yahweh. It was not identified as a Canaanite god. This incident did not establish Judaism. In fact it only lasted one day. Then they resumed worship of God. Judaism started way before this incident. It stared with the call of Abram back in Genesis. In fact it may have started with Adam's grandson Enosh. When he was of age, men began to call on the name of the Lord(Yawyeh). Gen 4:26

There is no valid evidence that Yahweh was espoused to Asherah. I am sure you can find such an idea in some of the ancient myths. If you want to take myths as evidence, be my guest. I will stick with what is commonly accepted by most educated people----myths are not based on facts.

 

[omega2xx]

... uh, no... I was denoting how I reacted. Other than that I think I'm pretty on the money if that is the only thing you can find wrong with my post. That said, I will be sure to make this more clear in the future.

You agree with your self. How self serving can one get.


Hilarious. You think our religions are easy compared to yours?

Any religion that gets to make it own rules is easy.

Christianity has a majority presence in many, many countries and in some it has only recently lost that majority. Whether currently in majority or not, Christianity holds enormous social privilege. Plenty of non-Christians have had to endure years of legal repression and inequality to gain even some of the rights Christians enjoy. Your religion has centuries of codified theology, examined arguments & justifications for concepts like the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception to fall back on. All you need to do is look up, read & recite these arguments. Paganism has none of that - partly thanks to your religious forebears stamping out or co-opting corrupting everything they came across. All we have are the stories of our gods - and some of us don't even have that much! The vast majority of Pagans don't have a secure place outside the home to worship; the global Pagan community (not counting Shinto in Japan or Hindus if you want to class them as such) has almost no public temples or shrines; few organised sects or deity cults of any decent size and no standard doctrines whatsoever.

You need to be specific and not mix Protestantism m with Catholicism.

Pagan paths like Heathenry & Hellenism are referred to in Pagan circles as 'the paths with homework' because there is so much information for us to read up on - differing accounts of the old stories; archaeological finds new & old. Books worth of writing which outnumber the collected works in the Bible by sheer volume - most of these will be writings which emerged in the last century or so. In other words, collectively; there's a bunch of information out there - it's just nowhere near as organised as Christian doctrine is. On a path-by-path basis, information becomes more & more scarce because of its paucity from path to path. Some paths don't even have historical information at all.

I doubt if any organized religion has more writings than Christianity. There are over 23,000 mss of the NT alone. How many is really irrelevant. The only thing that matters is which one, if any, is true. if I rejected Christianity, I certainly would not accept another religion. I still maintain that the verses I quoted earlier are beyond man's imagination and point directly to an omniscient God.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You agree with your self. How self serving can one get.

I'm not - I'm merely expressing confidence that your lack of critique indicates a failure to find anything wrong with what I said.

Any religion that gets to make it own rules is easy.

Ironically enough that applies to Christianity as much as any other religion. Look up the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Trent etc to see what I mean.

You need to be specific and not mix Protestantism m with Catholicism.

Most of what I said applies to Protestantism as much as Catholicism; while the former is younger, it has also been around for centuries.

I doubt if any organized religion has more writings than Christianity. There are over 23,000 mss of the NT alone. How many is really irrelevant.

Well that's probably true although I'm not sure what 23,000 mss are supposed to be. Issues? Copies? Versions?

The only thing that matters is which one, if any, is true.

Indeed. Mine is as true for me as I'm sure yours is true for you.

if I rejected Christianity, I certainly would not accept another religion.

Your call.

I still maintain that the verses I quoted earlier are beyond man's imagination and point directly to an omniscient God.

And I still maintain that this merely shows your standards are seriously lax.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

YAWN

How excessively rude and immature of you. I'm going to take this to mean that you cannot rectify the very obvious contradictions that exist in your book.

I know about other religions. I know enough to call them false.

Which means you don't know a thing about them.

Not one word of that is true.

Wallow in your ignorance if you will; perhaps someone else will learn and grow from what has been shared.

If there was, you would have named at least one by now. You haven't because you can't.

False witness, yet again. Because I did mention several trinities right here. That you obstinately and ignorantly deny them for what they are does not change the fact of the matter.

The golden calf was an object of worship and it was identified as Yahweh.

I thought you said not one word of what I shared - though it said this exact same thing - was true? False witness.

There is no valid evidence that Yahweh was espoused to Asherah.

I would suggest that you read The Rise of YHWH in the Judahite and Israelite Religion in The Triumph of the Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, but I know that you won't. So perhaps others will.

We're done here, omega. You have nothing of value left to contribute (if you ever did,) and it's quite clear that you have no intention of backing up your claims and accusations, or even debating this in a civil manner. You would rather yawn away counter-points - several hours worth of work wasted on obstinate ignorance. Have the last petty word, if you must, but know that it changes nothing, and is less so factual.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

YAWN

If that's all you're able to muster in response to a post of that length & detail then it's fair to assume you lack the ability, the knowledge or the wit to counter it intelligently.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not - I'm merely expressing confidence that your lack of critique indicates a failure to find anything wrong with what I said.

Here is what you said, "Other than that I think I'm pretty on the money." Sounds like you are saying you can't be wrong to me. I critiqued most of owht you say.

Ironically enough that applies to Christianity as much as any other religion. Look up the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Trent etc to see what I mean.

I never look to man-made councils to know what God expects of me. That is what I have the Bib e for.

Most of what I said applies to Protestantism as much as Catholicism; while the former is younger, it has also been around for centuries.

Most but not all,and you made it sound like we accept some Catholic theology.

Well that's probably true although I'm not sure what 23,000 mss are supposed to be. Issues? Copies? Versions?

AS far as we know they are copies.

Indeed. Mine is as true for me as I'm sure yours is true for you.

I;m sure they are or you would change them.

Your call.

No call, just a statement of fact.

And I still maintain that this merely shows your standards are seriously lax.

I don't have a standard. I use God's as spelled out in His inspired word.

 

[omega2xx]

How excessively rude and immature of you. I'm going to take this to mean that you cannot rectify the very obvious contradictions that exist in your book.

I answered all of your so-called contradiction, you just don't like the answers.

Which means you don't know a thing about them.

I know enough to know they are false.

Wallow in your ignorance if you will; perhaps someone else will learn and grow from what has been shared.

Anyone who accepts a myth as reality, is the one wallowing in ignorance.

False witness, yet again. Because I did mention several trinities right here. That you obstinately and ignorantly deny them for what they are does not change the fact of the matter.

None of them have a doctrine of a trinity. So guess who the false witness is.

I thought you said not one word of what I shared - though it said this exact same thing - was true? False witness.

Hint for future reference: saying it is true does not make it true; believing it is true doe snot make it true.

I would suggest that you read The Rise of YHWH in the Judahite and Israelite Religion in The Triumph of the Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, but I know that you won't. So perhaps others will.

I would suggest you learn to understand the Bib e.

We're done here, omega. You have nothing of value left to contribute (if you ever did,) and it's quite clear that you have no intention of backing up your claims and accusations, or even debating this in a civil manner. You would rather yawn away counter-points - several hours worth of work wasted on obstinate ignorance. Have the last petty word, if you must, but know that it changes nothing, and is less so factual.

I am not the one who the accuses the other person of being rude and immature, accusing someone of being a false witness,(which means they are lying) and not debating in a civil manner. Guess who discusses that way.


If this is goodby, have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

If that's all you're able to muster in response to a post of that length & detail then it's fair to assume you lack the ability, the knowledge or the wit to counter it intelligently.

You didn't say anything I have heard dozens of times before. I am not about to reply to a rant that long.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I...really like this response. Where do I go to find Christians like you?

I don't know. I've had atheists, satanists, and fellow Christians tell me (and my brother) that no one acts like (we) do. It's most depressing to hear it from fellow Christians. I mean, things I do without that much thought (like paying bills or at least contributing to them for people I know who can't work due to severe illness) ... I was under the assumption that was kinda Jesus' whole thing, that we share what we've got. I only work part time now because of my own chronic issues, but I still help out when I can afford it. A former coworker of mine developed cancer that just isn't going away and while she is in Texas and I moved to PA, I occasionally get her groceries through Amazon. I love that service, actually. You just either pick stuff out or email them an electronic gift card and let them pick out their stuff and then it gets delivered to their house. It's wonderful.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You didn't say anything I have heard dozens of times before. I am not about to reply to a rant that long.

I didn't say anything because the post you yawned at wasn't mine. Do keep up

Here is what you said, "Other than that I think I'm pretty on the money." Sounds like you are saying you can't be wrong to me.

Actually what I said was "Other than that I think I'm pretty on the money if that is the only thing you can find wrong with my post." You took what I said out of context and cut out the stuff in bold to make it sound as though I was saying something different. That is bearing false witness because you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm expressing confidence that I must have made a good argument if you're not able (or willing) to retort.

I critiqued most of owht you say.

Not in any post I've seen, I'm afraid.

I never look to man-made councils to know what God expects of me. That is what I have the Bib e for.

You're not just ignorant of non-Christian religions; you're even ignorant of your own. Christian orthodoxy - theology, doctrines, scripture etc - is the product of man-made councils. It was the Council of Constantinople that declared Arianism and its teachings as heretical; it was the First Nicene Council that established the Doctrine of the Trinity as standard in the early Church. The very positions you accept are reinforced by the same man-made councils you reject.

Most but not all,and you made it sound like we accept some Catholic theology.

If you believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity then you do accept some Catholic theology. Protestantism is a direct descendant of Catholicism and invariably there are similarities in doctrine still present.

AS far as we know they are copies.

Fair enough.

I don't have a standard.

That is painfully obvious...

I use God's as spelled out in His inspired word.

How convenient then, that God's standard so closely resembles what you accept.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Anyone who accepts a myth as reality, is the one wallowing in ignorance.

Hint for future reference: saying it is true does not make it true; believing it is true doe snot make it true.

Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the irony of these statements?

If the post which contains the above quotes is the sum of your intellect then I think I too will back out. No point in me talking to a brick wall, playing chess with a pigeon etc. You view ignorance as a virtue while simultaneously claiming knowledge about religions you're proud to be ignorant of. I'm done.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't say anything because the post you yawned at wasn't mine. Do keep up





Actually what I said was "Other than that I think I'm pretty on the money if that is the only thing you can find wrong with my post." You took what I said out of context and cut out the stuff in bold to make it sound as though I was saying something different. That is bearing false witness because you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm expressing confidence that I must have made a good argument if you're not able (or willing) to retort.

I stand corrected. Still a pretty big boast

Not in any post I've seen, I'm afraid.

I may have missed one. Spit one out and I will respond to it.

You're not just ignorant of non-Christian religions; you're even ignorant of your own. Christian orthodoxy - theology, doctrines, scripture etc - is the product of man-made councils.

I am not ignorant of non-Christians religions, I am just no well verse in them. I know enough to know they are false, which seems to be more than you know.

It was the Council of Constantinople that declared Arianism and its teachings as heretical; it was the First Nicene Council that established the Doctrine of the Trinity as standard in the early Church. The very positions you accept are reinforced by the same man-made councils you reject.

Now you are showing your ignorance of Christianity, No council established what was not already established in the Bible.

If you believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity then you do accept some Catholic theology.

Of course. Not all Catholic theology is wrong.

]Protestantism is a direct descendant of Catholicism and invariably there are similarities in doctrine still present.

Protestantism is not a direct or indirect descendant of Catholicism. Protestantism is a direct descendant of the reformation, where much of Catholicism was rejected as non Biblical

How convenient then, that God's standard so closely resembles what you accept.

Not closely resembles, resembles exactly. You are right, it is convenient. No man has the ability to make a perfect standard of conduct.

 

[omega2xx]

Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the irony of these statements?

If the post which contains the above quotes is the sum of your intellect then I think I too will back out. No point in me talking to a brick wall, playing chess with a pigeon etc. You view ignorance as a virtue while simultaneously claiming knowledge about religions you're proud to be ignorant of. I'm done.

When I was child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man I did away with childish things.