Good Friday could be better.
-
Because being Christian requires that you accept the bible as valid since all Christian teachings originate there. If you think it's made up, then you're not a Christian...but I already knew that.
Actually, being a Christian requires only that you seek to live your life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ. Definition aside, if your personal interpretation requires that you accept the Bible as valid, how do you know which one?
-
Tim Craig wrote:
he's no where near average
Truth is... we don't even know he's American. ;) "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
Because being Christian requires that you accept the bible as valid since all Christian teachings originate there. If you think it's made up, then you're not a Christian...but I already knew that.
espeir wrote:
being Christian requires that you accept the bible as valid
Note that Bible != Leaders of the Church, so it's possible for someone to believe in the Bible, but not the church leaders.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Wow.
espeir wrote:
It's a completely Christian celebration.
Tell me where in the Scriptures does it advocate the use of bunny's eggs, even the name Easter, which is of pagan origin, for the use of this COMPLETELY Christian celebration.
espeir wrote:
The spirit of the holiday is what matters. As we already know, the bible is not clear on many dates. You are not touching anything unclean when you worship Christ.
As the illustration was meant to point out, the origin of things do matter. It is the origin of Easter that makes it unclean, not the commemoration of Jesus death and resurrection.
espeir wrote:
If you strictly decide to attach religious celebration to certain dates rather than the spirit of the event, then you're endorsing numerology of sort. The point is to worship God...not dates.
True. However, consider. Jesus instituted the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, with the passing of the bread and wine, on Nissan 14. The passover had always been celebrated on Nissan 14, as God had commanded the Israelites to do, and the first-century Christians also observed this on Nissan 14. However, the importance is not worshipping that date, but what happened on that day.
espeir wrote:
You're intentionally taking that quote out of context to suit your own ends. That specifically refers to a single incident and a single group of people and it clearly says so, unlike the first Corinthians that specifically says how to deal with the beliefs of non-Christians.
No, I'm not. I am pointing to an instance in Israel, as actually there were many such cases. Israel fell to pagan worship many times. When a good king came to rule, or Israel turned back to pure worship, they cleansed the land of pagan worship. I did not say that this scripture is god's instruction to us on how to handle Easter specifically, but showing, by example, that this was gods view of things in the past. Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change. And Romans 15:4 says "For all things that were written aforetime [like, in the Hebrew Scriptures] were written for our instruction.
espeir wrote:
There's no need to go searching for passages and reinterpreting them to your own ends.
I didn't. But you did seem to want other scriptural backing, which
bugDanny wrote:
Tell me where in the Scriptures does it advocate the use of bunny's eggs, even the name Easter, which is of pagan origin, for the use of this COMPLETELY Christian celebration.
It doesn't. Nor does it restrict it. So it's silly to say that you shouldn't let little girls look for easter eggs.
bugDanny wrote:
As the illustration was meant to point out, the origin of things do matter. It is the origin of Easter that makes it unclean, not the commemoration of Jesus death and resurrection.
There's nothing unclean about it, as Corinthians I describes much more clearly than what you provided.
bugDanny wrote:
True. However, consider. Jesus instituted the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, with the passing of the bread and wine, on Nissan 14. The passover had always been celebrated on Nissan 14, as God had commanded the Israelites to do, and the first-century Christians also observed this on Nissan 14. However, the importance is not worshipping that date, but what happened on that day.
Jesus did not institute anything. Christians instituted it as religious practice after the fact.
bugDanny wrote:
No, I'm not. I am pointing to an instance in Israel, as actually there were many such cases. Israel fell to pagan worship many times. When a good king came to rule, or Israel turned back to pure worship, they cleansed the land of pagan worship. I did not say that this scripture is god's instruction to us on how to handle Easter specifically, but showing, by example, that this was gods view of things in the past. Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change. And Romans 15:4 says "For all things that were written aforetime [like, in the Hebrew Scriptures] were written for our instruction.
Right...God directed them in a specific instance. I'm sorry, but it looks to me that you've decided to ignore the clarity of Corinthians I in favor of other passages that are frankly not relevant. You should never go out of your way to prove your point with irrelevant quotations. You can always find a passage that seemingly supports what you say. After all, nobody quotes the bible better than the devil.
bugDanny wrote:
I didn't. But you did seem to want other scriptural backing, which I provided.
No, I provided the scriptua
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I do think that Christians can be well-adjusted and also that Atheists can have problems, but from my own experience, vocal Christians tend to have issues. Maybe there are quiet sane ones, but they don't tell me their religion?
I agree with that. I don't like the "megachurch" (often referring to themselves as born-agains) crowd. They tend to be maladjusted people who go back and forth between being drug addicts and "Christians". Those are also the vocal crazy ones. I also agree that most atheists are reasonable people, but those that I refer to as "militant" are much worse than the Christian crazies in my view. At least the Crazy Christians mean well. Militant atheists seem bent on destruction of religion more than conversion (which is innocuous).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Exactly. Look at the etymology of the word Atheist. From Greek atheos from a- "without" + theos "a god". You must first have people who believe in god to have people who disbelieve in that god. If there were no people who believed in god, then we'd all be something like agnostics.
That's not true. While the term atheism may require that theism exists, the concept of Godlessness does not require that a concept of God exists. If religion never formed, then everyone would be an atheist (but called something else).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I don't believe this either, can you provied examples?
Read this thread.
espeir wrote:
the concept of Godlessness does not require that a concept of God exists. If religion never formed, then everyone would be an atheist (but called something else).
Have you heard of the Big Pink Hippobird? Do you believe that the Big Pink Hippobird exists? It isn't possible to not believe in the Big Pink Hippobird without first having someone to tell you about the Big Pink Hippobird. If I had not told you about it, you couldn't not believe. Same with god. If nobody had ever told me about god and I'd never read about it, it wouldn't be possible for me to "not believe". (edit) I would be "unaware", or agnostic. (/edit) Therefore atheism is impossible without theism. If you prefer some code: #define theism 0x12345678 #define atheism (!theism) It isn't possible for atheism to exist without theism.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 16:30 Thursday 13th April, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
the concept of Godlessness does not require that a concept of God exists. If religion never formed, then everyone would be an atheist (but called something else).
Have you heard of the Big Pink Hippobird? Do you believe that the Big Pink Hippobird exists? It isn't possible to not believe in the Big Pink Hippobird without first having someone to tell you about the Big Pink Hippobird. If I had not told you about it, you couldn't not believe. Same with god. If nobody had ever told me about god and I'd never read about it, it wouldn't be possible for me to "not believe". (edit) I would be "unaware", or agnostic. (/edit) Therefore atheism is impossible without theism. If you prefer some code: #define theism 0x12345678 #define atheism (!theism) It isn't possible for atheism to exist without theism.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 16:30 Thursday 13th April, 2006
Here: atheism = null; Done.
-
Actually, being a Christian requires only that you seek to live your life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ. Definition aside, if your personal interpretation requires that you accept the Bible as valid, how do you know which one?
Um...No it doesn't. It requires faith in Jesus Christ.
-
espeir wrote:
being Christian requires that you accept the bible as valid
Note that Bible != Leaders of the Church, so it's possible for someone to believe in the Bible, but not the church leaders.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
I agree with that...but he said the Bible was made up.
-
American? Hell, I'm not even sure he's human. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
My great intelligence does almost seem supernatual, doesn't it?
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
let's call them the Illuminatheists
Sweet! Can I use that? Or does it have some funny Canadian copyright on it now? "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Sweet! Can I use that? Or does it have some funny Canadian copyright on it now?
:laugh: Use it wherever you want. :-D
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Um...No it doesn't. It requires faith in Jesus Christ.
espeir wrote:
...being Christian requires that you accept the bible as valid...
THEN espeir wrote:
It requires faith in Jesus Christ.
So which is it, acceptance of the Bible or faith in Jesus Christ? And you didn't answer my question. If it is the former, then which Bible?
-
bugDanny wrote:
Tell me where in the Scriptures does it advocate the use of bunny's eggs, even the name Easter, which is of pagan origin, for the use of this COMPLETELY Christian celebration.
It doesn't. Nor does it restrict it. So it's silly to say that you shouldn't let little girls look for easter eggs.
bugDanny wrote:
As the illustration was meant to point out, the origin of things do matter. It is the origin of Easter that makes it unclean, not the commemoration of Jesus death and resurrection.
There's nothing unclean about it, as Corinthians I describes much more clearly than what you provided.
bugDanny wrote:
True. However, consider. Jesus instituted the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, with the passing of the bread and wine, on Nissan 14. The passover had always been celebrated on Nissan 14, as God had commanded the Israelites to do, and the first-century Christians also observed this on Nissan 14. However, the importance is not worshipping that date, but what happened on that day.
Jesus did not institute anything. Christians instituted it as religious practice after the fact.
bugDanny wrote:
No, I'm not. I am pointing to an instance in Israel, as actually there were many such cases. Israel fell to pagan worship many times. When a good king came to rule, or Israel turned back to pure worship, they cleansed the land of pagan worship. I did not say that this scripture is god's instruction to us on how to handle Easter specifically, but showing, by example, that this was gods view of things in the past. Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change. And Romans 15:4 says "For all things that were written aforetime [like, in the Hebrew Scriptures] were written for our instruction.
Right...God directed them in a specific instance. I'm sorry, but it looks to me that you've decided to ignore the clarity of Corinthians I in favor of other passages that are frankly not relevant. You should never go out of your way to prove your point with irrelevant quotations. You can always find a passage that seemingly supports what you say. After all, nobody quotes the bible better than the devil.
bugDanny wrote:
I didn't. But you did seem to want other scriptural backing, which I provided.
No, I provided the scriptua
One at a time, here.
espeir wrote:
Jesus did not institute anything.
During the Lord's Evening Meal, Jesus said "Continue doing this in remembrance of me." Nough said.
espeir wrote:
I'm sorry, but it looks to me that you've decided to ignore the clarity of Corinthians I in favor of other passages that are frankly not relevant.
No, I was discussing Corinthians 1 along with the other principles found in the Bible. I believe that you were misapplying Corinthians, which I've stated several times, so I wasn't ignoring it. You, however, try to completely step aside the points I bring out.
espeir wrote:
Because, as I've already stated, it's not "mixed with paganism".
It's not? Easter - originally a Saxon word (Eostre) denoting a goddess of the Saxons The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible states that Easter was “originally the spring festival in honor of the Teutonic goddess of light and spring known in Anglo-Saxon as Eastre." the bunny - “Ancient pagans used the rabbit as a symbol of the abundant new life of the spring season. . . . The first record of the bunny as an Easter symbol is found in Germany about 1572,” says The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home. eggs - As An Encyclopedia of Religion, by Ferm, says: “Pagan practices were introduced into the Christian observance of Easter at an early age on account of the fact that the feast coincided with the beginning of spring. . . . At that season of the year, the New Year and the creation of the world were celebrated in ancient times by an exchange of gifts (Easter eggs) and by generous hospitality to friends, to the poor, and so forth.” Well renowned historians disagree with your statement that Easter is 'not mixed with paganism'. Even from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In fact, that last quote says "pagan practices were introduced into the Christian observance of Easter..." Slaughtering a lamb in the name of Zues would be mixed with paganism, so how is celebrating a resurrection in the name of Easter not?
espeir wrote:
You are claiming that the holy celebration of Easter is tainted with paganism and I'm calling you out as a bearer of bad fruit.
What would be the bad fruit I am showing? Is it because I believe that it is better to memorialize Jesus death as he told us to do in the scriptures
-
I agree with that...but he said the Bible was made up.
Technically, what I said is that contributors to, and interpreters of, the Bible have made shit up. This does not mean that the Bible does not include truth; only that it is not 100% non-fiction, and certainly not 100% the word of God.
-
Technically, what I said is that contributors to, and interpreters of, the Bible have made shit up. This does not mean that the Bible does not include truth; only that it is not 100% non-fiction, and certainly not 100% the word of God.
But you have no way of telling which parts were made up and which weren't. That means everything is thrown out accept what you deem acceptable to your own personal beliefs. That's not Christianity. That's Vincentanity.
-
But you have no way of telling which parts were made up and which weren't. That means everything is thrown out accept what you deem acceptable to your own personal beliefs. That's not Christianity. That's Vincentanity.
espeir wrote:
But you have no way of telling which parts were made up and which weren't. That means everything is thrown out accept what you deem acceptable to your own personal beliefs. That's not Christianity. That's Vincentanity.
That's religion.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Anyone else think we should temporarily do away with this separation of church and state nonsense here in the US so that we can make Good Friday a national holiday...
Wouldn't this piss off the Jews and therefore shutdown Hollywood? Not sure, but from memory Jews don't believe in Jesus and therefore Easter. They have passover which is supposedly the real christian holiday, not the bastardised pagan Easter thingy we have now. If I wrong then my statement above is way off. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
Not sure, but from memory Jews don't believe in Jesus and therefore Easter.
Jew: Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, just don't think he's come yet. Christian: Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, believe he's already made a visit. Muslim: Believe that Jesus was a prophet but wasn't the Messiah. That's the way I understand it. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Not sure, but from memory Jews don't believe in Jesus and therefore Easter.
Jew: Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, just don't think he's come yet. Christian: Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, believe he's already made a visit. Muslim: Believe that Jesus was a prophet but wasn't the Messiah. That's the way I understand it. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean Cundiff wrote:
Muslim: Believe that Jesus was a prophet but wasn't the Messiah.
Just to clarify: Muslims believe Jesus (pbuh) is a Messanger and Prophet as you said and is the Messiah. In addition to that Muslims believe he will return.
The Quran's Rational Arguments (Audio) Background on Prophet Muhammad (in progress) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
-
Sean Cundiff wrote:
Muslim: Believe that Jesus was a prophet but wasn't the Messiah.
Just to clarify: Muslims believe Jesus (pbuh) is a Messanger and Prophet as you said and is the Messiah. In addition to that Muslims believe he will return.
The Quran's Rational Arguments (Audio) Background on Prophet Muhammad (in progress) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
Thanks for the clarification :) -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Here: atheism = null; Done.
espeir wrote:
atheism = null;
Since atheism is a pointer to theism, shouldn't you: delete theism; before nulling the pointer? :laugh: ;P
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Close cockhead, lucky you live a long way away, I track down and beat f*** out of smarmy fucks like you over here.
I doubt you would be capable. So it turns out that the enlightened atheist is actually just a crazy.
espeir wrote:
I doubt you would be capable.
Couldn't be further from wrong if you tried twat. No guns (for the good guys) to hide behind over here. Open your mouth you better be able to back it up. Done so for 37 years in the worst areas we have. Had a gun pulled on me last Friday, not dead yet. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004