Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 113 by Divine Insight]

I don't have time to reply to your entire counterpoint but I see quickly one point that is just flat out wrong:

Look especially at verse 8.

He is telling his disciples to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and raise the dead.

So why aren't there entire accounts of these disciples going around performing the same kind of miracles as Jesus? Think

Christianity plays this down. They can't have all these disciples running around performing the very same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed.

From Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 3

(1)Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
(2)And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
(3)Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
(4)And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
(5)And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
(6)Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
(7)And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.


And so there are accounts of miracles performed by the disciples after Jesus' death so I'm unsure what it is that Christians are playing down?

In any event I have shown proof that what you said is a lie so by your previous logic that means that everything you say is a lie, am I correct?

That's not separate accounts. That's right in the same gospels written by the same authors.

If these disciples went off on their own after Jesus had died and continued to perform the same kinds of miracles that Jesus has performed then we should see totally separate and independent "Gospels" being written about the lives of these men and the miracles that they had performed totally independent of these story of Jesus. But no such independent stories exist.

So clearly it's the authors of these Gospel rumors where are lying.

Where has anyone else seen these things outside of these Gospel rumors?

It's crystal clear that these biblical myths of Jesus are totally self-contained and if any attempt to substantiate them from outside of these myths if always futile.

These disciples clearly could not have been going around performing miracles like these Gospel rumors claim.

This is why it is "Played down". Sure there are a few mentions within the same myths that are written by the same authors but they are very few and unimpressive. But no one is willing to take this on for real because there are not independent reports of verifications of these things outside of these very myths.

You can't use a myth to support itself.

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 120 by Divine Insight]

You quoted the book of Matthew, I quoted a non-gospel book written by Luke. Yes, Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts but he didn't write Matthew's gospel. I think you may even agree with that statement.

If you are asking about historical evidence of these miracles (and there are many in the Book of Acts), what exactly would you like to see? There is almost no written history from that period and I assume you know that? You can believe or not believe that is your prerogative but to imply that because they can't be proven outside of biblical sources makes them fairy tales is incorrect. As you know Acts and Matthew were written by two separate authors at separate times and if this wasn't the Bible we were talking about it would be accepted as gospel. Pun intended.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 120 by Divine Insight]

You quoted the book of Matthew, I quoted a non-gospel book written by Luke. Yes, Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts but he didn't write Matthew's gospel. I think you may even agree with that statement.

If you are asking about historical evidence of these miracles (and there are many in the Book of Acts), what exactly would you like to see? There is almost no written history from that period and I assume you know that? You can believe or not believe that is your prerogative but to imply that because they can't be proven outside of biblical sources makes them fairy tales is incorrect. As you know Acts and Matthew were written by two separate authors at separate times and if this wasn't the Bible we were talking about it would be accepted as gospel. Pun intended.

The entire New Testament was only written by a handful of people. Most of which clearly used and referred to the writings and rumors of the other authors.

Even if these stories were intelligent they wouldn't be convincing. The fact that they are also extremely ignorant and make God out to be a complete idiot is more than enough reason to dismiss them.

You ask me what I would like to see. Well the first thing I would like to see are intelligent stories about an intelligent God. The Bible fails miserably on that point alone. But then in addition to that requirement I would still like to see some sort of historical evidence beyond a handful of superstitious men who were clearly copying from each others works.

Do you realize that all of Christianity rests upon the superstitious rumors told by a mere handful of men?

Have you ever asked why an omnipotent God couldn't do better than that?

And then he's threatening to condemn you if you don't believe this utter stupidity?

As far as I'm concerned that gives away the scam right there. There's no God behind this religion.

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 122 by Divine Insight]

As far as I'm concerned that gives away the scam right there. There's no God behind this religion.

Please advise which religion(s) has a God behind it.

Thank you.

[Zzyzx]

.

Please advise which religion(s) has a God behind it.

There is no assurance that ANY religion has a "god behind it" -- or worships a "god" that is anything more than the product of human imagination.

Those who propose / promote god-worship should be responsible for providing evidence that their favorite "god" is real.

[Zzyzx]

.

You quoted the book of Matthew, I quoted a non-gospel book written by Luke. Yes, Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts but he didn't write Matthew's gospel.

Who, exactly, was "Luke" – what, exactly, were his sources of information?

If you are asking about historical evidence of these miracles (and there are many in the Book of Acts), what exactly would you like to see?

Let's start with anything more than tales that someone saw something they considered miraculous.

There is almost no written history from that period and I assume you know that?

There are actually contemporary accounts from the era and Roman records – HOWEVER, none seem to mention dead bodies coming back to life and such things (on which Christianity is based).

You can believe or not believe that is your prerogative but to imply that because they can't be proven outside of biblical sources makes them fairy tales is incorrect.

Agreed that bible tales have not been proven to be fairytales. Neither have tales about Little Red Riding Hood and Peter Pan been PROVED to be false. Shall we, therefore, accept tales of LRR and PP to be truthful and accurate?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 122 by Divine Insight]

As far as I'm concerned that gives away the scam right there. There's no God behind this religion.

Please advise which religion(s) has a God behind it.

Thank you.

Insofar as I'm aware none of them do.

However, there do at least exist some spiritual philosophies that are respectable and could potentially be describing a plausible God. Hebrew mythology is certainly not one of them.

And we must all confess, whether we like it or not, that the atheists could be right.

To refuse to confess this can be nothing more than flat-out denial.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 122 by Divine Insight]

As far as I'm concerned that gives away the scam right there. There's no God behind this religion.

Please advise which religion(s) has a God behind it.

Thank you.

I have never been shown a religion that has a god behind it as far as can be reasonably determined.
This reasonably determines for me that all religions are man made and have men behind them.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

[ttruscott]

.

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment . . . .

In other words, all one must do to be "not judged" (evidently to achieve "salvation") is to believe in God / Jesus. Right?

It doesn't matter what a person DOES -- only what they believe. Right?

If they believe, ask forgiveness and repent (according to some Christians) that is all which is required to get a ticket to heaven in the proposed "afterlife." Right?

Right!!! Only, so obviously you miss the rational that makes this a perfect system...

You make "un-belief" as nothing, as 'what a meaningless concept to merit everlasting hell!' But because UNBELIEF was the CAUSE of all the other evil beliefs and addictions that have caused ALL the suffering here on earth and in heaven, it is the epitomé of all evil.

Peace, Ted