Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

thejeff wrote:

Jesus came and preached to Native Americans (who, somehow, had horses and steel 1460 years before Columbus),

Do tell. Is that in the Bible? Did he ride across on the water?

Do you realize that Equus originated in North America?

Pegasus the Walrus wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Jesus came and preached to Native Americans (who, somehow, had horses and steel 1460 years before Columbus),

Do tell. Is that in the Bible? Did he ride across on the water?

Do you realize that Equus originated in North America?

Dude, did you even read what he wrote?

"The ones TWISTING teachings would be the Mormons, who adding a second, historically indefensible book (BoM) to attribute characteristics to Jesus that were never part of Scripture: We are all God, Jesus came and preached to Native Americans (who, somehow, had horses and steel 1460 years before Columbus), polytheism, and polygamy."

Stagger Lee wrote:

Pegasus the Walrus wrote:

Do tell. Is that in the Bible? Did he ride across on the water?

Do you realize that Equus originated in North America?

Dude, did you even read what he wrote?

"The ones TWISTING teachings would be the Mormons, who adding a second, historically indefensible book (BoM) to attribute characteristics to Jesus that were never part of Scripture: We are all God, Jesus came and preached to Native Americans (who, somehow, had horses and steel 1460 years before Columbus), polytheism, and polygamy."

I haven't read the bible.

No kidding, some one brought up "god's image" again!!

What does "god's image" mean?

Man has the look of god? like god has a penis, too?

What does god have a penis for?

And god has a nose too? to breath? air?

errrhhh wrote:

No kidding, some one brought up "god's image" again!!

What does "god's image" mean?

Man has the look of god? like god has a penis, too?

What does god have a penis for?

And god has a nose too? to breath? air?

I think that he has a good, solid roman nose. Like me.

Also blue eyes. Again like me.

He's probably irresistible to the babes. Just like me!

Hmmmmm....

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Exodus has the name Moses coming from "mashah," meaning "to draw out." Thutmoses translates to "born of the god Thoth."

Not only that, as in Thutmoses's name, as well as in other pharaohs', it usually (if not always) bears an Egyptian god (title) the pharaoh was supposedly born into or represented. The pharaoh's deity gave the legitimacy as the ruler (king) and that's the reason pharaohs married their own sisters as to enhance the deity of their offspring. And some usurpers would marry a princess from the old royal family.

Moses wouldn't have been given a name related to a god/deity as he's adopted and everybody in the royal family knew that (not a secret).

Thutmoses III firstborn son "Amenemhat", by Queen Merytre-Hatshepsut was most likely killed by the tenth plague. It is well documented that Amenhotep II, was Thutmoses III's second born son by Queen Satiah, who became Pharaoh in 1431 BC.

After Thutmoses III died, his 2nd born son, Amenhotep II became Pharoah. Amenhotep in 1422 BC went on a campaign to capture slaves. This was to make up for the Hebrew slaves who Moses led out of Egypt during his father's reign in 1446 BC.

To recap the timeline:

Thutmoses III: Pharoah of the Exodus (18th Dynasty)

1446 BC: Thutmoses III first born son killed by 10th plague

1446 BC: date of the exodus from Egypt the country and military force desimated. Thutmoses III was humiliated that the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had beat all his sorcerers, gods and idols.

1446-1406 BC: Hebrews wandering in the desert

1431 BC: Thutmoses III dies

1431 BC: Amenhotep II becomes Pharoah

1422 BC: Amenhotep II begins campaigns to replenish lost Hebrew slaves

1406 BC: Joshua leads the Hebrews into the promised land, conquers Jericho (Imitation Cypriot pottery discovered at Jericho proves the walls fell about 1406 BC)

967 BC: 480 yrs after the exodus, Solomon begins building the Temple

OT dates are anchored by Solomon's reign. I Kings 6:1 reference

Bible and slavery wrote:

Thutmoses III firstborn son "Amenemhat", by Queen Merytre-Hatshepsut was most likely killed by the tenth plague. It is well documented that Amenhotep II, was Thutmoses III's second born son by Queen Satiah, who became Pharaoh in 1431 BC.

After Thutmoses III died, his 2nd born son, Amenhotep II became Pharoah. Amenhotep in 1422 BC went on a campaign to capture slaves. This was to make up for the Hebrew slaves who Moses led out of Egypt during his father's reign in 1446 BC.

Great story!

And it would have a chance of being true if, you know--as pointed out above--there's no reason to think "Moses" was a historical person, and it certainly is not the case that the Biblical "Exodus" occurred.

But you tell it very well!

well at least I'm mentioning actual historical figures ( Egyptians) and putting in probable timelines. Others are just saying "cool story" without much else. If you discredit Moses as an actual historical figure then you probably don't believe any of the people mentioned in the Bible. Are you denying that there was no King David or King Solomon either?

thejeff wrote:

b) I would say that the fact that even people who had NOT been exposed to the Bible still have the same "perfectly common" morality is evidence that we are all created in God's image, and that our conscience points to his character.

c) I will grant you every bit of this, and have in the past pages. People have twisted scripture to advance their own ends throughout history. Here is where you and I differ: that should NOT be a reflection on Christianity any more than the sad belief in Social Darwinism in the 18-1900's should reflect poorly on Charles Darwin. That burden falls on the people who twist teachings, not on the teachings themselves.

b) that would also be evidence that virtually every other social creature on the planet is similarly made in 'god's image'. it's quite clear that those traits outlined are simply functions of living as a collective. And, fwiw, animals we define as "solitary" tend to exhibit them pretty closely as well.

As I wrote earlier, and you chose to ignore, who defines what any of those things mean? They seem to mean very different things to each and every culture and change with the times. How can you really advocate thou shall not kill, which seems perfectly clear to me, and then admonish rather mild imperfections with stoning people to death? Or the creator who laid out these rules then turns around and instructs his 'chosen people' to kill everyone and everything? It becomes completely meaningless.

Further, that we tend so often to stray so far from those traits, either suggests your god similarly does so (an idea reinforced with the stories in the text I suppose) or that we're not as closely aligned with his image as, say, dolphins are.

c) "people have twisted scripture to mean ... " .. but not you, correct? Your interpretation doesn't do that? It's everyone else doing that? Never mind some of these people dedicated their lives to the study of these texts in ways you haven't even begun to image, yet they twisted the teachings and your understanding is correct.

The teachings themselves fail miserably, as I've pointed out. Surrounded and ruled by some of the most brutal leadership in the history of civilization, where did jesus once speak out against slavery?

Look at marriage, for example. Jesus' words on that are clear .. divorce is valid only for one reason; the woman cheats on the man. A man beating his wife, or his children, or involved in any felony or whatever, is no justification for her to divorce him? That's beyond insane.

The teachings are inconsistent. They offer little more than what one might expect from any halfway thoughtful human being, yet you'd try to preach that they're the word of your omnipotent god?

thejeff wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

Nonsense. The entire NT is one big amendment.

Misconception.

The OT contains prophecy. The NT is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

A constitution that starts off "we the people" seemed to be fulfilled when it started to include "the people", and not just, say, three fifths of the people, right?

When an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek, I'd suggest that's a pretty clear amendment.

thejeff wrote:

1. The ones TWISTING teachings would be the Mormons, who adding a second, historically indefensible book (BoM) to attribute characteristics to Jesus that were never part of Scripture: We are all God, Jesus came and preached to Native Americans (who, somehow, had horses and steel 1460 years before Columbus), polytheism, and polygamy.

The Book of Mormon isn't indefensible. There are plenty of ways to defend a book that is obviously wrong.

Think of all the ways Christians defend the Bible's account of creation, language development (Tower of Babel), the exodus, jewish conquests, the NT census, Herod's slaughter of newborns, the earthquake and darkness during the crucifixion, and resurrection of the saints. None of these things happened, but Christians constantly defend the reliability of the Bible. Mormon's just follow their lead.

+1

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Think of all the ways Christians defend the Bible's account of creation ....

"Bible's accountS of creation ... "

I pointed out earlier the bible gives 2 different chronologies for their creation story, and of course, rather than acknowledge that failing, the faithful simply ignore that part of the discourse.

Let's take a look at Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 a little more closely. Here is the list of events and then drill down:

Gen 1:11 grass, plants and trees created on day 3

Gen 2:8 grass, plants and trees created after man on day 6

Gen 1:20 birds made out of water on day 5

Gen 2:19 birds made out of the ground after man on day 6

Gen 1:24 animals made before man on day 6

Gen 2:24 animals made after man on day 6

It looks like a contradiction, so far. Adam was created on day 6. Day 6 is key because the Garden of Eden was also created on day 6 and Adam was placed in it. Let's keep going.

Gen 1 is a description of the creation OUTSIDE the Garden of Eden. There were plants, trees, birds, and animals in the world outside of Eden.

Gen 2 is a description of what happened INSIDE the Garden of Eden only. God created the trees that were good for food and plants that were good for that site. Adam was created on day 6 and then God made each of the animals and birds in front of Adam so that he could name each one and see that they were created with his own eyes. Interesting that God did that because if his children asked him were all the animals and birds came from, Adam could say, "God showed me..."

How many animals were there? Could be a full day of learning the nomenclature or simply Chicken and Cow.

All this arguing between different religions is stupid but I can clear it up very simply.

hindus: don't eat cows! worship them.

jews/muslims: you can eat cows but don't worship them. And no eating pigs! Grasshoppers are ok.

christians: you can eat pigs too! But not on fridays, when you can only eat fish because fish is not meat.

buddhists: you really shouldn't eat meat, but if you're going to then you can even eat dogs!

The one thing they ALL agree on is that it is good to eat chickens. Not one of them has anything bad to say about chickens. The one true religion ultimately will be based on chickens.

I'm starting to think you've never actually read the bible.

Gen 2 said, explicitly, that no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up when your god made a man. And after he breathed into the man’s nose, the god planted a garden in the east.

It does not say what you seem to enjoy thinking it said.

A perfect example of how to try to defend the indefensible. When you have a book that was obviously written by primitive superstitious ignorants and try to claim it was written by a perfect, all-knowing diety, these are the contortions you have to go through.

You should tell us about the flood next.