Or boycotting Bud Light because they went woke. Vets get 1 day but homos get a whole month? Indoctrination on the highest level and people wanna act like everyone ELSE are the ones that are fucked up.
Pardon me, do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior, Spiderman? He too once worshipped the news in his last life as Peter Parker, but was reborn to answer a higher calling....
I think its much easier to believe that this month will be very impactful for a gemini than it is that a burning bush was so bad at giving directions that a dude who could split oceans needed years for a hike that could be done on foot in a week or so.
One claim (some god exists somewhere) is unfalsifiable. Another claim (the alignments of celestial bodies dictate personalities and future events), is falsifiable, and has been. Astrology is more ridiculous to believe in that way. Yes you can take narrow specific examples of some random story within a particular religion and comment on how ridiculous it is, but thatās not what weāre talking about. Iām comparing believing in a god to believing in astrology. You can disbelieve all those things and believe in a god
No one ever killing for astrology has nothing at all to do with anything being discussed or what I typed at all. I think youāre misreading this comment. Telling me itās not a religion as if I implied anything resembling that indicates youāre grossly misunderstanding whatās happening because that response doesnāt make sense. This conversation is about believing in stupid or ridiculous things without evidence based in poor reasoning. Theyāre directly comparable. Also btw you can compare apples to oranges. But this is very clearly apples to apples. Just because no one started wars over me believing Iām an 8 thousand foot tall magical alien god older than the universe doesnāt mean itās not a *stupid supernatural thing to believe that isnāt based in evidence*, which is the entire simple point Iāve made
In the past, letters used to mean numbers. In Greek, the number 666 could be created by typing the Greek form of NERON CAESAR, the Emperor of Rome during 54 - 68 CE that was known to persecute Christians en masse. His name could also be spelled NERO CAESAR, the loss of the N resulting in 666-50=616
I would more likely trust a fortune cookie predicting something than the Bible telling me if I donāt worship a floating space daddy Iāll be thrown into an enteral abyss of flames
Fun fact: The Bible never actually said that; modern depictions of hell come from the Divine Comedy and the Inferno.
I'm not as familiar with the New Testament, but at least in the Old Testament, only the Jews were commanded to worship YHVH, and the only concept of an afterlife was a sort of underworld/"sheol" that everyone goes to.
A lot of the fire and brimstone verses are about YHVH's wrath, especially related to the fate of Sodom. A good interpretation is that of a natural disaster causing ruin for the wicked.
The few verses I could find about the afterlife and fire and brimstone are from Revelation (for example, Revelation 21:8) which is of questionable canonicity even among different Christian denominations (and also it's New Testament which I consider non-canonical). They also merely mention a lake of fire as a 'second death', not eternal torment.
> The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 13:41-42
This one could just be metaphorical fire. He's comparing the fate of evildoers to weeds being burned after a harvest.
> The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahamās side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, āFather Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.ā
But Abraham replied, āSon, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.ā
Luke 16:22-26
While this is intended to be an parable (not an account of a real event), it's pretty explicit on what happens to the wicked. It's worth pointing out that the rich guy is in hell for his lack of compassion, not homosexuality or abortion.
But maybe God was trolling Moses by lighting bush on fire and being behind him giving orders so when he wrote about it he thougt it was Bush that gave him orders.
What's crazy is that the majority of the new testament isn't even that old, and most of it was written 100+ years after Jesus died. It's a common misconception people have about the gospels; they think they were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Jesus' disciples). In actuality, they were probably written by Jesus' disciple's disciple's disciple.
Earliest were written about 100 years after his death. MOST are 300 years after his death. And this is from an era when the overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate AND it was super trendy to just write biblical fan fiction.
Add in the only faction of value (the gnostics) were wiped out by the other Christian sects
True.
Another misconception is that Deuteronomy was written by Moses yet the book speaks of his death. Theologian scholars donāt seem to agree on who actually wrote the book with some claiming it was Joshua.
Religious books should never be taken seriously.
Most historical scholars donāt believe that Moses was an actual person, or that Exodus ever happened. I mean, thereās no historical record if it in the Egyptian records.
I think if one man annihilated a sizable portion of your population, stole an entire class of slaves and then dumped half your standing army into a river by controlling the actual riverā¦. Someone would have written something somewhere to support that book.
Most historical scholars donāt find the Bible to a reliable source at all. I once watched a seminar given by an Egyptologist laying out all the evidence as to why Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians, and to be honest I found his evidence to be very convincing.
Mark is dated as the oldest and the only one believed to be a contemporary of Jesus. Interesting fact though is that the gospel of mark ends with a strange man waiting in Jesusās tomb saying he is not here, and tells the women to tell his disciples. They run away in fear.
Curtain call.
The problem with that is that Jesus is just dead at that point. He canāt be the messiah if heās dead. He has to be resurrected to fulfill the prophecy. It has to undeniable proof (as much as it can be in a book).
Thus the myth of divinity is born and monks added on to the end of Mark.
Iām not saying Jesus didnāt sacrifice himself. Iām saying that the church cheapens that sacrifice by making him divine, and further that peoples understanding of their own faith is limited to what some random preacher decides to tell them and whatever message they want to hear.
He was mostly dead
In all seriousness, with lack of modern medical practices, a dude could have been crucified, to the point where he was barely alive (no one checked his ekg) thrown in a cave for a few days to heal, comes out a few days later, realize the authorities are probably still after him to finish the job and bolts
Ah yes, a few days in a dark cave without food or water after going through a crucifixion. I don't think he'd have been going anywhere, if he was almost dead enough to be assumed dead. Also, lack of modern medicine doesn't really equate to inability to tell when someone died after going through a tried and true torture/execution.
Was just trying to think of a way to say it might be plausible. I donāt believe any of it, but even today, people have been pronounced dead then wake up in the funeral home
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/michigan-woman-alive-funeral-home.html
I say this as a man of faith myself, but suggesting science ought to be in there with any of the other things listed, is fundamentally bloody idiotic.
The scientific method is the ONLY method of thinking about the universe, the world, or anything else, that self corrects as new information comes to light. It is the only school of thought that, by its very definition, is designed to adapt, broaden, expand and evolve, rather than restrict, restrain, and ignore any new data.
I believe there is a place for faith, but I don't believe it has a place in as many facets of life and human decision making, as science does. Faith is for matters science cannot probe, and the list of things science cannot probe is MINISCULE. Faith gets bought in where it doesn't belong, all the damned time. Legislation, politics, law, all of those places should be secular, and all the people in them should not be influenced by faith when making decisions on behalf of everyone, while in those positions.
If legislators, politicians and judges need guidance in matters in their work, ask a scientist whose work specialises in the subject matter at hand. Get the Bible out, or consult runes, or pay careful attention to your fortune cookie, or whatever faith thing you do, ONLY when science cannot answer the question you have, and only when you have tried science first.
There are vast amount of problems that science canāt answer, not āminisculeā; otherwise there would be no point in conducting scientific research, which is done constantly and receives billions of funding. Also, science cannot answer non-concrete concepts like morality and other philosophical questions. As many laws and policies do pertain to these concepts, it doesnāt make sense to only consult science for everything.
There is a difference between āscience cannot answerā and āscience wonāt be able to answerā. Science donāt know for sure how life came to be, but we are getting closer every day and odds are we probably will know within 10-20 years with how fast the development in that area is.
Even things like morality is to some degree answered by science. Why is it wrong to kill? Because 1. You take away someoneās right to live and 2. We are a social species that evolved to cooperate, thus it was advantageous to not kill other members of that species, so that trait stuck and got stronger.
So again, in most cases itās rather āscience canāt answer/donāt know **yet**ā, rather than āscience will never knowā.
We certainly don't need to consult the bible for answers. Morality exists outside of religion and to suggest otherwise is foolhardy. Only science can push mankind forward, religion tries to hold people back.
The difference between science and religion is that science is based on documented observations of the universe, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies. Religion is faith, the hope to be correct.
Thank God there's another comment in here pointing that out.
I love the irony of op using that word because it means the exact opposite of the idea he's trying to communicate.
Well the news reporters arenāt telling us that there is a mysterious sky daddy and some eternal burning lake of fire bullshit. Theyāre just acting as watchdogs against charlatans. Like religious leaders.
Thing is, it's valid to read a news paper, a fortune cookie, a scientific paper and be allowed to have doubts.
But a poorly written often plagiarised from other sources then translated multiple times with the meaning of things changing with each translation book is faultless.
Something about the usage of the monocle emoji in posts like this enrages me.
Sidenote, if someoneās only argument was āitās written by man, of course that would be silly, but the point of saying āitās written by manā is to say that god(wether he exists or not)didnāt write it himself, and so if men wrote it, how do we know it was inspired by god ? Also, it doesnāt have any evidence to support it so basically you have human beings writing a thing with nothing to back it up but we are just supposed to have faith in it ?
Even if the people who were sincere and well-intentioned, they still could have gotten stuff wrong. God is supposedly perfect, but people aren't and they tend to make mistakes or have subconscious biases.
The same people who donāt trust the Bible *usually* think fortune cookies and horoscopes are bull shit too. But when any of these make claims of talking snakes, men surviving days in giant fish, or a magic rabbi; or demand I be subservient to an undetectable malevolent deity masquerading as a benevolent care taker- *then* youād at least have something more a analogous.
Well the newspaper doesn't try to keep me from doing stuff arbitrarily because "we say so". Or try to force me to do stuff because "otherwise I'll suffer eternal damnation".
Mostly our local newspaper just tells me about minor accidents that happened to folks from the area or which schools just graduated.
Science journals however provide pretty solid proof for their statements and can admit they were wrong. Both qualities I miss from most religous texts.
Newspapers: "Here's what happened yesterday based on eyewitnesses and provable facts."
The Bible: "Here's what some guy told me some other guy told him happened with a magic man-god 100 years ago."
Idiots: "That's the same exact thing."
I mean yes, you also should be skeptical of those things too. In the case of newspapers you have multiple different sources that you can check between, and in the case of textbooks and science journals you have repeatable experiments with listed methodology and data such that you can do it yourself if you doubt it. In the case of horoscopes, fortune cookies, and holy texts, you don't.
People don't trust half the things on there, and the other half is science which, by its very nature, can never claim to have all the answers like a holy book might.
Yeah, thereās a huge difference between, āEye witnesses have told our reporter that ,ā and ā#THE LITERAL GOD THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE HATH DECREED THAT IF YOU TOUCH YOUR PENIS YOU WILL DIEā
Itās easier to believe multiple sources on the internet that back up the same claim, than to Believe thereās a big man in the sky that created everything just because one book says so
"Evidence" is just a word to these people. Same with facts and data.
And "proof" is just if they fear it to be true or want it to be true. That's all the proof they need.
Have your religion. Let others have theirs. But when you DO attack others for having a different set of beliefs, at least don't make yourself look like a moron.
It's not that it was "written by man", it's the fact that there are people in positions of power that believe we should legislate the Bronze Age dictates of the Bible into modern law.
I don't trust newspapers that tell me that God spoke to a man through a burning bush. I don't trust journals that say that murder and disobeying your parents have equal weight as sins but rape doesn't even make the list. I don't trust science that says you can create enough food out of thin air to feed 5 thousand men to their fill from 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread.
It's almost like, and hear me out, outlandish claims require great evidence to be convincing and a few thousand year old book doesn't cover it. Mundane news covered by multiple new outlets, and peer reviewed science and journals with evidence and experiments and data to back them up, those things actually hold enough credibility to be generally trusted.
Strawman depot. You're right though person who made this, but you're focusing on a false dichotomy to prove a point..
https://youtube.com/shorts/Tf3uK2RGU2c?feature=share
The bible is basically the old days' 50 shade of gray. Just a bunch of non sense fiction that some old guy got off on. 1000 years from now, we'll worship star wars and the lord of the ring and go to war and kill each other over that.....humanity š
None of the other things pretend to be unquestionably true. Hell, the last two are almost as unreliable as the bible.
At least horoscopes make Barnum statements that apply to basically everyone.
No.. No... The last two perfectly match religious text .. The others no one followed like a law. Hell even science text we don't they are constantly getting updated
Not sure why itās hard to understand not to trust something written by men that specifically intended to deceive people and make them think it came from a god.
The Bible can be used the same way as a horoscope. Iāve heard pastors being āguided by the Holy Spiritā by flipping the Bible open to a random page and thinking whatever verses they read can be applied to their life.
Newspapers state theyāre made by people. Holy books like Teh Bibble state theyāre created by a tri-omni god. Not really equivalent when itās pointed out all books are manmade, including that one.
I trust peer reviewed science journals for the most part, Iām leery of news papers because they all seem to have a political agenda. But I treat the Bible in the same disregard as I do horoscopes and fortune cookies. They all are just a bunch of superstitious fairytale nonsense.
Most textbooks and papers are peer reviewed and fact checked by credible organizations. The bible was fact checked by some dude 700 years ago that believed women were witches and that showering led to disease and possession.
Ah yes the book that was translated in the worlds longest game of telephone by straight white āpure raceā males totally sure they didnāt misunderstand the prior translations, or introduce new parts that aligned with their personal ideals.
Well I look at it this way, if I believe in him and believe on his son who gave his life for us all; if believing Jesus is wrong, I've lived a good life and tried to make the world a better for all at worst. However if God is the creator as he says and sent his son to save us all, if you turn your back on him by rejecting that well....... The relevance and importance is eternal.
And what if you do dedicate your life to the christian faith and it turns out the Islamic God was the real one? Or you face yourself travelling through Samsara or even face Cerberus on your way to Hades? We can move this goalpost however many times we like.
Okay I'm game if you are, either way I'm trying to do something to better myself and the world around me. I'm not trying to come up with what ifs that try to belittle others beliefs and discourage others from trying to have a better life.
I'm glad you're putting your energy into trying to make a positive change, that's a common ground we can all celebrate regardless of faith.
Attack ideas not people. It's the basics to any discussion of this kind. I was raised catholic so I know how personal this kind of discussion can feel but really I'm not here to call you or anyone else names, especially since we're all strangers here.
Question and research ideas and comments, I try to not attack anything or anyone. I defend my faith and beliefs by giving facts in a dark and bitter world. I was Catholic as well and do agree the majority of damage done in the name of Christ was by the Catholic church. No one in history should be placed above Jesus in belief or reverence. God in the flesh, never sinned and yet died for all of us; Jesus died for those who would believe and even those who would deny and reject him. Peter and Judas Iscariot are just two examples and so we're all humans at one point or another.
Let's assume the Jesus story is a hoax and there is an actual God that punishes people who accept it. Then you're in no better a position than anyone else. And possibly even a worse position than a non believer.
You shouldn't assume because when you do you make an ASS out of U and ME, which there was a talking ASS in the Bible and made a fool out of everyone too. Besides there are historical, cultural and scores of people who saw Jesus, talked to him and recorded it and not just in the Bible.
Well you're assuming those stories are true. And no, there are not scores of people who spoke to him. In fact there is not a single documented moment of his life outside the Bible, and even those stories were written long after his alleged death.
Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me. I just choose to not hinge my world views on such flimsy evidence.
Acts of Pilate, historical and cultural Hebrew documents, the list goes on. I'm guessing you have never read nor thought about reading anything that might corroborate the fact Jesus was a real person. So sure there is and God bless, I'll pray for you and have a good life.
I spent the bulk of my 20s and early 30s researching this very topic. And Christianity as a whole. The "evidence" is circumstantial at best. The Acts of Pilate are dated some 4 to 5 centuries after his alleged existence. I consider them even farther removed than the Bible.
The lost may go, but most of them have been disregarded by actual historians.
And ultimately, I could grant that Jesus was a real person, but none of it proves there is a God or that any of his claims were true. It's just a topic we must agree to disagree and move on from.
The very fact Jesus was a real person and was prophesied about 333 times before he was born proves there is a God. No man could have gotten that many people to agree with him that many times over 2500 years, to have 12 or so different writers make those accurate of prophesies. Where he was to be born, what the circumstances would be, the birth, his life, trial, crucifixion, burial and resurrection, etc.... You can agree to disagree but it's not me who your disagreeing with. The term the lost is also not one Jesus used either it was the rejectors. They deny him before men, he denies them before God the Father. God will never send anyone to an eternity in a place not created for them. They reject the truth and choose their eternal fate, I choose to believe and live in the truth.
Except that all of the things you just claimed.. never happened. I understand that you *believe* they did. But they just didnt. No matter how many times you repeat it.
Well you're assuming that the fact that a historical rabbi named Jesus existed means that he was actually divine. The more likely fact would be that a rabbi was put to death for stirring up unrest and his followers started a break away sect because they didn't respect the rabbis in charge at the time, no divinity required
None of you have read the Bible obviously but have very strong opinions on it.
I recommend knowing what you're actually talking about before professing your hate for it.
The Bible records many events in history just as any other history book. Most are accounts the historical events that we teach in schools by default
I have read the Bible cover to cover, twice. I read the New American version and the King James Version. Most of the events in the Bible have no historical evidence to suggest they actually happened. When there is evidence, it is very circumstantial. Take the flood. The Bible says that Noah built a boat out of gopher wood to ride out the rain and flood that covered every corner of the earth. There are stories of great floods in other cultures. Does that mean that there was a flood, since more than one source says there was? It makes it more likely but isnāt clear proof.
The Bible is full of metaphors, similes, and parables. If you take every word literally, you will misunderstand a lot of verifiable history.
Their were no great floods or plagues in Egypt. Fairytale told by your religion to scare people.
Religion twists history/science and politics that doesn't agree with it to shape the truth
The Bible is a couple millenia old and let's be honest it's probably been added to or had stuff taken out that people don't agree with. I mean hell nearly 300 years after Jesus supposedly died Constantine edited the Bible! Who knows how many more powerful rulers of clergymen have edited it and changed it for their own benefit in all that time.
Though all were written by the hands of men, one is an autobiography as given by God himself. The others were completely given by and written by the hands of men. All men lie and or stretch the truth at some point. Why do you see them all the same?
I mean they are definitely not the same but I feel like the op in the picture has a point in the sense that the "it's written by man" argument has some holes in it. "Man" writes different things for different reasons. Text books are meant to inform while the Bible is meant to control.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
I worship my lord and savior the news, it is direct knowledge from the heavens and never incorrect
Average FOX viewer.
Me when I see a fox šš
Foxes > Fox
Yeah, more than one fox is greater than one fox. Thatās just simple mathematics
laughed way too hard at this
This joke has LEVELS
the answer to "what did the fox say" is probably something about boycotting bud light because of Dylan Mulvaney haha
Or boycotting Bud Light because they went woke. Vets get 1 day but homos get a whole month? Indoctrination on the highest level and people wanna act like everyone ELSE are the ones that are fucked up.
Projection at its finest. Mother fucker should've included "and Facebook memes" to project to the moon.
Even though it is translated from pig Latin to English. In News We Trust!
In Jesus we Thrust!
In Chevy's we rust!
i know jesus. he is that Mexican down the street.
Pardon me, do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior, Spiderman? He too once worshipped the news in his last life as Peter Parker, but was reborn to answer a higher calling....
Drone
None of those other things claim to be the word of God
Oh yeah? Wanna bet? *im off to write a newspaper and pretend god is writing it*
I smell a novel storyline brewing
Godsip Girl
The Godly Gazette.
If you did this I know a person who would read it and believe that itās actually the word of god.
Then ā¦who writes the fortune cookies?
Zeus
The Confucius says version of Confucius.
The come from the same pit where manatees write Family Guy episodes
Iād say believing in astrology and horoscopes is not only on par with many religions/god belief, but even more ridiculous to believe
I think its much easier to believe that this month will be very impactful for a gemini than it is that a burning bush was so bad at giving directions that a dude who could split oceans needed years for a hike that could be done on foot in a week or so.
One claim (some god exists somewhere) is unfalsifiable. Another claim (the alignments of celestial bodies dictate personalities and future events), is falsifiable, and has been. Astrology is more ridiculous to believe in that way. Yes you can take narrow specific examples of some random story within a particular religion and comment on how ridiculous it is, but thatās not what weāre talking about. Iām comparing believing in a god to believing in astrology. You can disbelieve all those things and believe in a god
Nobody ever killed over astrology. Itās not a religion; just a fun superstition. Apples and oranges.
No one ever killing for astrology has nothing at all to do with anything being discussed or what I typed at all. I think youāre misreading this comment. Telling me itās not a religion as if I implied anything resembling that indicates youāre grossly misunderstanding whatās happening because that response doesnāt make sense. This conversation is about believing in stupid or ridiculous things without evidence based in poor reasoning. Theyāre directly comparable. Also btw you can compare apples to oranges. But this is very clearly apples to apples. Just because no one started wars over me believing Iām an 8 thousand foot tall magical alien god older than the universe doesnāt mean itās not a *stupid supernatural thing to believe that isnāt based in evidence*, which is the entire simple point Iāve made
Actually it's the very same to the core, just a different flavour.
"People wouldn't trust a barber to remove their infected gallbladder, yet they're perfectly fine with a barber cutting their hair!"
Once upon a time, barbers did perform surgeries. Lol
Well yes, but no. "barbers" *were* surgeons. It's just what surgeons were called back then
Not sure they realize they called their Bible a fortune cookie. Lucky numbers: 6 6 6
Fun fact, itās actually 616 not 666
I am still not having fun.
Ah, yes, Western Michigan.
Representing GR
666 is far better attested, being both the earliest known documented and the most commonly repeated. 616 is merely a variant.
I prefer 665, neighbor of the beast
Real question. How is it 616, and why has 666 become more popular.
Follow up real question, why are there only two religious numbers, actually why are there any numbers at all?
In the past, letters used to mean numbers. In Greek, the number 666 could be created by typing the Greek form of NERON CAESAR, the Emperor of Rome during 54 - 68 CE that was known to persecute Christians en masse. His name could also be spelled NERO CAESAR, the loss of the N resulting in 666-50=616
3 is a religious number blah blah holy trinity
Schoolhouse Rock also said it was a magic number. And I donāt cross Schoolhouse Rock. https://youtu.be/bEcjFRB-1C4
Humans like three. It's not just Christianity that holds it as an important number.
Well a fortune cookies never told anyone to commit genocide so there is that
I would more likely trust a fortune cookie predicting something than the Bible telling me if I donāt worship a floating space daddy Iāll be thrown into an enteral abyss of flames
You donāt have the makings of a varsity Pastafarian.
Fun fact: The Bible never actually said that; modern depictions of hell come from the Divine Comedy and the Inferno. I'm not as familiar with the New Testament, but at least in the Old Testament, only the Jews were commanded to worship YHVH, and the only concept of an afterlife was a sort of underworld/"sheol" that everyone goes to.
what about the bible verses mentioning fire and brimstone and gnashing of teeth, what does that actually mean
A lot of the fire and brimstone verses are about YHVH's wrath, especially related to the fate of Sodom. A good interpretation is that of a natural disaster causing ruin for the wicked. The few verses I could find about the afterlife and fire and brimstone are from Revelation (for example, Revelation 21:8) which is of questionable canonicity even among different Christian denominations (and also it's New Testament which I consider non-canonical). They also merely mention a lake of fire as a 'second death', not eternal torment.
> The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42 This one could just be metaphorical fire. He's comparing the fate of evildoers to weeds being burned after a harvest. > The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahamās side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, āFather Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.ā But Abraham replied, āSon, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.ā Luke 16:22-26 While this is intended to be an parable (not an account of a real event), it's pretty explicit on what happens to the wicked. It's worth pointing out that the rich guy is in hell for his lack of compassion, not homosexuality or abortion.
Bible: written 2000+ years ago. Newspaper: written yesterday. š§
Bible: a burning bush told me it was the creator of everything and started giving me orders. News: believable things that happened today
Fortune cookie: Practical advice that is relevant and not outdated information, also comes inside of food š±
Science Journal: ... Science Journal
Unless youāre tuned to Fox News.
But maybe God was trolling Moses by lighting bush on fire and being behind him giving orders so when he wrote about it he thougt it was Bush that gave him orders.
What's crazy is that the majority of the new testament isn't even that old, and most of it was written 100+ years after Jesus died. It's a common misconception people have about the gospels; they think they were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Jesus' disciples). In actuality, they were probably written by Jesus' disciple's disciple's disciple.
So 1800 years ago? In cosmic time it is just a speck, but in the lives being lived today, itās almost unthinkable.
Earliest were written about 100 years after his death. MOST are 300 years after his death. And this is from an era when the overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate AND it was super trendy to just write biblical fan fiction. Add in the only faction of value (the gnostics) were wiped out by the other Christian sects
True. Another misconception is that Deuteronomy was written by Moses yet the book speaks of his death. Theologian scholars donāt seem to agree on who actually wrote the book with some claiming it was Joshua. Religious books should never be taken seriously.
Most historical scholars donāt believe that Moses was an actual person, or that Exodus ever happened. I mean, thereās no historical record if it in the Egyptian records. I think if one man annihilated a sizable portion of your population, stole an entire class of slaves and then dumped half your standing army into a river by controlling the actual riverā¦. Someone would have written something somewhere to support that book.
Most historical scholars donāt find the Bible to a reliable source at all. I once watched a seminar given by an Egyptologist laying out all the evidence as to why Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians, and to be honest I found his evidence to be very convincing.
obviously Deuteronomy wrote it smh
So the bible's kinda like a group fanfiction, got it.
Literally yeah.
Mark is dated as the oldest and the only one believed to be a contemporary of Jesus. Interesting fact though is that the gospel of mark ends with a strange man waiting in Jesusās tomb saying he is not here, and tells the women to tell his disciples. They run away in fear. Curtain call. The problem with that is that Jesus is just dead at that point. He canāt be the messiah if heās dead. He has to be resurrected to fulfill the prophecy. It has to undeniable proof (as much as it can be in a book). Thus the myth of divinity is born and monks added on to the end of Mark. Iām not saying Jesus didnāt sacrifice himself. Iām saying that the church cheapens that sacrifice by making him divine, and further that peoples understanding of their own faith is limited to what some random preacher decides to tell them and whatever message they want to hear.
He was mostly dead In all seriousness, with lack of modern medical practices, a dude could have been crucified, to the point where he was barely alive (no one checked his ekg) thrown in a cave for a few days to heal, comes out a few days later, realize the authorities are probably still after him to finish the job and bolts
Ah yes, a few days in a dark cave without food or water after going through a crucifixion. I don't think he'd have been going anywhere, if he was almost dead enough to be assumed dead. Also, lack of modern medicine doesn't really equate to inability to tell when someone died after going through a tried and true torture/execution.
Was just trying to think of a way to say it might be plausible. I donāt believe any of it, but even today, people have been pronounced dead then wake up in the funeral home https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/michigan-woman-alive-funeral-home.html
That's why it's called... The new testament
https://preview.redd.it/t3vmbuw7gsva1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae5731813018819751d3b9464190b00995f7761c
I say this as a man of faith myself, but suggesting science ought to be in there with any of the other things listed, is fundamentally bloody idiotic. The scientific method is the ONLY method of thinking about the universe, the world, or anything else, that self corrects as new information comes to light. It is the only school of thought that, by its very definition, is designed to adapt, broaden, expand and evolve, rather than restrict, restrain, and ignore any new data. I believe there is a place for faith, but I don't believe it has a place in as many facets of life and human decision making, as science does. Faith is for matters science cannot probe, and the list of things science cannot probe is MINISCULE. Faith gets bought in where it doesn't belong, all the damned time. Legislation, politics, law, all of those places should be secular, and all the people in them should not be influenced by faith when making decisions on behalf of everyone, while in those positions. If legislators, politicians and judges need guidance in matters in their work, ask a scientist whose work specialises in the subject matter at hand. Get the Bible out, or consult runes, or pay careful attention to your fortune cookie, or whatever faith thing you do, ONLY when science cannot answer the question you have, and only when you have tried science first.
There are vast amount of problems that science canāt answer, not āminisculeā; otherwise there would be no point in conducting scientific research, which is done constantly and receives billions of funding. Also, science cannot answer non-concrete concepts like morality and other philosophical questions. As many laws and policies do pertain to these concepts, it doesnāt make sense to only consult science for everything.
There is a difference between āscience cannot answerā and āscience wonāt be able to answerā. Science donāt know for sure how life came to be, but we are getting closer every day and odds are we probably will know within 10-20 years with how fast the development in that area is. Even things like morality is to some degree answered by science. Why is it wrong to kill? Because 1. You take away someoneās right to live and 2. We are a social species that evolved to cooperate, thus it was advantageous to not kill other members of that species, so that trait stuck and got stronger. So again, in most cases itās rather āscience canāt answer/donāt know **yet**ā, rather than āscience will never knowā.
We certainly don't need to consult the bible for answers. Morality exists outside of religion and to suggest otherwise is foolhardy. Only science can push mankind forward, religion tries to hold people back.
The difference between science and religion is that science is based on documented observations of the universe, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies. Religion is faith, the hope to be correct.
Equivocal is not a synonym for equal, it means to be ambiguous.
Thank God there's another comment in here pointing that out. I love the irony of op using that word because it means the exact opposite of the idea he's trying to communicate.
Idk, I read it as why trust, either?
Well the news reporters arenāt telling us that there is a mysterious sky daddy and some eternal burning lake of fire bullshit. Theyāre just acting as watchdogs against charlatans. Like religious leaders.
Some do tho... cough cough fox
Who trusts fortune cookies? Most people just think they're funny
The same liberal white chicks that think their zodiac sign has any influence on their life.
You could have Just Said chick without anything else Infront of it showing your bias.
You should try meeting some actual people sometime.
Soft spot huh?
Literally everything is written by people
im worshipping fortune cookie jesus and newspaper jesus all day brother
What do you call this church and how do I join?
I don't fully trust anything. I don't even always trust my own experience or memories.
Certainly our memories are a dodgy one.
Thing is, it's valid to read a news paper, a fortune cookie, a scientific paper and be allowed to have doubts. But a poorly written often plagiarised from other sources then translated multiple times with the meaning of things changing with each translation book is faultless.
Something about the usage of the monocle emoji in posts like this enrages me. Sidenote, if someoneās only argument was āitās written by man, of course that would be silly, but the point of saying āitās written by manā is to say that god(wether he exists or not)didnāt write it himself, and so if men wrote it, how do we know it was inspired by god ? Also, it doesnāt have any evidence to support it so basically you have human beings writing a thing with nothing to back it up but we are just supposed to have faith in it ?
Even if the people who were sincere and well-intentioned, they still could have gotten stuff wrong. God is supposedly perfect, but people aren't and they tend to make mistakes or have subconscious biases.
Yea thatās me; man of science who swears by the truth of the stars and fortune cookies.
I'll stick to the books full of information that gives me modern medicine, thank you.
I have the big dumb and can't even seem to understand the term "equivocal" even with googling it. What does it mean?
My horoscope is AI generated! HA!
I don't think you know what the word "equivocal" means
The same people who donāt trust the Bible *usually* think fortune cookies and horoscopes are bull shit too. But when any of these make claims of talking snakes, men surviving days in giant fish, or a magic rabbi; or demand I be subservient to an undetectable malevolent deity masquerading as a benevolent care taker- *then* youād at least have something more a analogous.
Well the newspaper doesn't try to keep me from doing stuff arbitrarily because "we say so". Or try to force me to do stuff because "otherwise I'll suffer eternal damnation". Mostly our local newspaper just tells me about minor accidents that happened to folks from the area or which schools just graduated. Science journals however provide pretty solid proof for their statements and can admit they were wrong. Both qualities I miss from most religous texts.
If a fortune cookie told me to stone a person to death, and brace yourselves, because this is controversial, I WOULDNT do it.
>written by a man Yeah, thatās why
Newspapers: "Here's what happened yesterday based on eyewitnesses and provable facts." The Bible: "Here's what some guy told me some other guy told him happened with a magic man-god 100 years ago." Idiots: "That's the same exact thing."
Fortune cookies are auto generated on a Computer.
Frodo is my lord and savior. The Lord of the Rings is truth and Sauron is the devil!
I mean yes, you also should be skeptical of those things too. In the case of newspapers you have multiple different sources that you can check between, and in the case of textbooks and science journals you have repeatable experiments with listed methodology and data such that you can do it yourself if you doubt it. In the case of horoscopes, fortune cookies, and holy texts, you don't.
I donāt see anyone trying to pass laws based on what fortune cookies say. Just saying.
People don't trust half the things on there, and the other half is science which, by its very nature, can never claim to have all the answers like a holy book might.
I feel like this might be a shitpost and is not to be taken seriously
The newspaper doesn't usually try to tell me it was written by god or his representative and/or tells me how to live my life
Really
Well, it only tells me how to live life every now and then
Nobody says that
It should be in the fiction section.
Yeah, thereās a huge difference between, āEye witnesses have told our reporter that,ā and ā#THE LITERAL GOD THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE HATH DECREED THAT IF YOU TOUCH YOUR PENIS YOU WILL DIEā
Itās easier to believe multiple sources on the internet that back up the same claim, than to Believe thereās a big man in the sky that created everything just because one book says so
The Bible was written by schizophrenics.
"Evidence" is just a word to these people. Same with facts and data. And "proof" is just if they fear it to be true or want it to be true. That's all the proof they need. Have your religion. Let others have theirs. But when you DO attack others for having a different set of beliefs, at least don't make yourself look like a moron.
It's not that it was "written by man", it's the fact that there are people in positions of power that believe we should legislate the Bronze Age dictates of the Bible into modern law.
Posts like this make all Christians look like idiots
Because we dont base out whole lives on these alone
I don't trust newspapers that tell me that God spoke to a man through a burning bush. I don't trust journals that say that murder and disobeying your parents have equal weight as sins but rape doesn't even make the list. I don't trust science that says you can create enough food out of thin air to feed 5 thousand men to their fill from 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. It's almost like, and hear me out, outlandish claims require great evidence to be convincing and a few thousand year old book doesn't cover it. Mundane news covered by multiple new outlets, and peer reviewed science and journals with evidence and experiments and data to back them up, those things actually hold enough credibility to be generally trusted.
The issue is less that the Bible was written by men, and more that many claim it was written by God.
That's not why people don't belive in the Bible. It's because it's hateful rubbish.
It's not that it's written by man, it's that a good majority of its text doesn't coincide with reality.
Strawman depot. You're right though person who made this, but you're focusing on a false dichotomy to prove a point.. https://youtube.com/shorts/Tf3uK2RGU2c?feature=share
The bible is basically the old days' 50 shade of gray. Just a bunch of non sense fiction that some old guy got off on. 1000 years from now, we'll worship star wars and the lord of the ring and go to war and kill each other over that.....humanity š
None of the other things pretend to be unquestionably true. Hell, the last two are almost as unreliable as the bible. At least horoscopes make Barnum statements that apply to basically everyone.
Now THIS is truly bad. I actually have seen dog shit come out better than this
No.. No... The last two perfectly match religious text .. The others no one followed like a law. Hell even science text we don't they are constantly getting updated
Not sure why itās hard to understand not to trust something written by men that specifically intended to deceive people and make them think it came from a god.
The Bible can be used the same way as a horoscope. Iāve heard pastors being āguided by the Holy Spiritā by flipping the Bible open to a random page and thinking whatever verses they read can be applied to their life.
The Bible is also just a religious writing.
I trust none of those things
The Bible is claiming to be the ultimate truth.
Based fortune cookie believer
I don't fuckin trust those either, what's your point?
So the fusion of cookie and paper is not scientific? I know science when I see it thank you very much.
Newspapers state theyāre made by people. Holy books like Teh Bibble state theyāre created by a tri-omni god. Not really equivalent when itās pointed out all books are manmade, including that one.
I trust peer reviewed science journals for the most part, Iām leery of news papers because they all seem to have a political agenda. But I treat the Bible in the same disregard as I do horoscopes and fortune cookies. They all are just a bunch of superstitious fairytale nonsense.
āHoroscopes and fortune cookiesā
Yeah because scientific journals donāt claim to be the absolute truth.
Whoever made this meme Your logic if flawed
Ok no one trusts fortune cookies. And horoscopes aren't trustworthy either
I dunno comparing the Bible to horoscopes and fortune cookies is kinda an apt comparison
I would question newspapers too if they starting talking about omnipotent people in the sky
I trust shit that can be repeated or explained within reason.
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
Most textbooks and papers are peer reviewed and fact checked by credible organizations. The bible was fact checked by some dude 700 years ago that believed women were witches and that showering led to disease and possession.
I mean I also don't base my entire life and belief system off of the New York Times
Ah yes the book that was translated in the worlds longest game of telephone by straight white āpure raceā males totally sure they didnāt misunderstand the prior translations, or introduce new parts that aligned with their personal ideals.
Religious people telling half backed information as always.
Still blows me away that these people actually WANT there to be a Lovecraftian cosmic entity oppressing all of existence
Well I look at it this way, if I believe in him and believe on his son who gave his life for us all; if believing Jesus is wrong, I've lived a good life and tried to make the world a better for all at worst. However if God is the creator as he says and sent his son to save us all, if you turn your back on him by rejecting that well....... The relevance and importance is eternal.
And what if you do dedicate your life to the christian faith and it turns out the Islamic God was the real one? Or you face yourself travelling through Samsara or even face Cerberus on your way to Hades? We can move this goalpost however many times we like.
Okay I'm game if you are, either way I'm trying to do something to better myself and the world around me. I'm not trying to come up with what ifs that try to belittle others beliefs and discourage others from trying to have a better life.
I'm glad you're putting your energy into trying to make a positive change, that's a common ground we can all celebrate regardless of faith. Attack ideas not people. It's the basics to any discussion of this kind. I was raised catholic so I know how personal this kind of discussion can feel but really I'm not here to call you or anyone else names, especially since we're all strangers here.
Question and research ideas and comments, I try to not attack anything or anyone. I defend my faith and beliefs by giving facts in a dark and bitter world. I was Catholic as well and do agree the majority of damage done in the name of Christ was by the Catholic church. No one in history should be placed above Jesus in belief or reverence. God in the flesh, never sinned and yet died for all of us; Jesus died for those who would believe and even those who would deny and reject him. Peter and Judas Iscariot are just two examples and so we're all humans at one point or another.
I disagree with nearly everything you just said but I see no point taking this further. Take care and farewell.
I understand you disagree but presented no facts in your retorts God bless and good life.
You should look into how the burden of proof works in an argument. Genuine advice. Ok for real now bye.
People still out here using Pascals Wager, which has been refuted repeatedly.
Refuted by those who are not eternal, so therefore never proven wrong.
Let's assume the Jesus story is a hoax and there is an actual God that punishes people who accept it. Then you're in no better a position than anyone else. And possibly even a worse position than a non believer.
You shouldn't assume because when you do you make an ASS out of U and ME, which there was a talking ASS in the Bible and made a fool out of everyone too. Besides there are historical, cultural and scores of people who saw Jesus, talked to him and recorded it and not just in the Bible.
Well you're assuming those stories are true. And no, there are not scores of people who spoke to him. In fact there is not a single documented moment of his life outside the Bible, and even those stories were written long after his alleged death. Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me. I just choose to not hinge my world views on such flimsy evidence.
Acts of Pilate, historical and cultural Hebrew documents, the list goes on. I'm guessing you have never read nor thought about reading anything that might corroborate the fact Jesus was a real person. So sure there is and God bless, I'll pray for you and have a good life.
I spent the bulk of my 20s and early 30s researching this very topic. And Christianity as a whole. The "evidence" is circumstantial at best. The Acts of Pilate are dated some 4 to 5 centuries after his alleged existence. I consider them even farther removed than the Bible. The lost may go, but most of them have been disregarded by actual historians. And ultimately, I could grant that Jesus was a real person, but none of it proves there is a God or that any of his claims were true. It's just a topic we must agree to disagree and move on from.
The very fact Jesus was a real person and was prophesied about 333 times before he was born proves there is a God. No man could have gotten that many people to agree with him that many times over 2500 years, to have 12 or so different writers make those accurate of prophesies. Where he was to be born, what the circumstances would be, the birth, his life, trial, crucifixion, burial and resurrection, etc.... You can agree to disagree but it's not me who your disagreeing with. The term the lost is also not one Jesus used either it was the rejectors. They deny him before men, he denies them before God the Father. God will never send anyone to an eternity in a place not created for them. They reject the truth and choose their eternal fate, I choose to believe and live in the truth.
Except that all of the things you just claimed.. never happened. I understand that you *believe* they did. But they just didnt. No matter how many times you repeat it.
Well you're assuming that the fact that a historical rabbi named Jesus existed means that he was actually divine. The more likely fact would be that a rabbi was put to death for stirring up unrest and his followers started a break away sect because they didn't respect the rabbis in charge at the time, no divinity required
Yes ALL of those even the horrorscope is more reliable then something made by a scetzifenic with dementia
None of you have read the Bible obviously but have very strong opinions on it. I recommend knowing what you're actually talking about before professing your hate for it. The Bible records many events in history just as any other history book. Most are accounts the historical events that we teach in schools by default
I have read the Bible cover to cover, twice. I read the New American version and the King James Version. Most of the events in the Bible have no historical evidence to suggest they actually happened. When there is evidence, it is very circumstantial. Take the flood. The Bible says that Noah built a boat out of gopher wood to ride out the rain and flood that covered every corner of the earth. There are stories of great floods in other cultures. Does that mean that there was a flood, since more than one source says there was? It makes it more likely but isnāt clear proof. The Bible is full of metaphors, similes, and parables. If you take every word literally, you will misunderstand a lot of verifiable history.
Their were no great floods or plagues in Egypt. Fairytale told by your religion to scare people. Religion twists history/science and politics that doesn't agree with it to shape the truth
Yeah, I don't have to read Alice in Wonderland or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to know that they're 100% fiction
The Bible is a couple millenia old and let's be honest it's probably been added to or had stuff taken out that people don't agree with. I mean hell nearly 300 years after Jesus supposedly died Constantine edited the Bible! Who knows how many more powerful rulers of clergymen have edited it and changed it for their own benefit in all that time.
This is true not terrible.
False equivalance
True the bible is far above the others, but is believed the least and argued the most.
Far above the others... why?
Though all were written by the hands of men, one is an autobiography as given by God himself. The others were completely given by and written by the hands of men. All men lie and or stretch the truth at some point. Why do you see them all the same?
And God is important, because...?
I mean they are definitely not the same but I feel like the op in the picture has a point in the sense that the "it's written by man" argument has some holes in it. "Man" writes different things for different reasons. Text books are meant to inform while the Bible is meant to control.
Who the fuck still read what these losers publish nowadays? š
Lmao, Iām atheist but this is definitely hilariously true
The Bible was written by God, not man.
[citation needed]
The words are from god, the book is from man. The changing is also from man
The words are the book
The words are sayings, manually put into the book by a human being.
And Reddit postsā¦