Does Myth disprove CHRISTIANITY?

*Originally posted by tiassa
That you are getting even lazier than you've been in your argumentation
*

Why should I reinvent the wheel?
Your own posts are the best example of disjointed, meaningless meandering, and I simply can't produce such stuff without performing a liposuction on my brain.

*And?*

They won't produce randomized posts such as yours.

*What do you think worries God more?*

I doubt he worries much.

* don't you realize that certain localities have certain customs and practices that make their version of Christianity different from others?*

Differing versions of Christianity?
What a concept!

Like differing versions of the truth.

*Because they're inextricably tied to the aspects of Catholocism you decry; ...
the whole stack is cleared.
*

So, if one person builds a false world-view on the idea that the sky is blue, you say no one from that point on can consider the sky blue?

*how often do you say no?*

To what?

*here we find the key functional failure of Christianity*

There is some reason you are so bitter.
What is it?
 
The obvious answers?

Why should I reinvent the wheel?
Um ... because you don't trust the guy who invented it the first time?

That's a little obvious, Tony1. I would have figured that even you could have figured that. Of course, silly me and my stupid hope for the best in people; otherwise, I wouldn't have overestimated you.
They won't produce randomized posts such as yours.
Ah ... I see. You still think you understand what you're talking about. I suppose that's my fault ... no, it's not.
Differing versions of Christianity?
What a concept!

Like differing versions of the truth.
Ask any infidel: that's our point, too.

The sad thing here, Tony1, is that your posting history indicates that you believe yourself to be the only one who knows which version of the truth is true. That kind of arrogance is why there are so many differing versions of Christianity. That kind of arrogance seems pandemic among the faithful.
So, if one person builds a false world-view on the idea that the sky is blue, you say no one from that point on can consider the sky blue?
That's pretty damn anemic, Tony1 ... that the sky is blue or green or purple or yellow with orange and chartreuse spots makes no difference to the notion that one might be punished, sent to Hell, or killed off in an act of "love". Why can't you ever make an analogy that stays relevant?
By this point, it doesn't matter. We see that you're a hypocrite and a liar, anyway. So making the point is actually pointless right now. But the question was how often you say No to someone in need. After all, as you sit and read these words (ha! ... read these words ... :rolleyes: ) there are some of the Least of His Brethren that you're ignoring in order to pretend you're smart.
There is some reason you are so bitter.
What is it?
I figure it's the outrageous, lethal hypocrisy of Chrsitianity. If y'all were capable of carrying out your faith, I'd probably be right in there among the faceless ranks with you. But the simple fact is that Christianity is set up to fail; it allows you to be lazy and arrogant. Remember the bumper sticker? Christians aren't perfect, we're just forgiven. Pretty much sums it all up. After all, believe in Jesus, accept his "gift", and that pretty much sums it up, right? After all, works aren't enough to get you into heaven, and you seem to be assured of your own salvation despite the fact that your nature seems to be to disrespect His brethren on earth.

If I'm upset with Christianity, Tony1, it's because all of this promise and potential have come together to make the faith one of the most detrimental human inventions ever.

What about you, Tony1? What's got you so embittered that the best you can do is disrespect everyone? That in itself should be a fascinating discussion. After all, it would be the first time you actually gave an answer.

I won't, of course, be holding my breath on that one. But you ought to take a swing at it.

--Tiassa :cool:
 
Re: The obvious answers?

*Originally posted by tiassa
Um ... because you don't trust the guy who invented it the first time?
*

Obvious answer #1.
I do trust the guy which is why I don't reinvent the wheel.

*your posting history indicates that you believe yourself to be the only one who knows which version of the truth is true. That kind of arrogance is why there are so many differing versions of Christianity. That kind of arrogance seems pandemic among the faithful.*

How does that explain why that kind of arrogance is pandemic among atheists, witches, pagans, etc?

* that the sky is blue or green or purple or yellow with orange and chartreuse spots makes no difference to the notion that one might be punished, sent to Hell, or killed off in an act of "love". *

It must have some difference.
Would you believe anyone who told you the sky was yellow with chartreuse and orange spots?

*Why can't you ever make an analogy that stays relevant?*

I'm sorry you can't see the relevance.
I confess that you can't see the point.

*But the simple fact is that Christianity is set up to fail*

That's what Satan thought when Jesus was crucified.
He forgot that to live forever is not the way to conquer death.
The way to conquer death is to die and then live again.

*If I'm upset with Christianity, Tony1, it's because all of this promise and potential have come together to make the faith one of the most detrimental human inventions ever.*

Granted, Catholicism is like that, but what do you have against Christianity?
 
Whatever, Tony1 ...

Obvious answer #1.
I do trust the guy which is why I don't reinvent the wheel.
Ah, so your biblically-mandated fundamental distrust of people is elective?
How does that explain why that kind of arrogance is pandemic among atheists, witches, pagans, etc?
Are you capable of doing anything other than demonstrating your sacrificed intellect?
It must have some difference.
Would you believe anyone who told you the sky was yellow with chartreuse and orange spots?
Since it's the basis of the worldview, per your proposition, it's relevant. I believe you hit the mark, though: when preaching Christianity, most tell me that the sky is green or red or something almost believable but not quite right. You, however, seem to be telling me about the chartreuse sky with orange spots. Being that you consider annihilation an act of love, and limit your Universe to dualities, I'm not inclined to trust your description of certain things, especially the subjective things.
I'm sorry you can't see the relevance.
I confess that you can't see the point.
That's not yours to confess, Tony1 ... look at that, you're even trying to manage my relationship with your God so you can make me seem even more Catholic .... If you can't be honest about your faith, Tony1, then why bother?

It was your digression toward bitterness, but your question of why one would be bitter is only slightly less stupid than George Bush wondering why people are angry with the US. And, since you would rather tilt against your idolatrous visions of a Catholic Tiassa than actually consider why Christianity fails to live up to its potential ... well, we see what God moves you to find important, eh? Which one of you is the idiotic bastard, Tony1, you or God?
That's what Satan thought when Jesus was crucified.
He forgot that to live forever is not the way to conquer death.
The way to conquer death is to die and then live again.
Faith, faith, and obvious. Given the customized faith you proclaim, that becomes: Horsepucky, Horsepucky, and, And?
Granted, Catholicism is like that, but what do you have against Christianity?
That for all the anti-Catholic hatred Protestants and other Christians might have harbored over the century, the irony of their failure to exorcise the ill spirit of cheap religion is amazing. Protestants left Catholics behind and continued to behave just as reprehensibly; even more so, when we consider that the Protestants compared themselves against Catholocism and believed themselves more genuine, compassionate, and less occult. In centuries past, Catholics burned their opposition. In the modern day, post-Protestant Christians in the US spend their days making everyone miserable in their pet persecutions. Schlafly and her textbooks; Falwell and the ACLU; Robertson and the feminists; Mabon and the gays; the common thread here is that each of these people and the movements they represent have decided themselves to be superior to all others and have attempted to alter society to their own standards. Each of them behave as if "free religion" means that the Christians are free to exclude everyone they choose from the right to believe as one sees fit. Each of these Christians and their groups treat rights as something exclusively reserved to those of the Christian faith. And that Christian faith, as we see, comes with definitions: you can't be Catholic, Mormon, ad nauseam.

If it wasn't bad enough that the modern Bible of the Christians is merely a reduced version of the Catholic bible that was apparently so inadequate, we also see Christians hypocritically behaving as that which they consider themselves superior to.

What do I hold against Christians? Bill Maher noted that he would love to be a Republican, but that he needed them (Republicans) to do so first. It's not so much that I would return to the flock, but that there are so few Christians in the world, Tony1, and we, the rest of society, are getting sick and tired of listening to your brand of hatred masking itself as Christianity.

You, for instance, Tony1, are dishonest, spiteful, and seem to hate your God in the sense that everything you say or do indicates exactly why one does not want to be associated with your God and His ilk. Your approach might sound like the Sufic Path of Blame, but most definitely isn't it.

It's like the bit about the Buddha in the crapper; you don't seem to understand what the idea means--you're just happy to think about someone in the crapper. (What is it with you and defecation, anyway? You seem to like dumping it all over this site.) Look in the mirror and say to yourself, "I haven't learned a thing." If you can believe it, you're doing better than we thought. However, let me put on the table the preemptive defensive strike to your most expected retort: You missed the point, Tony1, but what else do we really expect of you?

--Tiassa :cool:
 
*Originally posted by tiassa
Ah, so your biblically-mandated fundamental distrust of people is elective?
*

Yours isn't?
You mean your trust/distrust of people is robotically determined?

*I'm not inclined to trust your description of certain things, especially the subjective things.*

Likewise.

*That's not yours to confess,*

It is, if you persist in attributing your inability to understand to me.

*your idolatrous visions of a Catholic Tiassa*

I'm not envisioning a Catholic tiassa, I'm reading Catholic doctrine written by tiassa.

*Which one of you is the idiotic bastard, Tony1, you or God?*

False dilemma. It's you.

*the common thread here is that each of these people and the movements they represent have decided themselves to be superior to all others and have attempted to alter society to their own standards.*

What do you think voting is for?

*Each of them behave as if "free religion" means that the Christians are free to exclude everyone they choose from the right to believe as one sees fit.*

You can believe as you see fit.
Don't complain about the consequences.

*Each of these Christians and their groups treat rights as something exclusively reserved to those of the Christian faith.*

We've got the biggie.
We have eternal life, no one else does.

*And that Christian faith, as we see, comes with definitions: you can't be Catholic, Mormon, ad nauseam*

I suppose your next complaint will be that atheists are excluded from being considered Christian, too.

*Bill Maher noted that he would love to be a Republican, but that he needed them (Republicans) to do so first.*

Of course, he's a comic.
That was the punchline to a joke.

*we, the rest of society*

Just how many of you are there using the name tiassa?

*It's like the bit about the Buddha in the crapper; you don't seem to understand what the idea means*

It took you quite a while to still your mind and accept that the Buddha was in the crapper.
I suspect that you still don't get it.
 
Yours isn't?
You mean your trust/distrust of people is robotically determined?
That's beside the point. It sounds like you're choosing when you're obliged to behave according to your biblical mandate. That stupid hypocrisy is more the point.
False dilemma. It's you.
Ah, Tony1 ... don't take the easy way out. Answer the question. Since you seem to advocate a different standard than God: would you rather preach God's word or some delusion of your own? I mean think about it: instead of approaching questions of faith with the idea that you can clear up misunderstandings about God's word, you go forth treating people like shite in God's name. You seem to have a different method than your Savior, Tony1, so which one of you is wrong?
What do you think voting is for?
I know; Christians seem to think it's for enforcing their right to skewer the rights of others. It's pretty stupid when a Christian wastes their privilege of freedom on undermining the freedom of others.
I suppose your next complaint will be that atheists are excluded from being considered Christian, too.
Nope. Atheists don't hold a mythology of Christ to be sacred. I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out, but that's what happens when you argue for personal triumph instead of your God. Tell us again, Tony1 ... who's right? You or God?
You can believe as you see fit.
Don't complain about the consequences.
Of course not. But I will do everything in my power to stop the Christian menace from destroying liberty.
Of course, he's a comic.
That was the punchline to a joke.
It's nice to know you can recognize one when you see one. Now, can you understand one when you see one? Get back to us when you can.
Just how many of you are there using the name tiassa?
All of 'em. I checked. :rolleyes: Now, do you have a point? Didn't think so.
t took you quite a while to still your mind and accept that the Buddha was in the crapper.
I suspect that you still don't get it.
I suspect I get it. Much moreso than you. After all, the only reason the Buddha's in the crapper is because you have some coprophilic bent.

Now, aside from establishing that you're a hypocrite, which we already knew, did you have a point to make whatsoever?

--Tiassa :cool:
 
*Originally posted by tiassa
That's beside the point.
*

It's hardly beside the point when that was your point.

*It sounds like you're choosing when you're obliged to behave according to your biblical mandate.*

The biblical mandate is...

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
...
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

(Jeremiah 17:5,7, KJV).

You have no choice but to trust/distrust in man.
I have the choice of whom to trust.

*Answer the question.*

I did and you didn't like the answer.
Too bad.

*You seem to have a different method than your Savior, Tony1, so which one of you is wrong?*

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
(Matthew 12:34, KJV).

*privilege of freedom on undermining the freedom of others.*

What a cop-out!
You vote to alter the standards of society, assuming you vote, that is.

*Atheists don't hold a mythology of Christ to be sacred.*

Sure they do.
It is one of atheism's most sacred tenets that Christ is a myth.

*Tell us again, Tony1 ... who's right? You or God?*

To the extent that I agree with him, we both are.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*All of 'em. I checked. Now, do you have a point?*

So, your multiple personalities are speaking for all of society?

*I get it.*

Don't think so.
Your mind is still in turmoil.
The Buddha's in the crapper.
 
on faith

faith is the be all end all argument.

unless a person of faith is willing to step outside his faith and truly evaluate other perspectives there is no point in wasting time with a discussion.:rolleyes:

i was taught that faith should be re-affirmed by questioning it, not following it blindly.
 
*Originally posted by Risky
faith is the be all end all argument.

unless a person of faith is willing to step outside his faith and truly evaluate other perspectives there is no point in wasting time with a discussion.

i was taught that faith should be re-affirmed by questioning it, not following it blindly.
*

Where were you taught that?

Perhaps you don't know what faith is.
Questioning one's faith is called doubt.

Thus, whoever taught you that faith could be "re-affirmed" by questioning it, was about as clear on the concept as a person who recommends "re-affirming" that you are alive by draining all of your blood and making sure that you have the requisite four quarts, or whatever.
 
doubts

if you have doubts about your faith, how can you reaffirm it without addressing the problem?

if for instance (hypothetically) i find evidence that there was an anacronysm at the archaeological site of the ark, what kind of faith would i have if i merely dismissed the problem? blind faith, which is the most harmful kind. rather, i think it would be logical to assess the evidence, which in the end may lead to more questions, or may lead to a general feeling that some mistake has been made, and that faith is not in danger of being compromised. keep in mind this hypothetical.

i think it is antithetical to the idea of faith that doubts would not be entertained. after the dismissal of these doubts isn't faith stronger than before? doubting thomas, after all, was proven wrong in the end.
 
AND...

if by having faith, it means that you ignore all evidence suggesting that it is in error, how can you have a meaningfull discussion with anyone regarding it? If you cannot step outside of it and see another perspective you can't truly be a participant in a discussion dealing with matters of faith and religion and questioning their validity.

if faith is the only fact that backs your argument, then you have no facts at all with which to argue.

sorry if i'm rambling.
 
AAAAAAAND

i am in no way saying that is right to question faith by saying to yourself, "I need evidence or i will not believe." merely that it is beneficial to question yourself as to why you feel the way you do, tackling any doubt or fear that you may have.

"Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
 
Re: doubts

*Originally posted by Risky
if you have doubts about your faith, how can you reaffirm it without addressing the problem?
*

That's exactly like asking, "if you have dry water, how can you dampen it without addressing the problem?"

You can't have "doubts about your faith," any more than you can have dry water, or hot ice.

If you have doubt, you lack faith.
If you have faith, you don't have doubt.

They are opposites.

*if for instance (hypothetically) i find evidence that there was an anacronysm at the archaeological site of the ark, what kind of faith would i have if i merely dismissed the problem?*

No kind.
You'd have doubt.

Furthermore, faith isn't hypothesis.
Hypothesizing is merely building impossible scenarios in your head, and then picturing how your faith will fail.

*blind faith, which is the most harmful kind.*

The most harmful kind of faith is no faith.

*rather, i think it would be logical to assess the evidence, which in the end may lead to more questions, or may lead to a general feeling that some mistake has been made, and that faith is not in danger of being compromised. keep in mind this hypothetical.*

If it is hypothetical, your faith is already compromised.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(Genesis 1:3, KJV).

That's what faith looks like.
God didn't hypothesize light, then imagine some potential "anachronism" or failure, retreat to "re-affirm" his faith and try again.

*i think it is antithetical to the idea of faith that doubts would not be entertained.*

"Entertaining" doubts is antithetical to faith, seeing as they are opposites.

*after the dismissal of these doubts isn't faith stronger than before?*

That's if you have any left.
Where do you think backsliders and atheists come from?

Your approach to faith is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.
If you succeed, your faith will be VERY much stronger than before.
The problem is, you'll fail.

*doubting thomas, after all, was proven wrong in the end. *

Oh yeah, the Christian "ideal," doubting Thomas.
Here's what Jesus said to him...

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
(John 20:29, KJV).

No blessing for DT, just everyone else.

*if by having faith, it means that you ignore all evidence suggesting that it is in error, how can you have a meaningfull discussion with anyone regarding it?*

#1. Most evidence WILL be suggesting that your faith is in error.
If it weren't, you wouldn't have faith; you'd have knowledge.
#2. Your faith IS the evidence of the truth.
#3. Faith isn't open to discussion. God didn't discuss the pros and cons of light before he created it.
#4. Discussion is for people who have no clue. Truth isn't negotiable, and falsehood is empty. What's to discuss?

* If you cannot step outside of it and see another perspective you can't truly be a participant in a discussion dealing with matters of faith and religion and questioning their validity. *

#1. When I question validity, it is the validity of a person's reasoning power that I am questioning.
#2. Stepping "outside" of faith means stepping into the same doubtful, fearful, lost world I left to become a Christian.
Why would I want to return to that slop again?

*if faith is the only fact that backs your argument, then you have no facts at all with which to argue. *

If facts are all that you have to argue with, then your arguments all depend on you getting your facts straight, and who's to say you didn't make a mistake on the most crucial one?

Recheck that doubting Thomas verse, you'll notice no blessing for DT.
 
Then show that mistake factually and objectively

If facts are all that you have to argue with, then your arguments all depend on you getting your facts straight, and who's to say you didn't make a mistake on the most crucial one?
Or do you just have faith that other people are making mistakes?

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
doubting thomas

i never implied that it was a blessing for thomas. if you'de read my post you would've seen the context.
 
on faith 2

i'm sure there are those who would disagree with me, but faith seems to me a process more than a specific thing you can acquire just by embracing the gospel.

faith is a process of eliminating doubts and fear. pure faith does not exist. the human condition is such that there will always be doubt. whether self-doubt or doubt of the creator and his teachings, it will always exist. to say that you have no doubt about your faith is a lie. whether or not you acknowledge those doubts is a whole different matter.

doubt can be detrimental if you let it run your faith. but it can be a positive influence. in acknowledging doubts you can eliminate them. if you merely ignore a problem it does not go away. keep in mind that all the apostles felt they needed proof, thomas was merely voiced his opinion.
 
Risky ....

if you have doubts about your faith, how can you reaffirm it without addressing the problem?
At the risk of sounding flippant, might I suggest reinvention? History demonstrates that gods are as capricious as the people who invent them. If you just pretend there isn't a problem, and reinvent your faith daily to make it complete and whole and to forget about new problems ... well, I think you see what happens.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
*Originally posted by tiassa
Or do you just have faith that other people are making mistakes?
*

I know other people are making mistakes.
Take you, for example...

*Originally posted by Risky
to say that you have no doubt about your faith is a lie
*

You obviously have no clue as to what faith is.

*keep in mind that all the apostles felt they needed proof, thomas was merely voiced his opinion.*

Keep in mind that Jesus kept referring to them as, "O ye of little faith."
DT was the only one that said he refused to believe without proof, hence the absence of blessing as so many atheists experience daily.

*Originally posted by tiassa
If you just pretend there isn't a problem, and reinvent your faith daily to make it complete and whole and to forget about new problems ... well, I think you see what happens.
*

Yes, we see the results of that in your posts, fear, disease, sin, worry, confusion, the list is endless.
 
Re: ahem

*Originally posted by Risky
caused by so many people calling themselves...christians
*

OK, tiassa Jr.

Since when are people calling themselves Christians reponsible for your fear, disease, sin, confusion, etc?
 
Back
Top