• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
except its not assumptions historians painstakingly cross reference sources and throw out whats not deemed credible
Then cite for me actual historical sources that back up your claim. Not just the opinion of a talking head, actuak sources from the historical record dating back that period.

as the ancient world didn't have the same emphasis on credible sources as we do now the ancient world also had another fault and that is storing its written knowledge along with blue prints schematics and civil documents in central archive locations like Alexandria
You’re right, the ancient world was short-sighted by not building the Internet and instead relied in Libraries. Such a backward people! We’d never stoop so low as to build libraries or universities where we pool or greatest knowledge & experts. [/sarcasm]
you also seem to forget the Muslisms and Christians went out of their way to destroy these places not only destroying any narrative against their own but sending the world into a dark age

make no mistake Christianity did cause the dark ages out of their paranoia of science and progression
The Dark Ages were caused by the distruption of Rome’s vast trade network following the fall of Rome. Knowledge was lost because no one could afford to pay scribes to copy works before they rotted away. Alexandria
was destroyed by an earthquake, nor marauding crusaders or Islamic fighters. The biggest offense to progress caused by the Church happened during the medieval era, not the Dark Ages.

want to build steam engines or create flying machines? no lets just follow the rules of this one book and kill anyone who doesn't agree
Actually, the Elightenment happened as direct result of the printing press, which was used to produce Bibles more than anything else. Many of the inventors and scientists of the 18th & 19th centuries were devout Christians and there are plenty of Christians today who are prominent scientists such as Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project.

I’ll let a Muslim respond to your assertions about Islam. Not being Muslim, I cannot speak credibly about their faith. I’ll certainly acknowledge Islsm’s contribution to science & mathematics, but your assertion that Christianity is antithetical to science is a gross oversimplification that ignores both many Christian thinkers over the centuries and history itself.

Lastly, what does any of this debate over the history of Christisnity have to do with sexuality or the furry dandom?
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
That’s why studying the original languages and doing intense study of hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) is important. The translations are really not that different.

But there are parts in Scripture that are plain as daylight in all ages, such as Christ being the messiah, His death and resurrection, and the necessity of faith.
Well, I do happen to speak Greek, (badly) I've lived on the border from Bulgaria and Greece at one point, and nothing is that different? The only difference is that Greek has many suffixes, prefixes and synonyms. For example, you could say "Repent!" in english. In greek, there are many ways you can say this, such as "μετανοείτε" which means to repent and keep repenting. Or you could say μετανοώ, which just means to repent.

However, the meaning is still the same. The translations do not lose any words. They just write it in an english way. I didn't study hebrew, so I can't say for the OT but I know that the NT has just as many contradictions, flaws, and overall same translation in greek and english.

"6) A good tactic is to make a vague reference to the original Greek and suggest that the problem vanishes once you read the ancient texts themselves. Hopefully, your reader will not read Greek and be unable to question this. If your reader actually understands Greek this tactic is invariably counterproductive but don't worry, this is almost never the case. Sample text: Scholars have pointed out that the Greek can also be interpreted to mean "this census happened before the one when Quirinius was governor". A careful reading of the Greek, therefore, solves the problem."

Also, why did you say this for?
No matter what you say and suggest, the Triune God of Scripture lives and is the only being worthy of my praise and worship.
This comes across as "No matter what you say, even if it's a valid point, I'm not going to change or listen."
 
Last edited:

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
This comes across as "No matter what you say, even if it's a valid point, I'm not going to change or listen."

that's why i'm not going to reply further there's no point the guy said he believes in the earth is only 6000 years old thing you can't debate people like that
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
that's why i'm not going to reply further there's no point the guy said he believes in the 6000 years old you can't debate people like that
People like that shouldn't post long articles provoking debate if they are just going to shut themselves off.
 

Yakamaru

Mr Tophat
People like that shouldn't post long articles provoking debate if they are just going to shut themselves off.
"Progressive" Liberals act a lot like religious Fundamentalists. They shut themselves off in their own little echo chamber most of the time, and only come out once the planets align to look outside their bubble.

Anything that doesn't fit their world view is pretty much ignored. If they were open for debate and discussion, they wouldn't repeat the same talking points.
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
Yakamaru said:
"Progressive" Liberals act a lot like religious Fundamentalists. They shut themselves off in their own little echo chamber most of the time, and only come out once the planets align to look outside their bubble.

Anything that doesn't fit their world view is pretty much ignored. If they were open for debate and discussion, they wouldn't repeat the same talking points.
Honestly, it's not just liberals, (what's wrong with that?) it's almost everyone. We tend to stick to our own belief and it is hard for us all at times to come out of our comfort zones.

Obviously, that doesn't excuse it, especially when you're trying to start a debate that you're shutting yourself off from.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
"6) A good tactic is to make a vague reference to the original Greek and suggest that the problem vanishes once you read the ancient texts themselves. Hopefully, your reader will not read Greek and be unable to question this. If your reader actually understands Greek this tactic is invariably counterproductive but don't worry, this is almost never the case. Sample text: Scholars have pointed out that the Greek can also be interpreted to mean "this census happened before the one when Quirinius was governor". A careful reading of the Greek, therefore, solves the problem."

Knowing the Greek by no means clarifies it entirely, and sometimes it muddies it up more. As my Biblical Hermeneutics professor said: “Having a little knowledge of Greek is more dangerous than having no knowledge of Greek.” This happens when you misuse the little knowledge you have.
But it is important, nevertheless, to learn the original languages. Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED” can easily be refuted by knowing the translation process and seeing for yourself the different translations. Is all that meaning really lost?

Let me give an example:
*Insert Greek here*
Translation 1: “On the second day of the week Sally went to the fisher’s market.”
Translation 2: “On Monday Sally went to the market that sold fish.”

Oh no meaning is lost! Really? This is precisely how every translation works. The only major differences is in word choices - which, if you understand the original languages, aren’t all that far off. We can talk about textual variance in manuscripts, but that only accounts for a very very small minority of Scripture.
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED”

no atheists say "the bible is incoherent" because it depicts events that never happened like talking about camels before they were even domesticated and made up jewish kingdoms and kings

also don't forget that Rome recorded everything if a bug farted they made a note of it also the impossibility of the flood or Noah being 400 years old

the bible however has been shown to take actual natural events but blow them way out of proportion like the parting of the sea
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
I was actually talking about how Christians justify contradictions in the bible by saying that it was an incorrect translation. This was why I was saying
However, the meaning is still the same. The translations do not lose any words. They just write it in an english way. I didn't study hebrew, so I can't say for the OT but I know that the NT has just as many contradictions, flaws, and overall same translation in greek and english.
Basically, what you said,
Oh no meaning is lost! Really? This is precisely how every translation works. The only major differences is in word choices - which, if you understand the original languages, aren’t all that far off. We can talk about textual variance in manuscripts, but that only accounts for a very very small minority of Scripture.
is also backing up what I was talking about, which I assumed you didn't intend lol.
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
why are we even arguing about this point? there's so many historical bullshit its not funny there was no flood there were no camels at the time there were no Jews in Egypt the Pharaohs did not use slaves during that time period they were Farmers and Craftsmen earning money during the flood seasons

i swear if Jesus came back today he'd be like "i was trying to teach good morals to young children its all here in my fuckin sweet book of made up fairy tales staring my self insert OC" *holds up bible*
 

Saiko

GTWT Survivor
@-..Legacy..-

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is less with the self-referencial paradoxes that come and go with definitions and more with the very reason Calvinism and predestination are such a big debate right now. See, if you have a god who is omnipotent, you have a god who can will you to do whatever “brings glory to him;” and you can’t stop it (sources: the ten plagues, Romans 9, and Felix). At the very least there are thus people who god has held responsible and punished for events they had no agency in - contradicting the notion of “responsibility.” When you throw omniscience into the mix, you then presumably have a god that knows who will ultimately be saved. This is either because of determinism or because he will “have mercy on whom he will have mercy” and via omnipotence make them saved. However now no one has agency in their own faith, so people are saved and damned arbitrarily. That is, they are rewarded and punished for something they had no control over and thus are not responsible for. Referring back to my post in the other thread, we now have a god that not only “expects me to hurt myself simply because he says so,” but very well might change my psyche so that I want to hurt myself and won’t realize I’m doing so. We also can’t excuse it with something like, “You sinned, and god’s hands are tied. This is what happens,” because that kind of reasoning dismisses the fact that he through omniscient omnipotence created the situation and is thus responsible for all consequences of the system. We’re left with a paradox where either we must either severely limit our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, admit that this theology and this characterization of god are inconsistent, or be Calvinists and use Jesus-magic to deny that it’s a paradox at all.
 
L

-..Legacy..-

Guest
@-..Legacy..-

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is less with the self-referencial paradoxes that come and go with definitions and more with the very reason Calvinism and predestination are such a big debate right now. See, if you have a god who is omnipotent, you have a god who can will you to do whatever “brings glory to him;” and you can’t stop it (sources: the ten plagues, Romans 9, and Felix). At the very least there are thus people who god has held responsible and punished for events they had no agency in - contradicting the notion of “responsibility.” When you throw omniscience into the mix, you then presumably have a god that knows who will ultimately be saved. This is either because of determinism or because he will “have mercy on whom he will have mercy” and via omnipotence make them saved. However now no one has agency in their own faith, so people are saved and damned arbitrarily. That is, they are rewarded and punished for something they had no control over and thus are not responsible for. Referring back to my post in the other thread, we now have a god that not only “expects me to hurt myself simply because he says so,” but very well might change my psyche so that I want to hurt myself and won’t realize I’m doing so. We also can’t excuse it with something like, “You sinned, and god’s hands are tied. This is what happens,” because that kind of reasoning dismisses the fact that he through omniscient omnipotence created the situation and is thus responsible for all consequences of the system. We’re left with a paradox where either we must either severely limit our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, admit that this theology and this characterization of god are inconsistent, or be Calvinists and use Jesus-magic to deny that it’s a paradox at all.

Bingo. Smartest Trash Cat I know by far.
 

PaintedMica

Active Member
why are we even arguing about this point? there's so many historical bullshit its not funny there was no flood there were no camels at the time there were no Jews in Egypt the Pharaohs did not use slaves during that time period they were Farmers and Craftsmen earning money during the flood seasons

i swear if Jesus came back today he'd be like "i was trying to teach good morals to young children its all here in my fuckin sweet book of made up fairy tales staring my self insert OC" *holds up bible*

Funnily enough, if the Jews had been in Egypt and left via mass exodus, Egypt's economy at the time would've crashed. Negative bank account = No more pyramids
 

Yakamaru

Mr Tophat
Honestly, it's not just liberals, (what's wrong with that?) it's almost everyone. We tend to stick to our own belief and it is hard for us all at times to come out of our comfort zones.

Obviously, that doesn't excuse it, especially when you're trying to start a debate that you're shutting yourself off from.
I said "Progressive" Liberals. As in, those who claim to be Progressive Liberals but are in fact Regressive Segregationists, wanting to separate blacks from whites, men from women, +++. Sorry, I am not interested in seeing the world revert back to the 50's, where segregation and discrimination were practically part of law. Sorry, I am not interested in seeing ANY group being discriminated against, and that includes white men. A lot of Progressive Liberals are drowning in identity politics, blaming anyone but themselves for the problems they themselves create with their delusions of discrimination.

Some Christians act the same way, except they blame Atheism for our "lack of morals" and "degrading family and social values". Sorry, Atheism pretty much only means "lack of belief in a god, gods, deity or deities". It has nothing to do with brainwashing and indoctrination let alone the political and religious landscape of countries. You don't have a monopoly on morals or ethics either, let alone ideas. There is no proof of any gods existing. When you say "God exist!" and we ask you to prove it, the answer "God exist outside of our ability to comprehend him" you're not giving an answer.

Suggestion: Debate a Socialist on economics. They retreat to their little hole faster than you can say "Economics". Or a Christian on the ethics and morals of their god's actions. Both isles are different, but similar in the manner of how they act to things they may not have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around.

If someone start a debate I expect them to at the very least have an understanding of someone's different viewpoint. Knowing and understanding where someone comes from is not the same as acknowledgement and/or agreement, so keep that in mind.

Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED”
And which strawmen are you talking about? Not everyone is as good as putting their arguments and criticism forward. If you want good arguments I'd recommend checking out Richard Dawkins.

However, if something can be understood in words, it can be translated. Doesn't matter how obscure it is or what language is used.

Corinthians 6:14:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Corinthians 15:33:
Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
Corinthians 7:13-14:
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Psalm 14:1:
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Calling non-believers bad company, unclean, corrupt, doing abominable deeds and are unlawful? The Bible is full of such nice verses on non-believers.

If this god figure of yours actually cared about his own legitimacy he would show himself to those who don't believe in his existence or even deny it. But he doesn't. He only "shows" himself to a select few of his most devout believers, and they are far and few in between. If he is all powerful, all understanding, all wise and all knowing he would understand the nature of free thought, being wise to not interfere with it, and have the knowledge and foresight to where free thought can and will lead to.

Jesus' messages were basically "Show respect for your fellow man", "Do not commit crimes" and "Love thine family". Pretty damn straightforward if you ask me. Jesus is a good role model. A decent amount of Christians however, are not. Our issues lie not with your role model, but his followers. A decent amount of them don't like Atheists based on their lack of beliefs alone. Some are outright hostile. I've seen kids getting kicked out of their homes by their parents because they either don't believe in their god or even questions the existence of any gods.

Now, here's the thing. Literally any idea can and will be criticized, picked apart and analyzed in the free market of ideas. Everything from Nazism to Confucianism to Buddhism. If you throw your idea(s) out there, expect people to agree with you, and expect people to disagree with you. Whether that criticism have any merit would depend on the fundamental basis for that criticism, if it have any ground to stand on or not, aka have any merit. Christianity will always be on the chopping block because it's an ideology that's rather mainstream, just like some of the other religions.

Let me ask you this: If you had children and they all didn't believe in your god let alone were Christians later in life, what would you do?
 
Last edited:

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
no atheists say "the bible is incoherent" because it depicts events that never happened like talking about camels before they were even domesticated and made up jewish kingdoms and kings

also don't forget that Rome recorded everything if a bug farted they made a note of it also the impossibility of the flood or Noah being 400 years old

the bible however has been shown to take actual natural events but blow them way out of proportion like the parting of the sea
Aside from Rome (which is an odd reference in relation to Noah) everything you mentioned predates the Babylonian Exile and can be explained by the fact that the exiled Jews took an oral history & wrote it down for preservation. Does the presense or absence of camels in the story of Joseph rob it of any spiritual truths? No.

Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are enormous gaps in our knowledge of the ancient world. How do we know the Egyptians didn’t have slaves during the time of the Exodus? Lack of evidence showing slavery? The lack of slaves would be unusual, given how common slavery was in neighboring kingdoms at that time. (Side note: the Bible never claimed that the Jews built the pyramids, only that they were slave builders using & making clay bricks, which is not what the Pyramids were built by.)

The ancient Egyptians are notorious for whitewashing their history, systematically removing all references to old pharohs who were out of favor. Why would they preserve the history of a group of slaves who betrayed them and humiliated their pharoh? Would they not destroy all evidence of them being there in the first place?

Now, back to Rome, they were good record-keepers but nothing like we are today and a vast majority of those records were lost when Rome fell and the Dark Ages began. (See my earlier post about that.) Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because earliest Roman records of Jesus don’t appear until decades after His crucifixion doesn’t mean He didn’t do and say exactly what is claimed in the Gospels.
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
Aside from Rome (which is an odd reference in relation to Noah) everything you mentioned predates the Babylonian Exile and can be explained by the fact that the exiled Jews took an oral history & wrote it down for preservation. Does the presense or absence of camels in the story of Joseph rob it of any spiritual truths? No.
Nope, but it shows that this super perfect book that is supposedly never flawed has flaws.
The ancient Egyptians are notorious for whitewashing their history, systematically removing all references to old pharohs who were out of favor. Why would they preserve the history of a group of slaves who betrayed them and humiliated their pharoh? Would they not destroy all evidence of them being there in the first place?
No, but ancient history would show what is not written. If something as big as that happened, such as water parting and the killing of armies, wouldn't we find some kind of evidence that it happened, like a sudden influx of fossils in water?
Just because earliest Roman records of Jesus don’t appear until decades after His crucifixion doesn’t mean He didn’t do and say exactly what is claimed in the Gospels.
There actually has been a debate on whether or not Jesus even existed. That would probably explain why such a big event was never recorded. Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
And lack of knowledge is not proof of god, but a proof of lack of knowledge.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki

The main issue is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but (and this is the important part) the burden of saying something happened or existed should always be on those who make the claim. David Kusche's criticism regarding the Bermuda Triangle is applicable regarding both the idea of "historical" (however you want to define that) Jesus and any of the Christ Myth theories:
Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out.
 

Akartoshi

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
I’ve posted my beliefs in response to the OP, not to debate my views but to share them. If someone wants to attack my beliefs in this area, I won’t respond because I would be responding out of emotion and not rationally. It pointless for me to debate this because this topic is too close to me
What happened to you not responding?
There’s nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs but not entering a debate over them. If someone else wants to debate my views they’re free to do so. I just won’t be joining the fray because emotionally charged responses aren’t helpful IMO.
Looks to me like you are entering a debate.

And you said you're not even interested in listening to the other side and won't be responding.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
I've seen kids getting kicked out of their homes by their parents because they either don't believe in their god or even questions the existence of any gods.

</snip>

Let me ask you this: If you had children and they all didn't believe in your god let alone were Christians later in life, what would you do?
You make some excellent point and I wish I had time to respond to them all but as a parent I had to respond to this.

I’ve seen parents kick kids of of their house for questioning the faith too and it’s 100% wrong.

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8
(Yes, it’s ironic that the Bible says parents who kick out children for being unbelievers are worse than unbelievers.)

I’ve made it 100% clear to my son that he will decide what to believe and that I will love him regardless of what he chose. Thus far, he has chosen to believe but if that should change I’m not going to throw him out of the house. I’ll pray for him and do my best to be a positive example but I can’t force him to believe. Uktimately that is something he needs to decide for himself.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
What happened to you not responding?

Looks to me like you are entering a debate.

And you said you're not even interested in listening to the other side and won't be responding.
I’m not debating my sexuality or my views thereof; I entered this debeate because this thread seems to have moved on from that topic and is back to the old “does God exist” argument. That’s somehing I’m always happy to debate!

[Edit] You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said I’m not going to listen to the other side. I always try to listen when I have the time to do so. I only said I wouldn’t respond b/c the topic of sexuality & the faith is too close to me and that there is no point in responding when I am responding out if emotion & not with rational arguments.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
Then my squirrel god well eat your god! XD 1000 foot Giant squirrel Battles a 1000 foot giant walnut XD
I might just question my sanity if I witnessed such a battle. :p
 
L

-..Legacy..-

Guest
IMG_1374.JPG
 
Top