There is no such thing as "True Christianity", all Christianity is false. Christianity itself is based on the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh. As far as I'm concerned that's no different from claiming that Jesus is the Son of Zeus.

Only the Christians themselves argue with each other about what constitutes "True Christianity". Everyone else know that all Christianity is false.

There was no "Christianity" in Jesus' day, and the things that Jesus stood for do not support the religions that later came to be known as "Christianity".

So what I'm saying is that Jesus really had nothing to do with Christianity and never did.

Even the gospels have Jesus calling the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites. I don't imagine that would change today one bit.

All you're saying here is that you have no knowledge of true Christianity and you will continue to deny historical evidence that supports my claim.

The Bible still makes the claim that many will be deceived, I guess you still are too?

I know exactly what "True Christianity" is. It's a term used by Christians who argue with each other over who holds the real "True Christianity".

It's an utterly meaningless term that is just a big waste of time to even argue about..

And that should clarify for you precisely why the Bible is necessarily the works of men, and cannot possibly be the word of any God.

Consider the following questions when you read anything from the Bible.

1. Does this sound like something men would make up?

2. Does this sound like something an all-wise God would say?

Well, think about it.

The authors of the Bible claims that many will be deceived.

Would mortal men make this claim to try to convince people that what they are writing about is true? The answer is clearly, YES, that's precisely what I would expect mortal men to try to claim.

However, would an all-wise God write a book that would deceive many?

I personally don't think so! That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. So my answer to question #2 is NO, an all-wise God would not make any such claim in his Holy Book.

Why would a God write a book that deceives so many people? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

The mere fact that we can't even find TWO people who agree on what the Bible actually says is basically all the proof we should need to recognize that it can't be the word of God.

I never once claimed the Bible was the word of God. That is you. You make alot of claims about what the Bible "demands", but when asked for proof, provide none.

Either way you look at it, if men wrote it, it was arrogance on their part. If God "inspired" it, it's prophecy that appears to be quite accurate.

I don't "demand" anything. It was the authors of the Bible who claimed to speak for God, not me.

I never said "you" demanded, now did I?


Really, I understand why you must deny the truth, even though it's obvious to me that you see the truth.

You said that I make a lot of claims about what the Bible demands, but the only claim that concerns me is the fact that the authors demand that they speak for God.

Take away that demand and everything else is moot.

Can you point me to that demand?

Sure.

The story of Adam and Eve is supposed to be a true account of God's interaction with man, not just a fable.

The Ten Commandments were supposed to have come from God, not Moses.

It was God's idea to have Noah build a boat and then flood the Earth, not Noah's.

It was God who supposedly turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, not Lot.

It was supposedly God who talked with Job, not just an unknown author just making up a story.

Jesus was supposed to have born of a virgin who God impregnated. Mary didn't just have a baby with Joesph.

Jesus is said to be the "only begotten Son" of Yahweh, not just another mortal man. Hr was also sent to be the sacrificial lamb of God no less (according to some interpretations of these fables)

Jesus was supposed to have miraculously raised from the dead along with a multitude of saints after his crucifixion. Again, a claim of divine purpose of miraculous proportions.

John's dreams in revelations where supposed to be a message from the dead Jesus himself.

The whole book 'demands' that it is the 'Word of God' the whole way through. So it's pretty easy to point to that demand. Just point at the entire biblical cannon in general. The things I've mentioned are but a few, the whole book demands that it's a story about what God wants from mankind. Otherwise, how could we 'obey' this God? Or "sin" against him? Sin versus obedience is the whole point to the fable.

If it's taken to be "just another creation myth" then it gets moved over to the shelf called "fiction" to sit right alongside the stories of Greek Mythology. (Right where I personally believe the book belongs).

It has no more, or less, value than Greek Mythology. It's just human tales of how various men and cultures have envisioned "God" to be.

We shouldn't take its 'demands' that it speaks for "God" so seriously. When we "question" this we shouldn't think of it as questioning God's authority, but rather we should think of it as questioning the mortal men who wrote these stories.

I don't question "God" at all. But I do question whether any of the stories in Bible came from God. I'm calling the authors out on the carpet. I personally don't believe they had anymore authority to speak for "God" than the authors of Greek Mythology.

I can't 'believe' in Jesus or Yahweh. I personally never met or heard a word from either one of them. At the very best I could place my faith in the mortal authors who claim to speak from them. And to be perfectly honest about it I see no reason to place my faith in those mortal men. Especially considering the fact that I don't like the stories they tell. I don't even have any incentive to want them to be true, and I'm certainly not going to believe them on faith alone, because quite frankly they seem utterly ignorant and unwise to me on many levels.

I see no reason to place my faith in fables written by mortal men that portray my creator to be ignorant and unwise.

I honestly don't see why you are having such a hard time with all of this. You claim that I'm unwilling to accept 'truth' but you don't seem to be willing to even acknowledge mere reason and common sense.

yeah, I figured as much.... you think anything written in a book is a "demand".

Only when people "demand" that it's the "truth".

Of course, I'm sure you would never make such a silly demand.

As far as I can tell you've been in agreement with every point I've ever made. Except perhaps concerning the definition of paganism which is a whole different topic altogether.

As far as I'm concerned the Bible is totally fiction. Although I do believe that the story of Jesus was probably inspired by the life of a real Jewish/Buddhist who suffered a very unfortunate fate.

The sad part of the whole thing is that it wasn't written up as fiction, the authors who wrote it portrayed Jesus as the "Son of God", that was their "demand". Of course they made a lot of other "demands" as well, using Jesus as a dead marionette doll to speak their lies through.

If you think for one second that Christianity as a religion doesn't make "demands" then you are the one who is suffering from delusions. All of Christianity demands that a person must accept the Christ as their "Savior". It's the foundation of the religion.

If you care to deny that, it's fine with me, but at that point I may as well be talking to my cat because it's clear to me that you have absolutely no understanding of the religion that you pretend to know something about.

Do you think I'm stupid enough that this would affect my reasoning skills somehow?

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forest Gump

i have to be honest here the #1 biblical event that i read and it really made me think was when god flooded the earth and noah and his 3 sons with their wives where the only humans left,i think i was 12 when i came to this conclusion,"how did all of our different races as in color i mean evolve from just those 6 people,plus how were they distributed all over the entire world in just 5,000 years or less."

thats one question that no "believer" can answer so when noone could answer it i became an atheist at the age of 12 years old oh and this isn't the only reason but it's the #1 reason

LOL, is that the best you got?!?!?

Of course I'd expect no less from you. After all, you can't back up your claims.

"Don't believe everything you think" - Einstein?

I make no "claims". You're the one who keeps trolling me and making those absurd invalid accusations.

All I do is share food for thought. Which you obviously can't handle.

The authors of the Bible and the Christians who interpret those authors are the ones who make "claims".

If you don't believe that Christians claim that Jesus Christ is their "Savior" then you are either completely illiterate, or living in extreme delusions and denial.

Christianity is based entirely on the premise that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son of Yahweh" who was sent to be the "Savior" of mankind in terms of "Salvation".

If you want to argue with that or deny it, please take it over to the Christians because that's not "my claim", it's the claim of Christianity in general and has been for some 2000 years.

So don't be trying to push their crap onto me!

If you don't believe in Christianity more power to you!

Join the club!

There are a lot of people who don't buy into that religion.

You're not alone my friend.

I'm amazed at how much credit you give the Bible. As soon as you realize that the Bible is false you instantly become an atheist?

That's like saying, "Either the Bible represents the word of God, or there is no God!"

I mean, you're actually giving the mythology quite a bit of power by taking that stance.

When I came to the realization that the Bible can't possibly be the word of any all-wise "god" and in particular that Jesus could not possibly have been the sacrificial lamb (or son) of that fictitious god, I didn't run off to become an atheist.

In fact, there was no reason I should, because I intuitively felt a connection to a higher spiritual entity long before I was even old enough to understand that the Bible was being sold as the word of God.

I simply realized that the Bible was a false picture, no different from the picture of Zeus. In fact, it's hardly any different from the picture of Zeus at all really. It's practically a carbon-copy with a little extra bigotry, jealousy, and male-chauvinism tossed in.

Nope, once I realized that the Bible was a fraud, I didn't automatically give up on the idea of spirit. Far from it. I didn't get the idea of spirit from the Bible in the first place, so why should I trash it just because the Bible is yet another piece of fiction?

Instead I finally opened my eyes to the fact that there must be a far deeper and more profound concept of spirit to be had. I looked around and it wasn't long before I realized that the Eastern Mystics had found the true wisdom far earlier than the Middle Eastern societies did. And they also found it using far more intelligent philosophical reasoning and wisdom.

Unfortunately I can't point to any specific "religion" and say, "this one describes it the best", because they are indeed philosophies. But they are based on wisdom and intellectual thinking and not mere superstition and myths.

I've been a scientist my entire life. One thing I can say with absolute conviction is that science neither points to an atheistic existence, nor does it even remotely imply that such a conclusion should be drawn.

On the contrary, everything that I know of modern scientific knowledge is in complete harmony with everything I know of mysticism. There are no conflicts at all.

Therefore, I simply take my innate intuitive feelings that there is indeed a spiritual essence to life, and recognize that the Eastern Mystics have the wisest philosophy going that best describes this possibility.

To reject spirituality just because Zeus is a fraud is silly. That kind of attitude only give Zeus a lot of respect by suggesting that either Zeus is God, or there is no God.

Replace Zeus with Yahweh, and it makes no difference whatsoever.

I don't give the Bible nearly the merit you do. You give it an "all-or-nothing" status.

I give it a "nothing-or-nothing" status.

It's not even a plausible story worth considering, IMHO.

"If you think for one second that Christianity as a religion doesn't make "demands" then you are the one who is suffering from delusions. All of Christianity demands that a person must accept the Christ as their "Savior". It's the foundation of the religion."

That is a claim. You can lie about it all you want, it won't change that fact... You could back it up with facts, but you seem to prefer to lie about making claims instead of being a man and owning up to it.