What is Digg?321 Comments
- jadedconformist, on 10/12/2007, -21/+118The bible I read the other day had no sources either. I hate that.
- dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -12/+74I have a personal issue with the credentials of the bible, etc, however I do not force my opinions on others. However this past Sunday, I was out of state visiting my mom and she asked me to go to church with my family so I agreed, I went to church for the first time in a very long, long time. During the "children's sermon" a woman from the congragation brings the children up to the front of the church and "preaches" a lesson about goodwill, helping others, etc (something like that usually.) Well, she asked some of the children if they were to change anything in the world, what would it be? ... my younger sister said she would "make sure everyone had something to eat." Which is obviously a good answer, I was impressed.
Until the pastor stood up and chimed in.
She bellowed.. "If everyone believed in Jesus, then no one would be hungry."
I laughed, which obviously wasnt appropriate but it wasnt loud enough for anyone to hear. my mom gave me the stink eye and that was that. But it's still bothing me today. So many people, who do in fact believe in God and Jesus, are still hungry/starving/malnourished. Her saying that was extremely contradictory. This last wednesday they gave out 50 "food baskets" to homeless people who came by the church.
I liked this documentary very much. I'm sure that the "rant" i went on above really doesnt relate too much to the actual video, but its something to think about. - AXNJAXN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49I hate to be argumentative (God forbid?) in a topic about religion, but weren't there hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament and Jewish prophets that described the messiah before the Greeks?
- Thater, on 10/12/2007, -27/+53This documentary was actually made as a precursor to Brian Flemming's feature film which was going to be called The Beast and released on 6-6-06, which has now changed it's name to "Danielle" and it's going to be released next year sometime.
It's not objective at all because it was basically just a thrown together documentary exploring his own personal journey in deciding that he didn't believe in God. Personally I think he's like a poor man's Richard Dawkins.
I also think it's boring and stupid when atheists go on the offense because it's the most pointless exercise imaginable. Only other aggressive atheists are going to enjoy it, and Christians are just going to get mad. It's not a productive debate at all.
Whether someone believes in God or not is completely irrelevant to me. Unless it's some lunatic in government who starts writing laws based on religious ideals. - Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -25/+50"When Mr. Flemming dies he will realize that there was in fact a real person name Jesus Christ, and unfortunely for Mr. Flemming it will be too late for him to accept Jesus as his personal Savior"
And you will be very disappointed when you die and realize it's too late to accept Wonko the Magic Elf as your savior.
http://www.satori3.com/justdrew/wonko.html - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -16/+40I thought the comparison of Jesus' life events to mythical heroes was very interesting, considering Jesus came about after the Greeks established that archetype.
This is a great documentary, but its not sourced and its not exactly very objective. Dugg - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32Yeah, Jesus will throw that guy's sorry ass into Hell and torture him with everlasting pain and fire! PWNED
What a great religion. Accept Jesus or be burned in agony forever. God is love, indeed. - flink405, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I dare him to make the same type movie using Islam as the religion.
The guy would be either dead or in hiding right now. - zip22, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27please explain why jesus christ is real and every other religion past and present is wrong. is it simply because it is popular now? or because it is what you believe?
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Yeah, stupid doesn't discriminate based on religion, beliefs, age, or gender. It's unfortunate that many of the stupidest people in the world are also the loudest and most outspoken.
I'd like to apologize on behalf of my Christian brethren that make dumb mistakes and force personal unfounded beliefs on others. Please ignore them and make the effort to come to your own conclusions. - wpc105, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33@Thater
"I also think it's boring and stupid when atheists go on the offense because it's the most pointless exercise imaginable. Only other aggressive atheists are going to enjoy it, and Christians are just going to get mad. It's not a productive debate at all."
Yep, your 100% correct on that one. It's called "Faith" for a reason. If we could prove religion scientifically, it really wouldn't be religion. - Moloth, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28As many as it takes until people realize that believing in Elves, unicorns, leprechans, Thor, Posiedon, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Osiris, and everything else that cannot be proven is delusion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20intelligent people seek more knowledge
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20It's quite simple. There is virtually no *unequivocal* evidence that Jesus even existed. To the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that indicates that the Jesus of the Bible is almost entirely fictional.
I was a Christian for nearly 20 years. In that time I did a great deal of Bible study. At one point I even attended a Christian university where I took several classes in theology, biblical interpretation, early Christian literature, etc. I'm quite familiar with the arguments for Jesus' existence. Only later did I start reading arguments against his existence with an open mind. It took me a long time to get to the point where I could be open-minded about such a thing because it rattled my very foundation. It scared the heck out of me when I realized that based on a rational and objective viewing of the evidence that I could no longer rationally believe in Christianity or Christ. My entire life had been based around Christ. It took a few years for me to re-form my life. In fact, I'm probably still working on it.
My point is that it's very difficult to believe this stuff if you're being objective about it. The problem is that you can't be objective and rational about it if you already believe it. It's a bit of a Catch 22. - Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Wow, while I hate this video, somehow I find that comment disgusting.
- Lacanuck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Thater and WPC, if you really think that what people's religious beliefs are don't have any impact on you, I would suggest that you read Sam Harris' End of Faith. When people are willing to not just die for their beliefs but to kill others who don't believe what they do, it is no longer safe to be tolerent of other peoples belief systems. And while it might seem really easy to distinguish between Islamic extremists who become suicide bombers and fundamentalist Christians, that's probably because you are not a doctor working in an abortion clinic. Almost every religion has people on the fringe who give it a bad name. But so long as we 'accept' a belief system that really doesn't provide much in the way of benefits, we give cover to those who use those belief systems to gain power and control over others...including, ultimately, the power of life and death.
- Phlegon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The Bible doesn't say that "If everyone believed in Jesus, then no one would be hungry." The contradictory statement was made by that "pastor," not the Bible.
- C0Yn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22A lot more
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24People want to believe that there are certainties and guarantees in life. We want to think what we do has real worth and long-lasting value. Much like when a child realizes there is no Easter bunny, the world becomes less magical and fun. The truth hurts, so much so that some will outrightly refute it so they can live without the pain. That is what the real fight is over, whether it is better to live with the truth and pain, or a lie and comfort?
- IneffibleMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Damn dude, you are a bit far off the bat there. The bible doesn't predate *all* historical books. The bible does preclude most of western literature but not all of it. Admitedly much of western 'literature' before 1000 CE was in the oral tradition, but let's not forget about the greek stories and such. Greek and Roman ***** had been around for ~600 years (my memory might be a bit off here) *before* the birth of christ. Or are we talking about the old testament? because while that is certainly older that still doesn't touch some of the writings of the Veda in the Hindu religion. Those things are supposed to be copies of even older manuscripts. Sanskrit is older than any other written language(forgive me prof but that is what I remember from that lecture anyway) that we know of and it contains accounting records along with some very scattered religious texts.
And no bgbs, all scholars and historians do *not* use the bible to measure history. I am not 'full of agenda' but that is the case. I can walk down the block to my universities religion department and get a few dozen history of religion phds to back me up on this one. The bible is A tool, not THE tool. - DaneTrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Who is History and when did he prove Jesus existed? Sources!
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Hopefully. I honestly believe that religion; in all it's many different forms, is the most dangerous thing ever invented by man. The best hope for the future of mankind is to replace superstition with reason.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The Christian day of worship was changed to Sunday by Pope Sylvester (314-335 A.D.) in the fourth century. This is not something that can be used to claim that Christianity is a re-expression of the sun-cult. (http://www.biblelight.net/sunday.htm I'm not a Seventh-Day Adventist, but this linked page cites good historical documentation.)
"the very similarity between the word sun and son, etc"
Dude, that's only in English. Christianity long pre-dated English. This contributes nothing to the argument. If you can show this to be true in Aramaic, Greek, and maybe Hebrew, then you might have a case to point this out.
"I always wondered why the birth of Christ coincided with the solstice."
Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25; Christmas was officially dated to Dec. 25, the festival of Sol Invictus ("the invincible Sun") by Constantius II in 354 AD: (Quoted material)
"A star cult, sun-worship, became (in the third century A.D.) the dominant official creed, paving the road for the ultimate triumph of Judaeo-Christian monotheism. So strong was the belief in the Invincible Sun (Sol Invictus) that for example Constantine I (d. 337), himself at first a devotee of the sun cult, found it, indeed perfectly compatible with his pro-Christian sympathies to authorize his own portrayal as Helios. And in 354 the ascendant Christian church in the reign of his pious but unsavory son, Constantius II, found it prudent to change the celebration of the birth of Jesus from the traditional date (January 6) to December 25, in order to combat the pagan Sun god’s popularity—his “birthday” being December 25."
[Source: Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, p. 4. Copyright 1954 by the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.]
There is abundant evidence that Christianity was long in existence before the fourth century, yet these documentaries that claim Jesus didn't exist conveniently ignore all that and ignore the fact that all the "coincidences" they cite are the post-Constantine corruptions long after Chistianity was established, where Constantine took his sun-cult and mingled it with Christianity, and use this to deny that Jesus never existed.
I'll call it what it is: academic fraud, if not plain incompetence. They didn't even do their pre-requisite research. Shame on them. - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Your statements are pretty "out there".......so much so that I 'll have to address each nugget of ignorance individually.
--------------------------
YOU: I always wondered why the birth of Christ coincided with the solstice.
ME: Christian leaders replaced a pagan holiday with a Christian one in order to bring the pagans onboard. Christmas is when Jesus’s birth is celebrated, not when it actually happened.
YOU: Churches always face the rising sun.
ME: No. They don’t, but they do like for the stained glass windows to face the rising sun. You figure out why.
YOU: Jesus is often depicted with rays of light behind his head.
ME: That’s the “light of heaven”. Surrounding him with blackness doesn’t convey that idea well.
YOU: He had twelve disciples matching the twelve signs of the zodiac.
ME: My doughnut box had 12 doughnuts in it, but it’s not because of the zodiac. If the disciples had names like Taurobert, Virgil and Leo, you might have an argument, but you don’t. There were just 12 of them and none matched any astrological sign.
YOU: We worship on Sunday
ME: Because in Genesis it says “on the seventh day he rested”. Some believe that day is Saturday.
YOU: ..the very similarity between the word sun and son, etc.
ME: Those are English words. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
YOU: The cross itself was taken from an older symbol, the sun cross.
ME: The cross was taken from the fact that Jesus was executed on one.
--------------------------
Have a nice day. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22"Much like when a child realizes there is no Easter bunny"
There's no Easter bunny??!!!! *cries*
But... can you prove it? Can you prove that there's no Easter bunny? [/sarcasm] - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Plato
*bangs head against wall*
How many times do we have to explain to you scientifically illiterate idiots what 'THEORY' means in scientific terms??
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
I'm like the 11 billionth person to point this out. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMIN' OUT OF MY POST? - CitizenDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The Root of All Evil didn't concern itself exclusively with Islam, to my knowledge.
Think Theo Van Gogh's "Submission", a short film about one woman's (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) experiences. A film that Van Gogh was subsequently brutally murdered for by a Muslim extremist in the heart of Amsterdam.
But yeah, why debunk Muhammad when even drawing a cartoon of the guy can get your throat good and cut for you, when you can pick on all those 'turn the other cheek' Christians? - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9too.many.words.
- TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"Hitchens further alleged that Mother Teresa lied to donors about what their contributions were to be used for. Donors were told that the money went to aid and the construction of healthcare facilities in India and elsewhere. Evidence points to it instead being spent largely on missionary work and that Mother Teresa was actually the controller of some of the funds. No hospitals were ever built. In 1994, Hitchens published an article in The Nation entitled "The Ghoul of Calcutta"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9> the whole "documentary" is propagandical garbage, there should be laws
> against people disseminating their own ignorance... the world would be
> a better place
The irony of this comment is simply hilarious. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15When one culture or religion borrows its myths from another, that's called syncretism. It's very common and the bible is absolutely loaded with examples. I wish churches would teach this. I think some are fearful that this will undermine the bible's authenticity (such that it is) and cause people to bail out on the religion, but that's silly as most religious people operate from a standpoint of faith. Regardless, they should really understand the historical background of their texts and should see that they are not historical documents, by any means.
I was fascinated by this topic in college, having been a former Christian myself, and was amazed at how many examples of syncretism I found in the bible, once I started researching it. For example: the order that God creates things in the first week in Genesis is taken from the Babylonian week where each day represented a specific thing about the world or the cosmos.
The most glaring example is the flood story and Noah's ark. For anyone wanting to see where that tale came from, Google the term "The Epic of Galgamesh" and read up. Christians put a moralistic twist on it, but minus the wrath of God bit, it's almost the same story.
I could go on, but just about any story in the bible was taken from some earlier source. It's how things were done back then. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Jesus is Santa Claus for grown ups. It's basically the same story line; behave and do as you're told and you'll be rewarded.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I know there are atheists who don't believe in Christianity and find faith in anything extremely distasteful, but to go so far as to say that Jesus didn't exist and to ignore and forcefully re-interpret anything suggesting his existence away is over-reacting.
Pointing out perceived coincidences between Christian theology and existing expectations of a Messiah or mythology doesn't do a thing to indicate that Jesus didn't exist. Jesus is mentioned by plenty of historians outside of the New Testament. He's even mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, and the Jews certainly don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, and persecuted the early Christians. Caiaphas (the high priest who condemned Jesus as recorded in the New Testament) lived and worked in Jerusalem, and archaeologists have found his ossuary. Pontius Pilate certainly has abundant historical documentation of his existence, and his work. Keep in mind that the Romans persecuted the Christians, and that even the earliest Christians made historical claims about Jesus (as opposed to mythological claims) that they believed to be of utmost doctrinal importance; if Jesus didn't actually exist, the Romans could have easily refuted the Christians with all the records of their historians. The fact that the Romans didn't even claim Jesus didn't exist, and that even their historians also refer to Jesus as a historical person suggests to me that there's no way a non-existant Jesus could have launched Christianity as we know it. If Jesus were non-existant, maybe a heavily myth-centric religion that doesn't make historical claims about the events recorded in its documents would have resulted (see the following of Ganesh in Hinduism, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh), but that's not what resulted. The cities mentioned in the New Testament all exist and archeology strongly confirms the descriptions of the times and events in the Roman Empire recorded in the New Testament.
Besides that, the rise of a following throughout the Roman empire for a crucified person from a subjugated culture (namely, Judea) was socially impossible unless there was something compelling to kick start that belief; being crucified was such a shameful execution that people didn't talk about or mention cruicified persons. For such a movement to have started with its central figure not even existing seems to me to be a desperate claim. It is just as ridiculous to claim that Paul (the fellow who wrote most of the letters that compose the New Testament) invented Christianity; it spread east to India concurrently with its spread in Europe via Jesus' apostle Thomas, who was murdered in Kerala, India around 70 A.D. A native Christian population has existed there ever since the first century.
You get my point. I understand that atheists don't believe in Jesus' claims to divinity and relevance to their lives, but it is academically irresponsible to then conclude based on perceived similarities to pre-existing mythologies to conclude that Jesus didn't even exist. - Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Atheists just do this from time to time. Christians have turned it into a weekly function.
- hausome, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12There's been quite a lot of atheist news making it to Digg recently. I guess the world is beginning to rid itself of religion slowly....
- Moloth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17That's funny... isn't that what religious people do?
a-theism = without belief.
that is all. - Moloth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Richard Dawkins has already been there, done that.
"Root of all Evil?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@flink405
Muhammad was a prophet in the Koran, but there are still huge sections of it devoted to the birth and life of Jesus.
Islam is Muslim, Muslim's believe in Jesus, its a central point in the Koran. So by trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist he is also taking down Islam. - Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"No, religious people never question God's existence."
Really? I used to be a fundamentalist Christian and I questioned God's existence. Over a period of several years I realized that there was no rational, objective reason to believe that the Christian God exists.
I guess I'm one of the few lucky ones. ;-) - osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@dottertrotter
Considering that no Jewish sources cite the name of any city called "Nazareth" until the third century AD, I think that's highly unlikely. Also, keep in mind that "Yeheshua", "Joshua", etc, were all very common names. "Jesus of Nazareth" is a bit like saying "Bob from Springfield". - cyph3rzer0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8See that is just the issue. It is no longer a "personal" relationship with God when conservative Christians impose their beliefs on secular society (Ie, Abortion, Stem Cell research, etc).
If it was personal, then they would live by their own beliefs and not need to impose them on others. If you believe that abortion is morally wrong, then don't have one. However, it is not the right of someone who believes that abortion is wrong because of their religion to impose that belief on another through legislation.
If it is "personal" then why do so many "religious" faithful have a need to "convert" the infidels? (This applies to all mono-theistic religions).... - greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's a video comprised on logical fallacy and historical ignorance.
There is historical record of Jesus being a real individual who was executed by the Romans. Josephus mentions it briefly in his writings. You can debate the spiritual side of Jesus as the messiah until you're blue in the face, as that is a different debate all together, but to deny that a man named Jesus lived once and was executed on a Roman cross (for whatever reason) is ludicrous.
And he uses the same old tired "hasty generalization" logical fallacy against Christianity by comparing smiling happy , seemingly normal professing Christians to people like Charles Manson to try to make the point that they are the same thing.
If you can't make your argument without employing the use of straw man and hasty-generalization logical fallacy you don't have an argument, just a rant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@TheDrunkMonkey
that's funny since according to wikipedia "Archaeological research has revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles from Nazareth, dating roughly 9000 years ago (in what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era).[2] The remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally-produced white plaster. Decorated human skulls found have led archaeologists to believe that Kfar HaHoresh was a major cult center in that remote era.[3]"
It goes on to say it wasn't mentioned in jewish text until the 2nd or 3rd century due most likely to a lack of prominence in the area. Just because it wasn't a major talking point doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
About the evidence of Nazareth says that they have found signs of civilization of over 9000 years ago. - offcenter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Christ of the Bible passes the same literary scrutinies passed on authors like Herodotus, Thucydidies, and Xenophon (to only name a few.)
This documentary is an exercise in mining Americans' almost total ignorance of history. - MMilitia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I guess a bomb in an abortion clinic is a free service too? How about the brainwashing of children; yet another great free service courtesy of our good friend JC?
Plus let's not forget how much actual money religion sucks in to help spread their message throughout college campuses and third world countries (keeping all those poor African folks on the straight-and-narrow and away from that god damned rubber STD proof device we like to call the condom). Tax payers are paying through the arse to keep alot of religious services running. - cwalkftw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ViktorVaughn
Very good question.
Again, I am going to try to sum up many pages into a couple of paragraphs, so bare with me here, a little background information is required as well.
Biblical teachings describe of original inhabitants of the earth (Adam and Eve) living in a world without sin living in perfect fellowship with God (the kind of world that people today expect to have with a God, in which there's no hunger, suffering, etc). Once Original Sin occurred (I'll assume you have an understanding of this, there is a good explanation at wikipedia.com), man was *separated* from God.
Old Testament teachings explain how the only way to reconnect with God in Heaven is to atone for their sin. Here's where I can begin to answer your question... The Old Testament teaches that in order to accomplish this, innocent blood must be shed as a sacrifice to show *repentance* for the sin committed. This precedent was first set after Adam and Eve endured The Fall (or Original Sin) and God provided for them an animal to slay as atonement for their sins.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, therefore, his innocent blood was shed on the cross when crucified as atonement for all of God's children (all of us), that if we are to believe in His cause as the Lamb of God, we can be washed free of sin and be reconnected with God in Heaven.
I hope that helps, just trying to give an accurate description of what a true, Bible-believing, God-fearing, devout-Christian believes in because there's a lot of fluff out here some days. - SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8A lot of people got rich and famous by preaching about Jesus. jesus is great as an ideal .; but it's completely wrong to misguide entire nations by reading between the lines and making people believe they are fighting for something other then the deep pockets of their government... or church, dictator, pope, whatever.
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It's important that we speak up and let people know that there are more of us than most people realize. We need to say clearly that we want our politicians to stop basing public policy on unfounded religious belief.
- Insignis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4[by vandread]
[There is historical documentation and rather large amounts of evidence that say Jesus did exist and many different hand written accounts of miracles performed at his hand.]
Actually there is no evidence from any trusted historian from the time or in current events articles. Contrary to what many people now believe the time 1st Century was one of the most literate rich times for the region not to be surpassed for almost 1700 years.
[For those of you who don't know, the New Testiment was mostly written by people who knew jesus, each book was a different account of their life with him and how he effected them and how Christians should live.]
Not true. Only one book was written in the time period that jesus is thought to exist and it was written at least 30 years after his death. All the other books were written almost 100 years later.
[But there are as many gospel books written that weren't included in the Holy Bible for whatever reason. The Apocalypse according to Paul wasn't added, instead they chose to go with the Apocalypse according to John (which is now known as Revelations) And there were countless Gnostic writings about Jesus, one of the most prevalent one written by Mary Magdeline, but the gnostic view wasn't popular with the catholic church so none of the gnostic gospels were included and instead only the Orthodox ones were.]
All those books were in circulation at the time. The catholic church decided that there were too many different books telling different stories and chose 4 that they felt most accurately portrayed the events in the light the church most wanted to pursue. Once the 4 book were chosen, all other books were deemed heretical and ordered to be destroyed. That is why there are so few alternate Christian records that made it from that time period. - mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Can we go one freaking day on digg without the atheistic whiners posting more anti-Christian rhetoric? Seriously getting old. Oh for the days when Digg was about tech, and first year college students knew nothing of it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is