Were they right?

>Morality
>Human decency
https://youtube.com/watch?v=m9We2XsVZfc

Obviously. Empathy is an evolved trait, and the source of all morality. The fact that it's even a question whether religious barbarism is the source of human decency illustrates the profound stupidity of the religious mind.

File: Max_stirner.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

Someone get these spooks out of here

>>310464
why do you keep avatarfagging with this image everywhere?

>>310470
Because fuck you I'm just angry ranting tonight

>>310464
>Religion provides a higher ideal, rising above our more basic and primal desires
Why is it religious people are starting all the wars?

>>310496
>what is motivation?
If there ever were wars that were actually fought because of religious differences they were far and few between and never between legitimate nations or empires
A higher up kinda guy like an emperor or king would simply use the local faith in order to inspire the peasants into fighting zealously for the cause
When in reality it was all about resource and power

>>310464
stop posting your shitty image in every thread.

>>310521
Stop trying to be cool and popular on fucking 4chan

Basically.

I grew up in an atheist country and people in suffering has always sickened me on an instinctive level.

This is beyond retarded.

They seriously think mankind started off with a secular moral code enforced by nothing in some primeval paradise, and then one day for no reason whatsoever everybody became religious?

Religion is the source of all morality, that's its entire purpose. "Secular morality" is the recent creation of people who are so imbued with religious thinking that they take it for granted and believe it to be human nature, so they can now maintain an irrational belief in the morality itself without going through the religion it was built on.

>>310496
Because virtually all of humanity is religious anon. It's like asking why Europeans are Europeans.

Gee I really don't know why.

>>310531
No, you most likely grew up in a country where everything was shaped by Christianity.

Romans used to watch children get eaten by lions for entertainment.

>>310528
>"Stop trying to be cool and popular on fucking 4chan"
>Is namefagging
nice meme

>>310538
Well, religion obviously doesnt rise above our basic and primal desires then does it?

Unless you think killing non-believers is a higher ideal

>>310537
This

It also kind of fucking sucks to think that there's no point to anything in life too

>>310551
Of course it doesn't, because religion is the definition of humanity. We were worshiping nature spirits forever. Religion doesn't make people rise above our primal desires, it just defines them as human beings given our love to worship anything and everything.

>>310551
I love how this faggot is ignoring my post
>>310519

File: 1412974688906.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>310545
Japan is not very Christian by any stretch of imagination.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (213KB, 1957x2611px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1957x2611px

>>310537
Truth and morality are essentially arbitrary creations arising out of specific circumstances. The only morality (or even reality) is that which we create and apply via an act of will.

File: 5544_1a9e_500.jpg (88KB, 500x614px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x614px

>>310582
I don't need a fucking purpose, because I make my own.

God is dead, all hail the new God.

File: mein.png (160KB, 400x404px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 400x404px

>>310593

>>310587
We do not need religion to treat each other well. Humans (except sociopaths) have a conscience as a matter of instinct

>>310606
Oh I know. Just that religion is ancient and I wouldn't be surprised if it went back to earlier hominids. Humans are spiritual animals, we simply can't help ourselves. It's why we scream at cars when they break as if they have machine spirits like in 40k.

But morality isn't limited to humans. Morality is just a chemical coding in the brain to keep a species from being a sociopath and allow it to socialize. Every complex social species such as chimps have it. Morality isn't spawned by religion, it's a fucking evolutionary trait.

>>310592
Its morality is religious in an extremely obvious way.

>>310599
>because this isn't a totally religious statement

>>310582
That's the best part. I'd hate if life had an objective purpose. Like a dad who wants you to take over the furniture business.

>>310593
That edgemaster quote doesn't even contradict anything I said.

>>310612
Spirituality is different from religion.
Ones personal faith may be fine, but people of faith are organized (co-coerced) by religion into doing bad things.

>>310622
>because my opinion reflects the thoughts of humanity, right?

>>310618
It's not a religion if you're the only person in it, you make it, and you define it however your current emotional state feels. It's a cult of the ego.

>>310592
And the average Japanese masturbates to little girls getting their limbs chopped off and strangled with their entrails.

>>310629
Well yeah, but that's no different from kings or presidents.

File: 12011402_1626364727613988_1818065488014503315_n.jpg (94KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x960px

>>310630
What gave you the impression that I was speaking for the whole of humanity?

>>310615
Perhaps, but certainly not christian morality.

>>310631
This is called being a sociopath. This is not how you build a society, because unfortunately there's this thing called other people.

>>310638
Got me there actually

File: 1446430249241.jpg (78KB, 480x780px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 480x780px

>>310638

>>310641
So?

>>310636
It is, no kind or president claims to be the moral arbiter of the world.

>>310643
lolwut. No anon, a sociopath is a mentally damaged individual who is physically incapable of feeling sympathy at all, basically a high functioning lizardbrain that could watch you bleed out without batting an eye. The word you're looking for is Hedonist.

>>310647
So that's a pretty important distinction. Their values, and this is speaking very broadly, were shaped by Confucianism and Buddhism. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

>>310592
Consequently
>>283205
>>283206
>>283210
>>283213
>>283215
>>283216
>>283218
>>283221
>>283225
>>283227
>>283232
>>283236
>>283238
>>283241
>>283243
>>283247
>>283251
>>283256
>>283258
>>283260
>>283262
>>283264
>>283266
>>283268
>>283272
>>283274
>>283279
>>283287
>>283317

>>310672
Fuck Asian history is so screwed up.

Religion isn't required for morality, but consider it like Santa.
"If you misbehave, he'll know. There could be no witnesses but yourself to your crime, but he'll fucking know."

Saying 'society will punish you' isn't as intimidating as 'this all knowing all powerful being will punish you.' if someone buys it.

People behave badly even when they know it's immoral, but having that little threat of divine retribution can be a good motivator to not screw around.

File: 1448480549349.gif (161KB, 921x155px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 921x155px

>>310686

File: 1384192525319.jpg (63KB, 447x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 447x400px

>Morality

>>310662
That's still a religion. This thread is about religion, not only Christianity, I don't get what you're trying to say.

>>310738
>edge

>>310677
Well what do you expect from Japan? They basically went from the middle ages to kicking the hell out of a 20th century European military power in ~35 years and stood on the back of western civilization to do so while sidestepping all of the growing pains that western civilization experienced - until they got all of those growing pains at once in the form of WWII and their shit was slapped so hard by the US that they just plain put down the fork and haven't picked it up since.

>>310768

What fascinates me is what would have happened if China hadn't fallen to communists and made Japan the lynchpin of American military projection in Asia. It would have given the Americans no reason to get Japan back on its feet.

File: Cute Sketch.png (321KB, 920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 920x1280px

>>310421
Arthur C. Clarke is pretty much wrongheaded about the overall situation. Hitchens is on point here. Even from a Christian perspective, Hitchens is fairly correct:

>"law of God is written on our hearts", meaning it's innate to us, meaning it precedes the ways of life of individuals which religion is part of
>Medieval understanding of Natural Law is based in academic study of nature, which is separate from individual ways of life. How nature works precedes how to respond to it.

Granted religion in medieval times and prior were much more intellectually involved than the Reformation period and later.

Gobekli Tepe refutes both.

File: eileendoubting.jpg (38KB, 540x331px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x331px

>>311060

>>310606
The only reason you say things like this is because of 2000 years of christian beliefs hardweird into society.

>>310453
Morality doesn't require empathy. It's possible to derive it entirely from long term thinking.

File: horus-attis-mithra-krishna-dionysus.jpg (116KB, 575x655px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 575x655px

>>311072
What about the previous 2000 years?

>>311081
>posting Zeitgeist
>actually, seriously posting Zeitgeist
This stuff has been long debunked, anon.

>>310421
>Were they right?
On the individual level, yes.
On a society wide level, no.

>>311089
What is it?

>>311101
The things in your image. They're from a film series called Zeitgeist. They've been a series of straight lies and it's been debunked for quite some time, man.
At the very least 2-3+ years.

>>310808
Japan would still recover.

>>310496
Huge misconception that retarded antithesis think of. Religion doesn't cause wars. It was an excuse go to war over things like land, money, pride, etc. It was just a way for govts to sell it go their people. Once the people thought they were fighting for their deity they supported the war effort and fought with more zeal.

Your hatred blinds you you'd padawan

>>311333
>Your hatred blinds you you'd padawan
Wow, what a compelling argument.

The main point of all religions is to underline the superiority of the faithful. They then provide a precise list of those who are not, often with instructions on how they are to be killed.

>>311108
Welcome to 4chan! This is an anonymous imageboard dedicated to a variety of subjects. As anonymity is the defining feature of the site, a name or tripcode should be reserved for extraneous circumstances wherein one might need to be identified (say, to "verify" the OP of a thread). Otherwise, the use of names and tripcodes simply draws attention from the content of a post to the person posting it, often derailing discussion and fostering negative behaviors.
To fix this issue, simply remove all text from the 'name' field of your post and you can get right back to using the site properly!
I hope you found these tips helpful and enjoy the site.

File: 1AzRCcO.jpg (31KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x400px

>>311044
>God
>Law
>Morality

You need an exorcism.

File: 1280px-StonehengeSunrise1980s.jpg (108KB, 1280x897px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x897px

>>311108
>Winter solstice is an astronomical phenomenon marking the shortest day and the longest night of the year. Winter solstice occurs for the Northern Hemisphere in December

>Sol Invictus ("The Unconquered Sun") was originally a Syrian god who was later adopted as the chief god of the Roman Empire under Emperor Aurelian. His holiday is traditionally celebrated on December 25, as are several gods associated with the winter solstice in many pagan traditions.[6]

Total lies bro, you totally schooled me with your laser beam debunking skills.

>>311108
I wasn't the guy who posted them, I was just wondering what the source was. Never seen them before.

>>310421
God actually doesn't care so much about what religion we call ourself, but as long as we love Him and devote ourselves to Him every day.

Mankind hijacked religion, religion is just a term people use to classify themself.

>>311108
To be fair there are things that exagerate the similarities between Jesus and other gods and prophets, for instance I don't think Horus has 12 followers. It would be an outright lie to say everything on the chart is incorrect though. Dying and resurrecting Gods were actually a popular fad when the Jesus cult was formed.

>>310421
Religion was hijacked by morality, the Doctrine of Christ is pure

>>310672
Oh, it's that golden Japanese thread. I loved it.

>>312482
Are you having a stroke?

File: 1448580713475.jpg (135KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x600px

>>312503
This post is pure ideology.

>>312129
>guys its not real
>my memes say so

Cool stuff.

>>312241
?
Yes, Christmas' dating came from shifting the purpose of Natalis Invicti. Or at least it arguably did, there is early arguments for Jesus' birth around roughly the 25th. That has little to do with what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the image.

>Dionysus
>Mithra
>Horus
>Attis
>Krishna

None of these the case. To give simple examples:

>Attis' celebration comes from the return of Spring, not in December at all
>Krishna's "birthday" is in July
>Horus' birthday is roughly around Oct/Nov
>Mithra had no established holidays we know of on record, but did celebrate Mithra instead of Sol during Natalis Invicti as they believed Mithra and Sol to be a different understanding of the same God (the only connecting point being they're representations of the sun). Also Mithra was born of stone, not a virgin.
>All of Dionysus' festivals were Jan-Feb or Apr-Mar.

>>312340
But everything on that chart is incorrect except for the vague "performed miracles".

File: dzhWX.png (283KB, 591x901px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 591x901px

>>312863
>there is early arguments for Jesus' birth around roughly the 25th

Pffft

>>310496
Because fedoras are kekolded pussies.

>>312890
There are old arguments for Jesus' conception happening the same day of the year as his passion. This is the same logic to date Mary's annunciation.

Just people you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true, anon.

>>312919
>Just people you don't like it
"Just because you don't like it", rather.
Ugh, I'm tired.

>>312919
The reason Jesus's conception is the same day as a fucking pagan celestial celebration is because Christianity was influenced by pagan religions.

No one is going to buy the bullshit that he just HAPPENED to do everything in the same manner of other religions. Whether intentionally constructed their religion to mirror other faiths to steal away members or whether they were simply influenced by other cultures is debatable.

Also there are no good accounts of the details of Jesus's life. Saint Iranians insisted that Jesus lived to be 50 or and was crucified under a completely different guy than Pilate. Word of mother accounts are weak. We could just as easily use the Gnostic word of mouth or any other hetrodoxy, some of which I think is more authentic the official version.

>>313073
>The reason Jesus's conception is the same day as a fucking pagan celestial celebration is because Christianity was influenced by pagan religions.

The earliest of Christians, well before Rome's influence, argued that Jesus' conception occurred the same day of the year as his passion. That is, March 25th.

>No one is going to buy the bullshit that he just HAPPENED to do everything in the same manner of other religions.
Hopefully not, as he didn't.

>Also there are no good accounts of the details of Jesus's life.
It was a long-standing oral teaching in the 1st and 2nd century along with others giving their "theological reasoning"

>Saint Iranians insisted that Jesus lived to be 50 or and was crucified under a completely different guy than Pilate
Don't know anything about the Pilate thing but the age part is entirely wrong.

>Saint Iranians
I laughed.

I'm out for now

>>313124
>The earliest of Christians, well before Rome's influence

Ah, you mean when every living Christian was in territory occupied by Rome?

File: 83e36bbf.jpg (29KB, 475x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 475x400px

>>310496

>>313140
The significance of March 25 is that it was the day of Christ's Passion. Christ's Passion falling on that day has to do with it having been the day the Passover Lamb is slaughtered.

>>313159
Keep in mind, the research to these statistics was done by looking at all wars, and then looking for a fixed set of stuff that needed to happen before a war was branded religious.

>>313124
We aren't even sure the original Christians even believed Jesus was a born a virgin.

If we go completely by the written accounts we have jack shit to deal with. The gospels are clearly revisionist, with made up history like the census in them.

>2nd century
Dude the 2nd centuary is where we get the Gospel of Judas. Any writing that is done outside the life span of Jesus is going to be questionable. If you want to talk about the historical version of Jesus anyything in the 2nd century is not an eye-witness account. The oral traditions are fucking superstitions. In other words we can't say what really happened, we can only say what people THOUGHT HAPPENED (so the Gnostic and Christian version or equally valid)

>Don't know anything about the Pilate thing but the age part is entirely wrong
And that's my point. Look I'll tell you why. If Jesus lived to be 50 Pilate wouldn't be the judge. But your guy wanted Jesus to live to be 50 because a core part of his theology was that Jesus came to earth to show how to live a proper human life, but if Jesus died at around 30 he never demonstrated how to live a full life. So we get basless speculation about history in order to make reality match theology.

This is how our understanding of Jesus came to be, it was unapologetically revisionist. Everyone wants to inject their own doctrine into the religion so historical accuracy becomes comprimised. That's why we get blatant lies like the massive censeus going on in Mathew.

This is how religions are made, they aren't concerned with historical accuracy. Why did Jesus ressurect? Because it really happened and it was documented by impartial historians? (of course not otherwise we would have records of the zombies that supposedly came out) Or because those resurrecting and dying gods were hot stuff? There's definitly some theological meaning ascribed to the ressurection but that was all done after the fact.

>>313211
>We aren't even sure the original Christians even believed Jesus was a born a virgin.
It's in the prophecy about the Messiah in the OT

>>313216
Old Testament doesn't say virgin, it says young woman. The early Christian understanding of the prophecy is based on a mistranslation. Also it's very debatle which of the scriptures referenced actually refer to a Messiah prophecy. You should look up some of the Jewish commentary on the Messianic prophecy, a lot of what is invoked are verses taken out of context or refer to a prophecy that was already fulfilled.

>inb4 it's a lie if a Jew says it

>>313125
Good, right in time to get filtered meme Christian.
Also Wolfsheim is spelled Wolfsheim not Wolfshiem you wanna be german.

>>313257
>Old Testament doesn't say virgin, it says young woman.
This was an idea imposed by the Pharisees in response to Christianity.

Unless you are suggesting there is no word for "virgin" in Hebrew.

>>310421

yes but religion was it's enforcer which a mysterious force wanted to destroy

>>313257
>You should look up some of the Jewish commentary on the Messianic prophecy, a lot of what is invoked are verses taken out of context or refer to a prophecy that was already fulfilled.
Rabbinic Judaism started long after Christianity, and grew out of Pharisaic Judaism. Its entire perspective was shaped as a reaction to Christianity. For instance, in Psalm 22: 16, the Hebrew word was always considered to be "pierced" before Christianity, but Rabbinic Judaism started say it specifically means "bound" as a reaction to Christianity. The word literally means "lioned", and that was assumed to be pierced because lions pierce things--but Rabbinic Judaism said it meant "bound", even though it was never before considered to mean that.

File: FREAKING PAARL MAN.jpg (216KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 640x640px

>>313211
>Dude the 2nd centuary is where we get the Gospel of Judas. Any writing that is done outside the life span of Jesus is going to be questionable.
Mate, anything from the 1st-2nd century is people taught directly by the apostles or one teacher from that mostly. It is not in question at all as there was only that core chain of church officials working off of existing teaching that got involved in that conversation.

>anyything in the 2nd century is not an eye-witness account.
The time is irrelevant when talking about dating. A person living the same date of Christ's birth in Acre knows less of Jesus' birth than people taught by the ones who learned directly about the situation decades later.

We're not dealing with guess work, but longstanding historical teaching that was passed on. Of course there can be room for skepticism, there always can be, but it's got a fair amount of legitimacy for what it is. This is also why the Gnostic and Christian doctrines being considered equal is so absurd, ignoring other issues with them.

>And that's my point.
No, you're not understanding me. I'm not saying Irenaeus was wrong for believing that about Jesus, I'm saying he did not believe that about Jesus.

>>313784
I'm aware. It's meant to be spelled this way.

>>313140
Why yes, when it was a backwater territory left to its own devices intellectually but owned by Rome.

>>315627
>Why yes, when it was a backwater territory left to its own devices intellectually but owned by Rome.

Romans would literally kill or imprison you if you didn't believe in their gods

>>315627

>Mate, anything from the 1st-2nd century is people taught directly by the apostles or one teacher from that mostly.
And my point is that there are multiple sources with contradicting views. The Gnostics too had an oral tradition. Did you know some people think the adoption tradition of the bible is the as old as the other traditions?

In other words we have multiple stories and most likely every single one of them is not historically accurate because people are making myths, these myths will have pagan elements. These stories got changed and altered. The Christianity you have today is not the same as the 1st or 2nd century. Did you know that the support for adoptionism can be found in the oldest known bibles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

The bible we have today is deliberately altered to support certain theological agendas. This is the job of a priesthood to change the story to fit their own agenda. We also have to consider that the various offshoots of Orthodoxy (Gnosticism, Adoptionism, etc) can have oral traditions of equal length. This also means that the theological history is the most biased, least authentic understanding of the actual historical event.

You'd have to refer to secular sources to get an honest picture. The secular sources tell us almost nothing. We have the name of Jesus, his crucifixion, and the fact that he was a cult leader. Beyond that there is just conflicting reports by sources that are superstitious and mythical which all have absorbed pagan ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if Christ himself worshiped pagan gods or joined a mystery cult during the missing years. That could help him get ideas. There's actually a theory that he was part of a cult started by John the Baptist but eventually took control of the cult.

1/2

>>315627
>oral teaching
For historical accuracy these are weak. You can't check the facts and they are always contradicting messages. Like I said the Gnostics have oral traditions and according. For fuck sakes you actually believe that a 9th century oral tradition can correctly describe events that happened in the 1st centuary. Remember how I've told you that the woman taken in adultry story is a 9th centuary addition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

Your theology forces you to accept this is an accurate oral teaching, otherwise the bible is corrupted with false stories and you cannot say it is divinly inspired. You'll repeat this agaiin. You beleive a 9th centuary rumor reflect detailed events about what happened in the 1st century. This is insanity but you have to believe to be a good Christian

I think I'll use this opportunity to remind you a smart God wouldn't relay on something so corruptible and unverifiable as oral traditions. This is the same type of vehicle every other 'false prophet' has used. If Jesus was not illiterate he would have written down his message, something that you and I apparently have the power to do but he couldn't.


>I'm saying he did not believe that about Jesus.
Wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=iranius+jesus+age+50&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=irenaeus+jesus+age+50

Paul, James and Mark have their writings from 50 to 70 ad

this is only 20 to 40 years after Jesus.

Meaning if Christians existed before 68AD when Nero died them, it is obvious that a group of people believed on Jesus before 68 AD because He persecuted Christians

>>312863
>None of these the case

>>Horus' birthday is roughly around Oct/Nov
Horus the Child—or "Harpocrates," as was his Greek name—was "born about the winter solstice, unfinished and infant-like..." (Plutarch, "Isis and Osiris" (65, 387C)

It can be assumed all "Rebirth" pagan deities births were centered around the winter solstice as rebirth is also their function in pagan religions

File: Eileens in the Wild.jpg (291KB, 1110x750px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1110x750px

>>315763
>Wrong.

Second result from your link.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

"So, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying."

>The Gnostics too had an oral tradition.
And that's all well and good, there was a web or oral traditions going on at the time for most things in that culture. Some of them from fraudulent sources and the like. Early Christianity had a direct line of authority from which people would work off of to supplement their oral traditions and people referred to that primarily. This primarily set of references, along with the OT, explains some of the refutation of the Gnostic line of thought.

>The bible we have today is deliberately altered to support certain theological agendas. This is the job of a priesthood to change the story to fit their own agenda.
I'm sure you could actually make this seem less like some Reddit-tier antagonism.

>You'd have to refer to secular sources to get an honest picture.
Do you expect to get an accurate telling of Nero's life from the historian Tacitus?
Your claim is too simplistic.

>Remember how I've told you that the woman taken in adultry story is a 9th centuary addition?

?
Didascalia Apostolorum and the author Papias both reference the story directly, as your link even says. Papias lived in the 1st and 2nd century. Your link also mentions how the story is found in pre-9th century versions of the texts so I'm not sure how you can say it's a 9th century addition.


part 1/2
>>315668
The Jewish people were remarkably resilient on the topic of compromise for their beliefs. They were basically controlled opposition for Rome and did not worship their Gods.

Rome was in the position to stomp out Christianity not because it was not selling out to Rome but because it was also functionally a political movement and could be seen as treason. This is also why Jesus got the sign on his cross, which was meant to intimidate.

>>316177
>Rome was in the position to stomp out Christianity not because it was not selling out to Rome but because it was also functionally a political movement and could be seen as treason. This is also why Jesus got the sign on his cross, which was meant to intimidate.

You fucking moron, Christianity wasn't even a thing at that time. And Rome fucking adopted Christianity as a state religion and banned all other religions.

File: eileenseeingyourshit.jpg (47KB, 540x323px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 540x323px

>>316177
>>315763
>I think I'll use this opportunity to remind you a smart God wouldn't relay on something so corruptible and unverifiable as oral traditions.

Correct, and the god we're speaking of now didn't.

>>316190
...?
Do you think Christianity was formed after Jesus died? He has a massive following for his time as well. Christianity was definitely a thing during the life of Christ, albeit it was at its early stages.

And Rome adopting Christianity later is entirely unrelated to what I'm talking about. We were originally discussing the cultural setting Christianity came about it and reinforce my view by saying that Rome interacting with Christ's following does not relate to your presumption of the cultural setting but something altogether different (a threat of treason)

>>316224
>Do you think Christianity was formed after Jesus died?

Obviously, most of its teachings come from Saul.

>Christianity was definitely a thing during the life of Christ

If you practiced "Christianity" the way they practiced it then I'm sure you'd be thrown out of whatever church you're currently in.

>And Rome adopting Christianity later is entirely unrelated to what I'm talking about.

It seems Christianity had no problem getting in bed with each other and appropriating parts of their culture into the abomination we call "modern Christianity".

>>316177
>"So, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying."

You aren't fucking getting it. The point is your oral tradition had no fucking clue what age he is. It's been 100 years since God descended onto earth and his hand-picked followers can't even remember the age the guy was when he single-highhandedly saved the world. And why does Iranius want him to be in his 40s or 50s? To fit the fucking theology that Jesus was supposed to be an example to not just young people but older people. This is not an attempt to record history, it's to make history fit the theology.

>I'm sure you could actually make this seem less like some Reddit-tier antagonism.
I really don't like dumbing things down for you. Every 'false religion' has dilbertly recorded myth as history in order to empower the priesthood. For instance you would have to believe Muhammad was lying about an angel from God giving him the Quaran. You would have to believe the Gnostics were lying when they received secret teachings from Jesus.

But the one 'true' religion did not lie eh? They didn't just write whatever theology they wanted to get power. If there was a teaching of Christ, the early Christian leaders like Saul didn't give a shit about it. It was a power grab. The New Testament is as legitimate as the donation of Constantine. That TOO had an oral tradition.

>Early Christianity had a direct line of authority from which people would work off of to supplement their oral traditions and people referred to that primarily

The lineage is the Pharisee, the Christians were a heratical off-shoot. They left the path of God and said "screw you. We are making our own religion! And we totally have authority because our leader is God" Of course you weren't the only game in town, the Gnostics also had a direct lineage from Christ in the form of secret, higher teachings or so they say.

1/2

>>316177
>Do you expect to get an accurate telling of Nero's life from the historian Tacitus?
If Tactius said Nero raised people from dead would you believe it? What if Tactius filled his history of Nero with things that never happened historically. Say a massive census or genocide that never occured. Say he couldn't remember how old Nero was and was 20 years off.

My point, dummy is that your wittnesses are all on trial. That includes your entire line of authority including Paul and Peter They have proven themself dishonest. And your defense is that they are honest because they say they are honest. That's not how you defend someone's character, that's what you say when you have no defense of character what so ever.

You havn't refuted a single point. You've just insisted that the church leaders are right because they say they right.

You can have a 2,000 year old oral tradition, being past down and it will still be bullshit if the original story was a lie. But I'm not even saying you accomplished that, doctrines change to suit the needs of the puppet masters. In other words the original lie gets modified.

If you want to refute me you would just have to show that your church was not founded on a lie. To do this you would need proof that exists outside the church.

2/2

File: Maiden in Bonnet.jpg (440KB, 550x671px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 550x671px

>>315874
I actually had to re-research this but it seems I was mistaken the first run around, I apologize, but the claim you state is still wrong.
The dating of Horus' birth would be on the 5th epagomenal day of the Egyptian calendar. This would fall under the 28th of August. Here is a quick academic link on the subject:

https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/FDOT.html

Sorry again for the confusion before.
Further, there is the issue of the "Winter Solstice". The original claim is that December 25th was the birth of Horus Behudty but that implies that the 25th is special. To connect it to the winter solstice is unfounded, as the solstice occurs AROUND the 25th - the 21st/22nd to be precise - and so to say that his birthday is about the Winter Solstice and on the 25th are fairly contradicting claims. There would need to be explanation as to why there is the difference between the event and its celebration.

also
>quoting TruthBeKnown

Might as well be quoting AnswersInGenesis.

>>316243
>Obviously, most of its teachings come from Saul.

You're confusing the structure of Christianity for Christianity itself. The catch-all term "Christianity" refers to people who worship Christ. This, however, does not mean worshiping Christ correctly though. This is how heretics are seen as still Christian despite their heresy.

>It seems Christianity had no problem getting in bed with each other and appropriating parts of their culture into the abomination we call "modern Christianity".
Seems to me you're itching to complain about random things and not stay on topic.

>>316295
>random things
>Christianity's relationship with Rome

Sorry you have the attention span of a 3-year-old on coffee

>This is how heretics are seen as still Christian despite their heresy.

So the apostles were heretics? Awesome.

File: IMG_8636.jpg (2MB, 3648x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2432px

>>316295
There are many other artifacts in Egypt that demonstrate Horus's association with the winter solstice, including his temples aligned to the rising sun at that time of the year.

File: Laughing School of Mensis.jpg (249KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 800x533px

>>316283
>You aren't fucking getting it.
I made a point and referenced old references of the historical event's claim to legitimacy. You tried to defame one of the most famed ones to try to shoot down my point. I told you that you were wrong. I get you fine. You're just being silly.

>The point is your oral tradition had no fucking clue what age he is. It's been 100 years since God descended onto earth and his hand-picked followers can't even remember the age the guy was when he single-highhandedly saved the world.

It may come as a surprise to you but the gospels do actually mention these things and St. Irenaeus actually does reference that the gospels say it. You're just wholly mistaken. Gospel of Luke mentions his age when beginning ministry, Gospel of John mentions all the years of ministry (by saying the number of Passover Feasts that occurred since becoming a teacher). And of course we dies during his last.

>And why does Iranius want him to be in his 40s or 50s?

Your previous link and my previous link already tell you this, if you'd bother to read. The answer is he doesn't want him to be. You're mistaken.

>Every 'false religion' has dilbertly recorded myth as history in order to empower the priesthood.

This is a massive generalization of a lot of different people but, if I must generalize, I'd say it's more accurate to say people were mistaken and/or deluded in different ways, some more respectable than others. There is no reason to believe these people begin this with the intent of trying to gain social power. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary as the original ones who began all the religions you reference: (Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, and Islam) dealt with conflict and in marginalization in different ways BECAUSE of their views. Any social power pay-off you're imagining is not seen for generations.


part 1/2

File: The Story of the Hero.png (721KB, 600x2152px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 600x2152px

>>316470

>If there was a teaching of Christ, the early Christian leaders like Saul didn't give a shit about it. It was a power grab.
>random baseless assertions

>That TOO had an oral tradition.
Pretty much anything that need be written down had an oral tradition. Not sure why you'd continue to mention this stuff. The EXISTENCE of an oral tradition isn't in any way my point and I've already explained this to you.

>the Gnostics also had a direct lineage from Christ in the form of secret, higher teachings or so they say.

The Gnostics had no backing from apostolic succession. Your claim is false.

>My point, dummy is that your wittnesses are all on trial
I've been with you on this. This is why I criticized you talking about "secular sources". We need to grasp the author intent rather than their classification in relation to religion. Tacitus fucking HATED Nero and isn't seen as a single reliable source on Nero's life despite being a historian that used 1st century Roman annals to do his work. I'm telling you you're thinking too simplistically. It's muddleheaded.

>And your defense is that they are honest because they say they are honest.
Are you quoting Praceteom now? I have never made this claim. People, of course, will reference the scripture when talking about the passing on of authority but there is an incredibly strong historical backing for this. The unanimous support of apostolic succession from the time of the apostles and onward.

File: The Victorian Ninja7.jpg (339KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1280x1280px

>>316308

>Sorry you have the attention span of a 3-year-old on coffee

Anon, you referenced Rome and Christianity come Constantine. We were talking about both Ancient Rome's relation to Christ's following in his life and Ancient Rome's relation to the Jewish setting in which Jesus came about. None of that deals with when Christianity took power.

You could totally talk about Christianity as it is right now in Rome and that would be about Christianity's relationship with Rome, technically, but be heavily irrelevant to our previous discussion.

Stay on topic.

>So the apostles were heretics? Awesome.

You know full well that was never implied.

>>316340
And that is plenty cool but my point about the Winter Solstice still stands.

>>316475
Name where peter handed the reigns over to anyone to have apostolic succession.

All historical documents should be looked at with caution, for they are not inspired by God.

The roman church would have probably destroyed any document who did not support their Dogma (they killed and jailed people for over 1000 years when they had power)

>>316478
>Stay on topic.

If you're afraid of discussing these topics just say so.

>>316478
>You know full well that was never implied.

That was literally your response to me saying the people living alongside Jesus weren't Christian.

File: 1432708183394.png (1MB, 1005x1709px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1005x1709px

>>316490
>The roman church would have probably destroyed any document who did not support their Dogma

No no, probably the mean ole atheists hunted down all the evidence and destroyed it all! That would show the church! Ra-ha-ha.


But seriously mate, you understand this dealing in guesswork is utterly useless, right? Lets avoid guesswork on all facets of this debate.

Yes, all historical documents and calls for "evidence" should be looked at with caution. This is a sign of temperance and good for you. However, my evidence is no one document or anything of the sort but complete unanimous support for apostolic succession being a Christian thing coming from a society that would die in great numbers before giving up their faith and now had a large number of people supporting Christianity. This is not complete evidence, of course, but I would say it's strong evidence.

>Name where peter handed the reigns over to anyone to have apostolic succession.

What do you mean? Cite the location? Peter died. His successor was placed akin to other successors like the successor of Judas mentioned in the Book of Acts.

>>316517
>If you're afraid of discussing these topics just say so.
Don't worry, I'll tell you if I ever am.

>That was literally your response to me saying the people living alongside Jesus weren't Christian.


Well lets go back so I can help you through it:

>You're confusing the structure of Christianity for Christianity itself. The catch-all term "Christianity" refers to people who worship Christ. This, however, does not mean worshiping Christ correctly though. This is how heretics are seen as still Christian despite their heresy.
>This is how heretics are seen as still Christian despite their heresy.

There is no part of this where the heretics spoken about here are defined. The line is simply to explain the application of the catch-all term to different situations so you grasp my point about defining "Christian", not calling anyone heretics.

>>310421

>Were they right?

thats complicated
human beings are not good or even decent unles properly socialised and well adjusted

the only thing they can realy adjust to are other people around them and that means they integrate into a culture

since every population of people will have some set of codes and rules, beliefs and ways of thinking and judging and valuing things and events, and as this makes part of thir culture as such, these things become the basis of custom and religion

since becoming adjusted means asimilating into a culture, and since custom and religion are basic parts of culture, you cant realy say that ''human decency'' predates anything, its all just there, at the same time

>>316475
>>316470
I've never implied you couldn't get the year he started his ministry. If counting passover feats is supposed to give a good account of his age you wouldn't have disagreements in the early church about his age.

There is actually a disagree in the bible about when Jesus was born. You've got Jesus being born during the reign of Herod and surviving a genocide that never actually happened you've also got a census being done after Herod is dead in which the unborn Jesus avoids the census which also never happened.

>Any social power pay-off you're imagining is not seen for generations.
You and I both know Islam was a huge influence in Muhammad's success, he managed to unite his defeated foes under his banner and claim supreme authority. The Gnostic priesthood got to gain power over hundreds by claiming exclusive knowledge of salvation granting wisdom, which they could spend like currency to get their followers to do anything. And the Christians got what they wanted too, a chance to spite their Roman rulers and control the beleifs of the plebs that required the church for salvation.


>>316475
>Pretty much anything that need be written down had an oral tradition
Does your post have an oral tradition? No, if Jesus had written down his word himself we would not have this problem. We would have the direct, unquestioned teachings of Jesus. But he was illiterate and now we have to question the authenticity of the people that invoke his name. Something you still aren't providing. You are still argueing in circles, the church fathers are correct because they say they are correct.

1/2

>>316470
>The Gnostics had no backing from apostolic succession.
Your apoloestic succession is invalidated in the oral tradition of Juda's gospel. Jesus directly says that followers other than Judas failed to understand his teachings. He prophsizes that that they will create a false church. He directly tells Judas that anyone that comes from their lineage should not be trusted. This is the oral tradition of that invalidates your oral tradition.
Do you see the problem with oral traditions, can't tell the year they came from? Both are unreliable, and probably falsified.

The only reasonable understanding is the exact teachings of Jesus and exact life story are lost to history. We have to make do with conflicting narratives which are probably all have falsities in them. That's how old documents work. Did Jesus really do miracles? Did Iranians really resurrect the dead? Did Pythagoras really have a golden leg? These can't be answered. Answer is likely no. The way to approach ancient history is to accept that there is no truth, only different accounts.


>The unanimous support of apostolic succession
Unanimous by who? You break off from the Pharisee with no justification other than saying that a hobo met you is God. This essentially what the Protestants did, they declared that God was on their side and split off, changing a ton of the rules. In some versions the succession runs a completly different direction with James being the Pope. And as I said the Gnostics had their own way of getting the keys from heaven. Or I can disregard all of this and point out you are using the bible to prove the bible is real.

The only way you know you have an apolistic succession is that your apostles document it. It's true because they say it's true.

This has been your argument. You are using the priests to prove the priests were correct. This is what your whole scholastic thing was trying to, find proofs for dogma that were not self-referencing.

2/2

>>316567
>The roman church would have probably destroyed any document who did not support their Dogma

Wolfshiem. . Your early church fathers DID destroy documents that were against dogma. That's why it's so hard to find those Gnostic texts. We even have records of the bishops orders to destroy them. We also know that there are forgeries within Joseph's letters that were added to make Christianity look cooler.

Between this, the historical inaccuracies in the bible, and the claim to magic existing IRL it's the reason why nobody that hasn't been indoctrinated takes the bible as an accurate representation of history.

File: Cleric Beast.png (375KB, 540x764px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 540x764px

>>316607
>I've never implied you couldn't get the year he started his ministry. If counting passover feats is supposed to give a good account of his age you wouldn't have disagreements in the early church about his age.

Passovers are yearly so it is roughly a good gauge of age. The issue is not with the length of time since his ministry but the date of it any of it and figuring out his exact age when he began ministry. The Gospel of Luke approximates his age as 30.

It's a debate over incredibly slight details.

>Massacre of Innocents didn't happen

Anon, this is silly and baseless. Bethlehem was terribly small even for those ancient times and the society focused on oral tradition, as I've told you before. There is no known record of the event around the time aside from the Gospel of Matthew but at the same time it definitely would not be outside of the character of Herod that we do know from record inside and outside the Gospels. You can't rationally say it didn't happen from a historians perspective but rather that we don't know.

>census
Census of Quirinius did happen and we do have details of it from other historical documentation outside the gospels.

Also it is discovered that Quirinius was governor twice, which explains the apparent contradiction to actually be a lack of info.

>You and I both know Islam was a huge influence in Muhammad's success, he managed to unite his defeated foes under his banner and claim supreme authority.

Well it seems you have a bit of a point there. There was a good amount of social power payoff but I'd argue my original point that these groups "dealt with conflict and in marginalization in different ways BECAUSE of their views" and so can't be shown as power grabs. Muhammad's teaching got him into lots of violent conflict which eventually he won out on and died 2-3 years after.

Part 1/2

File: tumblr_nydi3tcAgM1s3sz4ho1_500.png (448KB, 424x600px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 424x600px

>>316894


>Gnostic Christians
Terribly marginalized, not many successes.

>Christians
Slaughtered and marginalized but did have quite a bit of intellectual successes with the Greeks pretty early on.

I made the mistake saying there was no payout (when even one follower could be considered a payout) but I still hold by the notion there was so much backlash of little value in making these systems to gain power that they were made with the intent of gaining said power.

>No, if Jesus had written down his word himself we would not have this problem.
Of course we would. Look at the complaints circling the Qur'an's correct translation.

But of course we could say "well God could have made sure we got the doctrine correctly" but hell we already get that same promise with the church.

>Your apoloestic succession is invalidated in the oral tradition of Juda's gospel.
Mate what. Judas died after betraying Jesus soon thereafter. Our record of his successor Matthias shows that the timing of Judas' death is accurate. There is no room to start spreading formal teachings to successors. Further, we know that the oral tradition that begat the Gospel of Judas are from the Sethians, which aren't related to Judas whatsoever and come about in the second century.

>This is the oral tradition of that invalidates your oral tradition.
You seem to keep insisting that the existence of oral traditions means validity in and of itself. You fail to grasp the use of it yet again.

>Unanimous by who?
Everyone who understood what Christianity was or at least was as per the apostles after Christ's death. You don't have to accept Christianity to understand its form and teachings. And the Gnostics didn't disagree with apostolic succession either, just its form as we know it.

Actually 2/3

File: that's a cute doll you have there.jpg (1MB, 1245x1731px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1245x1731px

>>316896

>Or I can disregard all of this and point out you are using the bible to prove the bible is real.
I have not referred to the bible to state authority, I'm appealing to history. Stop trying to make an argument from your imagination and come back to reality.

>scholastic
It was general understanding the faith, don't be so disingenuous.

3/3

File: 1442303077075.jpg (211KB, 960x943px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 960x943px

>>316636
I'm fully aware. However, just as I said when talking about the Massacre of Innocents with Herod, while something could be probable based on other action we cannot make a factual claim here. It's the proper historian response to say "We don't know." This is why I said not to do any guesswork.

Surely you actually grasp this, right? It's not hard.

And please. Misinformation and ignorance are the main struggles of the faith right now. And, noting your posts without your name on, irrationality certainly plays a part as well.

>>310606
Muh natural law

>morality without christianity

doesn't exist

just everyone having their own subjective opinions on what they think is moral for themselves

morality has no meaning for atheists

>>316899
Sauce of that pic, please?

>>310421
Not all religions are good and decent. If everyone had Jewish values, there would be world peace.

>>317100
The notion that atheists can't live happy, productive, law-abiding, moral lives was invented by religionists who are too afraid to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and who resent the fact that others can.

>>317230

no, you don't understand my position

i don't deny a tiny minority of atheists can flukily also share the same fundamental morals as christianity, and live moral lives in terms of christian morality, but the vast majority of people don't fluke into these christian morals

0.001% of atheists are good people.

the general population has to believe in a higher power in order for society to succeed

name 1 atheist society that has succeeded in human history

>>317247
Every post enlightenment nation is secular-that means its laws are not mused from god.

Atheism is not a matter of choice. There is no evidence for God. Once that becomes clear, you cannot just summon him back into existence. He is not there.

>>310421
absolutely.

i mean it's self evident that forgiveness, compassion, mercy were not and are not the monopoly of religion.

and that they are just as human as genocide, torture and betrayal.

>>310537
>mankind started off with a secular moral code enforced by nothing in some primeval paradise, and then one day for no reason whatsoever everybody became religious?


no, we think there were specific reasons. also, learn the difference between myth and religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7THRPYKlJck

>>310672
>the japanese have organised crime as a practical leverage for their capitalism

WOW, UNIQUE


why are rightwingeers so blind??

>>312510
is ideology now a meme?

File: 1442680225470.png (179KB, 578x242px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 578x242px

>>317459
>now

>>317261

>Atheism is not a matter of choice. There is no evidence for God. Once that becomes clear, you cannot just summon him back into existence. He is not there.

this is your religious belie, it's not a fact

the idea that nothing created the everything has no scientific basis

>>317486
WHy is Zizek always credited with decosntructing ideology???

>>317616
dunno, it started on /lit/

>>317680
we need unique /his/ memes pronto

I 'm proposing meta

>inb4 already meme

>>317689
We already have /his/ memes

>holy
>glorified cheerleader
>I must unite the x.under one y

>>317715
>glorified cheerleader

not familiar with this one

File: Cutieborne.jpg (44KB, 600x599px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x599px

>>317261
Everything has everything to do with choice. The society that dismissed God eventually made that choice by gradually dismissing a few philosophical principles. The only difference in society is if you understand those issues or if you were just taught it at an early age and grew up with the decision made for you.

Granted nowadays people do not even grasp the classical concept and spend their time refuting modern re-conceptions.

>>316894
>Basless speculation about a massacre definitely happening
This is insanity. How about we increase the holocaust numbers to 6 billion while we are at it?

>Also it is discovered that Quirinius was governor twice,
That's actually pretty neat. You got me there

>dealt with conflict and in marginalization in different ways BECAUSE of their views
If you are a long term planner or an idealist than these are not problems, it's required to run a religion.

The idea that Paul would intentionally usurp a small cult for no reason other than to gain power...and to spite the groups he hated makes perfect sense to me. One of the first things I wanted to do after becoming an atheist was become a priest and try to change the teach to my image, I'd basically be doing a Paul. But I realized that only works when the religion is very young (as Paul got it). Or when it is in a weakened state as Martin Luther.

>Terribly marginalized, not many successes
That doesn't speak against the historical truth. Remember my belief is both the Gnostic and Christians corrupted Jesus's message. Popular opinion does not matter in detecting the truth. Also to my knowledge they were no entirely small, they were your first big rival.

>Of course we would. Look at the complaints circling the Qur'an's correct translation.
There's several philosophical ideas that communicating an idea in a way that can't be misinterpreted through text is impossible. You've heard of deconstructionism right? However a direct quote from Jesus would help a ton. To start with it would be a lot harder for me to say your religion corrupted the teachings of Jesus if Jesus just wrote the whole NT by himself. . We'd have the writing style dated to the year 20 or so. Your church would get a more intimidate look into the mind of God. But Jesus was illiterate.

1/2

>>316899
>Judas died after betraying Jesus soon thereafter.
And according to Juda's Gospel he was murdered by the other 12 because they were jealous Jesus gave him the higher secrets. He also asks Judas to turn him. Your oral tradition has a completely different story. What I'm saying is that conveying historical truths by oral tradition is a joke. And this isn't just the bible, a lot of ancient historical events are questioned but we can't verify them.

I'll mention Juda's gospel is bullshit written retroactivily, designed to make Christian church look bad. Judas is the faithful one and the other are the betrayers. It describes how the other 12 will make a false church and practice sodomy and human sacrifice. It's pure propaganda

But I also think your version of the story is retroactive and pure propaganda. The whole idea that Jesus knew wanted to be crucified, that he resurrected is fanfiction. The keys of heaven being given to Peter is self-promoting. I can refute your text for the same reason I refute the Gnostic version: it's too convenient, it's exactly what someone seeking power would write.

> I'm appealing to history.
The only way you can grasp priestly succession away from the Pharisee is to refer to the bible. Without the idea that God directly established your church you are just a renegade Jewish sect. The whole thing is self-referencing. The only way you know you had authority to leave the Jewish church was because God told you. The way you know God told you is because your church is the keeper of God's word.

2/2