Best Irrelevant Content

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 7

  Factfinder said:

  @just_sayin
  
  Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either.  One must examine the veracity of the evidence.
  
  What little there is that is true. But you bank everything on what the bible says which isn't evidence. You can appeal to scholarly articles and books stating what's believed, Christian tradition, references to the claims of followers, and legend all you want; but it can never be evidence. A book of a collection of mythical writings does not qualify. We can't even be sure the Apostle Paul even existed since we only have the bible's claim he did ...
  
  

  Biography

  Early life

  The two main sources of information that give access to the earliest segments of Paul's career are the Acts of the Apostles and the autobiographical elements of Paul's letters to the early Christian communities.[41] Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Available_sources

  
  Which means the bible can't testify to his existence or the creed referenced in "Paul's" writings to the Corinthians. It's just the bible says. Paul, aside from the scriptures isn't mentioned till a century afterwards at the earliest. Using scripture to attest to scripture is never evident of anything but belief. 
  
  

  Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

  • Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
  • Ignatius of Antioch's epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians[45] (early 2nd century);
  • Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
  • Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiae (early 4th century);
  • The apocryphal Acts narrating the life of Paul (Acts of Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter and Paul), the apocryphal epistles attributed to him (the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca) and some apocalyptic texts attributed to him (Apocalypse of Paul and Coptic Apocalypse of Paul). These writings are all later, usually dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

  
  
  This however is speaking more to the authenticity of the religious claims themselves which this thread isn't really about. It's about how Christianity isn't as unique as people seem to think. As I pointed out with the Sumerians it's not that different. Sure details, settings, and stories are differ but they all share a variety common themes, ideals. The Egyptians had a "King of the Resurrection" long before. Christianity itself draws heavily from Judaism to the point it lays claim to the Tora as part of Christianity (Actually the old testament). Judaism has tales of resurrection and prophets calling on god to bring back the dead and then doing so. 1 Kings 17:17-24 is one instance. So your claim about some presumed event concerning a resurrection being unique to Christianity just isn't so.

  Paul is considered to be a historical figure by historians.  In fact, I can't think of a single credible one who denies his existence.  The claim that we have no evidence for Paul is false.  He wrote almost half the New Testament.  His letters to the churches he either established or visited are written evidence of his existence.  Luke, who accompanied him on his missionary journeys, recorded his 3 missionary trips in the book of Acts.  So we have several of Paul's letters and Luke's account in Acts.  
  
  Clement of Rome, lived from 35 AD to 99 AD.  He met some of the apostles, and knew their apprentices.  So, he would have had access to people who knew Paul.
  
  To believe that Paul was not a historical figure, you would have to believe a mighty big conspiracy theory.  You'd have to believe that all of Paul's letters were faked.  That Luke faked his account, that all of the churches that Paul started lied about who started them, and coordinated with one another over the hundreds and hundreds of miles between them. You would have to believe that all of the early church father's lied about Paul, or that they were all lied to by people who claimed they had met Paul but had not.  That's just too big of a conspiracy for me.  I just don't have that much faith.
  
  Instead, it seems much more likely Paul was a real person, and more importantly to me, that he wrote about Jesus and the resurrection as actual historical events.  
  
  The historical account of Jesus differs greatly from the story of Osiris.  Osiris was either slain or drowned by Seth.  He was cut in 14 pieces, with all but the phallus being buried.  He became the God of the dead.  He remains in the land of the dead and doesn't come back from there.  There was no physical resurrection of Osiris.  That seems like a major difference, since the primary claim of Christianity is that Jesus died and arose from the dead with many witnesses confirming this.  However, nowhere in the myth of Osiris, does he leave the realm of the dead.  As Britanica explains:
  
  

  This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth. 

  Let's contrast this with what Paul said about Jesus:

  I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles...
   But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
  20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 12-20 NLT

  As you can see, Paul views Jesus and his resurrection as a historical event.  

  

• Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

  RickeyHoltsclaw

  May 4
  @MistakenIdentity ; It appears that you have made your choice...enjoy.
  

  

• Only The Good Die Young?

  Bogan

  May 4
  The true saying is more prosaic.    'It is, "Only the good die young in spirit,"

  

• Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

  MayCaesar

  May 3
  Has anyone ever wondered why there is Christian, Jewish, Hinduist and Muslim faith, but there is no Christian, Jewish, Hinduist and Muslim physics? Because physics describes reality, so the double slit experiment set up in a lab in Palo Alto will produce exactly the same result as it set up in a lab in Jerusalem, or Kolkata, or Tehran. While faith describes fantasy, and different cultures develop different fantasy patterns. There is no experiment that can demonstrate that one fantasy is somehow more real than another fantasy, since the reality content of either one of them is exactly 0%.
  
  Science is objective, while religion is intrinsically subjective. Science describes phenomena happening in the real world, while religion describes phenomena happening in human imagination.

  

• Should we all be Black?

  just_sayin

  April 29

  Factfinder said:

  RickeyHoltsclaw said:

  The Black culture in America has become a sty and cancer in our society...Lincoln was right...we should have returned them Africa.
  

  Bigoted christian slave ownership sealed the eminent decline of America.

  While some Christians supported Antebellum slavery, it was the great awakening movement among Christians that resulted in slaves being freed in Europe and America. The abolitionist movement was driven by Christians.  See History.com
  
  

  Historians believe ideas set forth during the religious movement known as the Second Great Awakening inspired abolitionists to rise up against slavery. This Protestant revival encouraged the concept of adopting renewed morals, which centered around the idea that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

  
  

  

• Is Religion a Mental Illness?

  just_sayin

  April 25

  Factfinder said:

  just_sayin said:

   @Factfinder
  
  Not trickery - that's a definitive lie.  He said 'sorcery'.  That means he believed Jesus demonstrated magical powers.  He even listed healing the lame, and healing the blind.  
  
  You lied and got called out on it.

  No, you're called out again...
  
  On Christ’s miracles, Celsus argues that he worked his miracles by “sorcery” and that they were no more superior to the deeds of the Egyptians and others in the magic arts (6). The miracles are just fables invented by the disciples. Further, Christ’s prediction of his own death was invented by the disciples and his purported resurrection is nothing unique in comparison to the likes of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, and Rhampsinit (7). In fact, the resurrection has its origin in a hysterical female as well as in the wishful thinking of Christ’s followers (8). This is why Celsus ridicules Christians for their use of blind faith instead of reason: “For just as among them scoundrels frequently take advantage of the lack of education of gullible people and lead them wherever they wish, so also this happens among the Christians… some do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe”
  
  https://jamesbishopblog.com/2020/06/23/greek-philsopher-celsus-on-the-historical-jesus/
  
  He may not of used the specific word 'trickery' but intelligent people not driven to lie for a false god know for a fact his description inferred trickery. As 'magic' relies on deception as in making up stories and creating illusions. "Sorcery" was considered part of the magic arts and you knew that. So you were 'tricked' by the sorcery or you're simply lying again Just_sayin, which is it? 

  It was by means of sorcery that He [Jesus] was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed;  - Origen book 1:6
  
  

  48 [Celsus' Jewish critic]: the Christians deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. and moreover, because, as they assert, he raised the dead. 49. O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. - Origen book 2:48-49

  

• Gay at birth?

  just_sayin

  April 22

  ZeusAres42 said:

  @MayCaesar
  
  One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 
  
  I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

  ZuesAres42, Just a question of clarification.  The half a million participant study found no gay genetic markers in over 60% of self-identified non-heterosexuals.  What evidence of biological factors are you claiming there is evidence for, for this group?  

  

• "Unfair universe" paradox

  Bogan

  April 19

  Max quote   You are disregarding science.

  I disregard pseudo science, and I think I have the maturity to differentiate one from the other.      Bit worried about you, though. 

  
  

   Max quote      Did you not read the link?

  As a matter of fact, I did.      The reason being, because you are doing such a lousy job of presenting any argument at all that races do not exist, that I got bored again and I thought I would go to your source.      As expected, your link was laughable.       It was nothing but diseased English, which was probably written by Sir Humphry Appleby himself.          You probably tried to read it too, but the reason why you could not use it as a source to write a reasoned argument supporting your position, is that not did not make any sense to you, either?      Diseased English is the art of writing blithering nonsense in an authoritative way in order to fool the gullible who want to be impressed.     It did not fool me one whit.     I suppose that I could go through your link, paragraph by paragraph, pointing out the waffle and the meandering logic?     But I have been down that track before, only to have my opponent swamp me with even more stu-pid links.    So, I end up being the one who does all the work while my opponent just submits ever more links, “Dreamer” style.    I challenge you to read your link and if it makes any sense to you, use it to form your own argument.      But that will never happen, because it is just a series of spurious declarations written in an authoritative way, which is impossible to use to form a cohesive argument.  

   

  Max quote        Or the many other high quality science links, showing why and how humans are all one race because we are to similar to be classified as sub races except by sociology concepts?

  Then you had better find one which is a lot more credible than the one which you submitted in your last post.      Unlike your link, my position is simple to understand and is supported by evidence which most informed people already know is true.     Most informed people know that science does recognise race because they know that the reason why so called “anti racists” claim that “white men invented racism” is because in the 19th century, science itself was very interested in race.   And in those days, science was almost solely the preserve of white European men.       But even today, it is an easily provable premise that science recognises race, regardless of how many woke “scientists” there are who are consider their ideological beliefs to be more important than science.    They know that the people who use their “scientific reports” will never look at them with a critical eye, or verify if they are true.    So, they can misuse the great respect which most people have for science to push that government mandated ideological agenda.

   

  Max quote  These links clearly back up my statement.

  Your link was supposed to prove that races do not exist.      There was no cohesive argument on that topic at all.       It basically said “I am a scientist and I say that race does not exist.    So there!”      That hardly impresses any person who has any capacity to think, any more than a woke biologist claiming that it is impossible for science to differentiate between a male and female skeleton.     Or, the once respected medical journal Lancet claiming that the Wuhan virus did not originate in a Chinese bio weapons lab in China.       Or, climate scientists claiming that the north pole will be ice free by 2013, and the London and New York subways will both be drowned. 

   

  Max quote     You on the other hand, give me a botanist who lived in the 1800s

  So did Charles Darwin.     I suppose that his advocacy for evolution should be dismissed entirely because he was just an old white guy who lived 150 years ago?      I sure hope your woke “scientists” don’t decide that evolution is not politically correct, so Darwin should be air brushed out of science too?   All they would need to do to impress you, would be to write some pseudo scientific reports in diseased English claiming that evolution was fake, and you would lap it up without even bothering to turn on your critical analysis circuit to really read the nonsense they were writing? 

   

  Max quote   and one you tube video of dubious quality.

  Then here is another one which proves that geneticists, who are scientists, recognise race.   

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlGhVgV3Yw&t=176s

  
  

    The problem for woke ”scientists” today is that smart people are just too informed with lots of media sources that they can use to keep up with what is going on in politics and science.      They can fool the gullible and the misinformed, but they can’t fool people who like to be aware of what is happening in the world around them, and who can think straight.   

   

  Max quote      Give me a few high quality science links that back up your statements.

  That would be like the Catholic Church during the Inquisition demanding to know the names of any scientist who supported the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe.      We live in an age where universities have been taken over by government supported, crazy cultural revolutionaries who shout down, sack from their jobs, destroy the careers, and “cancel” any academic who dares to oppose their government sanctioned worldview.      So, just like in the days of Galileo, if you want to understand the world around you, you have to pick up unbiased bits of information from wherever you can, and link them together to form a picture.    Naturally, you won’t do that, because that would require a sceptical mind and some effort.      Easier to just toe the woke party line, confident that the people who are destroying western civilisation, suburb by suburb, city by city, and country by country, really know what they are talking about. 

   Could I also add that in many western countries today, it is illegal to claim that races are not equal.  This topic is so super sensitive in Canada, that the Trudeau government is legislating that anybody who “offends” their new imported electors should be jailed for life.     Scotland’s new “Hate Laws” mandate seven years jail for saying something racist in your own home.      I live in Australia, and if I lived in the state of Victoria, I could be prosecuted for writing this reply to you.      If you really do have the capacity to think, then you should be able to figure out that when the authorities demand that you not think or write about something, they definitely have got something to hide.        The only reason for political censorship is to protect those at the top with their power, prestige, perks, and privileges.     They have a state ideology which was invented to keep the proles on the bottom and themselves at the top, and they don’t want the proles thinking.     They seem to have succeeded in that nefarious aim with you.

   

  Max quote      Yes, conceptually there are sub races; biologically in humans; no.

  Your premise is illogical.      If every mammalian life form excepting polar bears (and that for good reason) exists solely as sub species, then it stands to reason that your premise does not make sense.        If not, then I challenge you to write a reasoned argument explaining how it is that human beings are exempt from the same evolutionary forces which have created sub species in every other mammalian species.      It is no good looking up your “authoritative scientific reports” to help you, because the evil little bastards who wrote that cr-ap already know that I am right.        And there will be nothing in their waffling links that will help you.       So, c’mon Max, show us all how you can think.     Show us all how informative and logical your links are.    Since you claim to be just telling the scientific truth, then it should be easy for you to use your “scientific” links that you have such faith in, to prove that whatever evolutionary forces affect the creation of sub species in every other vertebrate creature, can not apply to human beings. 

   London to a brick that you will not answer.    You can’t answer because your premise is illogical.      Which is why your whole idea that races do not exist is logically bankrupt.

  

• "Unfair universe" paradox

  Bogan

  April 15

  Given the number of stu-pid “debates” on Debate Island that nobody is even bothering to contribute to, it looks like it is up to me again to get things moving?      Although, since I have categorised MayCaesar and Factfinder as trolls who have no intention of debating honestly, and who’s are only interest is in stifling debate on the topic of “Are Races Equal”, it like it is over to you, Maxx?    

   The premise for this debate is that intelligent people, like MayCaesar, Factfinder, and Maxx believe that 2+2 equals 4, and religious people like “just- sayin” think that 2+2 equals 3?

   Okay, let’s look at that.     By any application of reasoned logic, it is screamingly obvious that races are not equal.      Yet MayCaesar, Factfinder, and Max refuse to discus this subject on it’s merits.      They think up every dirty tactic that they can think of to prevaricate, muddy the water, refuse to acknowledge the simplest of connections, and worse still, refuse to to even submit any argument supporting their religious belief that all races are equal.        So, I find it amusing that they are attacking poor old “just-sayin” for his religious convictions, when they have exactly the same religious conviction on a topic which they themselves so desperately want to believe is true.     I think that this way of thinking is essential to religious belief.   You so desperately want to believe in a fantasy, be it a religious fantasy, or a social fantasy, that you simply stop thinking rationally about it.    And when somebody like me comes along and makes you think rationally about it, you stick you fingers in your ears and shout NANANANANANA!

   I will give the devil “just-sayin” his due.       At least he debates honestly and admits that his beliefs are the result of his religious convictions.     Maxx, MayCaesar, and factfinder, on the other hand, display exactly the same religious beliefs as “just-sayin” of the subject of whether races are equal, yet they act superior to “just-sayin” and pretend that they are his intellectual superiors because they pretend to think differently. 

  

• Reasons for your siding regarding the Israely and Palestine/Hamas Conflict?

  Bogan

  April 4