Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Judaism and Astrology

Astrology is very common in Judaism. Astrological motifs exist in proliferation throughout the major Judaic holy books: the Torah, Zohar, Talmud, and Midrash, etc,. Many scholars have attempted to explain these passages away, but their arguments are spurious and often ludicrous. One Jewish writer's book on astrology was penned so that Jews who were tempted to seek truth in areas outside of orthodox Judaism (new age, occultism, eastern mysticism, etc) should remain where they are and be contented since within Judaism there is an occult college to be tapped, one which includes not only Kabala, but Astrology.

Clearly, astrology existed long before the rise of Judaism and early "Jews" were major star worshippers. Scholars attempt to re-write the story of Jehovah's creation of the universe so that it can appear that Jehovah created the zodiac and therefore it is okay for Jews to acknowledge astrology. It is even said that Jews would be guided by their horoscopes if they did not have the Torah. Lets witness the careful supplanting and duplicity for ourselves, by reviewing a few passages from M. Glazerson's book on Judaism and the zodiac. In his book, entitled: Above the Zodiac, we read:

In the Code of Jewish Law (vol. 1 Ch. 179 Par.1), we find a prohibition against the consultation of one's astrological forecast...Not withstanding the prohibition, Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Code of Jewish Law. Vol 179 Par.2) hands down a decision that, "One who has heard a forecast from a competent astrologer may take this information into account, and ought not to act contrary to the astrological influence... (Page 9)

The Zohar (Vol III P. 216) states, "From the time that the Torah was given to Israel the Israelites were withdrawn from the rule of the stars and constellations: however, if one does not follow the ways of the Torah, he returns to be under the domain of the natural influences - (Page 9)

This is a most revealing passage. It tells us that the Jewish rabbis and authorities know that astrology works. They take a fairly lenient attitude with it, and even think of astrology as an aid to living a moral life, as dictated by the Torah. (Judaism as a religion is vastly more lenient and egalitarian than Christianity). The passage also lets us know that the Jews, before the advent of the Torah were most likely assiduously committed to the science of astrology, so much so that its study is not considered wholly banished or reprehensible. In another passage, we clearly see the careful sophistry which subtly allows one to form their own lenient opinion on the connections between Torah and Zodiac.

In the Talmud we find various statements regarding the influences of the astrological signs on the Jewish people...Nachmanides writes: "The edicts of the stars constitute the basis of the hidden miracles mentioned in the Torah. However, the Jew, through the power of his choice and through his walking in the way of the Torah, may rise above the astrological influences - (Page 10)

Not being able, or even willing to wholly dispense with the science of astrology, the Jewish scholars then had to make astrology appear endorsed by God himself. The signs of the zodiac existed long before Judaism, that could not be refuted, but a Jewish coloring could subsequently be given to the signs and their meanings. In this way, later generations would perhaps accept that astrology, as a science, originated with the Jews. Jewish scholars probably realized that their religious customs and idioms were so littered with astrological motifs, that it would be an impossible task to ignore astrology, and that it would not be feasible to advocate that astrology played no part in Judaism. Therefore, it was decided to not only tacitly endorse astrology, but to add to the astrological canon a patently Jewish veneer.

http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astro-theology3.html

The 33 years of Christ's ministry
This is a number that connects directly with the zodiac and the movement of the sun around it. As mentioned above, the sun takes 2,160 years to pass backward through one sign of 30 degrees. Now this number 2160 or its shorter version 216, is a number that turns up in megalithic construction throughout the world. It was encoded into most of the cyclopean structures, to represent the Serpent or Sidereal Cults who were the Magi, or astrologers. Now it takes 2,160 years for the sun to clear a house. In degrees this is 30. But the sun enters at the 30th degree but is not totally clear until the 33rd degree, as it is of a certain size also. This is why they said in the Bible that the ministry of Christ begins at 30 and finishes at 33. This reference would have been unmistakable to anyone aware of the secrets of astrology. The number is connected to the initiation of the "Sun" of god not "Son," passing through the zodiac. This is why the Freemasonic lodges also utilize the number. There are also 33 vertebrae in the spinal column.

bible is based on, BULLSHIT.

People need to realize where their Book is based out of.

There's more on this, and yes, astrological influence is littered throughout the Bible...primarily the Old Testament. Saying it's all astrology ignores the myriad stories within it, but there's certainly a lot more than most Christians are aware of.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bible is based on, BULLSHIT.

And so is Astrology. Imagine that...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
There's more on this, and yes, astrological influence is littered throughout the Bible...primarily the Old Testament. Saying it's all astrology ignores the myriad stories within it, but there's certainly a lot more than most Christians are aware of. Oh yeah, even the way the temple in the OT was set up. I must go and look it all up.

Any "debunk Christianity" attempt worth its salt lists a bunch of astrology references. Most that I've seen are in various films.

I actually usually don't use it as an argument though, because it requires such exact knowledge of scripture verses to make many of the points. It's far easier for me to remember other preceding mythologies that don't require such exacting memory.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bible is based on, BULLSHIT.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not all.

Now who knows what a unicorn is?
Let me tell you about.)

A long time ago when the earth was green
Well, there was more kinda animals than you've ever seen
And they just run around free while the world was being born
And loveliest of them all was the unicorn.

There was green alligators and long neck geese
Humpty bumpty camels and some chimpanzees
There was cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born
The loveliest of all was the unicorn.

But the Lord seen some sinning and it caused him a pain
He said, stand back I'm gonna make it rain
So hey, brother Noah, I'll tell you what to do
Go and build me a floatin' zoo.

And you take 'em two alligators and a couple of geese
Two humpty bumpty camels and chimpanzees
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born
Noah, don't forget my unicorn.

Now Noah, was there and he answered the callin'
And he finished up the ark as the rain started fallin'
Then he marched in the animals two by two
And sung out as they went through.

Hey Lord, I got your two alligators and a couple of geese
Two humpty bumpty camels and chimpanzees
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born
Lord, I just don't see your unicorn.

Well, Noah looked out through the drivin' rain
But the unicorns were hidin' playing silly games
They were kickin' and a splashin' in the early morn
Oh, them foolish unicorns.

Then the ducks started duckin' and the sneaks started sneakin'
And the elephants started elephantin' and the boat started shakin'
The mice started sqeekin' and the lions started roarin'
And everyone's aboard but the unicorns.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh...weep

lol. sowy hunny. {u sound so much like the girl i like right now, its not even funny}. im sure jesus will bring back a couple of unicorns when he comes back.

Seems all religions are based on it and then grew from it.........oh my the devil is upon us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so is Astrology. Imagine that...

Hahah so true.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bible is based on, BULLSHIT.

A summary of the thread. Look above.

its is based on astrology. without a doubt

its all about the constellations and the 12 signs of the zodiac.


watch zeitgeist

in the old testament moses was angry that the people were worshipping a golden bullcalf...the bull represented 'taurus'.



moses represented aries the ram and that was the age he was usheing in (thats why the jews blow the rams horn)

jesus came next and represented pises the fish, the age we are still in to this day (he was a fisherman....pope wears a fishhead)

and the new age in 2150 will be aquarius

when asked when the next passover will be, jesus replied:

"Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him;

the man with the pitcher of water?..

aquarius, which is the new age in 2150
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/5/5e/256px-Aquarius2.jpg

http://www.ferretcouture.co.uk/Images/latest-resources/products/Zodiac-Ferrescopes.gif

no more or less than the torah and qur'an

Let me get this straight.

Because some Jews knew about astrology, that means that the Bible is based on astrology?

By the way, I can invalidate the entire article by quoting a single sentence:

"Judaism as a religion is vastly more lenient and egalitarian than Christianity."

Catastrophic failure present; abandon text.

Explain how this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
"Judaism as a religion is vastly more lenient and egalitarian than Christianity."

Does this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
. . . invalidate the entire article . . .

It shows what, exactly, the writer knows. Which is "not much."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjGkRFFBd0A&feature=related

Lets not forget that Jesus is "born" on Dec 25th.

Looking at the Zodiac again, the Salstice in on the 22nd. The sun goes to the furthest point south, and stays there for 3 days, as if it's dead, as the days are smaller, everything is colder etc.

Dec. 25th is day 3, to when it raises north again, as if it's born again.

And remember 3 kings following the East star? The East star is called Sirius, the 3 kings are the 3 brightest stars in Orion's belt. On Dec. 25th before the sun rises, the 3 kings are aligned and point to Sirius, which continues a line pointing to where the sun will rise on Dec. 25th. So it's told, that 3 kings follow the east star to the birth of the sun.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/1674630548_c68cb7917a_o.jpg

And is it just me, or does this constelation look like a reindeer?

http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/2-96/sirius.gif

Excellent. And as I've said before, in the OT, there is a scripture that states "The SUN of Righteousness".


"But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. Malachi 4:2


Isaiah 30:26 The light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven days, on the day the LORD binds up the fracture of His people and heals the bruise He has inflicted.

Isaiah 60:1 "Arise, shine; for your light has come, And the glory of the LORD has risen upon you.



Even in the very beginning the people were TOLD to look for signs in the heavenly bodies...stars and such.


You might find it interesting that in the Book of Genesis, it says God created "Light" on the first day. But the Sun and the stars had not been created yet. They are given special mention in a passage which follows later. In Chapter 1, Verse 14, God is said to have made the sun and moon and stars "for signs" on the fourth day of Creation. For thousands of years, astrologers have been doing just that - looking "for signs" in the heavens as a way of understanding what is happening, or will happen, on Earth.


They're just practicing what the Bible has always taught...

Originally posted by anaconda
no more or less than the torah and qur'an

true true

I had a debate about this earlier with Nellinator. I quoted him verses where it said Jesus was coming from the clouds and him saying he was the light and will protect us from the darkness.

It shouldn't come to surprise, but there are delusional people who choose not to accept this.

Great stuff, Deano.

its so obvious debbie. but this is not just a pop at christianity but in all religions.


people choose to believe these fairytales because they are in fear of what lies beyond, so they need some sort of hope to cling on to.

all i can say is that there is nothing to fear. conciousness cannot be destroyed.

now the problem is that there are those in power who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societys. you have to ask yourself why this sort of stuff is never taught in school. well its because they dont want you to know the truth, they want you to believe in these fairytales so that you are far more easy to manipulate.

ur forgetting that many a times, the ones in power are themselves followers of some form of the fairy tails they perpetrate to control the wrest of the world. being on top does nto automatically make you completely non delusional.

Good bye, friends...........

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It shows what, exactly, the writer knows. Which is "not much."

Since he is not arguing from his own authority, this does not invalidate his argument.

Plus three days in Hebrews does not equal three literal days. Hence dying on Friday and rising on Sunday.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I maintain that it does. No, I don't care if that doesn't count.

See, you retards have to get your stories straight. One day, it's that Christmas was invented to overwrite pagan worship (this would be backed historically); the next day, it's that we're worshiping the sun (this would be backed by conspiratards).

I mean, really.

Oh, and to break your little theory: nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "three kings." It says there were magi, and there is no number given.

So, you fail. As usual. Back to the drawing board on how to disprove Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

Hey, Deano? Shut up.

You guys fail harder than Magic Johnson's immune system.

using wikipedia as a reliable source?

you fail

are you a christian?

the Magi were also known as the Three Wise Men, The Three Kings, or Kings from the east.

if you want to believe in fairytales then thats fine. christianity is a repackaged pagan sun religion.

Bible is based on Jewish law.

http://www.youtube.com/v/q2zNJcPiIDg
truth about jesus

Originally posted by Nellinator
Plus three days in Hebrews does not equal three literal days. Hence dying on Friday and rising on Sunday.
It's also argued that "Good Friday" is merely erroneous tradition, similarly to how some theologians contest the actual year of Jesus's birth. Not that it much matters.
Originally posted by Deano
using wikipedia as a reliable source?

you fail

are you a christian?

the Magi were also known as the Three Wise Men, The Three Kings, or Kings from the east.

if you want to believe in fairytales then thats fine. christianity is a repackaged pagan sun religion.
The number of magi are not given in the Bible. It just became tradition to say "three wise men."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so is Astrology. Imagine that...

HAHA!!! Oh man...*wipes of away tears*

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It's also argued that "Good Friday" is merely erroneous tradition, similarly to how some theologians contest the actual year of Jesus's birth. Not that it much matters.

The number of magi are not given in the Bible. It just became tradition to say "three wise men."

comparing horus to jesus is another thing you should do too. you will find many similarities

just look at the astrological evidence here''

''When Moses threw out the golden calf, he knew it was the end of the Taurus Age or the fourth age in our present great year. He instructed his followers to get rid of the bull, put lambs' blood on the doors, and place Rams' horns in the temples. By looking at the Master Calendar, the Mazzaroth, or the Zodiac in the heavens, anyone could see that it was the dawning of the Age of Aries the ram or lamb. It was the start of the fifth age in our current great year.

after aries was pisces (jesus) the age we are still in now. and the supposed birthdate of jesus was the start of the age of pisces.

the next one is aquarious the water bearer. 2150. jesus even tells you so himself in the passage i mentioned earlier.

im not saying there isnt no god. i dont know what god is. But i know what he isnt

Originally posted by Deano
comparing horus to jesus is another thing you should do too. you will find many similarities

just look at the astrological evidence here''

''When Moses threw out the golden calf, he knew it was the end of the Taurus Age or the fourth age in our present great year. He instructed his followers to get rid of the bull, put lambs' blood on the doors, and place Rams' horns in the temples. By looking at the Master Calendar, the Mazzaroth, or the Zodiac in the heavens, anyone could see that it was the dawning of the Age of Aries the ram or lamb. It was the start of the fifth age in our current great year.

after aries was pisces (jesus) the age we are still in now. and the supposed birthdate of jesus was the start of the age of pisces.

the next one is aquarious the water bearer. 2150. jesus even tells you so himself in the passage i mentioned earlier.

im not saying there isnt no god. i dont know what god is. But i know what he isnt
Could you please explain to me how, exactly, Christ marked the "age of Pisces"? Furthermore, the idea that Moses instructed the Israelites to destroy the golden calf because it was the end of the "age of Taurus" is ridiculous, as is the suggestion that the sacrificial lambs and rams were used to mark the "age of Aries."

Good grief. Because, like, the Israelites wouldn't ever sacrifice lambs and rams.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
the idea that Moses instructed the Israelites to destroy the golden calf because it was the end of the "age of Taurus" is ridiculous More like 900 years off imo.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I maintain that it does. No, I don't care if that doesn't count.

First Ad Hominem, and now Slothful Induction; argument failure total.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Judaism and Astrology

Astrology is very common in Judaism. Astrological motifs exist in proliferation throughout the major Judaic holy books: the Torah, Zohar, Talmud, and Midrash, etc,. Many scholars have attempted to explain these passages away, but their arguments are spurious and often ludicrous. One Jewish writer's book on astrology was penned so that Jews who were tempted to seek truth in areas outside of orthodox Judaism (new age, occultism, eastern mysticism, etc) should remain where they are and be contented since within Judaism there is an occult college to be tapped, one which includes not only Kabala, but Astrology.

Clearly, astrology existed long before the rise of Judaism and early "Jews" were major star worshippers. Scholars attempt to re-write the story of Jehovah's creation of the universe so that it can appear that Jehovah created the zodiac and therefore it is okay for Jews to acknowledge astrology. It is even said that Jews would be guided by their horoscopes if they did not have the Torah. Lets witness the careful supplanting and duplicity for ourselves, by reviewing a few passages from M. Glazerson's book on Judaism and the zodiac. In his book, entitled: Above the Zodiac, we read:

In the Code of Jewish Law (vol. 1 Ch. 179 Par.1), we find a prohibition against the consultation of one's astrological forecast...Not withstanding the prohibition, Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Code of Jewish Law. Vol 179 Par.2) hands down a decision that, "One who has heard a forecast from a competent astrologer may take this information into account, and ought not to act contrary to the astrological influence... (Page 9)

The Zohar (Vol III P. 216) states, "From the time that the Torah was given to Israel the Israelites were withdrawn from the rule of the stars and constellations: however, if one does not follow the ways of the Torah, he returns to be under the domain of the natural influences - (Page 9)

This is a most revealing passage. It tells us that the Jewish rabbis and authorities know that astrology works. They take a fairly lenient attitude with it, and even think of astrology as an aid to living a moral life, as dictated by the Torah. (Judaism as a religion is vastly more lenient and egalitarian than Christianity). The passage also lets us know that the Jews, before the advent of the Torah were most likely assiduously committed to the science of astrology, so much so that its study is not considered wholly banished or reprehensible. In another passage, we clearly see the careful sophistry which subtly allows one to form their own lenient opinion on the connections between Torah and Zodiac.

In the Talmud we find various statements regarding the influences of the astrological signs on the Jewish people...Nachmanides writes: "The edicts of the stars constitute the basis of the hidden miracles mentioned in the Torah. However, the Jew, through the power of his choice and through his walking in the way of the Torah, may rise above the astrological influences - (Page 10)

Not being able, or even willing to wholly dispense with the science of astrology, the Jewish scholars then had to make astrology appear endorsed by God himself. The signs of the zodiac existed long before Judaism, that could not be refuted, but a Jewish coloring could subsequently be given to the signs and their meanings. In this way, later generations would perhaps accept that astrology, as a science, originated with the Jews. Jewish scholars probably realized that their religious customs and idioms were so littered with astrological motifs, that it would be an impossible task to ignore astrology, and that it would not be feasible to advocate that astrology played no part in Judaism. Therefore, it was decided to not only tacitly endorse astrology, but to add to the astrological canon a patently Jewish veneer.

http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astro-theology3.html

The 33 years of Christ's ministry
This is a number that connects directly with the zodiac and the movement of the sun around it. As mentioned above, the sun takes 2,160 years to pass backward through one sign of 30 degrees. Now this number 2160 or its shorter version 216, is a number that turns up in megalithic construction throughout the world. It was encoded into most of the cyclopean structures, to represent the Serpent or Sidereal Cults who were the Magi, or astrologers. Now it takes 2,160 years for the sun to clear a house. In degrees this is 30. But the sun enters at the 30th degree but is not totally clear until the 33rd degree, as it is of a certain size also. This is why they said in the Bible that the ministry of Christ begins at 30 and finishes at 33. This reference would have been unmistakable to anyone aware of the secrets of astrology. The number is connected to the initiation of the "Sun" of god not "Son," passing through the zodiac. This is why the Freemasonic lodges also utilize the number. There are also 33 vertebrae in the spinal column.



I think that's very interesting and fascinating.


But it ultamately doesn't matter to me. I call Christianity, Judaism, and Astrology "myth", but that does not mean I insult them.

To me, a "Myth" is a creative reflection of Truth.


If people can benefit from these myths, or find some constructive direction by them, I have no problem with that.


I only have a problem when people try to base Laws on thier myths.

I think it is funny that a lot of the refutations to this thread do not include links.

Apparently, none of this is innate or definite fact. Why not provide links also?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First Ad Hominem, and now Slothful Induction; argument failure total.
Good thing I wasn't trying to make a cogent argument.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I only have a problem when people try to base Laws on thier myths.
So, is trying to derail a thread a hobby of yours, or does it occur by accident?
Originally posted by chithappens
Apparently, none of this is innate or definite fact. Why not provide links also?
Because it's pretty much common knowledge that the "we three kings" crap is not biblically supported.

Furthermore:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

The Exodus took place around 1210 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age


So, yeah. As usual, debbiejo's thread hits the dust because of facts.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I maintain that it does. No, I don't care if that doesn't count.

See, you retards have to get your stories straight. One day, it's that Christmas was invented to overwrite pagan worship (this would be backed historically); the next day, it's that we're worshiping the sun (this would be backed by conspiratards). *blink* Are you really that dumb to the link?

Worshiping the sun Celebrating the end of the solstice IS the ****ing pagan holiday.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I mean, really.

Oh, and to break your little theory: nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "three kings." It says there were magi, and there is no number given. Oh really? I've always been told of the 3 kings/wise men following the east star. Show me the verse of the "Magi".

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So, you fail. As usual. Back to the drawing board on how to disprove Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

Hey, Deano? Shut up.

You guys fail harder than Magic Johnson's immune system. We fail? You believe a man named God invented everything from magic, even though you don't say magic. How the hell can you personify the creator of the world?

But anyway, astrology and paganism is basically what was believed before, then came christianity who thought we need meaning in life and some more bollocks. Iy's just a lie.

The Magi were astrologers.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Could you please explain to me how, exactly, Christ marked the "age of Pisces"? Furthermore, the idea that Moses instructed the Israelites to destroy the golden calf because it was the end of the "age of Taurus" is ridiculous, as is the suggestion that the sacrificial lambs and rams were used to mark the "age of Aries."

Good grief. Because, like, the Israelites wouldn't ever sacrifice lambs and rams.

errm look at the symbology. if you dont see it then thats probably because you dont want to see it.

the moses/ram symbology is apparent also. its quite obvious really. the guy coming down from the mountains to delivery a message from god is an old story.

'Moses is only a continuation of the law-giver line, which includes Manou of India, Minos of Crete, and Mises of Egypt, as well as others, who were all given the laws of God, sometimes on a mountain-top.''

Originally posted by Deano
'Moses is only a continuation of the law-giver line, which includes Manou of India, Minos of Crete, and Mises of Egypt, as well as others, who were all given the laws of God, sometimes on a mountain-top.'' Please, for the love of intelligence actually look this up. You will find that none of these are actually legitimate.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Worshiping the sun Celebrating the end of the solstice IS the ****ing pagan holiday.

Oh really? I've always been told of the 3 kings/wise men following the east star. Show me the verse of the "Magi". Except Christianity never ever did that. Ever. They simply put their celebration of Jesus's birth on that date so that Christians would not be tempted to partake in pagan festivals and so that they could others away from it.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem"
- Matthew 2:1

Read the whole chapter and you won't find their being three of them anywhere.

Yeah, three astrologers reading the stars..

There is a legend that their names were Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar –


In the Gospel of St. Matthew, ch. Mt 2:1-12 the Magi appear as "wise men"--properly Magians --who were guided by a star from "the east" to Jerusalem, where they suddenly appeared in the days of Herod the Great, inquiring for the new-born king of the Jews, whom they had come to worship. As to the country from which they came, opinions vary greatly; but their following the guidance of a star seems to point to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, where astronomy was Cultivated by the Chaldeans

No one said they weren't astrologers. There simply weren't three. And the idea of them all coming from Chaldea is based on some very shaky premises.

Originally posted by lord xyz
*blink* Are you really that dumb to the link?

Worshiping the sun Celebrating the end of the solstice IS the ****ing pagan holiday.
Yes. Because the Church wanted to "overwrite" the pagan celebration.

The magi were probably astrologers. The Bible never gives the number of magi--and, given your posting habits with regard to Christianity, I would assume this ignorance is merely the tip of the iceberg.

This is a red herring. You can't disprove God--but I have disproved your claims.


Originally posted by Deano
errm look at the symbology. if you dont see it then thats probably because you dont want to see it.
Pisces = fish. Several times in the Gospels there are references to fish, but saying that Jesus's feeding the five thousand with fish as evidence of the AGE OF PISCES (omgwtfbbq) is retarded. Furthermore, the fish symbol was adopted by early Christians in yet another attempt to "overwrite" paganism.

...Because no one would ever sacrifice rams. Like that time that they did in Genesis 22 with Abraham, except that is before Moses's time.

The stupidity in this thread has reached epic levels. Debbiejo + lord xyz + Deano = catastrophic meltdown of mental faculties.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes. Because the Church wanted to "overwrite" the pagan celebration. So you admit it.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The magi were probably astrologers. The Bible never gives the number of magi--and, given your posting habits with regard to Christianity, I would assume this ignorance is merely the tip of the iceberg. I question christianity, you, for some reason, don't.

This is a red herring. You can't disprove God--but I have disproved your claims. You can't disprove Vishnu, Santa or Xinu, now since you believe God by the fact that it can't be disproven, you should also believe in Vishnu, Santa and Xinu.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo


Pisces = fish. Several times in the Gospels there are references to fish, but saying that Jesus's feeding the five thousand with fish as evidence of the AGE OF PISCES (omgwtfbbq) is retarded. Furthermore, the fish symbol was adopted by early Christians in yet another attempt to "overwrite" paganism. Isn't this overwriting paganism, the same as stealing their beliefs to control the people to follow christianity and basically, lying?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...Because no one would ever sacrifice rams. Like that time that they did in Genesis 22 with Abraham, except that is before Moses's time.

The stupidity in this thread has reached epic levels. Debbiejo + lord xyz + Deano = catastrophic meltdown of mental faculties. Dude, you're saying they didn't steal the beliefs off of astrology and paganism, they adopted them so everyone would believe the bullshit of christianity as truth...That's what we're saying!




You're saying Christianity used pagan symbols so people wouldn't believe in paganism, we're saying Christianity is based off of it. SAME THING!! Except, you're giving the reason why.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No one said they weren't astrologers. There simply weren't three. True. The number wasn't clear just as people felt they visited Jesus as a baby, which again the Bible never said. It is supposed he was a young child.

Originally posted by debbiejo
True. The number wasn't clear just as people felt they visited Jesus as a baby, which again the Bible never said. It is supposed he was a young child. Very true also. When Jesus was visited is never stated. Many misconceptions come from typically harmless traditions that are then misconstrued.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So you admit it.
Uh...it's historically verifiable.

Your questions are dumb.

Another red herring. We're not talking about them, and my reasons for belief--look, a straw man from you--are not based on the inability to disprove God.

No, it's not.

Stealing beliefs is not the same as stealing practices.

No, that's not the same thing. At all. In fact, it's not even close.

Moses is around 1500-1100BC. Age of Taurus ends 2150BC. There can be no connection.

Jesus is specifically referred to as a lamb. He is the way of the new covenant the lamb that was sacrificed for our sins. Jesus is a lamb, not a fish. He is not connected with fish, he is connected with being the Lamb of God. So no, He did not herald Pisces at all.

The disciples are based off the twelve tribes of Israel which originates from a group of thirteen brothers. One of the disciples is cast out. There is no connection.

etc. etc.

These grow tiresome.

Moses is around 1500-1100BC? thats the time you have heard but it is most probably inacurate

nice trythough

there is not a shred of evidence outside the bible of someone called jesus, yet you believe in him so. regardless of the lack of logic

so you coming in here trying to debunk things is rather silly

Originally posted by Deano
grow up
Refute my arguments.
Originally posted by Deano
Moses is around 1500-1100BC? thats the time you have heard but it is most probably inacurate
I demonstrated a source that has a ton of research backing those claims.

Argumentum ad hominem, and this is coming from the guy who thinks the lizard people are in charge?

Coming from you, that's almost a compliment.

"Deano the conspiracy theorist retard who ignores coherent arguments against his stupidity thinks I'm dumb?"

I guess I'd hate it if you thought I were smart.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Uh...it's historically verifiable. Then why deny it?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Your questions are dumb. You're not smarter by being more offensive.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Another red herring. We're not talking about them, and my reasons for belief--look, a straw man from you--are not based on the inability to disprove God. Wow, talk about missing the point. I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Shiva, Santa or the boogeyman.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, it's not.

Stealing beliefs is not the same as stealing practices.

No, that's not the same thing. At all. In fact, it's not even close. To be fair, our soul point is that Christianity is based off of Astrology. You say it's based off of paganism, but the paganism is the astrology. So really, you can't argue.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why deny it?

You're not smarter by being more offensive.

Wow, talk about missing the point. I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Shiva, Santa or the boogeyman.

To be fair, our soul point is that Christianity is based off of Astrology. You say it's based off of paganism, but the paganism is the astrology. So really, you can't argue. You have a lack of reading comprehension skills. You need to separate art and festivals from foundations.

You need to have an understanding between the festivals and laws and types of festivals. Some were never done away with.

As for the years that Moses lived, there are contradictions....Even some Egyptians. Meaning that Moses did become some what more intense a subject than what other sources would supply.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why deny it?
I never did.

Neither are you, although you make a habit out of it.

I'm missing the point? You fail. We're talking about Christianity allegedly being based on paganism, and you set up some r-tard argument against Christianity based off of me.

Except I never said that Christianity was based off of paganism--merely that it borrowed aspects in order to "overwrite" paganism.

Originally posted by Deano
'Moses is only a continuation of the law-giver line, which includes Manou of India, Minos of Crete, and Mises of Egypt, as well as others, who were all given the laws of God, sometimes on a mountain-top.'' It's actually Manu of India, and Menes of Egypt.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Refute my arguments.

I demonstrated a source that has a ton of research backing those claims.

Argumentum ad hominem, and this is coming from the guy who thinks the lizard people are in charge?

Coming from you, that's almost a compliment.

"Deano the conspiracy theorist retard who ignores coherent arguments against his stupidity thinks I'm dumb?"

I guess I'd hate it if you thought I were smart.

unlucky.

actually the reptilian(alien) theory is far more plausible than christianity i would bet . it is more logical.

and yes you are pretty dumb. BUT there is still time for you to evolve yet

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It's actually Manu of India, and Menes of Egypt.

thanks. either way thats more evidence to show that moses is another repackaged myth

Originally posted by Deano
unlucky.

actually the reptilian(alien) theory is far more plausible than christianity i would bet . it is more logical.

and yes you are pretty dumb. BUT there is still time for you to evolve yet
Refute my arguments.

Originally posted by Deano
thanks. either way thats more evidence to show that moses is another repackaged myth You mean the Menes that is never associated with a law or a mountain? Oh that Menes.

Or Manu who is never associated with a mountain either? Oh.

/fail

Matthew

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Luke

21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

That sounds like Astrology to me.

Astrology != based on astrology.

Of course, it could be similar to that whole "sun turns black, moon goes red" thing in Revelation.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Astrology != based on astrology.

Of course, it could be similar to that whole "sun turns black, moon goes red" thing in Revelation.

Astrology is "signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars". So, is the bible saying that Astrology is real?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Refute my arguments.

haha you coudlnt even refute mine

the bible is mostly based on astrology with the rest of the story being entirely fiction.

use your brain

and nellinator you havent a clue. they were all lawgivers passed onto them from god. The name is even a giveway.

you believe in a bullshit story with no evidence what so ever. its best you just leave. faith is all you have in your locker.

Originally posted by Deano
haha you coudlnt even refute mine

the bible is mostly based on astrology with the rest of the story being entirely fiction.

use your brain

and nellinator you havent a clue. they were all lawgivers passed onto them from god. The name is even a giveway.

you believe in a bullshit story with no evidence what so ever. its best you just leave. faith is all you have in your locker.
You fail. I have disproven your arguments with historical data. I showed you how the Age of Taurus and the golden calf don't coincide based on historical research. Either refute what I've written or shut up.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You fail. I have disproven your arguments with historical data. I showed you how the Age of Taurus and the golden calf don't coincide based on historical research. Either refute what I've written or shut up.

When you say the golden calf, I assume you are talking about the story in the bible about the ten commandments.

There is a problem with your "historical data" Other then the bible, there is no conformation that Moses ever existed. If Moses did not exist, then the story of the golden calf is just a story that can be any time period you like.

And yet people have estimated the dates of his life and the Exodus.

Hmm.

*Scratches his head.*

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And yet people have estimated the dates of his life and the Exodus.

Hmm.

*Scratches his head.*

And people also know a lot about Superman. In 5,000 years, I bet, people can calculate Superman's birthday to some where around the 1950s.

Originally posted by Nellinator
...It's an interesting topic I think. What we see is that God forbids practices of sorcery and astrology to the Jewish people, but God is seen using these methods to reach people who are lost in them. Balaam in the case of sorcery and astrology in the case of the wise men.

So, you see it as god using astrology as an expedient means. That is the most reasonable argument I have heard yet.

Basically. He has never used it for the Jews or any believers. An example of the contrast would be the fact that angels appeared to the Jewish shepherds, but God used a star to bring unbelievers. God communciates to us in ways we can understand if we pay attention.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Basically. He has never used it for the Jews or any believers. An example of the contrast would be the fact that angels appeared to the Jewish shepherds, but God used a star to bring unbelievers.

So, god is smart enough to talk to people in the way they would understand? (that sounds sarcastic, but I do not mean it to be). If what you are saying is true, then there maybe a lot of things in the bible that were written for people who did not understand science or how the universe really worked. In other words, the bible should not be taken literally.

Unless it is teaching on the matter no, it shouldn't. When the Bible presents itself as literal then we can accept it as literal. It is a book of history as well spirituality.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, the bible should not be taken literally.

I say that all the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Unless it is teaching on the matter no, it shouldn't. When the Bible presents itself as literal then we can accept it as literal. It is a book of history as well spirituality.

The problem is deciding what is literal and what is not.

Also, the bible being a history book is like Gone With the Wind being a history book.

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

Originally posted by Nellinator
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."


I respect and understand that you have chosen the Bible as your source of guidance, and that it has not failed you so far. I do not expect you to betray your Faith to it and discipline towards it.

If it works for you, and I am sure you will claim that it has, then I am all for it. I am all for your Faith and practice, because of the good you feel it has done in your life.

What I am not for, however, is any attempt you may make to either limit the freedom of another person or any attempt you may make to impose your religion and practice on another.

This includes but is not limitted to:

-Voting to pass a law to ban Gay Marriage
-Voting to pass a law or enabling an act which disparages another religion or limits the freedoms and speeches of other religions and cultural groups
-Attacking another's religion or belief or life choices in a way which is illogical, hateful, closed minded, unfounded, etc.- like Marcello had done


You may notice I did not include anything about Abortion. The reason being, I do not see Abortion as a "religious" issue, but as a "life or death" and "freedom of choice" issue alone.


I hope you understand my point. I am fine if you are personally against Gay Marriage, alternate lifestyles, other religions, or what not. What I am not okay with is if you try to take action to limit another person and/or try to impose your own choices onto them.

That is not your right to do so. I hope you understand that.

Originally posted by Nellinator
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

That is rationalization. Ether the people who wrote the bible did understand, or they did not. I believe they did not understand the true nature of reality, and neither do we. If you try to use the hidden truth argument, I will have to ask you why are you right and everyone else wrong? Why is the bible true and not the Koran? There is no hidden truth; no special way of looking at the bible to get some concealed truth. I was a Christian, and I believed in that, but what I saw was evil people using the bible to get what they want. So, forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And people also know a lot about Superman. In 5,000 years, I bet, people can calculate Superman's birthday to some where around the 1950s.
...As Superman's birth is clearly outlined. But, your point was that Moses's lifetime could be any time because of the lack of evidence of his existence (which statement unverified). I replied that people have estimated his lifetime and the events of the golden calf, disproving your point.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...As Superman's birth is clearly outlined. But, your point was that Moses's lifetime could be any time because of the lack of evidence of his existence (which statement unverified). I replied that people have estimated his lifetime and the events of the golden calf, disproving your point.

My point is that fiction can be anything you want it to be.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I respect and understand that you have chosen the Bible as your source of guidance, and that it has not failed you so far. I do not expect you to betray your Faith to it and discipline towards it.

If it works for you, and I am sure you will claim that it has, then I am all for it. I am all for your Faith and practice, because of the good you feel it has done in your life.

What I am not for, however, is any attempt you may make to either limit the freedom of another person or any attempt you may make to impose your religion and practice on another.

This includes but is not limitted to:

-Voting to pass a law to ban Gay Marriage
-Voting to pass a law or enabling an act which disparages another religion or limits the freedoms and speeches of other religions and cultural groups
-Attacking another's religion or belief or life choices in a way which is illogical, hateful, closed minded, unfounded, etc.- like Marcello had done


You may notice I did not include anything about Abortion. The reason being, I do not see Abortion as a "religious" issue, but as a "life or death" and "freedom of choice" issue alone.


I hope you understand my point. I am fine if you are personally against Gay Marriage, alternate lifestyles, other religions, or what not. What I am not okay with is if you try to take action to limit another person and/or try to impose your own choices onto them.

That is not your right to do so. I hope you understand that.
This is going to sound REALLY bitchy, but...

Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?

Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is going to sound REALLY bitchy, but...

Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?

Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.

Please don't run for government office.

And the same to you.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And the same to you.

I would never say your right don't matter.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is going to sound REALLY bitchy, but...

Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?

Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.


1) Your repeated irritable display may be a result of your stubborn decision to remain a virgin. I suggest you lose your virginity fast before you explode.


2) I do not have "serious issues" with Christianity. I made my peace with it. All I am telling Nellinator is that I hope he does not try to apply his own decisions onto other people. He has no right to do that.

3) Religion, like "rights" is also a human construct. I don't see what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) Your repeated irritable display may be a result of your stubborn decision to remain a virgin. I suggest you lose your virginity fast before you explode.


2) I do not have "serious issues" with Christianity. I made my peace with it. All I am telling Nellinator is that I hope he does not try to apply his own decisions onto other people. He has no right to do that.

3) Religion, like "rights" is also a human construct. I don't see what you are trying to say here.

He is trying to say, we don't have right unless his god says so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He is trying to say, we don't have right unless his god says so.


I know that, but he is trying to use the tool of a "human construct" to justify his claim that what we think are rights don't truly exist.

He has a point, up until he tries to argue that God is the creator of those rights. Religion is just as much a human construct as "rights" are. And for all he knows, his God is also a human construct.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I know that, but he is trying to use the tool of a "human construct" to justify his claim that what we think are rights don't truly exist.

He has a point, up until he tries to argue that God is the creator of those rights. Religion is just as much a human construct as "rights" are. And for all he knows, his God is also a human construct.

BINGO All is equal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BINGO All is equal.


I win clap

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I win clap

I wasn't that big of a deal, man...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would never say your right don't matter.
I would still hope that you wouldn't run for office.

Furthermore, simply because I believe that rights are a human construct does not mean that I don't support them--our country is founded upon the basis of rights, and thus they ought to be defended...unless these man-made "rights" tread into the territory of the unethical and/or immoral.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) Your repeated irritable display may be a result of your stubborn decision to remain a virgin. I suggest you lose your virginity fast before you explode.
Your promiscuity is enough for both of us.

Yeah, I don't care. We have to hear you lecture about how Christians shouldn't impose our will on others when, by telling us what we ought or ought not to do, you are imposing your will upon us. So bite me.

Religion is a human construct, yes. But the God of Abraham is not.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I know that, but he is trying to use the tool of a "human construct" to justify his claim that what we think are rights don't truly exist.
Rights do not truly exist. They are a human construct, much like the notion of gender (in the sense that males ought to act one way and females ought to act another).

It is not through merit that all men are equal--we are born as individuals, and some men are less than others. Some are stronger and faster, while others are smarter. They are not equal. In fact, the greatest contributors to society may less than the least contributors to society.

Without God, there is no equality, and Darwinism rules with an iron fist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is rationalization. Ether the people who wrote the bible did understand, or they did not. I believe they did not understand the true nature of reality, and neither do we. If you try to use the hidden truth argument, I will have to ask you why are you right and everyone else wrong? Why is the bible true and not the Koran? There is no hidden truth; no special way of looking at the bible to get some concealed truth. I was a Christian, and I believed in that, but what I saw was evil people using the bible to get what they want. So, forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation. Hence why sola scriptura doesn't work entirely.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I respect and understand that you have chosen the Bible as your source of guidance, and that it has not failed you so far. I do not expect you to betray your Faith to it and discipline towards it.

If it works for you, and I am sure you will claim that it has, then I am all for it. I am all for your Faith and practice, because of the good you feel it has done in your life.

What I am not for, however, is any attempt you may make to either limit the freedom of another person or any attempt you may make to impose your religion and practice on another.

This includes but is not limitted to:

-Voting to pass a law to ban Gay Marriage
-Voting to pass a law or enabling an act which disparages another religion or limits the freedoms and speeches of other religions and cultural groups
-Attacking another's religion or belief or life choices in a way which is illogical, hateful, closed minded, unfounded, etc.- like Marcello had done


You may notice I did not include anything about Abortion. The reason being, I do not see Abortion as a "religious" issue, but as a "life or death" and "freedom of choice" issue alone.


I hope you understand my point. I am fine if you are personally against Gay Marriage, alternate lifestyles, other religions, or what not. What I am not okay with is if you try to take action to limit another person and/or try to impose your own choices onto them.

That is not your right to do so. I hope you understand that.
- I don't have that opportunity
- I wouldn't, but I don't have that ability anyways
- I don't

It is in fact my right to vote however I choose. "Rights" have nothing to do with it. That is the principle of democracy. What I choose to do with my "right" is entirely my choice. If the option were available to vote for the oppression of certain groups, it would be my "right" to vote for that oppression if I so chose because that would simply mean the "rights" constructed by my nation would include that. You may hope that I don't, which would be a valid request, but saying that I don't have the "right" is erroneous.

Originally posted by Nellinator
- I don't have that opportunity
- I wouldn't, but I don't have that ability anyways
- I don't

It is in fact my right to vote however I choose. "Rights" have nothing to do with it. That is the principle of democracy. What I choose to do with my "right" is entirely my choice. If the option were available to vote for the oppression of certain groups, it would be my "right" to vote for that oppression if I so chose because that would simply mean the "rights" constructed by my nation would include that. You may hope that I don't, which would be a valid request, but saying that I don't have the "right" is erroneous.
At least someone understands.

everything is infinite conciousness therefore god exists within us all.

Originally posted by Deano
everything is infinite conciousness therefore god exists within us all.

consciousness doesn't exist

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...Furthermore, simply because I believe that rights are a human construct does not mean that I don't support them--our country is founded upon the basis of rights, and thus they ought to be defended...unless these man-made "rights" tread into the territory of the unethical and/or immoral..

Ethics and morals are also man made.

Originally posted by Deano
everything is infinite conciousness therefore god exists within us all.
Refute my arguments.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ethics and morals are also man made.
If there is no God, then yes.

I am based on astrology.

Me too!

Lets sing the happy song.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Refute my arguments.

If there is no God, then yes.

If god made ethics and morals, then why are there so many different once around the world? Don't tell me that your ethics and morals were made by god but everyone eases was not.

I think it's retarded how you could call god omniscient and perfect, and then tell me I'm going against God. If God was perfect and omniscient, it would be impossible to go against him. He invented the world in his view and the way he wanted it, so how the hell can people within the world do what he doesn't want? That's not a very good God. Therefore, ethics aren't something by God, if God is perfect, anything God doesn't want, doesn't exist.

So, gays and black people are good, walking on water is bad.

Flawed logic to say the least.

Originally posted by Boris
Me too!

Lets sing the happy song.

Let's!!

http://www.radioblogclub.com/open/53832/happy_song/Royal%20gigolo%20-%20Happy%20Song

woot

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ethics and morals are also man made. Since man made everything and ruined it. Guess we're not holding up to the bargin.

some of us are and do

Not many though...

The "outside the box" thinking are.

enough do

out side the box??

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If god made ethics and morals, then why are there so many different once around the world? Don't tell me that your ethics and morals were made by god but everyone eases was not.
Romans 2:14-15 "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"

Everyone has the moral law written on their hearts which instructs them to do what is right. However, "every imagination of the thoughts of heart only evil continually"; ergo, their sin has perverted the moral law.

Free will.

Free will.

On the contrary, it is a very good God to give us free will. That way, where you reside for eternity is your own choice.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Do have any evidence of this at all? Anyone with a brain would see it to be true without the need of evidence. Ask lil b about the bad of Islam, then change Islam Muhammed and Allah with Christianity Jesus and God. All religions of the that time were the same.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Proof or STFU, kthx.

That stunning evidence sure shut me up.

Are you a troll?

Originally posted by Tharg
Are you a troll?

...GTFO

disproven assumption. no1 has anything written on their hearts from birth. there is no evidence for it. and everything points towards humans developing a schema about their surroudning through NURTURE, NOT any unique nature as to the tyoe you reference.



inconsistant with omniscience



inconsistant with omniscience

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
...GTFO

I'll take that as a big Yes he is.

Originally posted by Tharg
I'll take that as a big Yes he is.

Maybe

When did you join? Yesterday? So of course you can spot who's a troll instantly, and who's a well-established member.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Maybe

When did you join? Yesterday? So of course you can spot who's a troll instantly, and who's a well-established member.

It only takes an obvious flame post to be able to spot it. I have seen several flame posts from that guy.

Originally posted by Tharg
It only takes an obvious flame post to be able to spot it. I have seen several flame posts from that guy.

You need to learn the basics of many members of this forum: flame posts designed to amuse other members in the know. His quote "**** or GTFO" is a joke you wouldn't understand.

So no, he isn't a troll.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You need to learn the basics of many members of this forum: flame posts designed to amuse other members in the know. His quote "**** or GTFO" is a joke you wouldn't understand.

So no, he isn't a troll.

I see, how about his use of the C word on a PG13 forum?

It isn't a strictly PG13 forum, thats why the OTF has an 'Official Boobs Thread', and loads users use F*** every other word. Don't worry, you'll learn the KMC ethics soon enough uhuh

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Proof or STFU, kthx.

That stunning evidence sure shut me up. Wow, you're such a tool.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Do have any evidence of this at all?
They were being killed by people who were not Christians.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Proof or STFU, kthx.

It's a good thing you are a Christian with the holy spirit in you. Otherwise you would be a mass murderer.

Every time you make a post like this one it reaffirms my faith in Buddhism.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
disproven assumption. no1 has anything written on their hearts from birth. there is no evidence for it. and everything points towards humans developing a schema about their surroudning through NURTURE, NOT any unique nature as to the tyoe you reference.
Moral commonalities between cultures say otherwise.

If one concedes that God can't be omniscient while allowing for free will, then one must also concede that God has had no will. Thus, God has no control over His actions...so STFU because it breaks your argument either way.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Wow, you're such a tool.
Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a good thing you are a Christian with the holy spirit in you. Otherwise you would be a mass murderer.

Every time you make a post like this one it reaffirms my faith in Buddhism.
Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.

In many religions there seems to be an older bases on the study of the stars. In ancient cultures, that was their guide to their understands of everything. It's not inconceivable that the older religions like the Jewish religion which Christianity is based off of studied them and then made their predictions off of that. It is commonly known that all ancient religions did this to some extent.

Reading some similar periodicals, this thread has merit for thought.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were being killed by people who were not Christians. So?

And??

Who started the Crusades? What was the reasoning for it? What did the Christians do that the Muslims didn't do in the beginning? Why did the Muslims revenge tactic change? Why has this war carried on for so long?

Ponder.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
And??

Who started the Crusades? What was the reasoning for it? What did the Christians do that the Muslims didn't do in the beginning? Why did the Muslims revenge tactic change? Why has this war carried on for so long?

Ponder. Except that's not the period we are talking about. We are clearly referencing from about 30AD- circa 200AD.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
And??

Who started the Crusades? What was the reasoning for it? What did the Christians do that the Muslims didn't do in the beginning? Why did the Muslims revenge tactic change? Why has this war carried on for so long?

Ponder.
Fail post is fail.

Good grief, it seems that this forum is going downhill at an exponential rate.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.

NO! I am not going to shut up, SO STOP TELLING ME TOO.

Originally posted by Nellinator
So?

You don't get it? It was obvious they were talking in a bigoted way about outsiders.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
NO! I am not going to shut up, SO STOP TELLING ME TOO.
Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.

(Wrong "to," by the way.)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.

(Wrong "to," by the way.)

NO! STOP TRYING TO SILENCE ME.

No one can have proof when it comes to the bible. The bible is not a book of fact. The bible is a book of opinions and stories.

Try to prove a philosophy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't get it? It was obvious they were talking in a bigoted way about outsiders. What are you basing this on?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
NO! STOP TRYING TO SILENCE ME.

No one can have proof when it comes to the bible. The bible is not a book of fact. The bible is a book of opinions and stories.

Try to prove a philosophy.
You ****ing halfwit, you made claims about Christians and I told you to prove them by citing historical data. (There's a huge difference between metaphysical arguments and arguments that ought to be backed by historical data.)

Ergo, shut up and die in a fire.

Nellinator, I think he's trolling us.

Proof or STFU and GTFO, kthx.

insulting people isnt going to prove your point

dont be an idiot. there as many commonalities as there are differences. and most of what is commonly considered JUST has nothing to do with relegion, but men's intellect using logic. as long as you are talking about commonalities NOT supported by logic, youl find very few. and the most important thing is the point about people showing DIFFERENCES in what they feal guilty/right, you can not avoid this, in one place, men burn their wives when they die and stond people to death and not feal a hint of guilt and in others well, you know the story. dont be an ignorant prig.


no control over action = nulls omnipotence
please do not tell me to stfu based on your neo theological arguments which are completely inconsistant with the basics uf other parts of christianity.



you are a very angry christian rent you . or is this type of behavior your attempt at being a "COOL CHRISTIAN"?