trinity
). So...are you planning on looking into the New Testament too? Because Luke 3:21-22 is something very interesting to look at... Keep digging!
).
Tell me if you find any mistakes. 
So...are you planning on looking into the New Testament too? Because Luke 3:21-22 is something very interesting to look at...
Yes. That is the very next post. I intend to work on it tommorow. I'm sure my work is cut out for me.
Keep digging!
Will do.
Myself , I once again, quote words written by Thomas Jefferson about the silliness of 3 in 1.
Yes, this is correct. I am doing a post on the new testament next. I just wanted to address the old first, because it is certainly the less work of the two. Less verses and less explaination.
I believe it was written to attract pagans to Christianity. Because pagans were polytheistic.
Quite possible.
Myself , I once again, quote words written by Thomas Jefferson about the silliness of 3 in 1.
This is my favorite part of that letter:
"In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
What are you attacking, here? Christianity as an organization, the ignorance of most Christians, the "infallability" of the Bible, Christianity as a doctrine/governing factor, Christianity as a faith, or something else or some combination thereof?
I ask because your posts do spark curiosity in me (I am a Christian, myself, though I disagree with the organization of it "as it is today"), but well, after all, one of the fundamental aspects of philosophy and religion is that any argument, pro- or anti-, can be shown to be good, bad, right, or wrong (the last to being subjective in the largest respects) so long as both the effort and mindset are put in there.
A lot of fluff, sorry--I fail at "technical writing."
Good question. I am opposing christianity as a organized religion (And this is actually quite vague, because many different groups of people profess to being christians and members of christianity but have rather different beliefs. So specifically the denominations holding the beliefs I oppose based on the scripture available.) I am opposing christians who blindly accept anything their preachers tell them, their parents tell them, or anyone else feeding them what I believe to be falsehoods (This ties back to the opposing of organized denominations with the beliefs which, IMO, have no biblical basis, or even worse disproof of). Sometimes I do attack the infallability of the bible, but not as harshly as I have done in the past. I now call it "Story time." This is about it. And I do, for the sake of argument, assume the bible infallible when discussing matters of beliefs with regard to the religion of christianity, even though this is not a belief I hold.
I dislike Christianity as an organization because it has strayed from its primary purpose: that is, "convert others" (which means that Christians who shove their beliefs down others' throats are actually "kind of" doing what their sect demands). Now everyone holes themselves up in churches and just expects masses to flock to them instead of going out and witnessing for others (now, there are mass witnessings and then the Gideons [the only "denomination" of Christianity and the only Christians I respect on a "global" scale since they're not "jerks" about what they do and tend to stray from hypocrisy enough that it's rare] among other things), which I think is both lazy and absurd.
The question here, then, is what is your dislike for the organization itself?
My foremost problem with the organization is that it teaches doctrines which are not supported by the bible explicitly. Meaning that the passages used as "proof" can be interperted several different ways, so they arbitarily choose one that seems to ignore the foundation the organization started upon, judaism. And at times they "fill in the blanks." A text is close to the doctrine being taught, so they "interpert" the text. But really what they do is add to the text with their words (Not physically to the book).
Other aspects I dislike pretain mostly to the catholic denomination, who make up the largest portion of christians in the world. Such positions as the Pope are to my disliking. Although, the Pope in current day does not have the sort of power the Popes of the past had. The fact that the catholics added text to the old testament (The Apocrypha). The selection process by which the bible's books were choosen by the catholic organization. And so forth. My objections really break down into these categories:
1. Foundation/Beginning
2. Canon of new testament/Addition to old testament
3. Current day/Past hypocrisy
Maybe next time I may include some of their teaching in my blog.
"And I do, for the sake of argument, assume the bible infallible when discussing matters of beliefs with regard to the religion of christianity, even though this is not a belief I hold."
I make more progress with christians by using their scripture against their beliefs. Because lucky for me, not all their beliefs are founded in their scriptures. If I just said the bible is not the word of God, that would pretty much be the end of the discussion. People would come and offer some disagreement, but no progress.
Here in the Philippines, we have a group known as "anti-Paul" because they believe that Paul and Paulinian Christianity is from the devil.
I'm not a fan of paul myself.
Maybe next time I may include some of their teaching in my blog.
Sounds good
Proving history is usually impossible. I do not see how someone would go about concluding whether a historical person existed or not. Reason being, people generally accept the existence of a person after sensing them (i.e. Sight,Smell,Touch,Taste,Hearing). Reading about a person's existence in a book from history or elsewhere does nothing for proof. If it did do something then all the fictional writers of our times are gods creating their own peoples and worlds.
I find the notion of trying to disprove/prove history and/or people and events in history is be nothing short of silly. All a person can do is offer an argument against the way the person and/or event is cited. For example, someone might question how possible the account of Noah's ark is, concluding with either a position of impossible or possible. But to question the actual existence? No proof either way. For all we know Noah's ark could have been a fishing boat of a man named Noah. Maybe big, maybe small. Who knows. Since the proof is equal on both sides for existence, it is fine to conclude either way. But if someone told me Noah's ark was a inter-galactic spacecraft, then we have a problem.
why must 'the word of god' be censored?
