Shila

You somehow pushed four factual errors into four sentences. That's incredible 1:1 ratio of error to sentence. That's amazing!

When you grow up into an adult, maybe you can study what we adults like to call "history" and you might even learn something. Good luck, I know the pre-teen years are hard, but you'll get there.

If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic

pragmatic

 adjective

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In 

prag·mat·ic | \ prag-ˈma-tik  \

variants: or less commonly pragmatical \ prag-ˈma-ti-kəl  \

Definition of pragmatic

1: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistica pragmatic leadera pragmatic [=practical] approach to health care

2: relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism

3archaic

a(1): BUSY

(2): OFFICIOUS

b: OPINIONATED

Maybe someday, you'll be right about something. Maybe.

Nope.  Jesus may have started the church. But the Roman Catholic Church did not start for hundreds of years later.

hold up,

so you're serious ?

Why would ritualism be the requirement of a pragmatic GOD?

God wants to give us opportunities to improve ourselves and to show our understanding of our place in the world. Ritual both in its internal parts and its entirety affords that opportunity. 

I'm not sure,  though,  what you mean by a "pragmatic"  God. 

It wasn't my being agreeable. It was my celebrating that you said something in the realm of "correct."

Sadly you then devolved back into gibberish. Have a great day!

Can anyone have a stab at this for me.

Jesus dies and then this happened

52  the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints  who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Matthew 27:52-53

What does this actually mean?

I always thought along those lines,  that it simply means that the people rose up  ..... but not from being physically dead in their graves.

Virgin births are rare today because women take contraceptives to prevent that from happening. And when that fails resort to Abortion. This is why Christian men are against abortions. They believe it stops Jesus from returning as promised, obviously through another virgin birth.

What?! First, birth control isn't what makes parthenogenesis rare. It is exceedingly rare with or without contraceptives. Secondly, an all-powerful, all knowing entity could never lose in a game of 'abortion whack-a-mole' unless that was his intent. Anyone who claims to be against abortion for this reason needs to either evaluate and understand their beliefs a little better or stop being dishonest.

So Jews are still existing in Exile!! Was that from 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews after the Old Covenant was destroyed.

There is a New Covenant Theology that no longer requires circumcision. 

It is actually from a little after 70, but generally that's accurate. Nice work! Of course, your claim about the covenant being destroyed is wrong, but at least you know that Christianity doesn't require circumcision. You ARE capable of learning. Good work!

It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:

"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the  earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."' 

Jesus is quoting from the Micah 7:6.  

What is Micah talking about in that particular chapter and why in the world would Jesus quote Micah in his time? 

After all, isn't Jesus supposed to the prince of peace  ( Isaiah 9:6) Didn't the angels sing  at his birth "glory o God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests". Luke 2:14

How can Jesus on one hand bring peace and on the hand tell us that he has not come to bring peace?  Is the simplistic answer to this that here is one of the many contradictions in the Bible or is there something else going on? 

I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box.  How is it possible to reconcile such statements? 

Wow...another swing and a miss. Every time I think you have hit intellectual rock bottom, you produce a shovel and start digging.

Sigh

"וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃"

If one understands that then one knows the error in the claim. Seriously poor trolling. Like level 1 stuff. Sad.

1) There is not one instance of the mention of an already destroyed city or temple in any NT writing. This is significant, as John A.T. Robertson has pointed out in his masterful book, Redating the NT. 

"ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.

For the most part, these are Jews writing about the coming of their Messiah and each writing contains warnings of impending judgment, yet none, not one of an already fulfilled prophecies about the most significant event in their Jewish history with God, the destruction of the temple and city as warned by the OT prophets and teachers, as well as all of them." p. 13 

Can anyone have a stab at this for me.

 Jesus dies and then this happened

52  the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints  who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Matthew 27:52-53

 What does this actually mean?

While Biden is shaking hands with the air, we need to be ready for WW3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkPpgqlVxmI

Sigh

"וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃"

If one understands that then one knows the error in the claim. Seriously poor trolling. Like level 1 stuff. Sad.

A compelling watch.

 

With a follow up video addressing the theists responses. 

The sad part is that the quality of trolling is so low. Cut and paste, inaccurately summarize, make basic grammatical and logical mistakes...I guess I expected more from the troll.

That is why menstruating women were deemed unclean in the Bible. Blood had to be spilled to make an atonement. 

So a woman menstruating is deemed unclean but a man shedding blood is a sacrifice? Stop talking complete shite! 

Women menstruate blood to discharge monthly buildup.

FFS!  A women's menstruation is simply discharging an unfertilised and  lining of the uterus.

The whole of the Old Testament, every book, points toward the Great Sacrifice that was to come—that of Jesus’ sacrificial giving of His own life on our behalf.

But he didn't want to die did he? He asked his "father" to be relieved of his burden? And was totally ignored. And it can hardly be a sacrifice if he knew he wasn't going to die, ie that he would be resurrected back to life as a man.

 “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

A creature being an animal. We are talking a human sacrifice.

Do you agree or not on that

jesus true father would have been known if they had DNA tests back then ?

instead of this garbage about god's son .

Todays is Pesach Sheini (the second Passover) also known as Pesach Katan or Pesach Zeira (small or young Passover). It is the result of some people's ineligibility to partake in the initial Passover offering because of their spiritual impurity. They asked for an opportunity to be part of the ritual once they had cleansed themselves, so God set up a day one month after the Passover for them to have a small version of the holiday.

Here is some info on it:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4377624/jewish/What-Is-Pesach-Sheni-the-Second-Passover.htm

Mathew didn't write the Book of Mathew. Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.

Nr 4 and nr 5: Victor, you guilty spirits shall atone because of your masturbation shit. Your animal body was made for masturbation, it's called death and it's a crash. Hell yeah, when it concerns criminals like you. 

We conscient spirits shall avoid john wayne tragedy, because conscience has keys to release truly conscient spirits from actual animal trap.

believers think that "without a reverence for god and a fear of hellfire, there is no moral compass"

but this belief is demonstrably false

so, although they THINK "the jesus" informs their decision making

it has almost zero REAL influence

great point

Yes, god  is great. Remember that the people who flew the plane into the World Trade center said 'Allahu Akbar' (which translates to mean “God is the greatest,”)

when "dealing with reality"

a belief in "the jesus"

or a lack of belief in "the jesus"

appears to be immaterial

from a pragmatic perspective

he is subject to them in the same sense that humans are subject to breathing. It is there nature. God's nature is the ultimate good

and also "unpragmatic"

and why couldn't it be personas?

The Jews who created the concept of the Messiah demanded that Jesus be crucified.

The Romans who crucified Jesus went on to form the Roman Catholic Church.

The people who seek forgiveness are Christians who believe that a dead Jew can forgive sins.

How can atheists top this delusion?

Hello Shila, or is it another?  My favourite food is Indian.  But that is probably my secrete martyr or like name.  Or perhaps that might be vici vica? 

Nevertheless, your first sentence is incorrect. The Jews never created the concept of Messiah.  It goes back far further than Jacob.  Did the Jews demand that Jesus be crucified?  Some did and some didn't.  The first thousands of Christians were Jewish.  Go and have a look at Acts and the time of Pentecost.  Clearly thousands of Jews became Christians.  Mostly, as I understand the Gospels, it was the religious leaders - who were threatened and wanted Jesus out of the way. 

Your second sentence is also incorrect.    The Romans who killed Jesus were soldiers acting on the instructions of Pilate who was trying to stop a revolt by the Jewish people.   The Roman Catholic Church really did not become a thing for hundreds of years afterwards. In fact the Christian church was initially a Jewish sect that then ingrafted Gentiles and was spread around the then Israel, Africa and Turkey.  It also drifted across to Greece and Rome and Spain and even into Britain. Plus there were many Christians heading East towards Arabia and China.  

Yes, eventually the Roman church split from the East and became its own church.  But these people did not have any connection to those who crucified Christ, save and except that they were human and some of them came - perhaps from Rome.  Please remember that many Roman Soldiers were in fact slaves who had be conscripted into the Roman army and came from captured lands, like Gaul and Spain and many other places.  Your sentence is so bad it is laughable. 

Your third sentence is also incorrect.  Christians do believe in forgiveness but not from a dead Jew.  Jesus not only died but rose from the dead.  The fact that a small Jewish cult started in the backwaters of the world to become the largest religion in the world didn't happen in a vacuum. Christians worship God - Jesus who is alive. 

Atheists by and large are reasonable people.  As are Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious persons.  Like any group - most are reasonable and a few are extremists and zealots.  Even some atheists are complete nutters and irrational.  And delusional.  

Nevertheless, this topic was never about Atheists being delusional - it was about - some and not all - who would expect others to answer questions and yet never do the same themselves - since Atheists have no doctrine save - there is no god.  The responses of many atheists on this topic have demonstrated that not all atheists are cowards.  I affirm that. Some are - but not all.  When someone is prepared to address the issues and not pretend to be on some kind of moral superior ground - and then refuse to answer to answer because we don't believe anything - then that person is not a coward.  

As for delusions - to believe that "in the beginning there was nothing and then that for no particular reason, something happened, without cause obviously, and suddenly or over a long period of time that nothing to which something happened, became something, which then evolved into everything that we see and hear and taste and understand today"   is a bit silly. Like a fairy tale.  To believe such - I think is perhaps not delusional so far as desperate.  Yet, if one chooses not to believe in a god, then this is really the only alternative.  I certainly haven't heard of any alternatives.   

It's much more plausible that God has existed in eternity - and caused all things in whatever way that might be - rather than - nothing and then something. For me it is more rational to believe that cause and effect are real rather than just totally random events happen without a cause. 

Allllll these "facts" ummmm , found through science go into a book.   

The difference of books.  

So it will be like a book with all different peoples adding to it. 

The difference in peoples.

What if Matthew Mark Luke and John stated so called scientific facts ?

What isn't reality?

I too used to run with the idea that there was a distinction to be made between realism and conceptualism.

Ritual is devised and ritual is observed and ritual is transferred.

Though ritual has no greater meaning than the ritual that it has become.

Why would ritualism be the requirement of a pragmatic GOD?

Why would a religion attack it's GOD?

Wouldn't that be sort of counter-intuitive?

Oh almighty GODDO thou art a dumbass in heaven.

That's correct. He didn't want this burden (cup) of dying or being used as the sacrificial lamb.  . It wasn't his "will" to die , he was so frightened of dying that it is said that he suffered hematohidrosis.  It wasn't a literal cup.

Tell me, why a blood sacrifice anyway. What is it with god and blood sacrifices?

Virgins can say no to sex, but Mary did not.  She wanted to get pregnant by God.

So your definition of complex discussion is a room full of unwashed Jews  disagreeing on how to stay clean where a smell test is optional and redundant. 

So Jews do agree on some things like complex atmospherics in all things Jewish.

No, that isn't my definition. Your inferential skills are lacking. Is there anything you ARE actually good at?

So Jews are still existing in Exile!! Was that from 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews after the Old Covenant was destroyed.

There is a New Covenant Theology that no longer requires circumcision. 

It is actually from a little after 70, but generally that's accurate. Nice work! Of course, your claim about the covenant being destroyed is wrong, but at least you know that Christianity doesn't require circumcision. You ARE capable of learning. Good work!

Are you saying what the Jews are doing to Palestinians are not logical but rather factual?

No, I didn't say that. But if I had, my grammar would be correct.

Er... that is your assumption.

Three gods are equal to 1 god in power when all are omnipotent.

You don't have to take any test you don't want to. Just walk away because complex discussions are well beyond you and that's what we are all about.

So Jews distinguish between asking for land as prayer and taking it from the Palestinian as political blessings.

Moving into non sequiturs? Bold move. Nonsensical, but bold. Want to try again when you actually have something logical to say?

Wow -- back to muddled thoughts. So sad. I'll type slow.

We don't "treat" the soton as anything. The soton simply IS something, and was before Christianity took the idea and played its games with it. What this has to do with diluting anything is "absolutely nothing."

Our covenant with God is as in force as it ever was. In fact, that we are in exile and yet still exist is proof that the covenant is wonderfully strong. Thanks for helping prove my point. Yer awesum!

Jeepers! Who taught you how to troll because you aren't very good at it.

The moment you move from religion into politics you endorse the idea that anti-Zionism is actually anti-Semitism and you make all the other anti-Semites whi try to separate the two ideas look foolish. Poor form, indeed.

And, of course, since your premises are erroneous, your conclusion is fallacious. I'll wait while you look up the big words.

Finally you are starting to say something that approaches a relationship to reality! A breakthrough!

Among Jews there is often disagreement about everything, yes. I'm also glad that you have mastered bolding a section as if your pointing it out is somehow an exposé of some sort.