Refuting Religion - The Writings of K. Crady
- Thread starter intilectual recipricol
- Start date
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Gott Mit Uns - K. Crady
And that, right there, is why Christianity has proven to be such an effective tool in the hands of monsters. Don't think, don't judge, because the Leader's orders to commit genocide and atrocity (whether the Leader is Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Pope Innocent, Torquemada, or Hitler) are "things outside the human domain," not to be questioned by us mere mortals. We must only obey. And you wonder how it is that "Gott Mit Uns" got stamped onto those SS belt buckles?
What I know is that the Bible sanctions grand-scale atrocity again and again. "Theologically speaking" it shouldn't be so, but then you've already agreed to shut off your mind with regard to these things and assume that "human logic" is not sufficient to establish that genocide is evil, period. If there is one thing on which the Bible is absolutely clear, it is that "God" wants obedience from his sheep, not critical thought and rational decision-making.
Gott mit Uns 2 - K. Crady
The problem with this is that nobody knows where Jesus is going. Christians were instructed to obey governmental authorities in the NT, that the government was put in place by God. This was in the context of the Roman Empire--the Pagan Caesars. In the OT, the Biblegod clearly sanctions genocide when a race is considered to be a polluting influence on 'the congregation of the LORD.' The writer of the Gospel of John has the Jewish mob that called for Christ's crucifixion shouting "This man's blood be on us and on our children."
The idea of Jews being a corrupting influence within Gentile society was a widespread belief at the time, and had been for centuries. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church forbade usury (loaning at interest), but banking was needed to keep the economy going. The solution: Allow Jews to loan at interest, while making it difficult for them to do anything other than banking (i.e. compete with Gentiles in other markets).
Since the Jews did not have an ethnic homeland (like "Franks" or "Scots"), they were able to be "internationalist" in that they could trade across borders and between Christian and Muslim lands.
Since feudalism emphasized loyalty to place and fealty to the landed aristocracy, land-less people like the Jews, who were goaded into engaging in "un-Christian" financial practices, were viewed with suspicion, just as patriots today frown on people who claim allegiance to the world rather than to any nation. From this comes the stereotype of the "Jewish Banker." Throw in the common conspiracy theories, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, etc., and the German Christians would have had what they thought were perfectly good reasons to consider Jews a corrupt race in the same way the Jews are portrayed viewing the Canaanites as a corrupt race. The Bible teaches that a race/ethnicity can be corrupt as a whole and worthy of extermination as a whole. The Bible teaches that humans doing the genocide themselves (instead of waiting for God to hurl fire from the Heavens) is an acceptable response, at least when their divinely-appointed leaders tell them to.
Sure, going to war conflicts with Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek and so forth. But then, Christians routinely ignore Jesus' teachings when they're inconvenient. For example, his claim that we ought to make no plans for tomorrow, or the fact that he and his disciples, and the Acts-era Church practiced voluntarist communism ("they had all things in common"). The Christian Right in America right now ignores Jesus' pacifism to support the wars in the Middle East--ironically, because they feel these wars are harbingers of Jesus' return and also serve to defend Israel.
Furthermore, Jesus is supposed to be God, i.e. the same being who called himself a "man of war" in the OT and ordered all those OT genocides. He shows those colors again in the Book of Revelation, which means he is not portrayed as a pacifist on principle. Pacifism was a pragmatic strategy that kept Christianity from getting bronto-stomped by the Roman legions. As soon as Emperor Theodosius placed those legions in Christian hands (declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire) Jesus' pacifism went out the window, along with his teachings on economics and life-planning. Therefore, the "We can ignore the OT" dodge changes nothing. Again, the very simple, blatant fact:
The Bible sanctions everything the Nazis did.
And Jesus certainly didn't "get to each one separately" and set them straight. You assume they're not Christians because they didn't interpret the Bible the same way you do. Do you get a ray of light from On High and the Big Voice correcting your interpretations of Scripture whenever you make a mistake? I'm guessing your answer will be "no." Well, neither did they. And again, the very obvious fact, inescapably written in plain text in the Bible:
The Bible sanctions everything the Nazis did.
Where do you get that? The notion that a Christian should never, ever go to war without a personally-delivered command from God Himself is nowhere stated in the Bible, and has never been a teaching of the Christian Church, at least since there was something we could recognizably call "the" Christian Church (i.e. a specific set of formalized doctrines, creeds, etc. intended to be accepted by all non-"heretical" Christians). Aren't you a Catholic? Do the words "Just War Theory" mean anything to you?
Are you the Second Coming? The way you use "I say" sounds alot like the way Jesus did. "It says in your Law (Torah/Scripture) X, but I say Y." Do you have the power to supplant Scripture with your words as the new, true doctrine of Christianity?
Furthermore, since when does the Bible have anything to do with "a philosophical point of view?" Here's the only Biblical mention of philosophy:
I readily agree that your "philosophical point of view" is better than the worldview provided by the Bible, as are the "philosophical points of view" arising from cultures that took philosophy seriously, e.g. the Greeks, the philosophies of Confucius, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc..
This is something I just don't understand about modern Christians. Most of them have a worldview that is more enlightened and moral than that of the Bible, which is why they have to resort to incredible feats of mental gymnastics in order to make the Bible seem as if it were "the Good Book." Why go to so much trouble to redeem a horrible old book? If you have some sort of mystical experience of a perfectly loving God, why not go with that and write your own Book, if you feel one is necessary? I have little doubt you could do a better job of writing "the Word" of a perfectly benevolent, loving god than a bunch of iron-age barbarians for whom "women were kinda like cattle." Heck, I could do it. Neale Donald Walsh did. The writers of A Course in Miracles did.
Why do you need a Book at all? Obviously, when you read the Bible, you have something other than the Bible that tells you which passages are relevant (the nicer ones like the Beatitudes and Psalm 23) and which ones ought to be locked into a mental basement and kept out of sight like a crazy aunt (e.g. Numbers 31). If you want to call that something "the Holy Spirit" or "Mystic Insight" or "a philosophical point of view," whatever it is, obviously it's a better guide to life and thought than the Bible. If it were otherwise, you would not use it to decide what you think the Bible ought to say.
So, having a better form of guidance than the Bible, why bother with the Bible? Why drive an old junker that breaks down all the time when you've got a brand-new Porsche sitting in the garage?
And that, right there, is why Christianity has proven to be such an effective tool in the hands of monsters. Don't think, don't judge, because the Leader's orders to commit genocide and atrocity (whether the Leader is Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Pope Innocent, Torquemada, or Hitler) are "things outside the human domain," not to be questioned by us mere mortals. We must only obey. And you wonder how it is that "Gott Mit Uns" got stamped onto those SS belt buckles?
What I know is that the Bible sanctions grand-scale atrocity again and again. "Theologically speaking" it shouldn't be so, but then you've already agreed to shut off your mind with regard to these things and assume that "human logic" is not sufficient to establish that genocide is evil, period. If there is one thing on which the Bible is absolutely clear, it is that "God" wants obedience from his sheep, not critical thought and rational decision-making.
Gott mit Uns 2 - K. Crady
The problem with this is that nobody knows where Jesus is going. Christians were instructed to obey governmental authorities in the NT, that the government was put in place by God. This was in the context of the Roman Empire--the Pagan Caesars. In the OT, the Biblegod clearly sanctions genocide when a race is considered to be a polluting influence on 'the congregation of the LORD.' The writer of the Gospel of John has the Jewish mob that called for Christ's crucifixion shouting "This man's blood be on us and on our children."
The idea of Jews being a corrupting influence within Gentile society was a widespread belief at the time, and had been for centuries. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church forbade usury (loaning at interest), but banking was needed to keep the economy going. The solution: Allow Jews to loan at interest, while making it difficult for them to do anything other than banking (i.e. compete with Gentiles in other markets).
Since the Jews did not have an ethnic homeland (like "Franks" or "Scots"), they were able to be "internationalist" in that they could trade across borders and between Christian and Muslim lands.
Since feudalism emphasized loyalty to place and fealty to the landed aristocracy, land-less people like the Jews, who were goaded into engaging in "un-Christian" financial practices, were viewed with suspicion, just as patriots today frown on people who claim allegiance to the world rather than to any nation. From this comes the stereotype of the "Jewish Banker." Throw in the common conspiracy theories, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, etc., and the German Christians would have had what they thought were perfectly good reasons to consider Jews a corrupt race in the same way the Jews are portrayed viewing the Canaanites as a corrupt race. The Bible teaches that a race/ethnicity can be corrupt as a whole and worthy of extermination as a whole. The Bible teaches that humans doing the genocide themselves (instead of waiting for God to hurl fire from the Heavens) is an acceptable response, at least when their divinely-appointed leaders tell them to.
Sure, going to war conflicts with Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek and so forth. But then, Christians routinely ignore Jesus' teachings when they're inconvenient. For example, his claim that we ought to make no plans for tomorrow, or the fact that he and his disciples, and the Acts-era Church practiced voluntarist communism ("they had all things in common"). The Christian Right in America right now ignores Jesus' pacifism to support the wars in the Middle East--ironically, because they feel these wars are harbingers of Jesus' return and also serve to defend Israel.
Furthermore, Jesus is supposed to be God, i.e. the same being who called himself a "man of war" in the OT and ordered all those OT genocides. He shows those colors again in the Book of Revelation, which means he is not portrayed as a pacifist on principle. Pacifism was a pragmatic strategy that kept Christianity from getting bronto-stomped by the Roman legions. As soon as Emperor Theodosius placed those legions in Christian hands (declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire) Jesus' pacifism went out the window, along with his teachings on economics and life-planning. Therefore, the "We can ignore the OT" dodge changes nothing. Again, the very simple, blatant fact:
The Bible sanctions everything the Nazis did.
And Jesus certainly didn't "get to each one separately" and set them straight. You assume they're not Christians because they didn't interpret the Bible the same way you do. Do you get a ray of light from On High and the Big Voice correcting your interpretations of Scripture whenever you make a mistake? I'm guessing your answer will be "no." Well, neither did they. And again, the very obvious fact, inescapably written in plain text in the Bible:
The Bible sanctions everything the Nazis did.
Where do you get that? The notion that a Christian should never, ever go to war without a personally-delivered command from God Himself is nowhere stated in the Bible, and has never been a teaching of the Christian Church, at least since there was something we could recognizably call "the" Christian Church (i.e. a specific set of formalized doctrines, creeds, etc. intended to be accepted by all non-"heretical" Christians). Aren't you a Catholic? Do the words "Just War Theory" mean anything to you?
Are you the Second Coming? The way you use "I say" sounds alot like the way Jesus did. "It says in your Law (Torah/Scripture) X, but I say Y." Do you have the power to supplant Scripture with your words as the new, true doctrine of Christianity?
Furthermore, since when does the Bible have anything to do with "a philosophical point of view?" Here's the only Biblical mention of philosophy:
I readily agree that your "philosophical point of view" is better than the worldview provided by the Bible, as are the "philosophical points of view" arising from cultures that took philosophy seriously, e.g. the Greeks, the philosophies of Confucius, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc..
This is something I just don't understand about modern Christians. Most of them have a worldview that is more enlightened and moral than that of the Bible, which is why they have to resort to incredible feats of mental gymnastics in order to make the Bible seem as if it were "the Good Book." Why go to so much trouble to redeem a horrible old book? If you have some sort of mystical experience of a perfectly loving God, why not go with that and write your own Book, if you feel one is necessary? I have little doubt you could do a better job of writing "the Word" of a perfectly benevolent, loving god than a bunch of iron-age barbarians for whom "women were kinda like cattle." Heck, I could do it. Neale Donald Walsh did. The writers of A Course in Miracles did.
Why do you need a Book at all? Obviously, when you read the Bible, you have something other than the Bible that tells you which passages are relevant (the nicer ones like the Beatitudes and Psalm 23) and which ones ought to be locked into a mental basement and kept out of sight like a crazy aunt (e.g. Numbers 31). If you want to call that something "the Holy Spirit" or "Mystic Insight" or "a philosophical point of view," whatever it is, obviously it's a better guide to life and thought than the Bible. If it were otherwise, you would not use it to decide what you think the Bible ought to say.
So, having a better form of guidance than the Bible, why bother with the Bible? Why drive an old junker that breaks down all the time when you've got a brand-new Porsche sitting in the garage?
Feels good believing in a higher power and knowing that atheists cannot refute it.
No matter how much they want to.
Feels good believing in Santa Claus knowing no one can refute it.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
Aww poor atheist is trying to downplay my belief.
protestor
Man of the year
I read the first story, about the ointment. You got to be 12 years old to actually find this "well thought out". This whole things reeks of a teenager that thinks he knows it all. live your life kid and re-read this garbage in 15 years.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
"ointment" was never written about...
so, it would make sense that you also cant compehend other things you claim to read, considering you cant even get the words right
GetInTheTruck
Member
When that bridge is laid across the fire and he's asked to walk across it let's see what good those essays do for him 
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
When that bridge is laid across the fire and he's asked to walk across it let's see what good those essays do for him
What bridge? What fire?
What are you going to do when you stand before Thor?
GetInTheTruck
Member
What bridge? What fire?
What are you going to do when you stand before Thor?
you'll soon find out if you're not careful.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
exactly. No answers. That should put up the red flag for you that youve somehow mistook fairy tales for real life...
GetInTheTruck
Member
exactly. No answers. That should put up the red flag for you that youve somehow mistook fairy tales for real life...
I heard its hot.
When that bridge is laid across the fire and he's asked to walk across it let's see what good those essays do for him
Does the Bible teach the idea commonly held concerning hell? Does the hell of the Bible denote a place of burning torment, a condition of suffering without end, which begins at death? What is the hell of the Bible? The only way to arrive at the correct answer is to trace the words translated hell from the beginning to the end of the Bible, and by their connections ascertain exactly what the divine Word teaches on this important subject.
Before we look into the definitions of hell, think about this fact. The word "heaven" appears in the Bible over 550 times. If "hell" is the fate of those who do not accept Jesus as their Lord, how often do you think God should put it in the Bible Scriptures warning all the people of the world the consequences of failing to accept Jesus as their Savior? Thousands of times? At least as many times as the word "heaven"? At least once in each book in the Bible? The facts may shock you.
Number of times "Hell" appears in the text in English Bible Translations
Bible Translations- Old Testament - New Testament - Total
"Authorized" King James Version * 31 - 23 - 54
New King James Version * 19 - 13 - 32
New International Version 0 - 14 - 14
American Standard Version 0 - 13 - 13
New American Standard Bible 0 - 13 - 13
Revised English Bible 0 - 13 - 13
New Living Translation 0 - 13 - 13
Amplified 0 - 13 - 13
Revised Standard Version 0 - 12 - 12
New Revised Standard Version 0 - 12 - 12
Darby 0 - 12 - 12
New Century Version 0 - 12 - 12
Young's Literal Translation (1891) 0 - 0 - 0
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902) 0 - 0 - 0
Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903) 0 - 0 - 0
New American Bible (1970) 0 - 0 - 0
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976) 0 - 0 - 0
Christian Bible (1991) 0 - 0 - 0
World English Bible (in progress) 0 0 0
Original Bible Project (Dr. James Tabor, still in translation) 0 0 0
Wesley's New Testament (1755) - 0 0
Scarlett's New Testament (1798) - 0 0
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823) - 0 0
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900) - 0 0
Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903) - 0 0
Panin's Numeric English New Testament (1914) - 0 0
The People's New Covenant (Overbury, 1925) - 0 0
Hanson's New Covenant (1884) - 0 0
Western New Testament (1926) - 0 0
New Testament of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958) - 0 0
Concordant Literal New Testament (1983) - 0 0
The New Testament, A Translation (Clementson, 1938) - 0 0
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson, 1942) - 0 0
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980) - 0 0
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [New Testament only] - 0 0
Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (1975)** - 0 0
Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (1993)** - 0 0
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Berry,1897)** - 0 0
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917) 0 - 0
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985) 0 - 0
In the King James Bible, the term "hell" is used 54 times; 31 times in the Old Testament, and 23 times in the New Testament. What is the meaning of the word "hell" in the bible? In the Old Testament, it is translated from one word, Sheol. In the New Testament, "hell" is translated from three words, tartaroo, Hades, and Gehenna. Let us look at their meanings.
1) Tartaroo [Greek New Testament]:
"Hell" is translated only one time from tartaroo, which is from the root Tartaros, which means "the deepest abyss of Hades" (2 Peter 2:4). Apparently, Peter was not writing about a place of flames and torment because "the angels that sinned" are there "to be reserved unto judgment." It would not make sense that angels would be burning in hell before judgment is pronounced on them. If angels are being reserved for judgment, it means they havent been judged yet. After all, an accused murderer wouldn't serve 25 years and then be judged to see if he belongs there or not. If the wicked were to live in a burning hell, theyd have eternal life, just as the righteous, differing only in its quality. The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23), not eternal life.
2) Sheol (Hebrew Old Testament) / Hades (Greek New Testament):
What is the meaning of the word "hell" in the Old Testament? "Hell" is always translated from the Hebrew word Sheol (which is used 65 times in the Old Testament) and means simply "the world of the dead". There is no hint of a place of fire (Jonah 2:1-2). Sheol is translated as "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times. "Sheol" is translated as "grave" in Psa.89:48, Job 17:13, where both Job (a godly man) and the wicked go to Sheol (hell). Sheol is described in terms of overwhelming floods, water, or waves (Jonah 2:2-6). Sometimes, Sheol is pictured as a hunter setting snares for its victim, binding them with cords, snatching them from the land of the living (2 Sam. 22:6; Job 24:19; Ps. 116:3). Sheol is a prison with bars, a place of no return (Job 7:9; 10:21; 16:22; 21:13; Ps.49:14; Isa.38:10). People could go to Sheol alive (Num.16:30,33; Ps.55:15; Prov.1:12).
It does not teach a place of the conscious souls. The Greek Septuagint, which our Lord used when he read or quoted from the Old Testament, gives Hades as the exact equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, and when the Savior, or his apostles, used the word, they meant the same as is meant in the Old Testament. Thus, the New Testament usage agrees exactly with the Old Testament. Literally, Hades means "death" or the "grave"; and figuratively, it means "destruction".
Hades is used 11 times in the New Testament. It is translated 10 times as "hell", and 1 time as "grave." Hades means "the place (state) of departed souls, grave, hell." In Acts 2:27,31, apparently, both the righteous and the wicked go to Hades, the same as they both go to Sheol in the Old Testament, for Christ went to hell when He died. In quoting the Old Testament prophecy regarding Christ, the New Testament writer uses Hades. Compare Acts 2:27 with Psalm 16:10. It seems more logical to think of Christ in the grave instead of in a burning hell.
1 Corinthians 15:55 illustrates that "grave" is a proper reading for Hades. This verse is quoted from Hosea 13:14 in the Old Testament where we find the equivalent word Sheol (grave).
Hades is also used in Matthew 11:23; 16:18, Luke 10:23, and Revelation 1:18; 6:8. In Revelation 20:13-14, if one thinks of "hell" as death represented by the grave, it makes sense for hell to be cast into the lake of fire. After all, if "hell" itself is really a lake of fire, how can it be thrown into itself? This does not make any sense. Notice in 1 Corinthians 15:26 that death will be destroyed. What is represented by death? The grave!
3) Hinnom (Hebrew Old Testament) / Gehenna (Greek New Testament):
"Hell is translated twelve times from Gehenna (or, as it is sometimes transliterated, Geenna). This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Hinnom, which is the name of a valley outside Jerusalem where garbage and the carcasses of animals were cast into and consumed by fire constantly kept burning. Thus, Gehenna is the only one of those words translated as "hell" in the Bible, that has any idea of fire or torment resident in it. Look at Matthew 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33 and Mark 9:43,45,47. It is apparent from these texts that the whole physical body is cast into Hell, and not just the soul. Gehenna is also used in Luke 12:5 and James 3:6
What Does the Bible Teach About Hell?
THATS OFF A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE. the bibles been changed so much over time, the word hell isnt even in it originally. but im sure you knew that
so who do you believe wrote the bible? some men "inspired" by god?
BlackZilla
M0derator
Interesting thread....will read. 
status so far