Tell me the pros and cons about these thoughts of mine. Let me know if They are wrong. Expound on it please! I don't want to tell anything if it is wrong.

The bible was composed for governments. It was never intended to be a people's book. The council of Niccea composed this book as more of a constitution. A book to put fear into any nation who opposed them (like the Hebrews). Now you could only pray to God using the Christian method and our savior from our country. Only in the name of Jesus would God hear you from now on.

Thanks for any input.

Views: 931

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

P.S there was no government per se in the times under discussion there was the monarch and there was the church both of whom the holy books served very well. True universal sufferage is a phenomana only created within living memory.
It makes sense that this book served the church and state. Both of whom promoted it's infallibility giving reason why it is so highly regarded today.
Why are you sure that he did not exist?
Hi Orange,

I went back to the debate we had in the "Did Jesus Exist" thread (it's on page 67-68-70 if anyone's interested) and I thought I was perfectly gentle with you, since you proved yourself to be quite open-minded and courteous, so I was happy to be so in return.

In fact, I encourage everyone who thinks I'm so poisonous to rational discourse to read that debate again and tell me where I was offensive in any way or obstructed debate.
I have no idea if he did or did not exist. It would be nice to go back and find out for myself. It is an interesting subject no doubt. I have heard many great arguments for and against the existence of Jesus which puts me square in the middle. By the way, it has absolutely nothing to do with why you were attacked in retaliation (Just to set the record straight and quell any assumptions).
Matt, it isn't your facts that most of us have a problem with, it is in fact your character that you mentioned. We all suffer through your rantings to get to the point of your posts. It seems to lessen the quality of them.

"You know, for a rationalist, you really don't check your fucking facts"

"the moment is rapidly approaching where you admit that you don't have a clue what you're talking about"

"That's a load of crap"

"I'm calling bullshit on everything that's in your post"

"I don't even know where to begin with this cluster of misinformation"

"you're clutching at straws now"

"This is the second time you've done this: next time I won't be so gentle"

"The amount of misinformation gets nauseating towards the end"

"Total bullshit"

"Seriously mate, you need to check your sources more carefully. For a rationalist, that really shouldn't be too hard"

-Matt VDB

But fear not, he does have a good twin!

"I don't see any evidence for that at all" -Matt VDB

I'm afraid I don't see any insults there at all. I plead guilty to being combative (sometimes overly so) but none of the above are real attacks on someone's character; except maybe for the first one you stated, which in the heat of a debate, was about the nicest way I could tell someone that they weren't checking their facts: hardly an ad-hominem.

All the others are not insults, and they sure as hell aren't rantings. Telling someone that a paragraph of their post is a load of crap is often a statement of fact. As is telling someone that it's full of misinformation or that it's bullshit. Saying that it's false is always an option (the one I usually employ) but high degrees of falsity will often get a naughty word.

It is true that when someone fails to see a point and doesn't check their facts, I'll use some light sarcasm to edge them towards that (that's when you see words like bullshit etcetera coming out). Also, I think I can happily link you to several dozens of other posts where I've been perfectly gentle with people who have shown to be open-minded and not simply clinging to their myths.

So I will very humbly suggest that you get a thicker skin. Whenever you see me attacking a poster more than their points, or attacking a poster without adressing their points, feel free to call me out on that, but when I'm attacking content and arguments, I think I'm free to do that whichever way I want to.
Yeah, we should all just change for you Matt. You apparently have a lot of book smarts but to fail to foresee us lashing back at you tells me that a common sense, you lack. Of course I am judging by this one post, nothing else. I have never met you. You may very well be the kindest man in the world to know, but I don't have that luxury to judge you by.

Keep up the great information, we love to search for the truth. Most of us post things with full belief that it is true. Remember that odds are they are not posting with intention of lying. It is what they have been led to believe is true by some way or another. You seem overly sensitive to this subject to the point of lashing out at people when they are wrong and didn't realize it. You can counter argue whichever way you want, indeed, but for future reference; abrasiveness will put you in danger of being pegged the villain, and retaliation just may ensue.
"Yeah, we should all just change for you Matt."

Actually, I suggested that we all get used to the idea that others won't always change because we might like them to, and that it's best not to get too upset when that happens. And that goes both ways, you see: I won't expect that you talk the way I would like to, and likewise I don't expect you to tell me how to behave.

If me calling a spade a spade and calling bullshit bullshit leads me to being villified, then so be it. If it leads you to think that I'm sensitive on this issue, so be it (although it's false: I'm cool as a cucumber, really). I frankly don't care all that much.

So retaliate all you like. As long as that retaliation has some actual substance and doesn't consist merely of ad-hominems, I'll welcome it. But I've yet to see any of that...

Can we now get back on topic, please? Some lashing back with substance would be a nice change ;)
I didn't "jump" you. I replied to you, Melody.

And yes, I thought you cared about the argument. That's what "point and match" means to me. If it means something else (something else than ermmmm "winning a match" implies) then I duly apologise for my misinterpretation.

Or you could stop misinterpreting me replying to you for me "jumping you" like "Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh".
The bible was composed for governments.

It was the perfect political religious manifesto to rid
the Roman Empire of gentiles, and if it was fabricated
for this purpose, it clearly worked. The first bibles were
published in a common greek language after Constantine's
military supremacy over the empire, but not before many
of the most ancient and highly revered temples of the
Gentile empire were utterly raised to their foundations.

It was never intended to be a people's book.

In this epoch during the rule of Constantine, who was literate?
Not many at all. Most were read to, and many did not understand
greek. So the bible was never intended to be a peoples book.

A good story about this can be found in the writings of the
ancient historian Momigliano .....

We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek. The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible. The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough.

The council of Niccea composed this book as more of a constitution.

The (War) Council of Nicaea was apparently unconcerned with Constantine's
publishing plans, and featured a "creed" against Arius of Alexandria which was
purportedly signed under military duress by he attendees, whom "The Boss"
had personally summoned by letter.

The story goes that the bible fell into the hands of Eusebius of Cesarea, who
during the years 312 through 324 CE, while Constantine obtained military supremacy,
prepared the "History of the Church" and acted as "Editor-In-Chief" of the first
official widespread 50 "Constantine Bibles", after Nicaea.

A book to put fear into any nation who opposed them (like the Hebrews). Now you could only pray to God using the Christian method and our savior from our country. Only in the name of Jesus would God hear you from now on.

Constantine enacted laws -- today preserved in the Codex Theodosianus such as:

313 16.2.1 Christians shall be exempted from serving as tax collectors and other public duties; replacements shall be found for them. 315 16.8.1 "Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned, and no one is allowed to join Judaism.

321 16.2.4 "At death, people shall have the right to leave property to the Church."

323 16.2.5 "Clergy shall not be forced into participating in pagan practices; anyone who forces a clergyman into such an act may be fined or publicly beaten, depending on his legal status."

326 16.2.6 There shall be limits on the number of people entering the clergy; people shall not become clerics in order to avoid public service.

326 16.5.1 Religious privileges are reserved for Christians
The bible wasn't composed, in the usual sense. It's just an ad hoc collection of independently written documents on a theme. Your question supposes that the collection has a common message and purpose when even a cursory glance at the material disproves this idea.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service