Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/23/09 03:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: Unless the Apostles were given the power to write posthumously. That'd just be crazy.

;;;;
Unless what was written was edited.
With the Emperor Constantine deciding to have Christianity become the Religion of Rome. He put his foot down & ordered the meeting at Nicea. They declared many writings to be cast out & destroyed.
This 'church' wanted control & one type of Chrisitanity...their Christianity & all others versions were outlawed.

Another thing that is rarely spoken of is Jesus's brother James, who basicly took over from Jesus after his death
http://jesusdynasty.com/

Fitna does not compare to spoofing religion and sorts. Wilders tries to push this as being an informative video on the Islam, but what it actually is, is 16 minutes of trolling all rolled into 1 film.
I'm not surprised it's being avoided as much as possible.

At 3/23/09 05:55 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/23/09 05:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Unless what was written was edited.

A number of them still survive even though they aren't considered canon anymore.

;;;;
Ever read anything by & or about this biblical scholar ?
www.kapshow.com/redwire/jesusdad.html

At 3/23/09 06:57 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/23/09 06:41 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Ever read anything by & or about this biblical scholar ?

What does this have to do with anything anyway? Are you going to ask me about Dan Brown next?

;;;;;
No, I just found this a day or two ago.
I haven't had the time to attempt to check him & or his information out.
But as someone who looks up info & doesn't just follow the crowd , I thought you may have come across this or something like it before.

At 3/22/09 11:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/22/09 09:19 AM, Ericho wrote: Because Jesus was the greatest teacher of all time, while L. Ron Hubbard was a nobody who died taking drugs. To say that they are equal is simply insanity.

;;;;;
No one recorded anything about Jesus until years after his death.
Scholars are not in agreement (surprise,surprise) of when written recording of what 'he supposedly taught' was put down...about 300 years after his death is given as an example.

We all know that a story that's been verbally repeated for 2-3 hundred years is completely unchanged (LMFAO) & is absolutly nothign but the truth.

Is the Bible a Trustworthy Document?

Plato - Written 400 B.C. Oldest copy of his work dates from 900 A.D... a 1300-year time gap. 7 copies
exist.

The Annals of Tacitus - written 55-120 A.D. Earliest copy in existence dates 1100 A.D... a 1000-
year time gap. 20 copies exist.

The New Testament - written 45-95 A.D. Fragment as early as 114 A.D. Entire books from 200 AD.
Near complete NT 250 AD. Entire NT 350 AD. Only a 30 to 225-year time gap! 5300 copies
exist!

What happens when we compare the oldest ancient copies with our modern translations? 99.9%
accurate! .1% due to spelling variations and word order!

clearly the Bible has had less issues aging then documents still refered to in universitys. Along with a tiny time gap from the time it was written to the earlyest documents, the books for the new testement were accepted as canon for the Bible at these times:

90 - 160 A.D. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John accepted
160 - 250 A.D. New Testament is used for the first time. Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians,
1Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Jude accepted
250 - 325 A.D. 2 Timothy and Philemon accepted
325 A.D. At Council of Nicaea Hebrews and Revelation accepted
325 - 397 A.D. James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John accepted
367 A.D. Athanasius lists number and order of the New Testament books
397 A.D At Council of Carthage New Testament is finally closed

Also, the gospels weren't "verbaly repeated", they were written by the disciples, who were a few of the THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses to the events.

At 3/23/09 10:52 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/23/09 04:54 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 3/21/09 05:53 PM, KemCab wrote: All religions are stupid.

that alone should disregard anything bad they may have to say about any other belief

I'm not trying to say I'm absolutely right. I'm saying that numbers don't equal validity. A billion people who believe in Santa Claus are a billion morons. That throws out the argument that "a billion people can't be wrong" and lets us progress to dismantling the fallacies of religion at its tenets.

You honestly don't understand this shit do you?

those who choose to not participate at all are always the minority and that is very very odd that they sometimes tend to stay that way, very rare but it happens.

Because of overwhelming social pressure to stick to one religion? This is why religions survive: they propagate from one generation to the next.

No, religion is only passed on from the soul choice for kids n grandkids to do so, just as your stupid unbelief has been passed on.

alot of beliefs can be totally retarded n some are easily misunderstood,

There's a difference? Look, we can both agree that Scientology is stupid, but if I tell you that the Ten Commandments say one thing, you'll quote another part of the Bible that disagrees with it. There is overwhelming scientific evidence against a global flood depicted in the Bible yet people will argue against it. The foundation of religion itself is flawed: you are expected to believe in something you do not know until you believe that fiction is real.

No it isn't, religion n spiritual beliefs can be followed differently and passed on as that, just as you people pass on your violent hatred for it.
Sure you can tell me theres evidence against the Bible, but does that mean I'm going to believe you?
No, you either trust that I'll see it your way or you're just wasting a big shit load of your time rambling about nothing, I say theres evidence and you say there is none, now you say theres evidence, fuck you I don't believe you.

a few are pretty much spot on

Like?

Your mom thats who

no one wants to mess with it

Except for smart people.

Dude, shut the fuck up, you aren't smart, you're a dumb animal just as you believe everyone else to be, its funny how you can somehow claim there wasn't a creator when you weren't there to see the world created n you just assume it just happened out no nowhere for no reason just as some douchebags told you it was, you're making it sound no different than how you describe religion, I could go on all day about how atheism is vile disguting boil on the ass of humanity, but I choose to show some discretion.
No dude, smart people don't proclaim themselves to be smart, you know absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, all you have is belief and choice, everything you "know" was taught to you, and you had the choice to believe them.

the only way to get at any sort of belief is to pick out the bad n ignore everything else

But ideally any religion shouldn't have bad parts in it. Even beliefs with good connotations can be percieved as bad. I don't believe religion should restrict what you eat. And either way there is a perfectly secular expression of any positive religious teaching. For example, don't kill people. Don't steal. Respect others. And so on. God has nothing to do with it.

You just owned yourself, I don't even need to think of a reply to that.

To put christianity with scientology n wiccan is a completely immature outburst of ignorance and personal self disgust in my opinion

So you're basically saying your religion is better? I thought that's what you were trying to avoid saying.

You're sayig your religion is better huh? And stfu atheism is so a religion, you base your entire belief system on faith and you admit that you dont know if God exists or not, so fuck you.
I don't even see those kinds of satan worshipping evil money scam pieces of shit to even be religions, fuck you don't even need religion to believe in God, so how bout that, pick off all the labels n make one or two new ones maybe (good) and (evil) you're either one or the other hoe about that 8P

these so called "unreligious" people have, the come n spew out tons of crap n expect people to believe it n when they don't they mock other religions

Well, nonreligious academics like Dawkins don't force you to read their books. Ever read his book, The God Delusion? He doesn't bash religion- if anything he dismantles it as the big castle in the clouds that it is.

Big catles on clouds? just shut the fuck up, your bullshit doesn't work and it never will.

Anyway the point is, you're putting yourself against the majority, a majority that likely means no harm to you

What does this have to do with anything?

it has to do with you being a whiny little bitch

though you curse n mock them n their beliefs,

Because their beliefs are inherently stupid? I don't mock them, I dismiss their beliefs. I might have to respect their right to practice their religion, but I don't have to respect their religion itself.

Just as you expect respect for your won fucked up religion? FUCK JOO, your religion isn't recognizable as any form of logic or commone sense to me, fuck you very much.

and you give absolutely no thought to the possibility that they may be right

There are theoretically an infinite number of religions. I can believe in God... and the flying purple hippo in the sky. I can believe in God... and the invisible pink unicorn. I can believe in God and two invisible unicorns. I can just believe in the unicorn. I can believe in nothing at all.

You can kiss my ass and then say you never did while I laugh in your face with a picture of it, you people are so retarded when you even get on a basic discussion about God "Oh pink unicorns n lil faries, oooooh I'm so fucking homosexual," go the fuck to hell, this is why no one takes any of you retards seriously, and you demand RESPECT? FUCK YOU!!!!!! 8P

I can't give credence to every single one of them. I'm not expressing profound belief that there is nothing, I'm just saying that religion is bullshit because it tells you how to believe in something nonexistent.

....You just pwned yourself again, you in fact believe in nothing n that there was no creator to this world that was evidently created (its fucking here) but you do a total 360 n say you don't, then you pull a rabbit out your ass n say its totally fake, wtf do you question your own existencemotherfucker?
I'll be glad to come to your house n beat the shit out of you if you wana know if you're real or not, just get the fuck off the computer, you're brain is fucked up as it is.

That goes for all dipshit "atheists", if you don't have any fucking grasp on what you believe or not believe, shut the fuck up and stop bullshitting about it as if any idea you might have may be true, dawkins can suck my dick, darwin can die (he did) n go straight to hell.
Oh also, if you ever feel as if you have a grasp on reality n actually think you've accomplished something n are still an athiest, get the fuck back to school cuz you're just plain retarded and I really don't have to explain again why you are.
By the way, when you're on your deathbed praying like hell, remember this face Q('.'Q) it will haunt you forever BWAHAHA!

Also, the OP of this is an alt spam account so I'll go ahead and forget I ever posted anything here since chewing out stupid trolls isn't worth shit.

I just want to know, how many people actually get in trouble for making fun of Christianity? Nobody does. Our media controls the world and what we think everybody feels. For example, Barack Obama says something along the lines that a group of Sourtheners are all "people who cling to guns and religion." Obviously he was talking about Christianity, but what do you expect of someone who makes fun of a physical event for physically and mentally retarded or handicapped people? Our nation instead idolizes whoever puts down religion because they're thought to be so much smarter tha everybody else. For example, "Religulous" the movie received excellent reviews because it was anti-Christian, not because it made sense, was a good movie or actually contained facts. Madonna basically got famous off of trying to battle the Catholic church, not because she's talented or beautiful, which she isn't. However, if someone talks about Islam that makes them a horrible person. Our country is actually completely one-sided towards hatred for Christianity.

I see that shaggy is on one of his overly emotional incoherent tirades again.

I'm starting to get the impression he's been trolling here long enough for us to predict when exactly he's going to switch from one phase to another.

We should all know about them by now, he leaves for a while, comes back acting innocent, stars using contradicting, backwards and hypocritical arguments and then the swearing and insults. Then he repeats the process.

At 3/25/09 02:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: I see that shaggy is on one of his overly emotional incoherent tirades again.

So I guess he does this crap a lot, huh?

We should all know about them by now, he leaves for a while, comes back acting innocent, stars using contradicting, backwards and hypocritical arguments and then the swearing and insults. Then he repeats the process.

Oh, well. Every court needs a jester.

At 3/21/09 05:37 PM, RippinCorpse wrote:

So here's my discussion question. Why is it that that if a small group of people believe things differently, we can openly hate them, but when a large group of people believe something, we have to pretend not to hate them?

Because bigger groups are more of a threat

At 3/25/09 07:51 PM, RippinCorpse wrote:

At 3/25/09 02:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: I see that shaggy is on one of his overly emotional incoherent tirades again.

So I guess he does this crap a lot, huh?

Most defiantly, usually he's at his peek of trolling when he starts spamming people's comment section. He's done this before with me. We had a discussion on both our comment sections. He eventually blocked me and never answered the reply I left on my comment section.

Oh, well. Every court needs a jester.

Jesters are funny. He is laughable but not in a good way.

At 3/21/09 05:37 PM, RippinCorpse wrote:

So here's my discussion question. Why is it that that if a small group of people believe things differently, we can openly hate them, but when a large group of people believe something, we have to pretend not to hate them?

Because the larger religions have alot more political power than the smaller religions.

At 4/7/09 07:35 PM, Metalhead772 wrote:

At 3/21/09 05:37 PM, RippinCorpse wrote: Why is it that that if a small group of people believe things differently, we can openly hate them, but when a large group of people believe something, we have to pretend not to hate them?

Because the larger religions have alot more political power than the smaller religions.

;;;;;
Which points to what I have been saying for quite some time...religion (especially christianity) was an idea of Constantine to consolidate power from the Roman Sytem (with an Emperor) into a religious system, where the leader of the church (the pope) weilds power over the leaders of the countries , by using his appeal to the masses (the people) the religion dominates over.

It was a master stroke of keeping the power of Roman Emperor's intact in multiple countries where they could no longer retain power through armed might. We are still stuck in this system which Constantine placed into being at the Council of Nicea...Emperor ---Pope, what is the difference ?

IF you can't see that something is wrong when Jesus had 12 diciples & Mary of Magdeline (his lover ), who all knew him, traveled with him & told stories about him...but you see those others who were not picked told everyone things that THE CHURCH didn't want out there !
After all how can you put Jesus up to be DIVINE/Son Of God... if he had a mistress/wife ?

The muslims did it. Muhammed had not only wives and mistresses, one of his wives was a lolita.