The ultimate psyop
(twitter.com)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Rejecting history (the Bible) because Richard Dawkins yelled emotionally at God in his fallacious book is like burning down your house because you found a spider in the attic. It's a race to the primitive and empty and bad, and exactly what we're trying to avoid because it ends with practicing wickedness and deviancy, and eating cats like a 3rd worlder.
He said nig. If youre gonna quote, quote correct. Dont be a bitch.
The Bible is not history
Archeology wrecks your claim.
For some of the names and places, but there is no proof of anything supernatural. No evidence that the Jewish people were ever in bondage in Egypt. No evidence that Joshua blew a trumpet and crumbled walls, No credible evidence of a global flood. etc....
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/15HbbQEgDL/special-study-1718-apr-2022-phar/c
I can give you a rundown on Kathleen Kenyon's Jericho dig and the 4.2kya event too if you like, but your comment strikes me as somehow antiscientific. Maybe (with your username) you need to start out letting us know your presuppositions, or perhaps contribute to c/satanism.
Or c/Yahweh
Because you disagree does not make it unscientific. What evidence can you reliably cite, that has stood up to the scientific method (if possible, I acknowledge that it may not be, due to the eyewitness conundrum) that there was a supernatural event that brought down the walls of Jericho. Evidence of the miracles of Yeshua other than the (not eyewitness) accounts in a book?
Your suppositions are based upon your belief. I believe differently. We can exist in the USA (for now).
As to this one (note my reply might be delayed if you don't reply to me directly or ping me with the string "u/SwampRangers"), I just told you the evidence is in Kenyon's extensive field notes. I've also just linked you evidence from many hostile witnesses that Yeshua's life was marked by a reputation for performing inexplicable works ("wonders"). Eyewitness evidence is actually the best testimony, but the miracle (inexplicable event) that 25% of the known world regards Yeshua as God the Son is a pretty good subsidiary evidence that there must be something there.
I understand if you think my suppositions are based on belief. I call myself a skeptic though because I went through doubts and worked out every one of them so that the unevidenced beliefs I had as a child were modified so that my views are now based on all the evidence (facts and logic) available. You might call that "suppositions" if you use the same word for your own hypotheses, but IRL we don't call it a hypothesis or supposition that we ate breakfast this morning. We call it a (sufficiently evidenced) fact. So the actual case is that I have sufficiently evidenced views based on facts and logic that have been tested against all comers, and continue to be. I would hope you aspire to the same.
So, though the Jericho case is very interesting and also involves some conspiracy to control the evidence released, I think it's more tangential and you should focus on what you think happened to Yeshua and his followers when he died, because that's really the hinge on which Yeshua's testimony of other miracles turns. For that I refer you to my separate comment on it.
Were you replying to RumpRangers?
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK57sVTK/top-pinned-post-at-catheist/c
The Cosmos is divine? The Cosmos is sacred? I see no evidence for that leap of logic. The list of philosophical arguments for the existence of god and relating it to the universe is impressive, and if people want to accept that definition of what god is, at least it is better than the superstitious bronze age goat herder tale. I remain skeptical about the supernatural aspects of the christ story, the existence or non-existence of a messianic preacher from Galilee named Yeshua not withstanding.
That was written for atheists who are so materialist that they define divine and sacred as anything supernatural (i.e. unexplained by known laws), when they don't realize that all good scientific theories, including the Big Bang in its first Planck instant, admit that unexplained things exist. If the Cosmos is everything that exists, it's also going to be the most divine and sacred of anything, and only the totality of the Cosmos can successfully map itself (any other map is not the territory). So most philosophers cross that pons asinorum pretty early.
I appreciate that you're content with the minimalist god as simply defining it as the greatest of all possibilities. What we find out is that, when we consider all the detailed proposals that have been made to explain it, including all the superstitions (inexplicables) that have been offered throughout history, the goatherders are batting impressively by comparison. Science calls for an inference to the best explanation, and so I choose my inferences based on which concept explains reality the best, and I keep improving my inferences (I trust you do too).
The conclusion of that piece is not only the existence of the messianic (anointed) preacher but also very confident history of the specifics of his teaching. The link had sublinks that detailed these and I added an eighth one here. The historical issue is that the novelty of all these claims together, and the uniqueness of the testimony of wonders (inexplicables) performed by Jesus from both supportive and hostile witnesses, indicates a personality and concept set that is nonpareil in all of history. He had a self-concept that is both unprecedented and transcendent, and he affirmed many historical accounts of the supernatural as true events too. So if the 1st century (so named after him) contains accounts of a man with such world-changing force, then either he really was supernatural, or (if there is no supernatural) belief in the supernatural is still better for the world than the alternative. Descartes said something similar.
I count myself a skeptic, and you obviously count yourself a devil's advocate. I think the path forward is (1) recognize that "supernatural" simply means "unexplained by known law", (2) recognize that all scientific theories by nature leave room for the unexplained, (3) focus on the unexplained aspects of the resurrection evidence, and (4) make an inference to the best (most complete, most sufficient) explanation.
Rejecting total acceptance of statements made by scientific oversight bodies because some scientists lie and are not caught or reprimanded by said bodies is like common sense, man.
So you want to believe that we all suffer from Original Sin and must die and dinosaurs were nephilim-shabbos-goyim-devil slaves in disguise just because the Medical mafia decided that cancer is incurable other than slowly torturing and killing the patient?
What does this mean?
Strawman that no one believes. They were called dragons in the Bible. If you don't want to believe man and dinoes existed ~6K years ago, too bad so sad, your precious mainstream belief of evil lotion, abiogenesis, and long ages crumbles while the Biblical Account stands strong and indestructible!!
DINOS EXISTED. THEY EXISTED BECAUSE GOD CREATED A FEW. Then that few made more and more.
More literally, the waters "brought forth abundantly" (teemed with) the tanninim ("dragons" 21x but, when embarrassing like it is in Gen. 1, "serpents" and "whales" 6x). Not a few!
If abiogenesis once is mathematically impossible given the size of spacetime, then so is abiogenesis myriads of times. So God created very large numbers of many species, then pointed out that he uniquely created one human for all humanity (with a mate via a cloning coding). The atheist narrative on one LUCA for all life is as ridiculous as their (contradictory) former narrative that many hopeful monsters sprang forth at once from the chaos (which has been applied to humans as if suddenly many interfertile humans appeared at once and no leader was discernible). In reality, large numbers arose at once because "chaos" is actually hidden order, while only one human arose at once because mankind reveals order out of chaos.
I apologize for thinking you didn't understand Christianity at all. You do understand us a little bit. When you come around to pursuing the truth about us at all costs you will begin to understand us more. Keep working that angle of attempting to parodize what we believe because you might accidentally hit upon more truth.
What science is being rejected? I don't believe "Cells emerged from goop" is science, but a HISTORICAL claim. So what is he talking about??
Science is, fundamentally, testing your ideas to make sure they're true (or at least hold true).
Nobody "rejects" this but a lot of us sure are lazy.
Yes, atheism and being a nonChristian is absolutely ideologically lazy. Also, OP has consistently ran away from my debate challenge because he is a cowardly athiest. People like forinfren are far superior. I have higher esteem for those atheists more than the coward Mrexreturns.
Forinfren is yet another anti Nazi kike, you nigger.
I'm comparing athiests to athiests. I call him "superior to other athiests" for one reason: he actually challenges his worldview opponents.
Cells are only observed once you poison the shit out of tissues with heavy metal dyes and expose them to heat.
This you? https://media.scored.co/scale/YDx71zNFOXjfVFsW.jpeg
If everything is a psyop, than nothing is...
Don't you ever get tired of this nonsense you spew?