top 78 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

if a bishop watched me code I could be the first programmer saint. There are times only god knows how my software works. Or not, in case cursing disqualifies candidates.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Candidates for sainthood require two distinct miracles attributed to them: Acutis was first beatified in 2020 after a Brazilian boy with a pancreatic defect was cured, following his mother's prayers to Acutis to help her son. The second miracle involves the reported healing of a Costa Rican girl who suffered a serious head injury after falling off her bike in Florence: her mother prayed for the girl's recovery at Acutis' tomb in Assisi, and her daughter made a full recovery.

    Quite, uh, remarkable "miracles".

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    wait isn't it the mom who should be a saint then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nah, basically, the logic is that since he allegedly healed her, that he is apparently alive in heaven and no longer in purgatory. Thus becoming a saint as his salvation has been "proven"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Feels like we could get two miracles attributed to that famous painter, just for shit & giggles, having a Saint Hitler would be funny (if not for the distress caused to the survivors). Other satins have a much lower kill ratios (up to a few thousand only??).

    (And ofc /s, choosing saints is a completely political process addressing Church's needs.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 94 points 1 year ago (48 children)

    The kid spread religion online. God killed him for it. Pope makes him a saint. God facepalms and says "How many more kids do I have to kill to show you that you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person".

  • source
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (46 children)

    Then that god stops existing because there's no evidence for a god which acts like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Plenty of evidence for god killing whoever the fuck he wants because he feels like it.

    Source: the bible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Okay, and? God creates, He can destroy what He made as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    You moved the goalposts lol.

    You said "there's no basis for that" I countered with "yes there is" You countered "so"

    So, you're wrong. Also,

    My partner and I made our son.

    We now have a moral basis for killing him whenever we feel like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    No, you're not reading the whole message. What I was referring to was "you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person"

    My partner and I made our son.

    No you didn't. God gave you a son.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

    Yes, I know what you were referring to, I know how nested comments work.

    Now, what I was referring to was:

    there's no evidence for a god which acts like that

    Now, you want to claim that God would not kill people for not going to church.

    Cool, but even if he DID. It STILL wouldn't be on the top 10 most fucked up things which HIS OWN BOOK says he did, or has plans to do. Not even including the moral imperative to kill whoever the fuck he wants because 'he created them' (what even is this argument...)

    But i digress;

    God gave you a son.

    No, bro, I'm almost certain I was the one who got my partner pregnant.

    My partner and I did make our son lol, ive got DNA evidence.

    If you want to claim God gave me a son, then you'll first have to convince me God exists.

    Can you do that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    God wouldn't kill people for going to church. That's what I said.

    wouldn't be on the top 10 most fucked up things which HIS OWN BOOK says he did,

    Yeah because such a list would be empty

    My partner and I did make our son lol, ive got DNA evidence.

    So you drew out the schematics? decided what hair to put where? Pieced each bone into it's place? Set the colour of his eyes? Drew out his fingerprints? Laid down each muscle and wired each nerve?

    Can you do that?

    Can you be convinced? What evidence would you expect to have to convince you? Some people cannot be convinced that the earth is round, that climate change is real, evolution is a real observable process of nature or that vaccines are safe and effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    Yeah because such a list would be empty

    Empty? You’ve clearly never read your own book. Here’s just a taste:

    • The Flood – God drowns almost every human, animal, and child on Earth (Genesis 7).

    • The Plagues of Egypt – including killing the firstborn of every Egyptian family (Exodus 12:29).

    • Ordering Genocide – wiping out the Amalekites, including infants and animals (1 Samuel 15:3).

    • Lot’s Wife – turned to salt for the crime of looking back (Genesis 19:26).

    • Killing Kids for Mockery – sending bears to maul 42 children for calling Elisha “baldy” (2 Kings 2:23-24).

    • Hardening Pharaoh’s Heart – deliberately making him resist so God could “show His power” by killing more people (Exodus 9:12).

    • Jephthah’s Daughter – forced human sacrifice of his own child to fulfill a vow to God (Judges 11:30-39).

    • David’s Census Punishment – God slaughters 70,000 Israelites because David counted them (2 Samuel 24:15).

    • Job’s Torture – God lets Satan kill Job’s children and ruin his life as part of a bet (Job 1-2).

    • Eternal Hellfire – condemning billions of people to infinite torture for finite “sins” (Matthew 25:46).

    So you drew out the schematics? decided what hair to put where?

    No, and neither did God. That’s the point. I provided DNA, biology did the rest. By your logic, I didn’t "make dinner" unless I forged the cutlery and mined the iron for the stove. Dumb standard.

    Can you do that?

    Can God? Unless you can prove he exists, you’re just putting a holy sticker on a process we understand down to the molecule.

    Some people cannot be convinced...

    Yeah, flat earthers, climate deniers, anti-vaxxers... and theists.

    Here's the thing though, if I cannot be convinced, whose fault is that?

    Because I don't believe in god that means I'll go to hell, right?

    Why is it that the benchmark for being accepted into heaven is throwing away epistemic and logical foundations?

    Why is it fair to throw me to down to hell because those specific qualities are universally valuable EXCEPT for when we use them to evaluate whether its reasonable to believe in God without evidence?

    Doesn't God know the future? Doesn't God know that every condition that led me to this moment would cause me to reject any answer you've got for me?

    Doesn't that mean he set me up to fail?

    That is REALLY fucking stupid. Like, literally, definitionally stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Everything you've listed are instances of God punishing evil. Are you suggesting God should let Hitler reign free in heaven without punishment? If that's the casewould you then complain that God isn't punishing evil? In many cases, you find instances of Atheists both complaining that evil currently exists, and then gets mad when it is punished! What a contradiction.

    I provided DNA, biology did the rest

    Where did DNA come from? Who made biology?

    You made dinner with your creativity. You designed it. Is it cruel to the dinner that you will eat it and boil it in your stomach acid?

    Unless you can prove he exists

    One can prove, but if you're unwilling to accept proof, then that's a different story.

    on a process we understand down to the molecule.

    Who designed that process? And do we really understand it? Atheists cannot even answer at what point human life begins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    Everything you’ve listed are instances of God punishing evil.

    • Flooding babies.
    • Killing firstborns.
    • Sending bears to shred kids for saying "baldy"
    • Torturing Job to win a bet.

    That’s not "punishing evil". that’s cosmic tantrums.

    If a human did it, you’d call it evil.

    You only excuse it because you slap "God" on the front. That’s divine command theory. might makes right. Which isn’t morality, it’s just fear dressed up as worship. Ironically, its the same logic which fascists like Hitler use.

    are you suggesting God should let Hitler reign free in heaven?

    Strawman. Nobody said "let Hitler into heaven".

    But drowning toddlers and nuking towns isn’t "justice", it’s indiscriminate slaughter. If God’s only two settings are "do nothing" or "kill everyone" that’s a design flaw, not justice.

    Where did DNA come from? Who made biology?

    Same tired "who made X" game.

    Who made God?

    If you say "He always existed", then congratulations, you just admitted things can exist without being created. Which means biology doesn’t need your sky-dad either.

    You made dinner with your creativity. Is it cruel to the dinner that you boil it in your stomach acid?

    False analogy.

    My dinner isn’t a conscious being. If I invited you over and drowned your kid in my soup "to punish evil" you wouldn’t call it dinner. You’d call the cops.

    (Furthermore, I'm vegan, so my meals don't include anything which is/was a conscious being)

    One can prove God exists...

    Then do it.

    Stop dodging. Show reproducible, testable evidence that distinguishes your God from imagination. Until then, you’re just asserting.

    Who designed that process?

    Nobody "designed" it. Evolution by natural selection explains complexity from simplicity, no designer required. If you think complexity requires design, explain who designed God, who is infinitely more complex.

    Atheists cannot even answer at what point human life begins.

    Wrong. Biology is clear: human life is a continuum, not a single magic switch. What’s disputed is when rights should be granted, which is a moral and legal question, not a scientific one. You’re just mixing categories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)
    • Flooding babies.
    • Killing firstborns.

    They were going to be evil otherwise.

    • Sending bears to shred kids for saying "baldy"

    They were essentially telling Elisha to kill himself. And he used God's name in vain.

    • Torturing Job to win a bet.

    Job is now in heaven. I don't think Job cares about the distant point in time when things were bad. That's like calling your parents cruel for banning you from videogames as a kid - although even that is more significant than what happened to Job.

    You only excuse it because you slap "God" on the front. That’s divine command theory.

    That's because God is God. If a pig slaughters another pig and eats it, then pigs would find that evil. Yet it's okay when a human does it.

    But drowning toddlers and nuking towns isn’t "justice", it’s indiscriminate slaughter. If God’s only two settings are "do nothing" or "kill everyone" that’s a design flaw, not justice.

    Oops! You didn't mention any nuking of towns 🤔

    Stop dodging. Show reproducible, testable evidence that distinguishes your God from imagination. Until then, you’re just asserting

    Finally, there's your goalposts. It has to be "reproducible" and "testable". Can you show me reproducible and testable evidence that Napoleon existed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    They were going to be evil otherwise.

    Pre-crime executions of babies? You’re justifying mass infanticide with Minority Report. That’s not morality, that’s thought-policing unborn futures. By that logic, God should’ve killed you before you typed this comment.

    They were essentially telling Elisha to kill himself.

    They yelled "baldy." You’re the one rewriting it as "kill yourself" to excuse bears mauling children. Imagine standing in front of a grieving parent and saying "don't worry, your kid had it coming for making fun of a prophet’s haircut."

    Job is now in heaven.

    So torturing someone is fine as long as you reward them later? If I broke your legs today but promised you a PS5 in ten years, would that make me moral? This is abuse with a consolation prize.

    If a pig slaughters another pig and eats it, then pigs would find that evil. Yet it's okay when a human does it.

    Wrong twice.

    First, might doesn’t make right. If God orders genocide, it’s still genocide. slapping “God” on it doesn’t turn evil into good.

    Second, your pig analogy fails with me because I'm vegan. It isn't okay when humans slaughter pigs. You just admitted your morality boils down to "the strong can do whatever they want to the weak."

    That’s not morality, that’s predation.

    That’s because God is God.

    Congratulations, you admitted it: divine command theory. If God ordered you to skin your child alive, you’d call it good. That’s not morality, that’s just worshiping raw power.

    Oops! You didn’t mention nuking towns

    Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah. Ring a bell? The Bible is full of God wiping out entire cities. Pretending otherwise won’t erase the body count.

    Reproducible and testable evidence... Napoleon.

    Strawman.

    We don’t need to "reproduce" Napoleon, we verify him through multiple independent sources: letters, accounts, artifacts, battlefields. If you have comparable evidence for God, written by neutral parties, corroborated by archaeology, contemporaneous, and consistent, then put it on the table.

    Spoiler: you don’t.

    All you’ve got is one internally contradictory book written by believers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Pre-crime executions of babies? You’re justifying mass infanticide with Minority Report. That’s not morality, that’s thought-policing unborn futures. By that logic, God should’ve killed you before you typed this comment.

    If He did, He would be well within His right to. If they weren't going to be totally depraved, He would have rescued them.

    They yelled "baldy." You’re the one rewriting it as "kill yourself" to excuse bears mauling children. Imagine standing in front of a grieving parent and saying "don't worry, your kid had it coming for making fun of a prophet’s haircut."

    No. Refer to the text and context.

    2 Kings 2:11-12, 23 [11] And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. [12] And Elisha saw it and he cried, “My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces. ... [23] He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”

    Basically, Elijah is missing. Elisha is claiming to be his successor. They mock the account of Elijah leaving earth instead of dying, and basically telling Elisha to go disappear with Elijah. Since they possibly didn't believe Elijah was carried up and instead died, they'd be asking Elisha to do the same.

    Job is now in heaven.

    So torturing someone is fine as long as you reward them later? If I broke your legs today but promised you a PS5 in ten years, would that make me moral? This is abuse with a consolation prize.

    A PS5 isn't comparable to heaven. An eternity in paradise isn't a consolation prize. And God didn't torture Job. Satan did.

    your pig analogy fails with me because I'm vegan.

    Fair. I hope you'd agree that killing unborn children is also wrong.

    Congratulations, you admitted it: divine command theory. If God ordered you to skin your child alive, you’d call it good.

    How would you define morality

    Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah. Ring a bell?

    The towns so bad that only one decent person lived in them? Who were spared alongside their family, despite their family also being terrible people?

    We don’t need to "reproduce" Napoleon, we verify him through multiple independent sources: letters, accounts, artifacts, battlefields. If you have comparable evidence for God, written by neutral parties, corroborated by archaeology, contemporaneous, and consistent, then put it on the table.

    Spoiler: you don’t.

    I do. There are multiple independent sources pertaining to Jesus, accounts. Alleged artifacts, definitely sites mentioned are proved to have existed. They are contemporary and consistent.

    All you’ve got is one internally contradictory book written by believers.

    1. No, we don't. The New Testament is 26 separate writings. And even then, there are a few writings outside of it such as Josephus, The Didache, and Polycarp.

    2. You're expecting someone to literally see Jesus rise from the dead and write about it and not be a believer? That's like me saying "Everyone who writes pro vaccine material is pro vaccine. Find me some anti vaxxers arguing for vaccines, then I'll listen".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If He did, He would be well within His right to.

    Translation: God killing babies is fine because God did it.

    That’s not morality, that’s raw power worship.

    If Hitler had been omnipotent, would you have called his actions "right" too? Because your standard isn't good vs evil; it’s just strong vs weak.

    Basically telling Elisha to go disappear with Elijah.

    So the kids didn’t say "kill yourself", they said "go up like Elijah" Which is mockery, sure, but still not a capital offence.

    You’re still defending child-murder-by-bear for playground trash talk. If your morality system equates insults with death, it's not morality, it's authoritarian fragility.

    An eternity in paradise isn’t a consolation prize. And God didn’t torture Job. Satan did.

    Wrong. Job 2:3 literally says God gave Job into Satan's hand "without reason". If I hand my kid to a known abuser "as a test", I’m responsible for everything that follows. Passing the blame to Satan doesn't make God look better, it makes Him look like an accomplice.

    I hope you’d agree that killing unborn children is also wrong.

    I'm pro-choice. I don't believe potential life has more value than the actual lives of the people carrying them.

    But here's the kicker: even by your standard, your God fails. The Flood, the plagues, Old Testament wars; unborn children wiped out en masse. You claim to worship the "sanctity of life" but your own deity is history's biggest abortionist.

    How would you define morality?

    Morality = reducing unnecessary suffering and increasing well-being.

    By that standard, bears mauling kids, floods drowning babies, and plagues killing firstborns are immoral.

    Your definition is "whatever God says" which means if God told you to burn your toddler alive, you'd call it good. That's not morality, it's obedience.

    The towns so bad that only one decent person lived in them.

    Even if you take that at face value, God still torched everyone; children, infants, livestock. Collateral damage doesn't vanish just because you declare "everyone there was bad". That’s exactly the justification every human tyrant has ever used.

    We do have independent sources for Jesus... Josephus, Didache, Polycarp.

    None of those are contemporary.

    Josephus was born after Jesus allegedly died, and his passage about Jesus is widely considered tampered with by Christians.

    The Didache and Polycarp are Christian writings, believers repeating their own story, not neutral evidence. That's like Mormons citing Joseph Smith's buddies as "independent sources"

    Also, proving Jesus' existence doesn't prove his divinity. I dont care if a person named Jesus lived 2,000 years ago.

    And no, your vaccine analogy fails. We have independent, testable, reproducible data for vaccines. If all we had were 26 internally inconsistent pamphlets from believers claiming vaccines worked, we'd laugh them out of the lab.

    Your entire defense boils down to this: "God is good because He's God". That’s not an argument. That's an abdication of morality. You'd excuse anything; genocide, torture, infanticide; as long as it had divine branding.

    Which means you don't have a moral compass at all.

    You've outsourced it to a book that justifies things you'd call evil in any other context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Wait a second. You argued that God made the babies... so if the babies were going to be evil... he made them that way. That sounds more like evil to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    But God created everything. So he must have created Evil or it wouldn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    There's no evidence for God period, so your "because" doesn't support your statement. Of course you also don't seem to understand basic logic. The lack of evidence never "proves" anything. The presence of evidence "may" prove things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    There is no evidence for the god you believe in, you are correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Do sure the evidence for the god you believe in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (21 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    My man, following your logic this means that Buddhism is real because Siddhartha Gautama, Islam is real because the prophet Muhammad, and Mormonism is real because Joseph Smith's lying ass. Just because a historical figure claims there's a god does not mean that it's actual evidence that a god exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Weigh it up. Mohammed was lying because he wanted more wives and political power. Joseph Smith was the same. Jesus got merked for his teachings and so did his followers for the first three hundred years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Couldn't Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was "merked" and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?

    You can't selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I'm not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.

    The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that's fine, but you can't have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Matthew 20:20-28 ESV

    [20] Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. [21] And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” [22] Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” [23] He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” [24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. [25] But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. [26] It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [28] even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    John 6:14-15 ESV

    [14] When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” [15] Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

    Jesus was not looking for political power.

    Joseph Smith wasn't merked for his faith. He was merked for burning down a printing press.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    Jesus was not looking for political power.

    First of all..... The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn't even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.

    Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don't exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn't really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.

    Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple....

    You aren't exactly making the most logical arguments here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    First of all..... The Bible is not a primary source,

    How do you define "primary source"? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally

    it wasn't even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.

    Not at least, the latest... If you're charitable. According to secular scholars, the latest Gospel of John which I quoted was written 60-70 years after Jesus was crucified. That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history. A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.

    Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don't exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn't really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.

    Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren't His motivations?

    Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple....

    What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    How do you define "primary source"? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally

    It's a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it's about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad

    That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.

    Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.

    A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.

    When combined with other contextual sources.

    Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren't His motivations?

    I'm not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?

    What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD

    I meant the first time..... Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    It's a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it's about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad

    90-100ad isn't decades after the death of people it's about.

    And it wasn't authored anonymously.

    John 21:20-25 ESV

    [20] Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” [21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” [22] Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” [23] So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” [24] This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [25] Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

    That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.

    John 13:23 ESV

    One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side,

    John 19:25-26 ESV

    but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

    John 20:2-5

    [2] So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” [3] So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. [4] Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.

    So this is clearly a primary source.

    More reasoning for narrowing it down to John can be found here.

    It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesn't mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up

    Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.

    Which the writer of John clearly was.

    When combined with other contextual sources.

    There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.

    I'm not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?

    Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the "original" papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur'an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because "god told me" and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up "deseret"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    90-100ad isn't decades after the death of people it's about.

    I'm guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this....

    And it wasn't authored anonymously.

    Yes... It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.

    Which the writer of John clearly was.

    John did not write it.... He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You're working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

    There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.

    From his own cadra of followers...... That's like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

    Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the "original" papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur'an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because "god told me" and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up "deseret"

    And all Christian text are non contradictory.....? There haven't been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn't adopted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    I'm guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old?

    If John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

    Even though there is no evidence to support this....

    Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

    These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad

    You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.

    Then there's Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.

    John did not write it.... He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You're working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

    You're the one working off of assumptions

    From his own cadra of followers...... That's like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

    So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened? Don't you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead". We'd have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.

    And all Christian text are non contradictory.....? There haven't been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn't adopted?

    There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was "adopting everything someone wrote about Jesus"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

    Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...

    Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

    "I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."

    You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's pretty damn close.

    Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

    Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.

    No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that's more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.

    Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.

    Then there's Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.

    Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king's journal.

    You're the one working off of assumptions

    You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't first get passed down by oral tradition?

    So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened?

    No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

    That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead".

    I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

    We'd have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.

    Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone..... Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.

    There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?

    I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...

    In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.

    Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

    "I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."

    You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

    Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

    Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150...

    Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king's journal.

    So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

    You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't first get passed down by oral tradition?

    Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

    No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

    In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition. It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as "biased" because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasn't a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the "bias".

    If the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

    I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

    Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically "Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't rise from the dead"

    I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

    Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

    What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.

    What makes you assume he's 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died.....

    You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

    A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

    Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

    Clement was born in 150ad..... Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

    Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

    "is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

    In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition.

    No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

    It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method

    Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

    Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian.

    You don't have to trust science, science is repeatable, it's self explanatory.... If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn't automatically think they're the son of God. I would rationally think it's a different dude posing as him, or that they didn't actually kill him.

    the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

    If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

    Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't rise from the dead"

    Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?

    Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

    How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

    reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

    Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    What makes you assume he's 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died.....

    This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

    A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

    That's not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.

    Clement was born in 150ad..... Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

    The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. That's a different debate over who wrote revelation.

    "is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

    Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists" rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a "Christian apologist".

    No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

    1. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

    The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston

    If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

    Are these in actual Scientology "scriptures"?

    How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

    So not the first....

    Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

    And how did they establish doctrine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

    Nah, just circular reasoning.

    you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists"

    "In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

    "While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God's people is called oral tradition." Ministrymatters.com

    The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

    Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

    Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don't really care about your personal beliefs. I just don't think it's okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people's make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Nah, just circular reasoning.

    You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

    Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

    Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.

    They're claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. That's not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. He's just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying "Well, Jesus didn't literally write this".

    The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesn't devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.

    Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

    The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustn't be reliable. They aren't really good arguments.

    So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isn't a forgery. If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

    I'm not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

    The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand.

    Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It's silly how often your position changes.

    The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning)

    That's not circulatory reasoning..... That's just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it's been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

    Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

    In defense of Christianity......yes, but they wouldn't believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

    If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

    That's a false dichotomy...... Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn't I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that's supports him as a diety.

    There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources... We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

    I don't really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Interesting. None of that is evidence that God exists. Without a doubt, someone going by the name Jesus (or something like it lost in translation) existed. And a religion was founded based on him. Lots of things happened. People wrote down a lot of things. But those people all had a bias. The vast majority were trying to build a religion. So without a doubt, they embellished and picked the "witness" accounts that supported what they wanted to say.

    As for the 3 famous figures mentioned at the start. The same is true. Historians often say that we don't know the real truth, just what was written.

    As for the new testament. It was created by commitee. They hand picked stories and such that created the picture they wanted to present. And plenty of religious historians have pointed out that Christianity borrowed concepts and stories that worked well from previous religions.

    So all that proves is that a human being going by the name Jesus existed and had a very influential life. It proves nothing of God.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • I see. Focusing on the least relevant thing I said to avoid the main point that you can't contest. Thanks for confirming that.

    As for the committee... how do you think the new testament came into being. Some person collected all the writing he liked and declared it the new testament. Then everyone else said sure... we would like to buy a copy...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

    By the time it came into being, the church was an organization with power. Such an organization always draws ambitious humans who crave that power and influence. The new testament was crafted to help grow that power and influence.

    It is very likely in my opinion that Jesus never even claimed to be the son of god. Probably he was a very charismatic person who actually cared about the well being of people. And so he got popular with the people. Which is why he had to be killed. Then ambitious people leveraged him and his popularity to get what they wanted. Several other modern religions took a similar road.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Huh, seems it's like an attraction a pilgrimage site:

    They've added 15 saints in 2024? Usually less per year tho.
    wiki/List_of_Catholic_saints

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    They made merch, omfg 🤣 I despise this shit.

    Also:

    Acutis also created a popular website documenting miracles as a means of spreading the Catholic message, which is what led to the nickname of "God's influencer."

    I can't.🥲

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Seems like rich territory for jokes about saint Luigi

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I knew religion was a joke. Anyone who still refuses to admit it is a total moron

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't know anything about the dead guy. Is this deserved recognition or a shameless attention grab by a no longer relevant institution?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Gamers have risen up

    Bottom text

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Our destruction was the will of their god, and he was its instrument.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Dota 2: “God like” Dude: “Jesus helps me killing you bitches!”

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    How is this strange? It was going to happen eventually and it will continue to happen

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Anyone known what document miracles this guy did? Last I knew it was a req.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    God, the Prime Mover, has existed even before the beginning. When God thought "Let there be light" is when that tiny little particle exploded and it became the Big Bang that we are all familiar with. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have faith in it.

  • source
  • 28 comments in c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca view that post