Quoted by: Omar Suleiman
And today’s fallacy is straw man:
Also, please watch the following and be educated:
We’ll stop arguing with people about this god character as soon as everyone stops thinking he’s real. (Atheists don’t argue with "God," nor can they be mad at him; it takes belief in him to do those things.)
You have offended God
another really terrible attempt at insulting Christianity. God sent Jesus as a way to create a new covenant with the world, one that would include others and be strong enough so that we wouldn’t have to continue the sacrifice of animals and covering ourselves in ash. The old covenant made with Abraham was never meant to last forever, this is quoted in the old testament that a new covenant would come that would last forever and be completely holy and pure. due to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice of his life for sinners he passed into heaven as a sacrifice not into the Holy of Holy like the priests of before. Jesus is now the priest of old, he is the sacrifice that priests use to make on behalf of our sins. God didn’t send his son because we “offended him” he sent his son so that everyone could come to know him and learn of his grace and love and spend eternity with him. But if it is easier to not know the history and make an internet meme instead I totally get that
"A way to create a new covenant" and "so we wouldn’t have to". LOL
FYI: 1) he could have chosen *ANY* way to create the covenant. He could have chosen singing a Marilyn Manson song, hopping on your left foot 6 times, or having an ice cream sandwich. 2) you cannot use the words “have to” when referring to an omnipotent being.
deanscorner14, there are some problems with your response, but let’s discuss this sacrifice notion. It is hugely problematic. It wasn’t thought through properly, or I’m sure its inventors would have chosen something less horrific.
1. The use of human sacrifice to end animal sacrifice. Think about that. Take all the time you need.
2. Scapegoating is immoral.
3. Some say Jesus was a good choice for this type of sacrifice because he was pure and/or innocent. This is not true: this character wasn’t pure and/or innocent. e.g.: Jesus and the fig tree. (Mark 11:12-14)
4. But where’s the actual sacrifice in what Jesus/Yahweh supposedly did? An “immortal and blessed being” becomes a human for a little bit, gets killed, goes back to the same place and status as he was before. That is not considered a sacrifice nor even martyrdom.
5. To add to andresc64’s statement. If this god is what many Christians say he is, it is no honorable thing he came up with in “sending his son.” Not praiseworthy in any respect. Not becoming of his supposed attributes; therefore, not worth worshiping.
6. Having an event like this as a central part of belief systems, only makes the organizations who uphold it look like blood cults or death cults.
PotterFacts 7/404 | The Chamber of Secrets
"Gilderoy Lockhart is the only Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher to have no connection at all to Voldemort."
That’s because even Voldemort has a certain demand for skill and competence
that was the sickest burn i have ever seen
"Gilderoy Lockhart is the only Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher to have no connection at all to Voldemort"? That’s not true; I distinctly remember that … hmm, I just forgot what I was going to say.
Oh, Gamera is a furry now?
Japanese child actress Mana Ashida (little Mako) was embarrassed that she couldn’t pronounce Guillermo Del Toro’s name so he gave her special permission to call him “Totoro-san” instead.
My Neighbor Guillermo Del Toro.
If I don’t reblog this, assume I’m dead.
My Neighbor Guillermo Del Toro
A Princess and her Tiger
the only thing that’s keeping me sane right now is the fact that there’s a kitty on my lap
And the kitty knows it.
Too many pronoun to antecedent issues here. So, please give some clarification. Is Evelyn Waugh really trying to convince people that civilisation “came into being through Christianity”?! And of the last it: is the antecedent Civilisation or Christianity?
What evidence is given that is so compelling to Waugh at that time?
Also of interest, what was so compelling to Waugh in 1930 when he became catholic? Is there written, anywhere, the meat of what is alluded to in the following quote: “… Waugh was influenced by his friend Olivia Plunket-Greene, who had converted in 1925 and of whom Waugh wrote later: ‘She bullied me into the Church’. It was she who led him to Father Martin D’Arcy, a Jesuit, who persuaded Waugh ‘on firm intellectual convictions but little emotion’ that ‘the Christian revelation was genuine’. In 1949 Waugh explained that his conversion followed his realisation that life was ‘unintelligible and unendurable without God’.” —Wikipedia entry for Evelyn Waugh
Quoted from Bishop Paprocki’s homily
This being said, the key is in the quote from Galatians, i.e. to do it “in a spirit of gentleness”.
I do agree that immorality should not be tolerated. But what is strange is the notion of sin. While morals are subjective, many right-or-wrong behaviors are agreed upon by citizens unanimously: (murder, rape, stealing: immoral) (human rights in general: moral). Sin on the other hand is a subjective tool that many cannot agree on because defining particular sins depends on individuals filtering their thinking through often disparate texts but through the context of their own mind set as well. Provide a consistent framework for understanding sin and then compare that to actual moral behavior. Sin loses because it depends on an unverifiable agent: the supposed god who is relation to the person concerned with sin. Whereas secular morals have been developed ever since people have been able to think about how to live together in communities. (Even non-human animals have moral frameworks.) There are overlaps when emerging religions appropriate codes of ethics, but do understand that that does not confirm the existence of objective morals nor a supernatural “giver” of such.
And if the above statement of Bishop Thomas Paprocki were held in high esteem by Catholics at large, the handling, for example, of Catholics who molest children would be wholly different than what we know to be true. What is your plan, “in a spirit of gentleness,” to assure due justice in these cases?
An excellent explanation of not only that atheism is not a religion but on why people are usually in the religion of their parents.
Something that interferes with our manifesting godly patience is a wait-and-see attitude. What does that mean? Well, a person who lacks confidence that the end is near might start to make alternate arrangements, so to speak, in case things do not work out as Jehovah said they would. In other words, he might be thinking, ‘I will wait and see if Jehovah really is true to his word.’ He might then try to make a name for himself in this world, to seek financial security instead of putting God’s Kingdom first, or to trust in higher education to secure a comfortable life now. Really, though, would that not be evidence of a lack of faith? Remember that Paul urged us to become imitators of those faithful ones who received promises from Jehovah “through faith and patience.” (Heb. 6:12) Jehovah will not allow this wicked system to exist any longer than is absolutely necessary according to his purpose. w12 9/15 3:16
Wow. I usually just scroll past these tumblr promoted posts, but I didn’t this time. I can’t just let it go. This post is depraved.
Take the time to read what this post is encouraging people to do. Absolutely despicable.
It says financial security is bad. Everyone reading this post is living in a society that, in a very real way, only functions with money. Yet this JW spokesperson wants people to risk being in poverty. Do they have any clue how detrimental poverty is to the human mind. (It is the relatively rare exception that produces the person that gets out of poverty on their own.)
It says that higher education is bad. Everyone reading this post is living in a society that depends on knowledge and innovation to be successful (in some cases even to survive!). Yet this JW spokesperson wants people to limit their knowledge acquisition. Do they have any clue how detrimental ignorance is to societies? It is curious though why they draw the line a post high school education; why isn’t, in their way of thinking, all schooling a waste of time if, according to them, the end is near. I wonder if it is because they realize that those that go to college often become so rational that they realize that religious dogma is no longer tenable.
And the last line is so sycophantic that it is repulsive: “Jehovah will not allow this wicked system to exist any longer than is absolutely necessary according to his purpose.” Did they really think about the implications of this statement before posting it?! No god, fictitious or otherwise, is worthy of worship if exhibiting such behavior.
tl;dr: This JW post is fractally wrong and disgusting and proves that The Bible (or any of its apocrypha) has no place in the age of information.
Best meal I ever had!
Lil Egyptian Gods by Silverfox5213
IM SOBBING ABT THESE
these are adorable
I used to be an atheist until I saw these compelling arguments! ❤
This is a prime example of why the bible has no place in the age of information! His way of thinking is a disgrace to humanity.
Page 1 of 178