HOME | DD

#atheism #atheist #atheistic #context #crime #crimes #fragment #fragments #hypocrite #out #quote #quotes #sayings #porphyry #saying #porphrios #hypocrisy #hypocrites #porphirius
Published: 2016-02-24 19:45:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 2608; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
The church is full of hypocritesChristianity has been responsible for a huge amount of killing and wars throughout history and the newspapers are full of supposed Christians who are paedophiles, liars, adulterers, murderers and abusers. If Christianity were true it would make people better.
pjsaunders.blogspot.de/2013/01…
But he with bitterness, and with very grim look, bent forward and declared to us yet more savagely that the Evangelists were inventors and not historians of the events concerning Jesus. For each of them wrote an account of the Passion which was not harmonious but as contradictory as could be. For one records that, when he was crucified, a certain man filled a sponge with vinegar and brought it to him (Mark xv. 36). But another says in a different way, "When they had come to the place Golgotha, they gave him to drink wine mingled with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink" (Matt. Xxvii. 33). And a little further, "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloim, Eloim, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is Matthew(v. 46). And another says, "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel full of the vinegar with a reed, they offered it to his mouth. When therefore he had taken the vinegar, Jesus said, It is finished, and having bowed his head, he gave up the ghost" (John xix. 29). But another says, "And he cried out with a loud voice and said, Father, into thy hands I will commend my spirit." This happens to be Luke (Luke xxiii. 46). From this out-of-date and contradictory record, one can receive it as the statement of the suffering, not of one man, but of many. For if one says "Into thy hands I will commend my spirit," and another " It is finished," and another "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and another " My God, my God, why didst thou reproach me?" it is plain that this is a discordant invention, and either points to many who were crucified, or one who died hard and did not give a clear view of his passion to those who were present. But if these men were not able to tell the manner of his death in a truthful way, and simply repeated it by rote, neither did they leave any clear record concerning the rest of the narrative.
Porphyry, Against the Christians (2004). Fragments.
www.tertullian.org/fathers/por…
Related content
Comments: 38
TheRealRogerDennis [2017-09-23 21:48:11 +0000 UTC]
Ironically enough, you actually are taking this out of context.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Green-Tea-Flower [2016-07-02 19:10:43 +0000 UTC]
How can you take the Bible out of context, anyway? The Bible has no context to begin with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CurtisKaiju [2016-05-28 08:35:26 +0000 UTC]
Also apparently everything in the Bible is true unless it makes Christianity look bad. Then its just a metaphor. What a coincidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to CurtisKaiju [2016-05-28 09:46:19 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, strange isn't it? And this truth is changing constantly, it was okay burning people in the past, now it suddenly isn't
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CurtisKaiju In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2016-05-28 10:04:14 +0000 UTC]
The bible also approves of paedophilia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CutestSith [2016-03-05 02:29:27 +0000 UTC]
I always have a Bible on hand not to quote it, but in case a theists gets in a debate with me that I can check for myself every time I am using the misquoting argument. I can confirm for a fact that the Bible does indeed say this as I am on that verse now. In fact it has a headline in bold stating "Not peace but a sword." But why let it end there? It gets even better! Continuing that quote "I came to set sons against fathers, daughters against mothers. A man's worst enemy will be his family."
So there's you family values Christians.
"Whoever loves his father and mother more than me is not my disciple. Whomever loves his son or daughter more then me is not my disciple."
Ain't that swell kiddies? Mommy and Daddy love you... but not as much as they love Jesus. Jesus sounds like an egoistical prick and a controlling husband. "You can't love AYNONE more than me." is basically what he's saying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to CutestSith [2016-03-07 17:22:30 +0000 UTC]
yes, that it is exactly what he is saying!
Pure egoism and ignorance at it's highest level
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
leothefox [2016-02-27 03:30:31 +0000 UTC]
Context or no, they don't practice the peace thing anyhow
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
leothefox In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2016-02-29 17:02:16 +0000 UTC]
Can't get to heaven unless you make the earth a living hell, I guess
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to leothefox [2016-02-29 17:11:25 +0000 UTC]
what a pitty it would be, when there is no heaven at all!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
leothefox In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2016-02-29 17:30:39 +0000 UTC]
Yeah... I wish I could use my imaginary friends as an excuse for everything I do as well
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to leothefox [2016-02-29 17:40:41 +0000 UTC]
Good, idea I'll take the flying spagetti monster, he will eat all my sins
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
leothefox In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2016-03-01 07:33:38 +0000 UTC]
Sounds like a good guy to have around
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PyrrhusiVictoria [2016-02-25 04:39:37 +0000 UTC]
Looks like Jesus and Muhammad had a lot in common.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to PyrrhusiVictoria [2016-02-25 18:52:29 +0000 UTC]
without jesus, there would be no islam, anyway. christianity includes islam, so critisizing the one is always also critisizing, what followed after it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Delahkor [2016-02-25 00:01:35 +0000 UTC]
Well, since when has religious people (of any religion) made sense?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cataclyptic [2016-02-24 22:46:54 +0000 UTC]
Sad but true. Usually if this doesn't work they go to: "But you have to check the ORIGINAL translation!" And if that doesn't work "But it was mistranslated from the ORIGINAL COPY which we know MUST have existed!"
Point is, they always have some excuse for anything bad in thier holy book. And the fact that they don't realize Moving The Goalpost is a logical fallacy makes arguing with them utterly pointless in most endeavors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
lisa-im-laerm In reply to Cataclyptic [2016-02-25 19:01:45 +0000 UTC]
you're right, you o forgot "it was misrepresented", but they would say eveything just to make something awful look good.
F.e. "HAWKING MISREPRESENTS POPE JOHN PAUL II"
Hawking!!! "Sure"
Defamation was always one of their favorite tools
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PyrrhusiVictoria In reply to Cataclyptic [2016-02-25 04:44:43 +0000 UTC]
That's when I inform them that technically, their whole bible is blaspheme. It's technically a sin to translate god's word, which is why it was handed down orally for many generations. The "original" translation, the Septuagint, was the first translation from Hebrew to Greek, and it caused an enormous stir because religious scholars said the translators were committing a transgression deserving of death.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DarkVikingMistress In reply to PyrrhusiVictoria [2016-02-25 05:31:34 +0000 UTC]
The bible seems to have been translated to fit the culture of what time it is read in, as well...interestingly.
It's only recently that in some bibles they changed "man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman" to something more clear, like "men shall not be homosexuals" or something to that effect. However in early Christianity same sex weddings were permitted...it wasn't until later in the bible that homosexuality was condemned, because having too homosexuality would ensure that the low population numbers of Christians would probably decline. As time goes on, they become more and more clear about homophobic if you actually look at the translations. At first it's a hint, the word "homosexual" is not mentioned, not even in the verses about the sexually immoral where it's commonly said as well. Now, in the 2010s, it's "HOMOSEXUALS ARE BAAAAD" yeah...the bible was written by God my ass . It is clearly influenced by today's irrational fear of homosexuals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
CutestSith In reply to DarkVikingMistress [2016-03-05 02:32:33 +0000 UTC]
Homosexuality was not even a word till the 1800s. I pointed out sodomy also relates to oral or anal sex weather it be by heteros or homos. Their cop out was that sodomy was not mentioned in the Bible. Then when I asked why other homophobes use sodomy to refer to homos and sodomy came from the town of sodomy they said that was their choice but they tired to claim homosexuality was not a sin but only the act. Did not make much sense to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DarkVikingMistress In reply to CutestSith [2016-03-05 12:11:54 +0000 UTC]
Yeah so many modern Christians believe sodomy is gay sex between males. Why do you think there was a town named Sodom?! It's clearly a word which originated from that old tale, and the best part is that it condemns rape in my opinion more than it condemns homosexuals. The main focus in that story is that everyone in the town is raped, and that that is wrong. Isn't the takeaway "rape is wrong" not "don't have buttsex"?
Actually sodomy was originally meant to mean sexual contact which did not result in pregnancy and/or did not have the intention of creating life. Meaning even if a married couple had sex with a condom or a woman on the pill and they didn't have kids, or if a married couple had a broken condom baby, they're still sinning.
There's literally no winning unless you want to procreate like ten fucking children.
Honestly I'd rather foster or adopt children who have mental disabilities...I'm sympathetic to their case as I myself have a mental disability.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CutestSith In reply to DarkVikingMistress [2016-03-05 17:15:22 +0000 UTC]
Exactly! I tried telling them that the story seems to be more about how they are gay rapists rather than gay men. Sometimes straight men can also rape other men for pure power too. Take prison rape. Most of those men are not actually rape. Its a power play to them since rape is a traumatic event. Besides the reason homosexuality was viewed bad in the Bible is because man and women were supposed to be factory farms. This made sense when women died a lot during child birth. However we no longer have to worry about the population. Not everyone needs to breed and shoot offspring out. There are many children orphaned who could use loving homes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DarkVikingMistress In reply to CutestSith [2016-03-06 02:20:02 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I don't know what else to say but totally agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PyrrhusiVictoria In reply to DarkVikingMistress [2016-02-25 06:19:27 +0000 UTC]
Even more interestingly, the bible has nothing to say about lesbians. At least not that I'm aware of.
I'd be a little careful about the historical context though. Ancient Israel had a patriarchal culture that placed a man's value in proportion to the size of his family and tribe. An unmarried man, or a man with no sons was considered cursed. The emphasis was all on a man finding a wife (at least one), and even with one's wife, there was a lot of regulation over pure and "impure" sexual contact. Early Jewish Christians were typically ultra-orthodox (the Zealots) or mystical (the Gnostics), but they maintained a lot of the ancient Israeli traditions. The "second" generation of Christians, which through evangelism spread to Rome and Greece, is where you start to see Christian cultures where homosexuality was common. And it remained that way for quite some time until the early medieval ages, at which point you start to see the Vatican becoming very anti-sex in all variations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0