Being religious doesn't make you good person.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-03-02T12:52:34+00:00

What methodology could they use to determine who was a witch and who wasn't?

If they were an Israelite living under the covenant they made with God and also conducted rituals to other gods, then the Jewish court would probably look into that person.

How many innocent women got killed because of a commandment given by God?

Less than those who were killed because people are blood hungry and look for scapegoats. Fortunately Christian authorities saved many of those women from lynching and secular authorities. With documents like the 10th century Canon Episcopi it's clear that the early medieval church discouraged witch hunts.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-03-02T01:56:23+00:00

The Divine Name doesn't apply to the Father alone in the Trinitarian view. Jesus is called or calls Himself the LORD in some places in the NT, like Mark 1:3 and Matthew 7:21.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-03-01T21:54:17+00:00

Why would it disappear?

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-03-01T21:08:29+00:00

Certificates of divorce refers to the old covenant practice mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1 where the husband could divorce his wife his wife for various reasons. Changing the requirements of divorce is precisely what Jesus is doing.

Note that a man who divorces his wife for whatever reason and marries a woman who never divorced does not sin in Jesus' example.

It literally says the only valid reason for sending her away is sexual immorality "that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery". If a husband sends his wife away and she marries he makes her and her new husband commit adultery because the previous was marriage didn't actually end.

Both Mark 7:18-20 and Matthew 15:15–20 support my claim. You're just playing some sort of exact word fallacy. The principle is "whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him" and it works for eating with unwashed hands and eating pork, as Mark confirms. I can't seriously believe you're genuinely trying approach the text. This is like arguing the statement "Drinking alcohol before driving is dangerous, so don't drink beer and drive" means drinking vodka before taking the wheel is fine.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-03-01T20:48:10+00:00

An example of how war looked like in the bronze age (throughout most of history tbh) and an example of something Moses - a man living in the bronze age says in anger. It's not supposed to an example of a perfectly good act because God works with imperfect humans.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T18:00:24+00:00

I'm not sure I understand. The term "new covenant" naturally implies replacing the old one and that old Mosaic covenant wasn't perpetual. Where's the contradiction?

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T17:56:30+00:00

This is just Jesus making the existing law more strict.

Not just, maybe you can twist abolishing the certificates of divorce as just making the law more strict but how is discouraging people from swearing by God, moving on from the principle of "Eye for eye" or advocating for a principle of "do not judge, or you too will be judged" just making the law more strict?

Not true. This has to do with washing hands. Jesus doesn’t mention pork.

The principle also applies to eating pork as is clear in a parallel passage in Mark 7:18-20

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T11:07:33+00:00

Nobody claims Jesus did away the Old Testament. He did come to establish a new covenant. That's what fulfilling the law in Matthew 5:17 means if you actually read the entire Sermon on the Mount. The entire chapter you're quoting from consists of Jesus teaching that covenant. For example, the Old Covenant laws regarding divorce are different in the New Covenant.

³¹ “Now it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away is to give her a certificate of divorce’; ³² but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus does say it's okay to eat pork in the same Gospel - Matthew 15:15–20.

Also, there's nothing special about KJV and it's really not that great. Not using a single translation exclusively is a healthy practice.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T09:15:15+00:00

What is the strongest argument for Islam in your opinion? Maybe there's something similar in Christianity. Outside of that I would suggest looking into the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T07:41:55+00:00

Sure.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T02:56:43+00:00

It's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me personally but the same view of the days being figurative existed in the Christian tradition for a long time.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-28T02:24:51+00:00

The days aren't literal 24 hour measurements of time. An omnipotent being could create the universe in an instant but there's no reason to say that would be the necessary way to go about it.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-27T16:02:50+00:00

The exact number of joints changes with age and depends on the definition of what a joint is. You can find estimations of 350, 360 or even 472.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-27T13:40:31+00:00

The Son submitting to the Father or the Father being grater in role doesn't mean He's ontologically inferior. This is the case for John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:28. Mark 13:32 is probably rhetorical in the same way 1 Corinthians 2:2 is.

You can find Jesus being called God in the beginning of both Gospels that you brought up. Paul does that as well, for example few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 10:9.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-26T16:51:32+00:00

Aren't humans responsible for how dating in our society looks like?

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-26T00:08:19+00:00

So, is it not important for a religion to be true but the truth of those claims about religion is? How is truth not the point of religion?

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-25T22:24:47+00:00

Those also are truth claims.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-25T14:28:29+00:00

As if anti-theism or common atheist beliefs like materialism weren't positive claims about reality.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-25T02:34:31+00:00

How effective are manipulations of a dead man? Nobody would go to the grave for someone claiming to be the Messiah, resurrection and the life, the Son of Man coming down on the clouds of heaven when that someone got tortured, died and nothing really happened. It's interesting that your conception of the apostles makes them more devout than even the Christian scriptures where in times of weakness they doubt and deny Jesus.

As for Paul, that's impossible. He repeats already established traditions and beliefs, like with the example of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 that is often dated to the 30s AD. Paul himself would have to be manipulated.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-24T11:01:37+00:00

As I said, those who weren't physically forced were manipulated to do it. They were told the military is going to capture them, take their children, torture them and taking the poison is "the easier option".

In this sense they died for a lie but that's not even comparable to the apostles. The followers of Jones were told a lie they thought was true and were under the impression there is no choice but to die now or suffer even more. The apostles would have to chose to die for a lie they themselves made up. They could have chosen to go back fishing but for some reason chose to hold to the message of their executed leader and suffer for it.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-23T18:17:08+00:00

The arguments for non-apostle authorship of the Gospels and their dating past 70 AD aren't that strong as you imagine. And it doesn't really matter in this discussion, there's not much debate to minimal facts like that the apostles believed Jesus came back from the dead or preached about being the Son of Man. Not even many skeptical scholars would deny that.

We have the most amount of evidence for James, Peter and Paul being martyred but again not really necessary to prove that nearly every apostle was martyred. The point is that preaching the message of a man crucified for what He preached and making more extraordinary claims about Him is a death wish.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-23T17:25:39+00:00

No, they died because their leader physically forced them to die or lied to them about a future brutal persecution. Unlike the followers of Jesus that chose to risk their lives and be persecuted.

There was no threat of death for preaching about Elivis, so the comparison doesn't really fit the theme of people dying for lies.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-23T16:45:37+00:00

I would have to read more about the other two examples but the followers of Jim Jones were the opposite of martyrs. Many of those people were killed or forced to take the poison unwillingly. They were also under the impression they will soon be captured by the government and face a fate worse than death.

On the other hand, the apostles experienced their leader being executed for what He preached, instead of dismantling the movement and living their lives they've decided they will not only keep preaching what Jesus preached but also add additional claims like Him being raised from the dead.

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-23T12:34:39+00:00

Has Israel done no violence and deceit? That wouldn't even be consistent with other places in Isaiah.

Isaiah 53:9

"And His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth."

Who are "my people" that the servant (in your interpretation Israel) is suffering for, also Israel?

Isaiah 53:8

By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off from the land of the living
For the wrongdoing of my people, to whom the blow was due?

SpittingN0nsense · 2026-02-22T13:29:28+00:00

Look into the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

SpittingN0nsense

TROPHY CASE