Which is better?

Dude, North Korea isn't the most atheist county because their people don't believe in God. It's the most atheist because the gov mandates it as an atheist state. Just like places with lots of crime that have outlawed guns, still have guns.

From my own research, over 60% of North Koreans identify as non-religious. There are no known official statistics of religions in North Korea. However, based on estimates from the late 1990s and the 2000s, North Korea is mostly irreligious, with the religious life dominated by the traditions of Korean shamanism and Chondoism. There are small communities of Buddhists and Christians. The scenario I'm putting is which is better, the country dominated by Christianity, the country dominated by Islam or the country dominated by atheism using modern examples (if North Korea didn't work, I'd use China - the second most atheistic country in the world).

So slightly more that the UK then?
Depending on which survey you go by, either over half or almost of Brits identify as non-religious. The younger you go, the far far less religious.

On a forum I used to go on, which was mostly British, the animosity they expressed towards religion, particularly Christianity (the PC/SJW segment - a most irritating minority, the reverse of this site - naturally were sweet on Islam). Obviously this is anecdotal (also skewed by being Alt Rock site of mostly younger than middle aged), but it also went for Aussies and Europeans.

If you think OM is, as you put it, "venomously against Christianity (or religion)..." the hate they vehemently spat at it would shock you.

It's also the site where my cantankerous cartoonish persona and prediliction for finding new ways to say "anus" came from. I also have a tendency towards playing Devil's Advocate, and took great delight in poking both ends of that spectrum with their own arguments. At least until Trump got elected, when my hardy har har jingoism no longer seemed as funny to me. Still ripped apart the SJWs though. They were like the Alt Righties here. Pesky little buggers to preoccupied with slogans and knee jerk idiocy.

Never mind me, I'm just babbling.

The UK has got some problems.

Also, my remark to OM about venomous opposition was based on their comments on other images. Now we're having a reasonable discussion on the subject.

From what I've seen, what he's said tends to be warranted. Perhaps it may come across as too expected, but like I said, compared to that site, 'tis nothing.

Even when I used to have religious beliefs, I'd go at the self righteous and hypocrites, etc. The thing that totally escapes fanclub religious types is the CENTRAL MESSAGE of their religionS, which, incidentally, just so happens to be the same. It's not about what nickname you anoint Gods that coincidentally looks just like you and condemning non-believers to its eternal wrath, its about YOU getting the message and living YOUR life in accordance to that message, not theirs. AKA, "born again" means a tad more than getting your head dunked in water.

There are some differences between religions. The one I follow - Christianity - mandates peaceful co-existence between believers and non-believers where possible (Romans 12:18) and if they won't listen walk away (Mark 6:11). Islam's mandate for non-Muslims (which many Muslims thankfully don't follow) as stipulated in the Qu'ran is conversion, death or subjugation. Also, those traits such as self-righteousness and hypocrisy are also found among the non-religious. There's also fanclub atheists (the New Atheist movement come to mind). I hope you don't single out religious people for these traits.

The making God look like a white guy was an artistic thing specific to regions not our whole religion and Jesus' skin color is irrelevant to His message - for example The Great Commission in Matthew 28 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 Also, here's God's selection criteria. "But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

We Christians do fail to follow God's teachings from time to time, but to dismiss those teachings because of that is Ad Hominem.

"And they shall cut the world to pieces and trample it beneath their feet"

Might not be the exact quote (off the top of my head), but was Rome under their "Go forward with this and you shall conquer" Constantine fake flag of Christianity predicted?

Reread your Matthew 28 quote till it sinks in. Layer in some of Planet Earth's experience due to that command for context and you will understand the justification used by Europeans to have murdered more people in the name of Jesus than all have other religions killed in history combined ever. From Constantine on, Christianity was spread just like Islam was, only with more swords and farther afield. Hell, Christianity was the inspiration for them, Mohammed almost converting to it himself before being turned off by how corrupted it had become (also predicted in that Son of Man born of the Jackel seated in Rome cut & trample reference).

Not saying this Bible stuff is necassarily true, but it is curious that the prophecy regarding the Beast seems to have found its fulfillment in Christianity and its feuding little factions over who's the boss with the proper sign of the cross.

Just because we've decided to become domesticated over the last 7 decades lest we exterminate ourselves does not mean that the previous 1945 of the bloodiest years in human history did not happen.

Awwwwww Vagabond too nice. Defending Islam for me!
Caught you :)
And do you argue just to argue? We were having the same argument but you were playing Snappy just few weeks ago. Do you have real opinions? Or just argue to argue?

No double standards on my end, I have no time for lies.

I never excused the brutality committed by Christians using the cross on their shields and flags to justify it.
I merely said that Muslims have no "But the Christains used to do it too" justification in the modern world.

Whomever commits brutality (check out my comment history for my bit on the Myanmar Bhuddist genocide against their Muslim Rohingiya population) commits brutality.
I hate all people, no favorites on my list.

And, civilizations go in and out of dark ages. The ottoman empire being a haven for jews was before the colonization extermination and forced conversions of the native Americans and other natives

Tell that to the Armenians.

You're free to argue the issue with the OP instead of trying to nudge me into arguing his position against you. That's just stupid, even for a sycophant twerp like you.

You're lame attempts at trolling are too overt, and they misfire badly.

eh I dont live in Texas. haven't since like 7 years ago.
So are you saying that Islam is just a worse religion? And been a while. Thats my point. Islam is in some Dark Ages. You dont get more civilized in a straight path. Yes, Islam has a stronger system of rules, but that doesn't make it a religion of terror.

I'm the argument you were saying that Christianty is less brutal. We were arguing about the child rape and forced conversion. You were saying that the Muslims were more brutal throughout history.Here you are saying that Islam isn't more brutal than Christianity.
Getting kinda nutso, but are u Grind? He always says "read that until it sinks in" like u do

You're lying again.

You claimed Jesus advocated child rape, of all things.
You failed to substantiate it because you can't since that is false.

You claimed that since Christians were brutal in the past, that should excuse Moslems being so today because they've had only 1600 years to catch up and become civilized.
It does not.

No i didn't. Jesus was peaceful and loving, but don't Christians believe in the old testament? And i am not excusing Muslims, but they aren't inherently bad, because the teachings aren't the root of the issue, it is the people. I wasn't justifying anything.

Yes, you did.

What religion are you that you know what Islam teaches but despite living in Texas, no less, have not an iota of a notion of what Christianity does?

Did you not remember my comment you agreed with above?
".... Christianity ...., Mohammed almost converting to it himself before being turned off by how corrupted it had become (also predicted in that Son of Man born of the Jackel seated in Rome cut & trample reference)."

The Koran took what the Torah teaches but left out the Jewish heroes and made Mohammed the star of the show. It's a sermon that distills the message, leaving out the fluff. No confusion over allegories, straight to the point.
Waste time on trying to figure out what did Solomon mean? No, just "Don't do this, don't do that, this neither, but when doing this thing, do it this way."

That's the appeal of Islam to everyone from lost ghetto prisoners in the USA to the young adult daughters raised by single mothers in the UK, and why they convert to it. Simple strict rules, order, patriarchal so in case you fumble, you know who to go to.

Calling to wage jihad and rape and kill the infidel is hardly peaceful. Islam is the religion of peace, to those of the same sect. Hence Sunni vs Shiite and Sufi and all the rest Pakis slaughter on a fairly regular basis. Comprende?

Been a while since Protestants and Catholics warred against each other or Mormons killed or got killed.

What you just said was so wrong, I don't know where to start with correcting what you said. Give me a moment.

You can't even get that quote at the top right, or who said it, and you cite it as evidence!? You distort The Great Commission and make Ad Hominem arguments ala "Hitler Ate Sugar" - "because some people used the Great Commission to justify evil, regardless of what it is said, it's bad" - what you're essentially saying when not distorted or historically inaccurate.

What's your evidence that Christianity has killed more people than all the other religions combined? More people have died in the name of the atheistic ideology Marxism. Stalin alone has estimated to been directly linked to 49 million deaths during his 24 year long regime. That's more deaths than the Crusades (highest estimate 9 million deaths in 196 years and some of those were done by Muslims), the Spanish Inquisition (highest estimate 5,000 deaths in 356 years) and the Salem Witch trials (20 deaths from execution and 5 indirect deaths in jail) combined. That was just Stalin, factor in other atheistic dictators like Pol Pot and the Marxism death toll rises. Even with Islam - the 9/11 attacks had a death toll of 2,996 while tsurviving Spanish Inquisition records from 1540 to 1700 have only 2070 death sentences.

You can't lay the deaths done by Muslims in the name of Islam at the feet of Christians or Christianity. That line about Christianity inspiring Islam is not only false, but is an even more illogical version of the "violent video games encourage mass shootings" argument. Even when there was swords and war, Christianity was still also being spread through charity and evangelism.

What do you even know about the prophecy of the Beast? Apart from it not being Christianity, there are feuding factions among all groups, including atheists. Atheism advocate Richard Dawkins said "Uniting atheists for or against anything is like herding cats." Look how much the New Atheism movement alone fractured, or how the political left turns on its members in the last few decades.

1945 of the bloodiest years of human history? We Christians have not being waging war for all that time. Your words are ignorant or slanderous. The Crusdes and Spanish Inquisition combined covered only 561 years of Christianity's 2000+ years of history. Christianity is not to blame for the bloodshed the Ottoman Empire inflicted, or the carnage Genghis Khan wrought across Asia. Even the Crusades began as a delayed defensive response to the violent persecution of Christians in the Byzantine Empire by Muslim Sejic Turks...

Daniel 7:23-25 {King James Version}

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

For one piece of evidence, look at the conversation I had with Octavia Melody below about the historicity of Jesus. I posted a link there. Here it is for convenience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

Now what evidence do you have for your claims that the Bible is completely false? Aren't "don't steal", "don't commit adultery", "We love because he first loved us." 1 John 4:19 and "love your neighbor as yourself" good teachings?

No, I S-T-I-L-L do not do links.

There IS NO historical Jesus, P-E-R-I-O-D.

Look up the Cult of Mithras in Rome 2000 years ago to get a handle on Jesus's REAL history and origin, down to his birthday on, yes, you got it, December 25th.

Here are three more things for you to read and think about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Scarcity_of_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Myth_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate

The Jesus Myth Theory has been debunked by greater minds than mine (and yes, I'm aware this sentence is going provoke some puerile insult from you, VS)

Vagabond, Jesus wasnt reborn, but there probably was a prophet/teacher who taught against Judaism and died on the cross. I find it hard to believe that it is just a big hoax

You have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. Jesus preached Judaism to Jews (oh, and one Gentile added in later). There was nothing claimed by anyone anywhere ever about being reborn.

The subject here is trying to warp it through the lenses of a later day Christian perspective, not the Islamic one which you presented yet again.

There is no proof he existed still, period.

And snappy, just skimmed, but you are calling atheists sheep and easy to control. The bible myth has been used to justify every possible retarded idea in history.

You are also wrong, Claybourne. Funny how you just skimmed what I wrote rather than read all of it and think you're able to debunk it when you don't even know what I said. I did not call atheists easy-to-control sheep, you are putting words in my mouth. The Bible is no myth, what is your evidence for that claim? What so-called retarded ideas are you talking about? I've heard people use nearly every belief and ideology - including atheism, to justify bad ideas. There is historical evidence outside religious texts for the existence of Jesus. Besides I'm not VagabondSouffle; I'm Christian they're not, for one.

What evidence is there that any of the Bible is real?

There is ZERO historical evidence that Jesus existed, hence why you've posted not a shred of it.

I didn't read the rest of your drivel.

Parting advice: Believe in the Bible? READ THE BOOK ALREADY.

Idiot.

I've seen that supposed debunkment and it's wrong. Of the two of us, I'm the more honest and factual because I cite my sources while you go into denial and fire off baseless claims. Again, I won't reply to you until you share your sources of information (books, websites, etc...), even if you later pretend you debunked me.

None of them are confirmed as being born on December 25, that's just a date chosen by some of their later followers to commemorate the births; also chosen for commemoration by Christians at the time as an olive branch to pagans. They have a few shared elements, and correlation doesn't equal causation so these shared elements don't prove Jesus a rip-off.

There's no mention of Cybele/Nana being a virgin in her mythology, that came later after the mythology changed over time. The idea of a crucified Attis was mixed because he died from a self-inflicted castration and lay at the base of a literal tree. Also Attis was a shepherd by trade while Christ was a carpenter by trade who used the shepherd term as a metaphor. Since the terms in the ancient language were used interchangably (similar to "wind" gust of air and "wind" a winding motion) some people mistakenly thought Attis was crucified. Gasparro [Gasp.Sot, 106] avers that the sources show an evolution in the Attis cult in response to Christianity because the story of Attis has changed over time. A. T. Fear, in an essay devoted entirely to this subject [Fear.CC, 41-2] notes the Attis cult "did modify itself in significant ways with the passing of the years" and concludes, based on the dated evidence, that the ways of the Attis cult similar to Christianity "seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity." In this case, the church was Pokemon, and the Attis people were doing the Digimon ripoff.

Isis was called the great virgin long after the original mythology, which doesn't prove Horus was born from a virgin birth. At most, Isis was a virgin before she had sex with Osiris to produce Horus, which isn't a virgin birth - unlike Christ. I've found no evidence of Horus having 12 followers at any one time other than claims from mythicists like you. Horus also never died, his dad Osiris did.

Christ and Christianity predate Mithras, who was born from a rock not a virgin Anahita (who's from another religion), his "12 disciples" weren't disciples but zodiacs as satellites, and the zodiacs are a mix of animals and people.

Dec 25th caught my eye, so I read that bit.
Your lies are splendid. WHY would that date appeal to pagans as a holiday? Because it already was a holiday for them?

Then again, you already know this.

I debunk nothing, you do that yourself.
You even dismissed actual Biblical scripture I posted as per your request after you said my paraphrased version (hey, you're expecting verbatim for something I heard in 1986?) of it was made up. If you ever read the book, you would have recognized the gist of what I had said.

You want further proof to dismiss outright? That's your prerogative. Look it up yourself.

This thread is well past overdone. 21 replies to 1 comment? Holy f**king mother of the guy who wasn't a Christ, give it a rest.

Did you look up the actual meaning of "Messiah" yet? Of course you did...............

............... not. You're not ready yet to be born again. Salvation is for 144,000 Sainted Chosen, plus a handful of Gentiles judged by their works. I have no need for salvation, this life itself is more than enough to be thankful for.

Have YOU found Jesus yet? Good, tell his apostles, he told them he'd be back within their lifetimes, and 2 millenia is not easy of the bones.

Just be glad I didn't tell you how in the original version (as also in Genesis), the Serpent God was the good God, and the angry jealous petty God - as stated throughout that book - was the bad God.

You obviously read what I wrote or you wouldn't have bothered to respond the way you did lol

Even Bart Ehrman, and advocate of the Jesus myth theory, dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Also "we f**king love atheism"? Sarcastically: That's totally not a biased site lol

Why would the Jews make coins of Jesus when several sources including the Bible and the Qu'ran make it clear the Jews rejected Him?

Pay for what sins, you say? People lie, people steal to name a couple of sins. Examples of sacrifice for sins is the Korban, as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban There is also an explanation as to why that ended among Jews who maintained Judaism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#The_end_of_sacrifices Matches up with what the Bible says about sacrifices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#Hebrew_Bible

The sacrifice Christ made covers the sins of all who accept it. It does for me and it can do so for you too. An analogy is that we're all in jail for a capital crime, and the judge offers us a warrant of pardon that will see us free, which we can choose to accept or reject. We won't die right away if we reject it but we will be stuck in jail and later executed for our wrong-doing.

Explain these twelve attendants that you claim predate Jesus.

Also Cyrus was called a messiah as in a liberator, but he was not called the promised Messiah the Son of God who would take away the sin of the world. Cyrus was a godly man whose victories were social and political - Cyrus wasn't The Messiah like Christ, he was a liberator like King David. Christ is a man and more, and His achievements are also much greater. It sounds to me like you're grasping at straws for any figure called a messiah just to try and take away from Jesus (you can't even commit to either Shimon or Kurush). Jews have Messiah candidates but no consensus on Messiah, which is telling.

Funny how you accuse me of providing no evidence when I provide numerous links which you go into denial about "No, I S-T-I-L-L do not do links. " you say. Then you turn around and expect me to accept everything you say without you showing me any sources for your claims.

This is getting boring. You keep trying to frame it in Christian terms, not in the terms of those who wrote it and for whom they wrote it - the Jews - did.

Jesus's followers were Jews.
He was not a Messiah.
Cyrus was the first Messiah and also the only Gentile one.
Messiahs ARE liberators. Literally. That's what they do. Liberate. Teach. Usher in an era of peace and tranquility till the next conqueror comes around, requiring a new Messiah. None of this magic Heaven sin bs, the Hewbrews had no belief in a Heaven.

Jesus was not their Messiah. Know how this is known? Because he's not recognized as their Messiah by them, get it?

I skimmed through what you posted, 6:30am and I can't be arsed with indulging one of the thieving corrupters alligned with the Beast seated in Rome.

Google?

READ (THE BIBLE) ALREADY

Says the non-Christian deliberately misrepresenting. I do read the Bible, that's how I know how wrong what you're saying is. Those verses you quoted from the book of Daniel before you deleted that comment don't mean what you think (or want to think) they mean.

The Daniel quote is right up above. And yes, it does.

Stop lying, all the Gods don't like it.

You quote-mined Octavia. Octavia conceded in a later comment that Jesus was a real person as I specified.

Whether you believe Jesus is the Son of God or not, Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man who walked the Earth is fact. Deal with it.

No, he didn't.
Do you need me to quote the quote I quoted again, you flagrant imbecile?

I cannot force salvation on you, and I'm not trying to force. I'm just debunking your case. In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory that after extensive study has found virtually no support from scholars. While no records outside the Bible and the Qu'ran were written during Jesus' lifetime that is not unusual for personages from antiquity. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records. The consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts. ; Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator and his writings shows no sympathy towards Christians. Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Scarcity_of_sources

Agreed, he did exist, and long before he was invented.

Glad to see you didn't delete those verses, maybe my computer was glitching up. Again you show your irrationality. Are you insane or just trolling? I'm not lying when I say those verses in the Book of Daniel aren't about Christianity, as much as I suspect you want them to be if you're not trolling. I've already debunked your point, whether you go into denial about it or not. I'm not lying, and "the Gods don't like it", what if any gods do you believe in?

Guy, saying "No, because you're wrong" and lying is not debunking.

But it is amazingly stupid to keep repeating to everyone here who shoved your idiocy to your face.

Did you know Jesus, his mother, his father, and his God, were Jewish? And that that's what he preached?

Interestingly, Octavia conceeded my point and acknowledges that Jesus did exist, contrary to what you're saying, even if Octavia doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God.

When I argue my case, I give you numerous sources. When you argue your case, you don't even give one source. That shows how hollow your argument is. I will dismiss everything you say until you give me a source (links, books, places etc...) You say Jews became Zoroastirans to a degree but that doesn't debunk my point. I was asking why didn't they just become Zoroastrians and why did they do anything with Judaism at all?

Here's something that might interest you https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/where-is-golgotha-where-jesus-was-crucified/

No he didn't, you stupid liar.

Not reading further. All you do is deflect with, "No, your wrong," with maybe a, "My Sunday school teacher said...," when asked for the nth time.

This is done.
Read a book, not a Bible Tract.

"Octavia_Melody
Those historians don't disprove the idea that Jesus never existed, because none of them lived at the same time as him and therefore weren't eyewitnesses to anything he is said to have done."

Yes I know they were Jewish. But followers of Judaism are still awaiting the promised messiah, though He has already come and gone. That's who Jesus is and said He is. I listed a lot of facts proving my point, you are just ignoring that and misrepresenting me.

Your claim about the Cult of Mithras is false. The Cult of Mithras allowed worship of other gods, Christianity is exclusively about God. The Cult of Mithras also practiced animal sacrifice - which was in Judaism as a precursor to Christ paying the price of our sins and is not necessary for us Christians - and excluded women - women can't join the Cult of Mithras but they can be Christians. Get your facts right and stop denying evidence, you don't do links because they can prove you wrong. Here's actual information about the Cult of Mithras, though I think you'll just ignore it to keep pretending you're right. https://www.unrv.com/culture/mithras.php

Jews already have had Messiahs.

Y'eshua bar Yosef (Joshua/Jesus son of Joseph) was not a Messiah.
Y'eshua bar Yosef never said he was a Messiah.
Shimon bar Kochba was a Messiah.
Like a Messiah he liberated the Jews from their enemies (in this case, Rome after the fall of Judea to them after their rebellion).
For years after, there's was a cult that followed him also.
Bar Kochba existed. They've found coins referring to him in Judea from the correct period.
There is no evidence that Y'eshau bar Yosef existed.

The Cult of Mithras was a Zoroastrian sect.
Zoroastrians have one God, Ahura Mazda.
Ahura Mazda is the original one God.
Hebrews borrowed the concept of one God from them.
Zoroastrians and their various sects, including that which followed Mithra, did not allow for worship of other Gods nor practiced animal sacrifice.

The first Messiah was a Gentile, the only one who was not Jewish.
The first Messiah was a Zoroastrian.
The first Messiah was Shah Kurush of Aran, AKA Cyrus the Great.

You have no clue about the bogus nonsense you spew.

Jews practiced animal sacrifice.

Pay for what sins? How? Not necessary for you to pay for your own misdeeds? Isn't that special.

The 12 attendents, the eternal flame... All predating Jesus. Is that just baloney that you will manage to wedge in while dismissing it also?

Do you just wing shit hoping something will stick?

"No, I S-T-I-L-L do not do links.

There IS NO historical Jesus, P-E-R-I-O-D.

Look up the Cult of Mithras in Rome 2000 years ago to get a handle on Jesus's REAL history and origin, down to his birthday on, yes, you got it, December 25th."

You're not interested in facts, you're just in denial and looking for arguments. I can go as hard as you can, but I have facts and the truth on my side.

Despite the request of at least 4 individuals, you have no posted a shred of evidence regarding this false truth you speak of.

I provided Christian and non-Christian sources, if you want to go into denial, that's your call. The Jews expected a political liberator for themselves, what they got is the Son of God who will liberate all of humanity from a problem far greater than one oppressive regime (Jews as a people still exist and the Roman Empire is long gone).

The Hebrews did have some concept of an afterlife even if they didn't call it heaven, as seen here. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/afterlife-in-judaism

You prove you're just acting on prejudice. Saying you don't believe in heaven is one thing, but to say so and call it "bs" is another - that's where you're at. You claim to have debunked me while claiming you only skimmed through what I wrote, that doesn't work.

I gave you links to my sources for my case. The burden of proof for your case lies with you, and you didn't give any. Thus are your arguments dismissed, and your prejudice and arguing for the sake of arguing proven.

Jesus was a real person. Your claim that he was a fictious person and copying gods from other religions is false. Your only refutation was a meme generating in imgflip with no evidence to back it up. I could make one of those. You keep pushing that December 25 narrative despite the fact that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was born on December 25th, that's the date we Christian chose to commemorate that.

Here is proof of that. For one, the Eyptians used a different calendar to us today that had no leap years, so it moved “backward” by one day every four years. In the first year of its implementation, the birthday of Horus would have been celebrated on July 12 according to the Julian calendar. Four years later, it was celebrated on July 11. Four years after that, it was celebrated on July 10, etc. Every 1461 Egyptian years (or 1460 Julian years), the Egyptian New Year coincided once again with the annual rise of Sirius in mid-July. This period is known as the Sothic cycle. They had no day that corresponded with December 25, and there is no evidence Horus had twelve disciples.

Also, Mithras was said to be born from a rock, not a virgin or a person at all and Krishna wasn't born of a virgin, nor through miraculous conception, and was born as one of eight octuplets. Also Dionysus' resurrection happened after he was ripped apart as a baby and there's no evidence that Dionsys' mother was a virgin beyond your assumption, very different from what happened to Christ.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-story-of-the-birth-of-lord-krishna-1770453
https://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Birth,_infant_death_and_rebirth

You're taking a few similar elements, then either spreading false information to try and push your narrative or reading from false sources, and claiming a wrong reason. Correlation doesn't equal causation (on a side-note the consensus is that the Cult of Mithras stole from Christianity, not the other way around as you like to claim).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I think you are in denial. Where did you get your information? Show me your sources or I won't continue this discussion. It's clear you're just looking to argue for the sake of arguing. I've only indulged you to debunk your claims so anyone else who reads this can see how wrong they are.

Didn't read this wall of text lies either.
But I'll post this anyway.

Do type some more fiction.

P.S You denounce the Bible as false in one sentence and then push your warped interpretation of those three verses of Daniel as fact. Quite the doublethink you've got going there. Your argument is dead, you're just parading its corpse around.

Moron, you truly need to find how to shut up.

I made a loose reference to a quote, you said it was bull, I posted the actual quote as per your request. It's still mythology. Deal with it.

lol I rarely went to Sunday school, became a Christian as a teenager, and I've never mentioned a Sunday school teacher until now. I can't even remember the names of the ones I had, or how many of them there were.

In what you quote-mined from Octavia, Octavia's still acknowledging Christ existed. Octavia merely said that from his/her POV that it didn't prove Christ did the things I and many others say He did.

Funnily, I've encountered alot of quote-mining from opponents in arguments or debates I've had with non-religious people. "Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize."

Nowhere does Octavia deny the existence of Jesus. Octavia merely denies that Jesus is the Son of God.

You really need to shut the f**k up.

You call yourself a Christian, and all you do is lie?
Sure, that'll get me going back to church again.

Idiot troll.

You're quite the projector.

Indeed.

For some reason it won't let me put the replies directly under your recent comments, so I'll add them here. "When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 Here Jesus says who He is.

Keep in mind that Jesus was put to death for this claim. From your perspective, either he said it, or someone thought he did. About 20 years after Josephus we have Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition. If Christ never existed, they would've been quick to point that out, yet they didn't. You claim there is no evidence for Jesus yet you know His name of Yeshua, so that's the quite the doublethink you're employing to say there's no evidence.

Shimon bar Kochba was not the Messiah among Jews. He is portrayed in rabbinic literature as being somewhat irrational and irascible in conduct. The Talmud says he compelled young recruits to prove their valor by each man chopping off one of his own fingers. Most Jews denounce Shimon as a false Messiah, as seen here http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/was-bar-kochba-the-messiah
He is one of several candidates among Jews, and a much less popular one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants

What evidence do you have that Hebrews borrowed monotheism from Zoroastrians? Then why didn't they just become Zoroastrians? Judaism and Zorastrianism are roughly as old. Judaism far predates the Cult of Mithras. Correlation (both being Monotheistic) ? causation.

You need to look up Messiah, the meaning and purpose of...
Jesus was not one, Matthew, like your 'historical witnesses' (already addressed by Octavia) was written well after Jesus supposedly existed.
Y'eshua is more accurately translated as Joshua. The name was hardly unique.

You're referring to a biased Christain view of bar Kochba.

Jews DID become Zoroastrian to a degree by adopting it's views on everything from one God to the concept of the battle between good & evil and Paradise - itself a Persian word. Jews also adopted beliefs while under Babylonian rule, the Code of Hammurabi was written by Hammurabi, NOT given to Moses on th Mount. And YOU KNOW you can see those tablets today.

Kurush gave them funds to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, and allowed people to practice their own beliefs. They didn't crown him Messiah for nothing.
Hebrews did not believe in one God before that, just tribal Gods. Yahweh for Judeans, Elohim for Israelites. The First Commandment acknowledges other Gods, just admonishes against worshipping any others.

Mithra has nothing to do with Jews, he predated Jesus belief by how many centuries?
Sorry pal, no matter how you slice it, calling something a myth when it was the template for your myth does not make it any less valid. In fact, that and Krishna and Horus and others that also sound an awful lot alike VERIFY a univerasal Divinity, not contradict it.
Then again, not if you're one of the Chosen (which you aren't) and their two tribal Gods were meant solely for them in their obscure tiny dot on Earth.

btw, have you found Jesus? He told those rat bastards who ran out on him when he was getting killed that he'd be back within their lifetimes. Looks like he got stuck at the airport.

[image deleted]

necessarilly*

too* preoccupied.

4am, I'm passing out.