both are full of ill logic...

Probably religion because politics is often influenced by religion

Politics is the new religion, has been for some years.

Politics. By far. In politics, everyone, on both sides, has to use bad logic at some point or another if they want their position to seem infallible. In religion, it depends on the religion. Christianity is the only one out of all world religions (including Naturalism) that has not ever been logically defeated. Any so-called, "proofs," against Christianity have been exposed as having extreme logical flaws.

I don't remember people burning other people at the stake because they didn't believe in the same politics as them

Religion asks you to follow and never doubt

Politics asks you to show up and participate

You heard of cancel culture? Basically the same thing. But worse, now that I think about it. Because it tortures and shames you, but doesn't kill you.

so being shamed or feeling guilty is worse than being tortured to death? no wonder you guys hate it when schools teach about systematic racism

Man, you've really drunk the kool-aid, haven't you? I said, UNDESERVED shame and guilt. If someone deserves it, then I don't care.

Systematic racism is actually what the left is low-key trying to achieve. By segregating people of different skin tones, and making one ethnicity collectively at fault, they are attempting to destroy the melting pot roots of our country. And yet they do it in the name of equality. Can people get stupider than that?

acknowledging racism isn't segregation. when have I ever supported segregation?

Did I say they were the same?

Here. Read this: https://notthebee.com/article/university-office-of-social-justice-and-inclusion-offers-segregated-white-cafe-on-university-campus

If that isn't segregation in the name of, "social justice," then I don't know what is.

Social ostracism is not even comparable to being burned at the stake.

Real torture doesn't get you a book deal about "being cancelled" cry baby.

People who complain about cancel culture, the same people complaining about "take a knee" and BLM

Living your life in humiliation and shame that isn't even rightfully yours? Compared to a short amount of physical pain, and then sweet release? Think again, buddy boy.

It's more than just, "being cancelled." It's having humiliation and disgrace wrongfully being heaped up on you, just because you disagree with someone.

"Cry baby"? Says the one who flies into a rage when someone slightly disagrees with them.

Yeah, cause it's all part of the leftist agenda to destroy America. Don't get me wrong, I believe black lives matter as much as the next guy, but the BLM bullcrap is over the top.

How deep that "destroy America" conspiracy go?

Well, as far as there are people who choose to see what damage the left has done to America so far.

Herp Fuhrer Donny is a leftist?
Makes sense.

Who?

Seems I missed something.
Any examples of DeadTroi flying into a fit of rage? The only rage I see here is yours.

Seen any of his comments in politics?

Funny. I was giving a calm, collected counter to his reply. Once again, a leftist twists the truth to fit the lies he convinced himself to believe.

How about we stop wasting my time and you just screenshot post it?

Tha frig is a 'leftist'? That that big bogeyman hiding under your bed that's got you pissing your diapers?

If you want to, for once in your life, verify for yourself what you've been told, you can take the couple minutes to do so. You don't have to rely on the conservative to do everything for you like in everything else. Of course, you'll probably see it through eyes that cover up his flaws, but what can I do about that.

A leftist, as you should know, is someone who leans to the political left.

Your mental disability has left you so utterly bonkers you're asking ME to verify the bearing false witness lies YOU babble? Would you like me to shit in your diapers and change them for you too?

But they like being intellectually lazy, providing proof sounds like work.

Funny. I ask you to do something for yourself for once and you lose your crap. Then again, what did I expect?

Like some idiotic buffoon you ask me to prove your stupid lies about another memer and you're saying I lost my crap? That's cool, in a derp-o-rama way.

Love to say you lost your mind but then that would require you having a brain in the first place.

Who was talking about hypocrisy regarding rage earlier?

You

Come again?

True, true, but no one wants 2 hear that. Often w/ politics, ppl spout out stuff w/o even knowing what they stand for. Many of the black ppl in my family say they’re democrat, but rlly don’t agree w/ democrat ideas. They just believe what they hear, & they don’t read the party platforms. Now some of them are full on tho.
In religion, ppl that are not religious don’t rlly want to hear anything that suggests religion. All religions become “equal”, which makes no logical sense. They just assume all religion is stupid & play sides & finagle around arguments.

So in summary, idrk which world is more fallacy-filled.

The only one wha? That's ridiculous. It's completely derivative, a retelling of stories from other religions that somehow are rendered myth by the imitation they spawned.

Really? Then how come it's the only belief system that holds up under extreme scrutiny? But, I'll humor you. Give one example of where it copycats another religion.

What scrutiny?

Zoroastrianism, from the concept of one God and that God vs the Devil to a Savior to a template for Jesus to Armageddon... heck, even the word "Paradise" comes from them.

Ever heard of A Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel?

And, besides, their conceptions of each of the things you mentioned is very different from in Christianity. So there is no reason to believe that Christianity copycated it.

It's a known fact that Zoroastrianism - the original monotheistic religion - has influenced Judaism over time - for example, turning an obscure small tribal God into a supreme God then an only God then a universal God at that.

The BIG difference between the NT and OT is also largely Zoroastrian, filtered through a major Roman Pagan filter, of course. Satan as a big baddie, the coming Savior, the eternal and final fight between good and evil... all that which just so happens to not be in the Old Testament is Zoroastrian, with a strain of Mithraism, natch.

https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas

December 25th is a stolen and repurposed holiday date.

Jesus is a stolen copy of Horus, Egyptian God

Mithra as well, and very much so, in fact the Cult of Mithras was widely practiced in Rome with temples all the way to Scotland.

Read this, if you will.

Nothing to say about Christmas being from other religions? Nothing about Yule or Saternalia?

You just want to compare mythical figures? OK, Horus was a mythical figure, and so was Jesus. I don't need to prove the Jesus myth was inspired by other myths. I don't care if you believe that story telling does or does not change stories with time.

I care about what is real or not. Mythological beings, aren't real.

The Christ's mass is on December 25 because that is the reported day that the wise men visited Jesus to bring Him their gifts. No other reason than that.

There is, actually, plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical figure, and the Christ. As a historical figure, He is mentioned in several major works of Roman Palestine (modern day Israel) as a real person. So, clearly, He at least existed in history.

Secondly, as the Messiah, it is only reasonable that He rose from the grave and made postmortem appearances to the disciples for three reasons: 1. The grave was empty (the disciples couldn't have stolen the bidy, as it was heavily guarded by trained soldiers. Yet the pharisees couldn't produce the body, or Christianity would've been quelled in it's infancy), 2. Over 520 people saw Him in the weeks after His crucifixion (they couldn't have hallucinated, since hallucinations are unique to each individual, and it's highly improbable that they all would've been in a state of mind that permits hallucinations, especially Saul the Persecutor), and 3. The Apostles were willing to suffer and die for the Name of Christ (No one would die for what they knew to be untrue).

People rising from the dead is not reasonable. If you think someone coming back from the dead is reasonable, you are an extremist.

Your excuse holds no water, tell me what verse names the date the wise men visited?

There were a lot of people named Jesus. There are still people named Jesus. There are no Gods among us.

That article has no evidence of John being dead at the time of his Gospel being written. It only shows some slight indicators. And, besides, if John wasn't the author, then why would the actual author constantly refer to John as "The Disciple that Jesus loved"? It makes sense only if John was the one who wrote it, as love is a common theme throughout his writings.

And, anyways, even if the Gospel of John is inauthentic, the other three Gospels were all written within the lifetimes of people who knew Jesus, and could've corrected them if they were wrong. But, as they didn't, that is evidence for the authenticity of the writings of the Apostles.

Wrong. The closest writing on Jesus came from John, who was one of the three disciples Jesus was closest to. The second closest is from Matthew, another disciple of Jesus, just not as close. And both, along with the other Gospels (and the rest of the NT) were written within the lifetimes of, and with help from, other eyewitnesses who, if they saw something inaccurate, would point it out. But no one ever did. So we have eyewitness evidence that Christ was who He said He was.

How many darn times do I have to tell you, there is plenty of evidence that it is more than a myth? Have you even been reading the evidence I gave? Or are you scared of being proven wrong?

Except John was dead when Jihn was written so...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-John

The earliest gospel was written in 50 CE, 50 years after death, by Paul.

John and the other Gospels were written even later.

With God, who is greater than death, all things are possible.

I never said it was true. I said that it's traditionally held that the wise men came on December 25. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that it was January 3. I never said any particular date is right. It's simply what is traditionally held.

The manuscripts talk about a very specific person: a Jewish carpenter by the name of Yeshua (original form of Jesus) who stirred up controversy wherever He went, until He was crucified by the Romans. That's the Jesus of the NT. Your counter is invalid.

I noticed that not once did you attempt to counter the three reasons I gave for why Jesus is the Messiah. Please explain?

It is all a story. That is the explanation.

Even the closest writings about Jesus come from an admitted non-witness. Paul.

Those are the earliest writings, and they are from 50 years after the supposed death.

You believe someone's story.

what is so hard to understand, your myth is no more real than anyone else's myth

Handle your ish

MAGI came, and no, not on Dec 25th.
Do you know what religion Magis are the Priests of, btw, tee hee/

Jesus/Joshua/Y'eshua NOT Emmanuel was NOT a Messiah and did nothing Messianic.

This one's for free:
You know of another Y'eshua that came before Pilate the same day for the same crime of sedition sentenced to the same punishment of death and was known as Son of the Father? What, Y'eshau bar Abba, AKA Barabbas, of course! But Jesus, Son of the Father wasn't executed, so they can't be the same guy despite the same name, crime, day, judge, sentence, r-r-right?

Actually, they have two gods: the god of good and the god of evil. So it's not monotheistic, and therefore doesn't check with your statement.

Their conception of good and evil is that they are equal. Again, doesn't check with the idea that it influenced Judeo-Christianity.

It teaches that one is saved by good works, and not by the sacrifice of the Savior. Again, doesn't check with the Judeo-Christian idea of being saved by God's mercy.

It teaches that all roads lead to Heaven; again, doesn't show up in it's supposed influencee.

So, it really only has in common with Christianity what most religions have in common: a concept of good and evil, an idea of at least one divine being, and a sense of morality. Overall, doesn't match your statement. There may be a few more things that are superficially similar, but that's aside the point.

Because Satan hasn't been turned to one either, and the Trinity is what again?
The First Commandment says what again about not worshipping other GodS? WHAT other GodS if there aren't any others require an admonishment against worshipping them?
"We shall create them in our image"? Who is this "our" referring to?

Good and evil are equal but you're saved by good works?
Which one is it?

THE concept of a savior comes from Zoroastrianism.
Mithra - which actually predates Zoroastrianism - was the template for Jesus in Rome, the Cult of Mithraism widely practiced starting and ending round when again?

Find me "Heaven" in the OT, I'll wait.

Find me Satan as evil in the OT.

Find me me the Apocalypse there as well.

Find another source for that quickie 101 and get back to me.

Aelfwine being disingenuous, just arguing now

Ironically he's arguing against his own point, as weak as it is.
If there was one supreme universal divinity, it wouldn't be exclusive to an obscure nation, a small dot on the map, unknown to the rest of 'creation'

1. Because he is merely a fallen angel, not God's brother as zoroastrianism teaches.

2. One God, three persons. Padre, Filho, Sanctus Spiritus. That's what He meant by, "Our Image." And, before you ask me to explain it, it is another one of God's paradoxes that won't be explained until Heaven and Earth are made new.

3. Anything that people esteem above God. That's what He meant by other gods.

4. Zoroastrianism teaches that the gods of good and evil are equally powerful, and that humans need to fight for good (and thus be redeemed) by doing good works.

5. Let me ask you, have you ever read, "The Case for the Real Jesus," by Lee Strobel? I highly recommend it, and it'll address the issue of Jesus supposedly being a copy-paste of previous gods.

6. Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees a vision of God's throne. Isaiah 65 talks about God creating a new Heaven and a new Earth. Throughout Isaiah, the Day of Judgement and Redemption (the apocalypse) is repeated over and over again. Job 1 talks about satan wanting to turn Job to evil (and why would he, unless he were evil himself?), so he strikes a bargain with God to afflict him. Of course, his plans fail, and Job glorifies God to the very end.

Babbling revisionist Protestant denial nonsense in a lame effort to dodge is so adorable, but give it a rest.

Students of Daniel Babylonwha? WHat the heck are you going on about?

Jesus was sentenced to death for TREASON, AKA sedition, as was 'Barabbas,' the only difference was that the latter killed a Roman soldier.

Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, starting with the first Messiah - you know, Cyrus the Great when Judea became part of the Iranian Empire after he liberated it from Babylon all the way to the coming Apocalypse and the afterlife in Heaven or Hell. The truth sucks, I know. Deal with it.

When copypasting, you should use quotes and cite the source.

Your fundamentalist deflection and denial is ironically self defeating, because your entire argument is in effect by design an attempt to verify that Yahweh IS what he is, and that is a tribal God for Judeans ALONE. You're not a Jew, then he's not for you - which IS what THE Word says, down to the NOT Messiah Jesus telling that Gentile woman to be gone.
Interestingly, your paganistic faith is fulfillment of prophecy, Son of Jackal seated in Rome who shall steal the Word of the Chosen and corrupt it beyond recognition.

But I digress. Your self defeating babbling streers away from your very point of a universal supreme and only God. If there was such a being, he would appear to the rest of creation and not just an obscure small group on a tiny dot on the map. Horus, Krishna, Mithra, etc, would be the same manifestations this Jesus is supposed to be, only they did it earlier. They do not contradict the concept of a one and only God but rather lend credence to it, same archetype with the same strory and same message.

Of course that's bogus also, since as far apart as they seem on the map, fact is these are societies that did have contact with each other over time, the myths radiating outards till they hit Rome and got retrofitted with its own Pagan accroutrements. Hence why such legends disappear the farther out you go. Not that others might not have similar, as the Hero's Journey trope is not exactly the rarest.

Here's a parting gigt for your perusal. There are so mnay references to OTHER GodS and I'm so bored with your bs that I ain't gonna bother posting individual ons, although you might like to note not only Satan sits in the Divine Council with Yahweh, but so do a bunch of other GodS:

https://believervsnonbelievers.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/one-god-or-several-gods-your-bible-has-both/

ciao

Yeah, and in each reference to those other gods, it clearly always arrays them as His enemies. As for where God refers to Himself in the plural, that speaks to His triune nature. By the way, here's a video on why the Trinity is completely viable:
https://youtu.be/eKYMji4vr9E

I think, for once, we agree on something. I'm quite finished with arguing with you, too. At this point, there's no point in trying to reason with a snake. Especially one who doesn't have a leg to stand on, but keeps arguing anyways. A certain ancestor of mine tried to do that, and her descendants are still paying the price to this day.

Tchau

Let's look at the context, shall we? I'm sure you noticed that the word Elohim is used in more than one way. It is the name of God (as in the first instance), it can refer to pagan gods, and it can refer to leaders among the people, such as princes and magistrates. Now if the second use of Elohim refered to pagan gods, that would be at odds with God arraying Himself against them in the rest of the Bible. However, if it refers to princes and magistrates, it would fit quite well with God saying time and time again that He would judge the leaders of the nations throughout His Word.

I've noticed in the past that you tend to start acting condescending when you begin to lose the argument. Thanks for giving me the heads up to push my advantage.

You failed to clarify your nonsensical comment that I asked you about. BuT gIvE iT a ReSt.

Let me say it again: there is historical evidence that the magi were members of a school for wise men that had been started by Daniel while he was in Babylon several hundred years before.

You have in no way attempted to rebutt my statement. All you did was rephrase what you said, then insist it's true, with no evidence whatsoever. It's hard being indoctrinated, I know.

Sorry, it completely slipped my mind. Here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.html

You are clearly ignorant of the Word of God that you claim says that God is for the Jews alone. It actually says: "...and ALL peoples on earth will be blessed through [Abraham] (Genesis 12:3 NIV, emphasis added)." And also, Christ doesn't tell the woman to frick off. Instead, He tells her: "Woman, you are of great faith! Your request is granted (Matthew 15:28 NIV)."

Actually, that was the papacy and the pre-Counter-Reformation Catholic Church, not Christ and the Church as a whole. Nice try, but you fell flat on your face.

Honestly, it's quite interesting watching you twist words this way and that and not get anywhere. God HAS revealed Himself to all creation, through His son Jesus Christ. It only remains for the world to accept or reject Him.

If all those other gods were His servants as you claim, and not His enemies, then why did He smite and punish every last one of them? He constantly talks about smiting and punishing the gods of pagan peoples, throughout Scripture.

And yet, Christ's story doesn't exactly fit that, "hero's journey," trope, does it? That speaks quite well to it's originality.

Not only is Satan NOT an angel - fallen or otherwise - he sat at the Divine Council with God.
Perhaps he has long legs?

Ooh, you said something in Latin so it must be true.
Well as adorable as your attempt is, you just said a whole lotta nuthin.
"Our image" and the First Commandment, etc, don't have to beg to differ on that lame claptrap, despite you trying to relegate the Gods to servant status.
Sons of God? Nephilim ring aby bells?
Ghostly spirit? Oopsie daisie, guess who introduced the concept of, cuz it ain't in the Torah.

Pretty sure "other GodS" means "other GodS" because words have meanings and I prefer to think of God as not being THAT stupid.

Yet good manages to rule the world.
But at least you're beginning to get it, or does the Apocalypse not mean anything to you?

Again, pay attention, Krishna came before Jesus, Horus came before Jesus, Hercules came before Jesus, Mithra, the eternal light (Sol Invictus) - born Dec 25th - with his 12 Attendants came before Jesus.
The concept of a world savior, Saoshyant, is, yup, you guessed it, Zoroastrian.

Heaven, in the OT, means the sky. Not some fluffy Club Med in the clouds for zombies.

The Satan basically functioned as an advesary, district attorney for God if you will.
Why would God make a bargain with evil if it wasn't evil itself?
The elevation of Satan to opposing opposite opponent of God and creation was a Zoroastrain influence, part of the dualism doctrine you referred above.

No worries, you're catching on.

10. You're assuming that Zoroastrianism actually did have influences on Judaism. But, some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600–500 BC. If that is the case, David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Yes, some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC. If that is the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars), and so this argument is speculative at best.

We also have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th century AD. That is far later than Christianity's founding, and therefore offers no support to the idea that Christianity ripped off Zoroastrianism. Instead, it seems to be quite to the contrary. We know that Zoroastrianism has a history of freely mixing with the polytheistic religions around it. It would then make sense that it borrowed from the eventual dominant religion of the late Roman empire.

Did you notice how you had to make a half dozen straw men and twist my words in order to make your point?

1. What are you even trying to say? You're babbling and not making any sense.

2. It's ok to not know everything about who God is. What's important is knowing what He revealed to us. He chose to reveal to us that He is triune, but chose not to explain how. No doubt He'll tell us when all things are made new.

3. The nephilim were half angel, half human giants who were by no means gods, of any sort. Don't see how that connects to the unitedly plural nature of the Trinity.

4. Sometimes, your definition of a word isn't the only definition available. In that context, the Israelites would've understood the imperative as worshipping God alone, without anything else alongside. Anything else worshipped and revered (idols, money, material possessions, etc) would be another god. And as God alone is worthy of all adoration and worship, it would be robbery to give such to another.

5. Did I say I agree with the Zoroastrian sentiment? No.

6. So? What do they have in common with the Christ? Nothing that isn't fabricated by people desperate to try and disprove Christ's Messiahship.

7. Guess what? You're wrong. The concept of a savior came from the very beginning, when God promised to send a descendant of Eve to crush the serpent's (satan's) head.

8. Really? Then what about Isaiah's vision? Where were Enoch and Elijah taken up to? Clearly, they had some sort of afterlife where they were rewarded for their faithfulness.

9. He agreed to allow satan to afflict Job, to prove that he was a faithful and steadfast servant. Kind of like how you'd agree to a competition, to demonstrate the integrity of whatever you're pitting up against your opponent. You'd know that, if you actually read the story. Perhaps start doing research before you make assertions?

"MAGI came, and no, not on Dec 25th.
Do you know what religion Magis are the Priests of, btw, tee hee/

Jesus/Joshua/Y'eshua NOT Emmanuel was NOT a Messiah and did nothing Messianic.

This one's for free:
You know of another Y'eshua that came before Pilate the same day for the same crime of sedition sentenced to the same punishment of death and was known as Son of the Father? What, Y'eshau bar Abba, AKA Barabbas, of course! But Jesus, Son of the Father wasn't executed, so they can't be the same guy despite the same name, crime, day, judge, sentence, r-r-right?"

1. Your point?

2. Actually, there is evidence that they were students of a Babylonian school that had been started by Daniel.

3. Well, they only briefly mention Him. Only the Gospels give detailed biographies of Him.

4. Actually, they had different charges. Barabbas was charged for leading an organized rebellion and murder, and was found guilty. Jesus was charged with blasphemy, and was innocent in Pilate's eyes. The only reason Barabbas wasn't executed and Jesus was, was because the Jews demanded it.

got it, god is real because your story book said so.

I have a fanfic with some of my favorite characters too, but I don't pretend they are real.

In case you missed the rest below,,,

He asked me to provide evidence of certain doctrines existing in the OT. I wasn't using it as an argument. Use your brain for once.

tl;dr

Elohim, yes, God, GodS, you got it.
Now get over it.

I skimmed halfway down and "Magi caught" my eye.
We both know that you know Magi is a Zoroastrian Preist, as you looked it up just like you didn't know anything about the religion prior only to post a delightful copypaste as your own later that day.

Clearly you're lying - the GodS don't like it. They don't like you bearing false witness either, so shush.

I didn't read the rest.

We done?
Yeah, we done.

Laterz.

Guys calm tf down, my notifs blew up

lololol

Christianity got the same amount of proof for their god, as all the other religions.

None.

Lol, you don't prove things wrong, you prove things right. There has never been evidence that this set of fairy tales is any more real than the other mythological fairy tales.

There is no evidence for the existence of any God, including your personal God.

The god of Abraham is just as real as Thor and Spider Man of Marvel.