Nothing is true

Except that?

All concepts of truth are relative

Is that absolutely true?

Everything is permitted

Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity.

Do some homework ;-).

I have. According to what you've written, you haven't.

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all. It is a pagan religion in every respect. The only records you find that bear similarity to Christianity are after the 2nd century, after Christian texts had been circulating for at least a hundred years. It's Mithraism which integrated Christianity not the other way around.

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that. What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself. The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great.

etc

The hope for the Messiah is universal in human beings; that is revelation that God gives to every man, which is what it says in Romans 1:18-21. Whether there are messianic expectations in other religions is irrelevent. Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu are dead. Jesus is alive.

Do some homework ;-).

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The "Christ" however has been around for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooongass time before the name "Jesus" ever hit the scene . This stuff goes back to the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Cannanites etc.

And that not even mentioning The Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu etc. etc. all of whom predate your Jesus by quite some centuries and preach many of the same fundamentals.

Ditch the Dogma and try out the approach of some other religions, you'll quickly find that underneath all the silly myths there's certain things they all have in common (to a greater and lesser extent). You'll also I hope quickly start to realise that the three major "Exoteric religions" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are by this stage corrupted to the point of being barely serviceable and a mere shadow of their "Esoteric" counterparts.

Then again you could always just pull the faith card on me

Love is the law...

Tremendous amount of ignorance in here; not the faggoty liberal 'being a meanie' ignorance, but the dictionary definition 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' ignorance.

There's very little room for multiple interpretations of Islam. The Qur'an was written by a single (insane) author; with clear instructions on how to interpret it - literally; and how to resolve any inconsistencies within the text - the chronologically later passage supercedes the earlier.

The various Islamic sects differ over the authenticity of the Hadith, accounts of Momo's opinions and behaviour, which they are expected to emulate. None of them dispute the authority or the text of the Qur'an, which they imagine to be the infallible word of god.

There are peaceful, conciliatory passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from early in Muhammad's career, when he wasn't so secure in his position that he could afford to be a total cunt to non-believers. There are violent, xenophobic passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from later in Muhammad's career, when his success as a warlord left him far better placed to be a total cunt to non-believers. The chronologically later passages supercede the earlier.

The favorite example is At-Tawbah 5, the 'Verse of the Sword'; from the chronologically penultimate surah of the Qur'an it scrubs out any earlier peaceful passages by commanding that Muslims:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"

THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE

There's a peculiar general tendency to conflate the violent historical practice of other religions, like Christianity, with the actual scriptural commandment to violence of Islam. These are not equivalent. In any case the big M positioned Islam as a continuation and successor of Christianity and Judaism, admitting the validity of their prophets and texts, so it has to inherit their crimes as well.

Ultimately, all the religious are criminals. In abandoning reason and responsibility for their own actions, in turning over their volition to the dictates of invisible spirits, they have disposed of ethics and their own humanity.

Judaism is not a race. Furthermore, who fucking cares?!

Does this idiot not realise that the "divine" law of the Old Testament/Pentateuch is the basis of Sharia Law, and that Islam is but a spin-off of Christianity/Judaism (the same way the former is of the latter)?

(edit: rhetorical question of course; a Repubublican and/or fundamentalist Christian actually knowing something about religious history? ha!)

>> ^My_design:

Wait a second? The JCER did this? A Jewish group? A group of people who belong to the only religion that has been disrespected by Obama more than the Catholics is actively supporting his re-election. Hmm.. Wonders never cease.


Some more conservative Jews think that Obama has disrespected Israel, but it's not true they're still getting a ridiculous amount of Aid from the US, it's not even funny they belong in another category.

As fas as disrespecting the Religion of Judaism I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Did he tip over your menorah or something?

Is the term anti-Semitism confusing? Probably. But that doesn't mean the word "should" be used in one way or another. Words are what they are. "Anti-Semitism" is an English word, and the meaning of that word is "prejudice against Jewish people". The etymology of a word in no way dictates its modern meaning. Languages, especially English, are filled with words that don't reflect their original meaning. Even in your comment, the second word is "refer". It originally meant "to carry again". Now it doesn't. That's language.>> ^vaire2ube:

semitic refers to language origins and should no longer be appropriated to mean "anti-jewish"
arab peoples are semitic as well.
good day.
"...first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Canaanite/Phoenician, Amorite, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Sutean, Chaldean, Mandaic, Ahlamu, Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.
...a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Syriac and Ethiopian Christianity (Aramaic/Syriac and Ge'ez). " -wiki

semitic refers to language origins and should no longer be appropriated to mean "anti-jewish"

arab peoples are semitic as well.

good day.

"...first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Canaanite/Phoenician, Amorite, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Sutean, Chaldean, Mandaic, Ahlamu, Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.

As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.

...a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Syriac and Ethiopian Christianity (Aramaic/Syriac and Ge'ez). " -wiki

Lets not try to oversimplify things just because it's confusing. Judaism is a religion but being Jewish is a culture and an ethnicity. It isn't like Christianity where the order actively seeks to convert members from foreign world. Judaism spreads by having its members procreate and maintain their roots. So where in Christianity it's more based on 'new faith', Judaism is more closely tied with family traditions.

I don't know where this 'Judaism = only about faith/religion' idea comes from, but it's not just the religion, unlike your typical black/white western sense. But more like a way of living. http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

By the way Kurds and Tibetans technically do not have a country either but that certainly don't stop them from having an identity.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Eugene Mirman' to 'Eugene Mirman, israel, judaism, aspergers, god, delta airlines, letter' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Interesting.
It doesn't make much mention of Hermetic Qabalah, though. It briefly mentions that the texts reached scholars who used it to interpret ancient Greek writings. This interpretation of the Kabbalah was eventually also fused with the grimoire traditions (which also contained practices preserved from ancient Greece, along with Christian and Muslim elements), to the extent that after the 16th century, nearly all serious magicians also studied Kabbalah. And this continued on for several centuries.
The version used by practicing occultists--who usually spell the tradition as Qabalah or Qabbalah--was refined and popularized during the occult revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Alongside the occult revival, and with many overlapping figures, was a revival of Paganism and a general rejection of Christianity. These twin movements sort of bubbled along under the surface until the 60s and 70s, when they started gaining steam. And with the rise of the internet in the 90s, as access to the ideas grew, the movements exploded.
With the rather curious result that there are now thousands of self-professed Pagans and occultists who, with no affiliation with Christianity or Judaism at all, nonetheless study the Zohar and the Sepher Yetzirah with a great deal of energy. Naturally, the traditions one finds among these communities differ substantially from Kabbalah as practiced by Jewish adherents.


excellent synopsis!

Interesting.

It doesn't make much mention of Hermetic Qabalah, though. It briefly mentions that the texts reached scholars who used it to interpret ancient Greek writings. This interpretation of the Kabbalah was eventually also fused with the grimoire traditions (which also contained practices preserved from ancient Greece, along with Christian and Muslim elements), to the extent that after the 16th century, nearly all serious magicians also studied Kabbalah. And this continued on for several centuries.

The version used by practicing occultists--who usually spell the tradition as Qabalah or Qabbalah--was refined and popularized during the occult revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Alongside the occult revival, and with many overlapping figures, was a revival of Paganism and a general rejection of Christianity. These twin movements sort of bubbled along under the surface until the 60s and 70s, when they started gaining steam. And with the rise of the internet in the 90s, as access to the ideas grew, the movements exploded.

With the rather curious result that there are now thousands of self-professed Pagans and occultists who, with no affiliation with Christianity or Judaism at all, nonetheless study the Zohar and the Sepher Yetzirah with a great deal of energy. Naturally, the traditions one finds among these communities differ substantially from Kabbalah as practiced by Jewish adherents.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Doug Stanhope, judaism, religion' to 'Doug Stanhope, judaism, religion, bashing' - edited by xxovercastxx