Posts by inkling

I do not think he 'swallowed' the Horus Story, inkling... I think what he was trying to say is that most people would never even consider as true an egyptian myth like that

I think it is quite a stretch to say that was his intent.

I'm not willing to grant that much benefit of the doubt.

This list was presented in the film as fact.

This was a simple failure of factchecking, A problem Maher
has clearly had before.

[inkling]

20

The Inconsistent Skepticism of Bill Maher

by inkling in

jw
friends

ok, so i recently watched the film religulous, and found it to be very funny.. .

however, i was quite disappointed to see maher "confront" some christians with.

the "fact" that the jesus myth was borrowed pretty nearly whole-cloth from the.

Ok, So I recently watched the film Religulous, and found it to be very funny.

However, I was quite disappointed to see Maher "confront" some Christians with
the "fact" that the Jesus myth was borrowed pretty nearly whole-cloth from the
Egyptian Horus myth.

He lists, as fact:

Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri.
His birth was accompanied by a star in the east...
Which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior.
At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher.
At the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry.
Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water ...

and so on...

This list is... how do I put this delicately... oh ya, BULLSHIT!

The most recent example of this awful argument being used was in the remarkably credulous
conspiracy-theory flick Zeitgeist

It has just about as much bullshit content as the arguments FOR religion that Maher is so
skilled at mocking with hilarious style

A BAD argument for a GOOD cause is worse that no argument at all.

This, combined with his swallowing the stories of the anti-vaxxers, makes me wonder the following:

How can Bill Maher be so smart and so dumb at the same time?

[inkling]

51

Sincere question for Christians

by sir82 in

jw
friends

here's something i've never been clear on, being raised as a jw: what is the standard, "orthodox christian" if you will, teaching with regard to where the soul goes after death for each of the following 3 scenarios:.

1) a 3 month old baby, born to believing, saved christian parents, dies;.

2) a 3 month old baby, born to non-christian parents, dies;.

inkling

It seems to me that Jesus' instructions to attain salvation are riddled with specific actions that are needed to be saved. Sure, you can say that those who REALLY "believe" in Jesus will do all of these things, but it seems rather disingenuous to claim that the actually ticket to heaven is one particular thought that blooms in your mind. If you "accept Jesus as your personal saviour" while in the midst of a killing spree, and continued gleefully killing people, do you still go to heaven when you get shot by the police sniper? If NOT, then Christians should really stop with the "The important thing is that you say the right magic words in your head" [inking]

14

"I Don't Know is my Belief"

by zarco in

on another thread, ak-jeff shared an interesting perspective........ "i don't know is my belief.. .

i care.

but typically, i get no answers when i ask.

inkling

I'm currently attending the Church of I Don't Know.

Ah, is that what the Unitarians are calling themselves now?

[inkling]

51

Sincere question for Christians

by sir82 in

jw
friends

here's something i've never been clear on, being raised as a jw: what is the standard, "orthodox christian" if you will, teaching with regard to where the soul goes after death for each of the following 3 scenarios:.

1) a 3 month old baby, born to believing, saved christian parents, dies;.

2) a 3 month old baby, born to non-christian parents, dies;.

inkling

What is this extra-Biblical "something else"? Or where do I find it in the Bible, if it is not "Believe on the lord Jesus and ye shall be saved"?

Well, it would seem that Jesus said not even THAT was enough:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is
in heaven.

Matt 7:21

77

What are the greatest evidences that the deluge never happened?

by Newborn in

jw
friends

thanks for your help.. /newborn.

inkling

Historians have collected records of Chinese and Egyptian cultures all the
way back to 3000 b.c. Oddly enough, they didn't seem to notice the fact
that their civilization was being wiped off the face of the earth.

(The pyramids were built before the date of the flood given by the Bible)

The vast majority of all fish life would not have survived the mix of salt/fresh water.

There are currently bristlecone pine trees that are over 4000 years
old and scientists, by comparing these living tree rings with dead
tree rings and matching overlapping growth patterns were able to
map out a tree ring sequence going all the way back to 6273 bc,
meaning that there were trees that lived straight on through the
time allocated to Noah's flood.

There is is a LIVING creosote bush "colony" in the Mojave desert
that is over 11,000 years old.

Belief in the flood requires belief in hyper evolution:
Even granting a highly impractical number of representative pairs of various
"kinds" of animals, getting back up to the millions of current species requires
a level of evolution many thousands of times faster than required by the theory
of evolution, which Creationists reject as impossible.

[inkling]

10

This is so funny!!!

by hihopes2008 in

jw
friends

give them the "mark 17" faith test!

mark 16:17-18.

"and these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

inkling

From NWT:

LONG CONCLUSION

Certain ancient manuscripts (ACD) and versions (VgSyc,p) add the following long conclusion, but which ?BSysArm omit:

9 After he rose early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Mag′da·lene, from whom he had expelled seven demons. 10 She went and reported to those who had been with him, as they were mourning and weeping. 11 But they, when they heard he had come to life and had been viewed by her, did not believe. 12 Moreover, after these things he appeared in another form to two of them walking along, as they were going into the country; 13 and they came back and reported to the rest. Neither did they believe these. 14 But later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table, and he reproached their lack of faith and hardheartedness, because they did not believe those who had beheld him now raised up from the dead. 15 And he said to them: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned. 17 Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak with tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well.”

19 So, then, the Lord Jesus, after having spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 They, accordingly, went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and backed up the message through the accompanying signs.

So, I suppose they can just say those verses are not really part of the bible.

I remeber just ignoring those verses, becuase they were basically in the footnotes of the bible.

[inkling]

12