Rationaltheology

Christ myth theorists argue that Zalmoxis was a god in the form of a man who died and resurrected like Jesus. In reality Zalmoxis is not born of a virgin, he was not crucified and he fakes his death so never actually resurrected. According to the Greek historian and writer Herodotus, "Zalmoxis (Saitnoxis) was the Supreme God of the Getae" who "was a man who was once a slave in Samos, his master being Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus" He had made for himself an "underground chamber. When this was finished, he vanished from the sight of the Thracians, and descended into the underground chamber, where he lived for three years, the Thracians wishing him back and mourning him for dead; then in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians." So they believed as such that he resurrected and was a god. So Zalmoxis was not born of a virgin, was not crucified and did not resurrect. So in no way possible does he share any similarities with Jesus. He had faked his death and disappeared which is why he became known as the "vanishing god." The eternal life of "Zalmoxis" is also different from the eternal life promised in Christianity. Herodotus writes of this: "Once in every five years they choose by lot one of their people and send him as a messenger to Salmoxis, charged to tell of their needs; and this is their manner of sending: Three lances are held by men thereto appointed; others seize the messenger to Salmoxis by his hands and feet, and swing and hurl him aloft on to the spear-point. If he be killed by the cast, they believe that the gods regard them with favour; but if he be not killed, they blame the messenger himself, deeming him a bad man, and send another messenger in place of him whom they blame. It is while the man yet lives that they charge him with the message." This information comes from Herodotus, 'History.' IV, 93-6)

This "theory" (if it even can be called such) is often regurgitated by misinformed atheists but a through examination of these pagan gods reveals that they shared no similarities with Jesus at all. Read my refutation here: http://www.disclose.tv/news/jesus_did_exist_and_was_not_copied_from_horus_mithra_or_any_other_pagan_gods/130787

Me and a friend decided to investigate the topic of religion and wars, since this is often a topic atheists bring up saying that they are inevitably linked. We found that religion wasn't the main cause of war at all, or suffering in the world and that more deaths have resulted from atheistic communism itself in the 20th century alone compared to crimes linked to religion. You can read the post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/4ec4jy/religion_is_the_main_cause_of_war_and_the_root_of/

In the following post, I've decided to investigate claims that Jesus was gay and refute them. The claims are often made by atheists but there's been even a few Christians who back the claims all based on a ridiculous argument that is easily refuted by a little research. Normally, however, I find the claims are made mostly by anti-Christian atheists after being unable to continue with their vehement denial of the historical existence of Jesus when they encounter the historical evidence, so they jump onto the next band-wagon: character assassination. Christianity forbids homosexuality and despite the continued growth of a progressive liberal Christianity, many Christians still hold the notion that homosexuality is wrong. The idea then that Jesus was gay would be quite blasphemous to the majority of Christians. Many anti-Christians and atheists, knowing this, often trout the nonsense that Jesus was gay in a pathetic attempt to either wind Christians up or as part of their crusade to "destroy" Christianity (something that internet atheism will never achieve), think this false fact will convert Christians. I imagine half of those who promote this nonsense are simply trolling. I remember back in the days when I used YouTube, I encountered an atheist troll who had created a video on this very subject matter and although he is now suspended for his harassing and targeting of Christians (so all of his videos are removed) I still remember the argument in the video. The argument was as follows: The Gospel of John writes of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" ergo Jesus was in a homosexual relationship. Get wrecked Christians. This is the major argument used by those who promote the "Jesus was gay" myth. In using it, its promoters express their down-right ignorance of the gospels and understanding of terms being used. Most of those who use this argument to say Jesus was gay, think the Gospel of John is referencing John himself, in fact there is nothing to suggest this and in fact the ending sentence of the gospel reveals this stating "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" revealing it is the testimony of another person rather than the author. Some scholars have suggested the disciple to be James, the blood brother of Jesus. This makes sense as it would be odd for the author of John to reference himself in third person. This view is shared by the majority of Biblical scholars who believe the text of John went through two or more editions before reaching its current form. Now the main argument used to back the claim that Jesus was gay, is that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" here is referring to some sort of relationship. The Gospel of John in fact claims that Jesus loves many people. In John 11:5 it is stated "...Jesus loved Martha, her sister and Lazarus" according to logic of the Jesus was gay argument we now have Jesus engaged in a bisexual incestuous three-way! Putting this terrible reasoning aside and we simply see love here being used as a term to reference that Jesus cared about these people. We also have no reason to believe that the "beloved disciple" truly was beloved as a unique person by Jesus since no other gospel references anyone by this title. It seems more like that this term was being used here by the writer to put this disciple above all the others. Another argument used to say Jesus was gay was that he had male followers (pretty much like any religious leader back in the day) ergo he was a homosexual. Get wrecked Christians and praise Dawkins (who himself mainly has male followers so I guess he must...uhh...be gay too). This of course is another terrible argument and it is also untrue. Jesus was unique in having many female followers. Mark 15:40-41 says the following: "There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him, and there were many other women who came up with Him." Luke 8:1-3 meanwhile declares that Jesus and his followers had women following them, "contributing to their support out of private means" so already we have a picture of a unique religious leader of his time to have many female followers who also contributed to his ministry. In John 20:16, Mary calls Jesus "Rabbi" meaning teacher. Why would she call him teacher if he did not teach her as he did the 12 disciples? In fact, after resurrecting, the first person Jesus revealed himself to was a woman: Mary Magdalene. In fact in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, one verse has Jesus kiss Mary Magdalene. The passage, missing a few words is as follows: "As for Wisdom who is called "the barren", she is the mother [of the] angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [... loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]. The rest of [the disciples...] They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in the darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" So if we were to have Jesus in a relationship with anyone, it would be with Mary Magdalene. Most scholars believe the following word after "kiss her often on her" was either hand or cheek, regardless, no gospel in or outside The Bible refers to Jesus kissing any of his male followers. The Gospel of Philip corresponds with John in listing the three Marys as constant followers of Jesus. "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary." So the truth is, Jesus did have female followers and they were all important to him. Important enough that they are all named (the three Marys, Joanna, Martha, Susanna) and important enough that the first person he reveals his resurrected body to, is one of them: Mary Magdalene. This part didn't even need a refutation. If having male followers and friends make you gay then the whole world is gay including every single atheist public speaker who are often only seen procrastinating and interacting with other men at their atheist conventions. Jesus is unique for a religious leader of his time in that he did actually have female followers whom he interacted with and who followed him. As for what the sexuality of Jesus really was? Probably asexual. There is only one instance of Jesus referencing sexuality and when he does this, he's praising those who are born without sexual desires. This is found in Matthew 19:12: "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Eunuchs were men who were castrated at a young age. Jesus however seems to be referring also to men who are also born without sexual desires as well as those who "make themselves" as such for the "kingdom of heaven" which is clearly referencing those who are celibate. Of course terms like asexuality didn't exist back then and so Jesus used a term that was familiar to everyone, a term in reference to men whose duties as eunuchs led to them to forgo sex. Likely Jesus was born asexual or practiced celibacy to highly praise it. Also for someone who referenced his followers as actual family (Matthew 12:46-50), wouldn't it be inappropriate for him to engage in sexual relations with them? The picture we have of Jesus from the gospels in The Bible and the Gnostic gospels is of a man who loved all of his followers not as friends but as family. Loved when used in the New Testament here is not referring to a sexual relationship but a love far surpassing that. Why did I bother writing a post on this and why does this subject matter? It matters because it's important to know the truth about a person. Once one lie is accepted then many more can come to be so it's best to refute them as they appear. Also to have Jesus as a person of any sexuality who was married or whatever, would contradict his status , his mission and his own words so it's important to refute this misinformation and lies when they appear so people can have the real image of Jesus and who he was.

I suppose the answer is simple: Free will. People are molded by their upbringing and experience with others and this of course leads to people who would rather hate than do good. They have the power to change to, yet some choose not to because they enjoy being nasty.

Can an alcoholic be Christian? Yes. Christians are not perfect, they are sinners like anyone else. God calls everyone regardless of their imperfections and sins to serve and even a self-professed holy man can stumble and struggle with the faith and still yet be Christian. Sounds like your pastor needs a lesson in Christianity.

Who is creating and ending human life? The doctors? They did not make the egg, sperm or the uterus, they are simply changing a method in the formula that creates life, the formula being a design of God's right? Rather than this being done by sexual intercourse, the egg and sperm are simply fertilized in a lab instead but both things remain the products of the parents. Science is simply a tool, that tool being provided by God so that we as a species can grow and progress. The child born from this treatment would still be yours biologically, in this aspect, it would be no different from a full and complete "natural" pregnancy. The child will still be formed of (as all are) the genetics of its parents so apart from the artificial and technological assisted fertilization, the child would still be the product of its father and mother just like any other child. The doctors are not playing God here and are simply using a tool of God's to help the natural progress of birth. Why would there be all these medicines, methods of medicating, knowledge of surgery and procedures if God had not intended for us to one day heal our own wounds? There is surely a cure for every problem and surely the reason we have medical science is so that we can discover them ourselves. This doesn't take away the glory from God because then we will remember who enabled us to perform these great works - all knowledge and wisdom that is good comes from God. "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him." Daniel 2:20 We have received knowledge from God. It has not stopped us from conceiving children naturally and it helps those who can't do so naturally. Surely this knowledge is meant to be put to use and the use it is put to is a good one, to help produce a child for loving parents. Their love being a product also of God's. Literal or metaphorical, Genesis tells us to be fruitful and multiply so surely it would be contrary to God's plan if those who cannot having children by natural means, forgo'd artificial means and had no children of their own even though the power had now been given to them to do so. In The Tower of Babel story, in Genesis 11:6, God exclaims that after the building of the tower and the unification of people, nothing that humans set out to do will be impossible. "Look!" he said. "The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them! God knew what we would do and what technology we would be creating. If it was contrary to his plan, he would have made a commandment against any sort of technological progress. These is nothing wrong with the knowledge we've gained and technology we've created if we put them to use for the glory of God.

Not everything relates to the spiritual realm. Are you sure these spirits are real entities and not the product of your brain? Many cases of "demonic possession" are often non-diagnosed mental issues, schizophrenia often being one of the major cases. In other words, don't seek spiritual healing for a mental condition. The Bible tells us that demonic possession is real but those who were demonically possessed inhibited the same symptoms. They were actually possessed and demonstrated supernatural strengths. Unless you also observing external occurrences alongside your family (i.e furniture moving, things being thrown about etc) there is really no reason to believe these spirits are real. Perhaps try the medical remedy before dealing with it spiritually. If medication or therapy does not cure any of the symptoms then you know you're dealing with a case of possession. If however, you've already accepted Jesus into your heart and prayed, then likely the symptoms are of a mental nature rather than spiritual. As Christians, we must remember that there are things beyond heaven and Earth that are real but we must also apply common sense to our evaluations. Not everything should be attributed as spiritual or a miracle if there remains another explanation. The scripture instructs us to be wise not hasty.

This about sums this topic up. Sin hasn't changed one bit, we've simply made sin more attractive and even reasoned that some sin is acceptable. OP ask yourself, what really has changed? Politicians still lie, the rich only care for the rich, the poor still struggle, there are still homeless people that receive no aid and people are still butchering and murdering one another over possessions, revenge, power and land. If we examine history and its wars we see most were power-struggles over politics, thrones or land. What has changed with our wars? Nothing. So for this reason, the scriptures are still relevant as we are still a selfish and greedy people in need of good guidance. The Good Samaritan Parable for example applies just as much today as it did then with xenophobia and racism going stronger than ever. Then of course, we have all the scripture verses about leaving sin behind and loving your neighbor. These are timeless. Immigration reforms have little to do with scripture though. Although from a scripture standpoint, we are called to be wise with our decision making. As much as it would be good for everyone to be able to freely travel everywhere and settle, we have to address the reality behind this worldview, the reality being economical and financial impacts it has on the country and people living there. This of course is a subject for politicians to debate, not a theologian like me. Render unto Caesar, Caesar's things and all that right? I've seen too many Christians make a point for support of relaxed immigration or non-relaxed using scripture when they should really be debating it as a political subject and how it effects their country and current situation. Others use emotional arguments when they need to be thinking of the logical repercussions. As Ezra said though, "immigration reform is covered by the right of every nation to govern itself and maintain its boundaries." I believe the support for country governance and boundaries can be found in The Bible with God establishing Israel as its own country for the Jewish people rather than inviting the whole world into it. There are however many instances in The Bible of immigration from the Exodus to verses about treating immigrants kindly (Leviticus 19:33-34). So really this is the same issue we're faced with today so nothing has changed and you can argue for and against immigration from verses The Bible but really it is a political matter and Jesus told us to separate the things relating to God away from things relating to politics.