Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

[Marl]

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01s a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99 AILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

[Back]

Simply brilliant.

[Celephais]

You stopped reading after the first line... It's too bad they won't listen.

Foosball is the devil!

[SpunGirl]

Best laugh I've had all day, Marluxian. Brilliant is correct!

-K

[The Ponzzz]

YES! So true! Man, I'm sending that to every Christian I know!

[Warriorbird]

:laughs:

Latrin should feel a strong sense of identification with these.

Nice job if you wrote it, Marluxian. If you didn't, I'd love to see more writing by whoever did.

[Hulkein]

Couldn't most of them be 'Signs you're a fundamental Islamic or Jew' as well?

[Back]

A classic treatise on the rational vs. the irrational. I’d love to see the rational man’s equivalent list.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Couldn't most of them be 'Signs you're a fundamental Islamic or Jew' as well?

Jews and Muslims don't believe in the three-for-one deity.

Most of the Muslims I've come in contact with know the Koran pretty well. Same goes for Jews and the Torah. Most (American) Christians, however, still believe that Jesus is white.

[Hulkein]

I know plenty of Jews who don't know anything about the Torah, anecdotal evidence ftw.

I know Jews and Muslims don't believe in the Trinity, so that makes 9 of them that could all be the same... I'd say that constitutes 'most.'

[Farquar]

Whatever. But you do know that Jesus isn't white right? Would you recognize him if he came up to you and said hello?

[Nilandia]

I will say this. I hope you guys mean this as a joke and don't seriously believe any of it. If you do, I am quite offended by it.

I myself am a Christian and you could say I'm a fundamentalist, as my beliefs are more of the Calvinist bent. That in mind, let me respond to these points.



10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

I believe that other gods don't exist, true. That does not give me a right to talk down to others who chose not to believe as I do. I've come to expect people to deny that the God I believe in exists, and it's been years since I've tried to debate with an athiest (though she did enjoy it).



9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

I don't feel insulted or "dehumanized" at all. Science is an ongoing process to discover "fact" (used in quotes because what is fact changes with further discoveries) and I have absolutely no problem with its pursuit. I don't believe that science will ever prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm actually quite fascinated with a number of the different fields.



8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

I do not laugh at another religion. Learning about other religions is one of my favorite interests, and I took a course on comparative religion this past summer because I wanted to learn more.



7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

I do, in fact, have troubles with the passages in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Kings and Chronicles of wholesale slaughter of peoples. Do I believe that God ordered it? Yes. Do I think I could have taken part? I highly doubt it. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I claim to be perfect and follow God at all times.



6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

Um... see above. I adore learning about other cultures, but it doesn't affect my beliefs. I don't see it as my place to hit people over the head with a Bible. I've found many times that trying to confront someone more often than not will drive them off, and I have no right to mock someone else's sincerely held beliefs.



5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

See above on my opinion of science. And don't get me started on the popular stereotype of fundamentalists believing in Bishop Ussher's "dating" of creation to 6000 BC. Complete hogwash, to use the technical term.



4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Do I believe that those who don't accept Jesus to be going to Hell? Yes. Do I consider my beliefs to be tolerant and loving? Yes. A seeming contradiction, but allow me to elaborate. I believe that God set up a standard of absolute perfection as necessary to be with Him. God is perfect, so those who go to Him need to be as well.

Of course, we can't do that on our own, and that's why Jesus died: to build the bridge, so to speak, allow us to become perfect and be able to approach God. In that, there is love. We can't live up to God's standards, but God provided a way for us to come to Him.

Anyone at all who accepts Jesus is seen as perfect. It doesn't matter who the person is before, so long as they are sincere. In that, there is tolerance. In this case, tolerance does not mean that God will accept just anyone. Why should He accept someone who completely denied His existence and tried to live without Him? In fact, it is my belief that Hell's worst punishment is the complete absence of God. Those who rejected God and wished to be without Him will get their wish, but I believe it will not be to their benefit.

Regarding the fate of people who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity. I honestly don't know. I'm glad it's not my choice, either.



3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Um... Someone speaking in tongues doesn't convince me much until they're shown to be reliable and accurate. Speaking in tongues is mentioned in the Bible (Corinthians, I believe), and I do accept it as possible occurring, but I also am aware that people can attempt to fake it to con people.

Science as well can have those individuals that have their own motives. Not all, mind you. It is my own habit that I look to a number of sources before I make my own decisions.



2 - You define 0.01s a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99 AILURE was simply the will of God.

I define prayer as always being answered. I may not always get what I wish (especially when it's something frivolous), but there is always an answer. Sometimes there is rejection, sometimes the answer is "not yet."



1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Sorry, you'd be wrong. I'm an avid student of history. For example, I have taken a number of courses that touch upon church history, including a course in college on the interaction between Rome and the Christians. I was also regarded as the reference of all things Biblical and Christian on our school quiz bowl team, and we won nationals in my junior year.

I don't know as much as I'd like, but I do know a thing or two. ;)

Gretchen

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Farquar
Most of the Muslims I've come in contact with know the Koran pretty well.
I believe this is because Islam has a strong emphasis on learning the Koran and recitation of the book. The belief that I've heard is that the Koran in itself is the literal word of Allah (God) spoken to Muhmammed (pbuh, to use the Islamic tradition) and as such, becomes an object of veneration in its own right. That is to say, without becoming an idol, it's highly respected.

Gretchen

[ElanthianSiren]

Well obviously, if those things don't apply to you then you're not a Christian fundamentalist :)

I don't believe any religion has nailed it yet and wish fundamentalists (in general) would stop trying to tell people how to feel about and govern themselves. That's why countries have laws. If Religion X chooses to expand upon those laws, more power to their freely-willed following, but the injection of those laws into common governing bodies, I have a serious problem with.

That's my issue with Christianity. You have to believe what was written down years and years later by MAN and manipulated later by followers in various languages as the word of God. I simply wouldn't trust my soul to something as fatally flawed as humans. It comes down to no direct imperial evidence, therefor, it could be anything, but if you love your God, in my opinion, you've made it anyway because at its core religion cannot be evil nor can it teach evil principles (again my opinion) like intolerance.

-M

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
That's my issue with Christianity. You have to believe what was written down years and years later by MAN and manipulated later by followers in various languages as the word of God. I simply wouldn't trust my soul to something as fatally flawed as humans. It comes down to no direct imperial evidence, therefor, it could be anything, but if you love your God, in my opinion, you've made it anyway because at its core religion cannot be evil nor can it teach evil principles (again my opinion) like intolerance.

I'll admit, I'd have problems believing in it myself, had I not had my own experiences that lead me to believe as I do.

What they were, however, is a personal matter.

Gretchen

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Nilandia
Do I believe that those who don't accept Jesus to be going to Hell? Yes. Do I consider my beliefs to be tolerant and loving? Yes. A seeming contradiction, but allow me to elaborate. I believe that God set up a standard of absolute perfection as necessary to be with Him. God is perfect, so those who go to Him need to be as well.

Of course, we can't do that on our own, and that's why Jesus died: to build the bridge, so to speak, allow us to become perfect and be able to approach God. In that, there is love. We can't live up to God's standards, but God provided a way for us to come to Him.

Anyone at all who accepts Jesus is seen as perfect. It doesn't matter who the person is before, so long as they are sincere. In that, there is tolerance. In this case, tolerance does not mean that God will accept just anyone. Why should He accept someone who completely denied His existence and tried to live without Him? In fact, it is my belief that Hell's worst punishment is the complete absence of God. Those who rejected God and wished to be without Him will get their wish, but I believe it will not be to their benefit.

I'm sorry but I just threw up a little in my mouth for a sec there. Anyway, your attempt to explain the blazing contradiction seemed like a lot of empty rhetorical nonsense (no offense of course). I was really hoping for a rational well-reasoned explanation, but you do yourself injustice by resorting to faulty syllogisms and canned doctrine-speak.

Essentially, you believe that a person that is perfect in every way (loving, caring, honest, selfless, charitable, etc.) can still go to hell simply because he or she doesn't believe in or "accept" some semi-fictional character that may not have even existed. That sounds much like the antithesis of tolerant and loving.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Farquar
I'm sorry but I just threw up a little in my mouth for a sec there. Anyway, your attempt to explain the blazing contradiction seemed like a lot of empty rhetorical nonsense (no offense of course). I was really hoping for a rational well-reasoned explanation, but you do yourself injustice by resorting to faulty syllogisms and canned doctrine-speak.

Essentially, you believe that a person that is perfect in every way (loving, caring, honest, selfless, charitable, etc.) can still go to hell simply because he or she doesn't believe in or "accept" some semi-fictional character that may not have even existed. That sounds much like the antithesis of tolerant and loving.
A person that is perfect in every way does not exist, except in Jesus (at least, in my belief). According to the standard set up in the Bible everyone has done something wrong. In doing so, they become imperfect. To use an analogy that doesn't come close to explaining it completely, a thief is a thief, whether they steal a pack of gum or a Porsche.

Everyone's imperfect. I think we can agree on that. Because imperfection cannot exist near a perfect God, I believe that all would go to Hell were we to rely upon ourselves. That is precisely why I believe that Jesus is loving and tolerant. He gave Himself to everyone, no exceptions, that we could become perfect. All that anyone needs to do is to accept what He did.

And thank you for saying that my sincerely held beliefs are merely "faulty syllogisms and canned doctrine-speak" and saying that Jesus was semi-fictional while I've been careful to say that what I've written is my belief. You remind me why I don't share them often.

Gretchen

[ElanthianSiren]

This is why I'm fond of the Hindu mantra that All Gods are one God. Honestly, I appreciate Gretchen's live and let live attitude about her religion. She can believe anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell as easily as I can believe that anyone who strives justly to improve their life and the lives of those around them will place in a higher spiritual place.

Her belief is not harming me. My belief is not harming her, as neither one of us is an absolute authority on what happens after this life.

-M

[Goldenranger]

Originally posted by Nilandia:


He gave Himself to everyone, no exceptions, that we could become perfect. All that anyone needs to do is to accept what He did.


No disrespect meant, I am quite ignorant of the New Testament, the Old Testament was enough to turn me off to Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion, but if He did give Himself to everyone, then why do we have to accept Him? He gave Himself to us, why do I have some other end of the bargain to accept? His life was already given, seems like a done deal.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Her belief is not harming me. My belief is not harming her, as neither one of us is an absolute authority on what happens after this life.

That's what I hope to show. The best teacher of the truth is to allow it to show through your life, rather than what you say. There's an old saying I hear quoted often, and I truly believe it applies, that being, "Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words." I believe it was St. Francis of Assisi, but I'm not sure.

Gretchen

[Farquar]

Perhaps "perfect" was the wrong term to use. Man can, of course, never be perfect, at least in the Biblical sense. Then they wouldn't be brought into the system, and the evangelists couldn't afford to pay for private jets and huge refracting glass megachurches. But I digress.

I'll say goodness then. Let me rephrase:

"Essentially, you believe that a person that is good in every way (loving, caring, honest, selfless, charitable, etc.) can still go to hell simply because he or she doesn't believe in or "accept" some semi-fictional character that may not have even existed. That sounds much like the antithesis of tolerant and loving."

I'm not proposing that any such human exists, though I'm just using an extreme case (a near-perfect, good human being who doesn't happen to believe in Jesus) to show the unreasonableness of your position.

[Satira]

PS Jews don't believe in hell.

[SpunGirl]

I think Nilandia deserves a little bit of credit here. Who knew she was this avidly religious before this topic? Not me, and we've spent time chatting in IMs, too. I'm a firm believer that people can follow whatever the hell (no pun intended) path they want as long as they don't try to beat me over the head with it. She hasn't done that, so she doesn't fit the stereotype the original post in this thread was talking about.

-K

[Farquar]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Her belief is not harming me. My belief is not harming her, as neither one of us is an absolute authority on what happens after this life.

-M

I tend to take offense (or debate) when someone tells me I'm going to burn with fire and brimstone for all eternity. Frankly, it's bad karma. Odin is not pleased.

[Satira]

Her thoughts aren't actually harming you.

If you really can't sleep at night over it, let me know. I'll make a voodoo doll of you and we'll see what happens.

[ElanthianSiren]

Why though? Why does it bother you so much that someone, ascribing to a religion that you do not follow, thinks that you will burn in some place that you personally think is ficticious?

-M

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Goldenranger
Originally posted by Nilandia:


He gave Himself to everyone, no exceptions, that we could become perfect. All that anyone needs to do is to accept what He did.


No disrespect meant, I am quite ignorant of the New Testament, the Old Testament was enough to turn me off to Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion, but if He did give Himself to everyone, then why do we have to accept Him? He gave Himself to us, why do I have some other end of the bargain to accept? His life was already given, seems like a done deal.
The Old Testament is some heavy reading, no doubt about it. Some stories in there are downright scary. I mean, God zaps a guy just because he puts his hand up to make sure the Ark of the Covanent doesn't fall over and God said to keep your hands off. Remind me not to make God mad, alright?

Anyway, I'll see if I can explain it. Mind you, I'm not some great theologian, nor a great writer, and this is just coming from me, so it's in no way official or anything.

I suppose that it best could be put in the light of why God would accept everyone. I mean, there are people who flat out reject that God exists. Should they get to Heaven as well? Should we drag people along to the point where their fingernails make ruts in the ground?

Part of why I believe in having to accept Jesus is my belief in free will. Sounds kinda strange, coming from a Calvinist (since Calvinism often associates itself with the belief that the "saved" are chosen by God in what's called predestination), but I believe that God wants servants that freely give their souls and their love to Him, as opposed to automatons who are forced to praise Him.

I believe God also is a God who is concerned with our best interests and our own improvement. For instance, there are MANY passages in the Bible that deal with God putting His people through trials in order to make them stronger and rely more upon Him. Tying that into my belief in free will, I see God as someone who will help you along and provide assistance, but is not going to do things for you.

Thus, He doesn't lay things out and make life just peachy. There is a popular belief among Christian circles that as soon as someone becomes a Christian, life becomes just perfect. Nothing painful comes along, everything is just grand. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't tell you how many times my faith has been tested, but I'm glad I've been able to get through them all.

Anyway, that's a long ramble for you. I guess you could say the short answer is: not everyone wants to accept God, and God wants us to be unique individuals rather than robots.

Gretchen

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Satira
If you really can't sleep at night over it, let me know. I'll make a voodoo doll of you and we'll see what happens.

Can you find a doll sexy enough? I doubt it.

[Naina]

. . . not to mention, not all Christians believe in the trinity. There are unitarian Christian religions as well. ;-)

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Naina]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Why though? Why does it bother you so much that someone, ascribing to a religion that you do not follow, thinks that you will burn in some place that you personally think is ficticious?

-M

It's insulting to me. Even though I may not personally believe in it, I know the fairy tales well. I've been bombarded with them for much of my life. Cmon people, you may say you don't believe in the Boogeyman, but I bet you're ducking under those covers when you hear a strange noise in your closet...

[Satira]

I'll be sure to put a large pair of boobs on your doll. :saint:

[SpunGirl]

The only way it would bother me is if every time I IM'd her to show her a bodice design she was like, "OKAY BUT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HELL RIGHT AHAHAHAHAHRBRUAHAHAHAHAH"

-K

[Farquar]

She might not be saying it, but some part of her mind is thinking it. About you.

[Satira]

What about people like me though? If Jesus is up there doing his thing or God or Buddha...I'm down with it. I'm just like HEY I have no real way of knowing here. There's too many options, so how could I tell what is right? If I die should I go to hell because I have no REAL ANSWERS? I don't think so.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Farquar
She might not be saying it, but some part of her mind is thinking it. About you.

I doubt that.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Satira
If I die should I go to hell because I have no REAL ANSWERS? I don't think so.

I personally don't believe so, and from what I've been taught from different people, not everyone in the Catholic church has the same opinion.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Farquar
Perhaps "perfect" was the wrong term to use. Man can, of course, never be perfect, at least in the Biblical sense. Then they wouldn't be brought into the system, and the evangelists couldn't afford to pay for private jets and huge refracting glass megachurches. But I digress.

I'll say goodness then. Let me rephrase:

"Essentially, you believe that a person that is good in every way (loving, caring, honest, selfless, charitable, etc.) can still go to hell simply because he or she doesn't believe in or "accept" some semi-fictional character that may not have even existed. That sounds much like the antithesis of tolerant and loving."

I'm not proposing that any such human exists, though I'm just using an extreme case (a near-perfect, good human being who doesn't happen to believe in Jesus) to show the unreasonableness of your position.
I have said before that I've given up on debates, as I've stated before. If your aim is to make me contradict myself or to give ground on my position, then I will respectfully bow out.

If you are genuinely curious, I'll see if I can be a bit clearer. Let me see if an analogy works. For purposes of the analogy, I'll define "sin" as falling short of the Bible's standard of perfection, either in word, deed, or as the New Testament stresses, thought.

Now then. I'll use an image I heard once, since I can't come up with anything better at the moment. Suppose you have a gallon of absolutely pure water, and you're thirsty. Water looks pretty good to drink. However, suppose someone puts one drop of some absolutely vile substance into it, and you see them do it. Still feel like drinking it? I'd wager most people wouldn't.

Same way with sin. It's small, but it's enough to pollute the whole. And everybody's got it. To a God who abhores sin and cannot abide imperfection, it's gotta go.

I think the rest of the argument has already been covered.

Gretchen

[Farquar]

I agree with that. Here's my religion in a nutshell-some ideas are well known, and I've incorporated them here:

1. As you said, there's just no way of knowing who is who.
2. Be kind and giving to your fellow man.
3. Never lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate any who do.
4. Live life to the fullest, love hard, play hard, and regret nothing.
5. Always be prepared.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
The only way it would bother me is if every time I IM'd her to show her a bodice design she was like, "OKAY BUT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HELL RIGHT AHAHAHAHAHRBRUAHAHAHAHAH"

-K
OMG U have new design?! Must SEEEEEEEE! :lol:

Gretchen

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Farquar
She might not be saying it, but some part of her mind is thinking it. About you.

I doubt that.

Well, if her personal beliefs guide her actions and her life, then yes, on some level, on some part of her brain that she may or may not know about, she's thinking it.

[HarmNone]

I'm not particularly concerned about the Christian Hell. As a Pagan, Christianity rejects my beliefs just as I reject theirs. I must then assume that their Hell will reject me, as well. ;)

[Hips]

Silly fundies!

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Satira
What about people like me though? If Jesus is up there doing his thing or God or Buddha...I'm down with it. I'm just like HEY I have no real way of knowing here. There's too many options, so how could I tell what is right? If I die should I go to hell because I have no REAL ANSWERS? I don't think so.
For a lot of people, there never will be real answers, Satira. The atheist I used to debate refused to believe in God for that very reason, along with a few others. And I'll agree, believing is hard without any proof that God exists. It's something I choose to do, but for others, it's a step they just can't take.

I believe that the existence of God will never be proven or disproven. Should God be proven, then there would be no reason for faith to exist. Of course, you know why I believe God won't be disproven. ;)

Gretchen

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Farquar
Well, if her personal beliefs guide her actions and her life, then yes, on some level, on some part of her brain that she may or may not know about, she's thinking it.
My beliefs do guide my actions and my life, yes. But for the vast majority of my time (I'd say around 99%), it never enters my mind. I prefer to enjoy my time with my friends and family rather than stress over, "OMG he's not a Christian! He's going to BURN!"

Way too depressing.

If it does come up in my thoughts, though, it's always a sense of, "Dang, I hope they do see the truth before they die. I don't want them to suffer." I'm 99.9% certain I've never thought to myself, "YES! He's not a Christian so he's going to Hell! I can't wait to see his face!" If I did, I'd be extremely ashamed of myself.

Gretchen

[Satira]

Originally posted by Nilandia
To a God who abhores sin and cannot abide imperfection, it's gotta go.

I don't like the idea that God is Martha Stewart.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Nilandia
I believe that the existence of God will never be proven or disproven. Should God be proven, then there would be no reason for faith to exist. Of course, you know why I believe God won't be disproven. ;)

Gretchen

Just out of curiosity, let's say that an alien ship landed on the mall in D.C. The aliens disembark and go on to explain how the entire human race was a lab experiment. They then reconstitute a man from a petri dish, and proceed to bring a corpse back to life using their hyper advanced technology. Would you still believe in god and jesus then?

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Satira
I don't like the idea that God is Martha Stewart.

:lol2:

Alright, there's an image I didn't need. Thank you.

Gretchen

[Editted to add the quote so it makes sense]

[Edited on 12/8/2005 by Nilandia]

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Nilandia
I believe that the existence of God will never be proven or disproven. Should God be proven, then there would be no reason for faith to exist. Of course, you know why I believe God won't be disproven. ;)

Gretchen

Just out of curiosity, let's say that an alien ship landed on the mall in D.C. The aliens disembark and go on to explain how the entire human race was a lab experiment. They then reconstitute a man from a petri dish, and proceed to bring a corpse back to life using their hyper advanced technology. Would you still believe in god and jesus then?
Good grief, which sci-fi book did you get that from? :D

No, really. I highly, highly doubt that anything like that will happen, so I'm unconcerned by it. Should something like that actually take place, I'll evaluate the situation.

What you're describing is definitely something that could disrupt the vast majority of religions to the point of not making sense anymore, but until then, I like where I am, thank you.

Gretchen

[Hulkein]

Also, just wanted to add, more recent Catholic teaching about hell is less BURN IN FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, PAIN and more it sucks because of the separation from God for eternity.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Also, just wanted to add, more recent Catholic teaching about hell is less BURN IN FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, PAIN and more it sucks because of the separation from God for eternity.
Yeah. I partly believe that myself. I'm not entirely sure if that's the whole of the punishment, however.

Gretchen

[Farquar]

I wasn't addressing the probability of the event, since in my hypothetical, I said it already happened. But, your willingness to "evaluate the situation" if something like that DOES happen shows you're reasonable. Kudos.

[SpunGirl]

I'm almost finished reading the Left Behind series, Gretchen (I know, weird for someone who thinks it's BS but it's a fun story).

How much of that kind of thing do you believe will happen?

Also, Farquar, I doubt she is thinking it. Maybe now since it's a topic of discussion, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that my Christian friends are constantly concerning themselves with my salvation when they're mostly aware that I don't feel I need it :lol:

I'm sure they have other things going on in their lives.

-K

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by SpunGirl]

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
I'm almost finished reading the Left Behind series, Gretchen (I know, weird for someone who thinks it's BS but it's a fun story).

How much of that kind of thing do you believe will happen?

Bah! Now you're guilting me into finishing reading the series! Feh (tm). Wicked woman. :bleh:

You know, on the topic of the end times, I honestly don't know. There are so many different interpretations, and they all seem feasible. Huge difference between knowing what Revelation (and Daniel) says, and what it MEANS.

But I'll agree with you. The series is a derned good story. I've finished it through Soul Harvest.

Gretchen

[Drew]

Originally posted by Marluxian
2 - You define 0.01s a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99 AILURE was simply the will of God.



#2 sign that you're a atheist believer in evolution: You blindly accept that life came into being from non-life, something with a 99.999999999999999999999999999 (add millions of more 9s here) of not happening yet arrogantly mock those who believe differently than you.

[SpunGirl]

It's very well-written. The lack of sex scenes is sad, but of course that was to be expected.

-K

[Satira]

Lack of sex scenes ALWAYS makes me sad.

[Divinity]

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

I thought the Christian Bible said that men were made from dirt and women were pulled from a rib from Adam and formed into their own being.

So does that make all men hobos? =P

I have conflicted beliefs in what I grew up in, which was Non-Denominational Christianhood. Thing is, I've been tooled so much in my life that I have no idea if something like my past could be anything from a loving God.

I do believe in God though. I just don't know to what extent.

My biggest conflict is about the Bible. Like it was said before, there have been so many doctrines lost that I'm sure that Man is not getting all the facts. Not to mention that translations were probably screwed up and lots of opinion about what happened back then is skewed.

The Bible just seems like another history book. No one gives the facts about history. It's all one perspective about something that happened because people can not be completely objective.

Makes you feel kinda lost in the end.

[FinisWolf]

BTW

ALL people are "perfect" ... ly themselves. :grin:

Finis

[deck]

The only truth, is knowing that we know nothing.

Religion is an attempt to explain why we're here, and the most pompus argument is that "god created us in our his/her image"
and or, "god put us above other things"

with that in mind:
all things in nature serve a purpose, the only discernable traits that humans provide is that we use up resources, and tailor other (foreign) environemnts for our own use with little/no regard for other species and are doomed in that much like bacteria we are decaying this world until it can't even support us.

The funny thing is, as aware of it as we are/can be. We still can't do anything to change it. That is the nature of humor.

[Tisket]

Jesus, three pages on a christian topic and NOT ONE post by Latrinsorm. My world view is deeply shaken.

[Satira]

He's in England so he's been asleep this whole time.

[Tisket]

Oh god, splinter quote hell to look forward to.

[Warriorbird]

I was always amused by my friend telling the story about the man who tried to save her from hell while sitting on an airplane back from Europe. She pointed out that her gods were 1500 years older than his god (She's a Hindu), at the least, so she had trouble believing that his god was going to send her to this new hell idea. He apparently shut up after that.

[Czeska]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I'm not particularly concerned about the Christian Hell. As a Pagan, Christianity rejects my beliefs just as I reject theirs. I must then assume that their Hell will reject me, as well. ;)

:hug2:

Reminds me of the time in college when some wandering, flailing evangelist told me I was going to hell for not believing what he preached. My response was, "If I don't believe in your god, what makes you think I believe in your hell?" He stopped talking.

This week my 5 1/2 year old has been asking me about Jesus. Hard not to hear about it this time of year.

I told her Jesus was a man who lived thousands of years ago ("Whoa mommmy!" ) and taught people many good lessons about how to be kind to each other, not judge, help those who need it, etc.

Then I reminded her some people believe differently than we do about other ideas, like what happens when we die, and what happens if you choose to do bad or mean things.

I said, "Here is what mommy believes (insert simple definition of reincarnation and Karma that we've discussed her whole life)..

I said you can think about it your whole life, and decide for yourself, but we never tell anyone else their ideas are wrong, nor do we let them make us feel bad for ours.

She's so cool.



(Edited to add a very important "not" )




[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Czeska]

[Bastard]

>>My biggest conflict is about the Bible. Like it was said before, there have been so many doctrines lost that I'm sure that Man is not getting all the facts. Not to mention that translations were probably screwed up and lots of opinion about what happened back then is skewed.

The Bible just seems like another history book. No one gives the facts about history. It's all one perspective about something that happened because people can not be completely objective.

Makes you feel kinda lost in the end.<<

This is something that a friend of mine said recently in a debate about evolution and the big bang theory. I thought he phrased it well.

"The modern version of the Bible, ala King James, has been translated to English, from Latin, from Greek, after many additions on the original version, in Hebrew, throughout multiple periods of religious persecution, social disorder, and imperial power struggles upon which control of the mass populace was an absolute requirement to maintain power.

If you're going to base any argument on anything presented in the Bible, you have zero choice but to concede some basic points about The Good Book:
It was written by man.
Man fears and rejects what he does not understand.
Man can be wrong.
Man lies."

[Landrion]

That was damn awesome. I wish I could print it and hang it up on my office wall. But well, that would probably net me more trouble than its worth.

Looks like it hit a little close to home on some people. Amusing.

[Caiylania]

I was raised Catholic, became more protestant type, and now really just do not believe anymore.

To many issues in a God that has asked, and expects what he does.

If God came to me and said, Kill your child to prove you Love me, I would have said," What kind of person would I be to kill a child? Even for you? Murder is a sin period!! and what kind of god are you to ask such a thing? I love no god who would have me kill an innocent child." THAT should have been the test. To make sure that a father would not kill his innocent child and would stand up and do the right thing. Isn't that something the Bible touts? Standing up for what is right? Killing a child is wrong.

Imagine what Christians would say if a muslim killed his child because Allah told him to. OMG EVILNESS.

That we must be perfect to be before God? THat is HIS choice then eh? He created imperfect beings and then punishes us for being what we are? That is like punishing a lion for hunting antelope. That is how God made the lion isn't it?

For a god to not love us because of mistakes/sins we commit through our lives? Does that make me better than God in that I forgive those who do make mistakes and still love them? We shouldn't have needed Jesus to die 'for us'. If we are God's children, he should love us all, and want us all with him. Those that do truly evil things should be punished, and those that try to be good should be rewarded.

By reading the Bible and all it says, I do not feel we need to strive to be as good as God. I think he needs to strive to be as good as some of the wonderful people I have met and been lucky to know. Are human's perfect? No. Neither is the God of the Bible.

Because He/She/It is one of the most judgemental, unforgiving (he only forgives sins IF you worship him), and hypocritical beings I have read about. And I really do not understand worshipping a deity that acts that way.

[Satira]

I don't either. Isn't it based on loving, kindness, and forgiveness? Then God doesn't forgive everyone for their faults? I can't imagine it would work that way, and if that was the way it worked I wouldn't be a part of it unless there was a REALLY GOOD explanation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Goldenranger
but if He did give Himself to everyone, then why do we have to accept Him?You've never turned down a gift? Not even those ad things they try to sign you up for when you register for excite or whatever?

As for the aliens thing, I don't trust any interstellar traveller that's walking around with a pitri dish. If it was some kind of hyper-pitri dish, or maybe a nano-pitri dish, definitely a LASER pitri dish, but just a plain old pitri dish? Come on man.

As for the Bible being translated too much for the message to be trustworthy:
Jesus has a central, pervasive message (so long as you don't happen to be a fig tree): love. It is beyond reasonable to suggest that the translations of the Bible were so slipshod that this is the result of an obscuration or mistranslation. In particular, Bastard, I take issue with the first two concessions I allegedly have zero choice over.
Originally posted by deck
all things in nature serve a purposeThe only purpose of a being in nature is to survive and produce offspring. We do pretty well in the first department, though I'll admit we're probably below average in the second.
The only truth, is knowing that we know nothing.This is a contradictory statement. If one doesn't know anything, there is no X for which the statement "one knows X" can be true. Therefore, the statement "one knows that he or she knows nothing" cannot ever be true.
We still can't do anything to change it.Technology begs to differ.

I wish fundamentalist wasn't such a dirty word. :(



Everyone besides Tisket can stop reading here.


Originally posted by Tisket
Oh godThat's spelt "God".
splinterIs an awesome ninja, but he's definitely not God. Stay on topic!!
hellI imagine it as very much like England.
to look forward to.We have so much to! Salvation! Eternal peace! Yay!

Don't want to disappoint. :)

[StrayRogue]

Excellent post. People who force their religion down folks throats (ie Fundamentalist Christians) deserve to die.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Naina
. . . not to mention, not all Christians believe in the trinity. There are unitarian Christian religions as well. ;-)

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Naina]

I am not sure other denominations would consider Unitarians, Christians. Unitarians make up only a very small percentage of total Christians.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by xtc]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Nilandia
See above on my opinion of science. And don't get me started on the popular stereotype of fundamentalists believing in Bishop Ussher's "dating" of creation to 6000 BC. Complete hogwash, to use the technical term.

So many fundamentalist don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old? Certainly that contradicts my personal experiences.


Do I believe that those who don't accept Jesus to be going to Hell? Yes. Do I consider my beliefs to be tolerant and loving? Yes.

...and here is my problem with fundamentlists, if you don't believe what I believe you are going to hell. Narrow minded, dogmatic, and arrogant.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Excellent post.Thanks! :)
People who force their religion down folks throats (ie Fundamentalist Christians) deserve to die. i.e. means "by which I mean" or "that is", so I think you meant "e.g.". :)
Originally posted by xtc
Narrow minded, dogmatic, and arrogant.So, just so I can be clear, are you talking about fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist atheists here?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by xtc
Narrow minded, dogmatic, and arrogant.So, just so I can be clear, are you talking about fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist atheists here?

I have yet to meet an atheist who tells me I am going to hell if I believe in god.

If you remember my posts in the ID/Evolution thread you would know my scorn for fundamentalists is equally apllied.

[Back]

Fundamentalist atheist is an oxymoron.

[SpunGirl]

Caiylania's post reminded me of a line from The Devil's Advocate that make me laugh hysterically. In the end scene, Al Pacino (Devil) claims that "God gave man instincts... and then sets the rules in opposition."

This makes a ton of sense to me with regards to the "holy" view of sex before, after, during marriage. Latrinsorm, you state that our purpose in nature is to survive (check) and reproduce. So if that's our real purpose, then why all these silly Christian rules about who we should and shouldn't be reproducing with?

-K

[Farquar]

Religion is humanity's most prevalent marketing campaign.

Think about it: the goal of any marketing campaign is to create a want or need for a product or service in another person.

How do execs accomplish this? They tell stories, give some song and dance, or stir emotions in others in order to create the desire for their particular item. To sell beer, they'll tell a story about some young guys drinking their beer and being on a beach with beautiful women. If they're selling home security, they'll stir emotions up by showing some guy breaking into a house while a family is asleep.

Religion works in the same way: they tell some stories of some people being damned, as well as others being saved. Some guy came up with a set of rules that are almost impossible to follow, thus creating a system where EVERY person is SET UP to fail. That way, everyone has a want and need for what the controllers are selliing.

What are they selling? Salvation.

[Vixen]

[quote]Originally posted by Divinity
[quote]

I thought the Christian Bible said that men were made from dirt and women were pulled from a rib from Adam and formed into their own being.

Actually, this reminds me of my wedding vows, which were insanely religious even though my husband and I are not.

The preacher person said to my husband, she came from your body, to be a part of you, from out of your side to walk next to you, and from underneath your arm to always be protected by you.

Which I thought was a beautiful sentiment.

And even though I still hold to many of my beliefs, and I love you Spun. No I dont spend my nights worrying about ya in that respect :)

I suck at quoting things by the way, only the first part was Divinity.. oy.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Vixen]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
So if that's our real purposeHuman beings do not exist in nature in the sense of my previous post. That's why when the lizard part of our brains says "destroy, kill" we can say "no", and that's why when the instinctive brain says "mate, reproduce" we can say "with that skank??".

What makes us people is that we don't have to follow our programming. It is unnatural in the sense that it is an aberration in nature (in the evolutionary sense), but it is natural in the sense that it is what makes us us (IMO).

This doesn't mean that any particular set of religious rules regarding sex are either necessary or correct. This does mean that the facts of nature do not constitute a rebuttal of the aforementioned sets.

edit:
What are they selling?A better question is what are their wages?

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Farquar]

http://www.sonny.vu/photos/north_america/utah/mar_01_utah_88.jpg
http://www.stat.ohio-state.edu/~brian/hobbies/travel/pics/vatican.jpg
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/07-09-2005.NR_090lakewood1.GQ41KSA2S.1.jpg

I'm sure they're getting by.

[SpunGirl]

OMG :heart: Mormon Temple YAY.

The Mormons don't do crucifixes, btw.

-K

[Jorddyn]

Lovely pictures, but is there any chance you could make them not screw up my entire screen?

Thanks.

Jorddyn, not a fundamentalist

[radamanthys]

The problem with "fundamentalists" in America is not what they believe. It's the fact that they attempt to coerce others to believing the same. Many will say "I want you to be as happy as I am". That's valid. "You'll suffer eternal damnation if you do not! Repent! Repent!" That's fucked up, but still valid- as long as it's not within a position of authority. Religious harassment can be worse than sexual harassment, or political harassment. I don't want to have to worry that my beliefs will cost me anything. It's a freedom thing.

I'm not atheist, i'm not christian, I'm not really anything. I'm just me, and I have my own notions of how things are tied together.

My point?
Keep the hell outta my government. Pun intended.
Just because christinans have rules that they live by, doesnt mean that they have to be mine, you know? Personal choices are fine, i'll respect them if they do mine. However, the ones forcing that doctrine into law seem to violate the constitution a wee bit, eh? It's not freedom from religion, true. But if my religion doesn't harm others, then I should be free to do what I want, within the scope of MY beliefs. It's all about freedom of choice. Seems the fundamentalists want everyone to be under the doctrine of biblical law. The clear definition of "good" and "evil" that exists within the pages there- it's not my definition.


Oh, and we definately do follow the "lizard" mentality. It's survival of the fittest. In nature, female animals choose to mate with the prettiest, strongest and most adept male. Here, women want a cute doctor/lawyer. It's inbred that a woman will look for whoever she thinks will be able to raise her kids best. Animals with a choice of mates almost all do that. Animals like fish, which do not necessarily mate, just are attempting to keep the life cycle going. We do follow our programming, on a large scale. Religion is part of that. We have a pretty high uncertainty avoidance as a race, and religion, imho, fills the big uncertainty for people. Death.

I'm just not really all that afraid of getting hosed... I mean... it'll happen to all of us, so who cares if consciousness continues or not? I mean, I'd get bored if I lived forever. And a bored me is just trouble!

[SpunGirl]

Agreed, Radamanthys. Our instincts crop up in different ways than those of an animal, but they're definitely still present. We're just a little more cunning, is all, and sometimes we overanalyze things we do because of simple biology.

Why do you think there's such a thing as a "crime of passion?" We might be above animals in a fashion, but we still ARE animals.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by radamanthys
Just because christinans have rules that they live by, doesnt mean that they have to be mine, you know?The problem with this approach (and all "religion is fine unless they shove it down my throat" approaches) is that it is a subjective moral view. Which works great if one subscribes to a subjective moral view, but not so much if one subscribes to an objective moral view. The puzzling thing is you realize that "The clear definition of "good" and "evil" that exists within the pages there- it's not my definition." and yet you make the statement.
In nature, female animals choose to mate with the prettiest, strongest and most adept male.Someone should let the chimpanzees know this.
It's survival of the fittest.The existence of Viagra suggests a different hypothesis.
It's inbred that a woman will look for whoever she thinks will be able to raise her kids best.How exactly do the women who don't want children fit into this scheme?
We do follow our programming, on a large scale.Whether or not this is true, it is still the case that we are *capable* of disobeying it.
I'd get bored if I lived forever.All the more time to practice your Jeet Kune Do. :)
Originally posted by SpunGirl
Why do you think there's such a thing as a "crime of passion?"Again, my contention was that we CAN ignore our programming, not that we ALWAYS do so.

To Farquar:
Apparently I should have been more specific, or you should have been more careful with your pronouns. "Some guy came up with a set of rules that are almost impossible to follow, thus creating a system where EVERY person is SET UP to fail." These guys (Jesus, Mohammed, etc.). What were THEIR wages?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Caiylania's post reminded me of a line from The Devil's Advocate that make me laugh hysterically. In the end scene, Al Pacino (Devil) claims that "God gave man instincts... and then sets the rules in opposition."

This makes a ton of sense to me with regards to the "holy" view of sex before, after, during marriage. -K

We all have a lot of instincts besides having sex that are considered wrong by society as much as they would by religion.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Hulkein]

[SpunGirl]

Sure, Hulkein. I was just discussing the first applicable reference that came to mind.

-K

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Lovely pictures, but is there any chance you could make them not screw up my entire screen?

Thanks.

Jorddyn, not a fundamentalist

I just hotlinked them in my post, sorry. Not sure how to do it the other way.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
These guys (Jesus, Mohammed, etc.). What were THEIR wages?

Ah, the venture capitalists. Living on in the hearts and minds of billions of people on Earth hundreds (or thousands) of years after their deaths seems to have been an obvious motivator.

[Hulkein]

So you're saying Jesus did what he did, knowing there wasn't any afterlife, just so people would talk about him after he was dead?

Highly unlikely.

[SpunGirl]

I'm extremely certain that many enlightened folk throughout history believed what they were saying 100%. We also don't know that they weren't completely batshit insane.

-K

[radamanthys]

>>The problem with this approach (and all "religion is fine unless they shove it down my throat" approaches) is that it is a subjective moral view. Which works great if one subscribes to a subjective moral view, but not so much if one subscribes to an objective moral view. The puzzling thing is you realize that "The clear definition of "good" and "evil" that exists within the pages there- it's not my definition." and yet you make the statement.<<

My point is that there's no such thing as an "objective moral view". Morals only exist within the society that creates them.

>>Someone should let the chimpanzees know this.<<

Chimps fight over who gets to lay the hottie.

>>The existence of Viagra suggests a different hypothesis.<<
That old people can't get it up? We mate for life. Some people use it recreationally, true, but not as many as there are married men using it.

>>How exactly do the women who don't want children fit into this scheme?<<
They still want the best of the flock for them. That comes down to instinct.


>>Whether or not this is true, it is still the case that we are *capable* of disobeying it.<<

Of course we are. I'd rather not. I don't get the burning urge to kill. I get the burning desire to eat, though. And I like good wine. I wanna make good money so I can get better wine!


>>All the more time to practice your Jeet Kune Do.<<
Kendo, ftw.

>>Again, my contention was that we CAN ignore our programming, not that we ALWAYS do so. <<

Yep. But we don't have to! My contention is that religion falls under that programming. We're designed as being afraid and hesitant of death. Most are. Many aren't. It's a choice, really. Religion is a choice we make, not to be forced on us. Any time religion is forced, it makes war.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein
So you're saying Jesus did what he did, knowing there wasn't any afterlife, just so people would talk about him after he was dead?

Highly unlikely.

That's a glib interpretation of the payoff. Jesus is a freakin rock star. People would do anything to have his kind of name recognition. I'm sure you can recognize the distinction between being a cool, popular guy and being regarded as the savior of mankind.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
I'm extremely certain that many enlightened folk throughout history believed what they were saying 100%. We also don't know that they weren't completely batshit insane.

-K

Oh, so he's insane. Haha, alrighty.

[SpunGirl]

I didn't say he was insane, I said we have no way of knowing if he was or not. Or any other religious icon in way-deep history, for that matter. Were I going to dedicate my life to following what this one dude said this one time, I'd want to know more about this dude. "Son of God according to him" doesn't really cut it. What if he was delusional when he said that? Or drunk? Can you prove that he was the Son of God? No? K, then I'll be looking elsewhere for something to be fanatical about, thx.

-K



[Edited on 12-8-2005 by SpunGirl]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Hulkein
So you're saying Jesus did what he did, knowing there wasn't any afterlife, just so people would talk about him after he was dead?

Highly unlikely.

That's a glib interpretation of the payoff. Jesus is a freakin rock star. People would do anything to have his kind of name recognition. I'm sure you can recognize the distinction between being a cool, popular guy and being regarded as the savior of mankind.

Assuming for a moment that he wasn't a diety and as such prescient. From his point of view he was an outcast, hated and despised by leading religious leaders of the day. He knew they viewed him as a sorcerer, a tool of the devil. Hardly rock star stuff.

[Sean of the Thread]

Creationism is tough to agree with for me. I guess it all comes down to faith really but I truly dislike Christians myopic view.

[Farquar]

I'm talking about today. Guy is more ubiquitous than Coca Cola. Even if he isn't a God, he was pretty damn smart and a savvy salesman. I'm sure his foresight was as equally developed.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by radamanthys
My point is that there's no such thing as an "objective moral view". Morals only exist within the society that creates them.Within the context of your (subjective) moral view, this has to be the case. However, it is contradictory at best to say that nobody should be able to force their views on you when by saying so you are forcing your views on them.
That old people can't get it up?That those who are unfit (in the eyes of evolution) not only survive, but have millions (if not billions) of dollars spent on allowing them to further propogate their inferior (again, in the eyes of evolution) genes. Infertility is no longer always a life sentence (which is something we should all be thankful for).
They still want the best of the flock for them.I have little doubt that most sane people want the best person for them. That this person isn't necessarily the person best suited to the goals of evolution (e.g. children, protection) was my point.
We're designed as being afraid and hesitant of death.Designed by whom?
My contention is that religion falls under that programming.In what sense? I'm referring to programming in the sense of genetics and biology.
I'd rather not.I take it you defecate in public then. :)

[Latrinsorm]

That post took way longer than I thought it would. :/
Originally posted by SpunGirl
Can you prove that he was the Son of God? I can't even prove that you exist, how in the world could I prove that both Jesus existed and he was the Son of God?
Originally posted by Farquar
he was pretty damn smart and a savvy salesman.So, if I can get your theory straight, Jesus went through the betrayal of everyone who'd ever followed him and one of the most painful deaths of all time...

...for name recognition...

...on merchandise he'd never see a penny from.

:?:

[SpunGirl]

Hey, at least I'm here to say, "Hi I exist!"

After I'm gone people may not be able to prove it, but they also won't be asking others to follow a bunch of rules in my name, either.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Hey, at least I'm here to say, "Hi I exist!"And I'm just as confident that Jesus is here saying "Hi I exist and I love you guys!"

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
So, if I can get your theory straight, Jesus went through the betrayal of everyone who'd ever followed him and one of the most painful deaths of all time...

...for name recognition...

...on merchandise he'd never see a penny from.

:?:

There you go with the oversimplifications. People aren't JUST talking about him, and people aren't JUST recognizing his name. At the very least, he's worshipped by millions as an immortal god. People have done worse things for less glory.

Maybe he thought he had a good thing going and he got caught. You don't know how his capture went down. His best friends wrote the account of the entire event, and they likely portrayed him in the best light possible. Maybe he went kicking and screaming, no one really knows.

I can't get into the guy's head. I'm just exploring different possibilities. I bet he'd roll in his grave if someone like me started speaking for him.

[Marl]

For some reason I read the list and thought....hrm I bet the folks on PC would be interested. The fact that I heard on the radio yesterday morning that all the "Mega Churches" will NOT have service on Christmas morning to let their congregations worship at home kind of gave me another reason to post. That is a time I would want to be in church and celebrate my beliefs not the other way around. My guess is Rev. Moneybags had an early flight to the Bahamas on his private jet or something to that nature. My own personal beliefs are I believe in what I see, and what has been proven by FACT. The bible in my eyes is just a well written book that has been "edited" and change throughout the years as peoples beliefs and way of life has changed. In essence it is still has the same "be good and pray to me or burn in hell" belief as it did when started. But has DRASTICALLY changed from its true form. I was born and raised in a largely Christian atmosphere but, over the years the hypocrisy of most religions had lead me to my belief of, If you can't prove it what is their to believe. 2000 years from now are people going to be worshipping Roland from Stephen King's Dark tower series? It is just a well written book as well. Fiction. Fantasy. Untrue. But, I usually keep my beliefs to myself and don't force them on anyone. Something other money/power hungry religions should do. Long story short, saw the list, got a chuckle and thought I would share. Did not mean to offend anyone as it is all in jest with a hint of truth.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
People have done worse things for less glory. Name one. Self-inflicted, remember.
Maybe he thought he had a good thing going and he got caught.If we're assuming Jesus has enough brain cells to figure out the idea of "death = glory", I think we can safely assume he can figure out "screw with the authorities at great length = death". John the Baptist?

Hey, maybe Jesus was a badger! Then none of the NT would make sense! Man those Christians sure are dumb to believe in a talking badger. Just exploring those different possibilities!

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Hey, at least I'm here to say, "Hi I exist!"And I'm just as confident that Jesus is here saying "Hi I exist and I love you guys!"

Please ask him to come post.

-K

[Farquar]

Naw man the list was the shit. And it spurred a hundred posts of debate. I can't imagine a finer outcome for a thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Marluxian
My own personal beliefs are I believe in what I see, and what has been proven by FACT.You realize nothing can be proven as incontrovertible fact, right?
Originally posted by SpunGirl
Please ask him to come post. Whenever I start asking him for something he gets the puppy dog eyes going and says "man my side really hurts today" and then I just give up. It's like White Christmas, only with a lot more bleeding.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[SpunGirl]

So wait, I can post on the boards and Jesus can't?

I R MORE POWERFUL THAN TEH JEZUS. WORSHIP ME KTHX.

-K

PS Why is he in pain? Isn't heaven supposed to be perfect and free of pain?



[Edited on 12-8-2005 by SpunGirl]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Name one. Self-inflicted, remember.

What about the guy who died from a perforated anus from having sex with a horse?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=16917


If we're assuming Jesus has enough brain cells to figure out the idea of "death = glory", I think we can safely assume he can figure out "screw with the authorities at great length = death".

People would trade death to become a god. Lots of em. Delusions of grandeur do exist you know. Hell, people kill themselves over nothing these days.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Why is he in pain? Isn't heaven supposed to be perfect and free of pain?Like I said, it's like White Christmas. Sure I know he's fibbing, but it's not like I can call out the Savior. No more Christ Chex for me would be the least of my worries.
Originally posted by Farquar
What about the guy who died from a perforated anus from having sex with a horse?You're comparing a sissy little anal bleeding to slow suffocation that lasted for at least 3 hours preceded by nearly a day of whipping, scourging, and general rough-housing?
People would trade death to become a god.Death, sure. Bloodiest, most horrific death imaginable for the day? I'm thinking your volunteer pool would dry up pretty quick.

Of course, you're welcome to find someone to prove me wrong.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I know he's fibbing, but it's not like I can call out the Savior. No more Christ Chex for me would be the least of my worries

Waaaaiit. He's lying to you?

If he's lying to you about something as easy as posting on the internet (I mean if X can do it who can't) then how do you know he wasn't lying about being the savior, as well?

-K

[Marl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[quote]Originally posted by Marluxian
My own personal beliefs are I believe in what I see, and what has been proven by FACT.You realize nothing can be proven as incontrovertible fact, right?


[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

NOTHING can be proven as fact? FACT my hair is blonde, FACT my eyes are blue, FACT it is raining outside, FACT my dog got hit by a car a week ago........and yep every one of those were incontrovertibly proven to me. Now as for actions taken from the bible.....show me someone who can part a sea. Show me someone who can make water into wine. Show me someone who can raise from the dead. Show me a virgin who is pregnant. Nothing from the bible has been proven fact. If it ever is then I will be glad to call myself a christian and worship an ever seeing ever knowing God. Hell, I might even nail myself to a cross in the name of sins just to guarantee passage into heaven. Until then I will believe in what I know. Myself, My family and whatever I see and KNOW in front of me.

[Warriorbird]

You're comparing a sissy little anal bleeding to slow suffocation that lasted for at least 3 hours preceded by nearly a day of whipping, scourging, and general rough-housing?

So you're volunteering to compare?

I'll let you go first...with the horse.

;)

There've been a vast series of sacrifices more poignant in history. Few have had better PR. The Buddhist monks burning themselves alive over the destruction of their country/way of life seems much more poignant to me.

[radamanthys]

>>Within the context of your (subjective) moral view, this has to be the case. However, it is contradictory at best to say that nobody should be able to force their views on you when by saying so you are forcing your views on them.<<

I see where you're coming from, but I haven't forced anything on anyone. Force can only come with authority, when someone has the power to make you do something- parents, government, superiors, etc. I'm saying that I should be free to do as I choose. And you should be free to do as you choose. It's sorta the foundation of our government. It may be that i'm forcing my belief of freedom on you, but by no means am I asking you at all to accept my beliefs at all. I'm saying that the concept of freedom of choice doesn't fit, doesn't exist, within the context of a theocratic government, no matter how subtle. I want you to be free to practice your beliefs. I also want to be free of your beliefs, and be able to make up my own mind. I mean, alot of the christian moral code makes for a stable society. However, there's parts that are just restrictive and based on the concept of "should".

>>That those who are unfit (in the eyes of evolution) not only survive, but have millions (if not billions) of dollars spent on allowing them to further propogate their inferior (again, in the eyes of evolution) genes. Infertility is no longer always a life sentence (which is something we should all be thankful for).<<

Viagara is expensive, as are all pharmapseuticals. People who can afford it, are readily able to pay. Money is the new food. In any case, technology has stopped evolution. It's not going to happen until the pandemic hits.

>>I have little doubt that most sane people want the best person for them. That this person isn't necessarily the person best suited to the goals of evolution (e.g. children, protection) was my point.<<

I think that people are attracted to those which would give them the best chances of living and raising their kids within their socio-cultural demographic.

>>Designed by whom?<<

We've been crafted that way- however, or whomever designed us that way. Whether ourselves through evolution, where greater fear of death made for better survivability, or by a greater power.

<<In what sense? I'm referring to programming in the sense of genetics and biology.>>

So am I. There's no doubt that there's an extant fear of death hanging over the cognative reasoning of each of us. It's just less pronounced in some, and more in others. And it's cross-cultural, meaning it's not taught. It's just human condition- part of the asthetic humanity.


>>I take it you defecate in public then. <<

Naw... no toilet paper at the mall food court.

[Warriorbird]

William Wallace or Stenka Razin would be other examples of more impressive deaths than Jesus, historically. Rasputin'd also count.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Farquar
I'm talking about today. Guy is more ubiquitous than Coca Cola. Even if he isn't a God, he was pretty damn smart and a savvy salesman. I'm sure his foresight was as equally developed.

Wtf would be the purpose of getting ridiculed your whole life, tortured horribly and eventually crucified because you MAY be known of in 2000 years, at which point you're gone and rotted away since you don't believe in what you're preaching?

[StrayRogue]

The women.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Waaaaiit. He's lying to you?Fibbing, fibbing.
then how do you know he wasn't lying about being the savior, as well?Homie don't play that.
Originally posted by Marluxian
and yep every one of those were incontrovertibly proven to me.What makes you think hair, eyes, rain, or cars exist in the first place?
Originally posted by radamanthys
I haven't forced anything on anyone.But you would if you could, as
I'm saying that I should be free to do as I choose. And you should be free to do as you choose.indicates. That's the whole point of the word "should". I'm not saying that you personally have done something wrong. I'm saying that philosophically, you're on shaky ground condemning those whose actions you would mirror given the opportunity.
And it's cross-culturalI'm not entirely sure I follow here. Certainly there are cultures that do not fear death. Could that not be similarly taken to prove that the fear of death is in fact taught, coincidentally across multiple cultures?

[Marl]

<<<<Originally posted by Marluxian
and yep every one of those were incontrovertibly proven to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you think hair, eyes, rain, or cars exist in the first place?>>>


I can feel, smell, see, taste, even hear them. All 5 senses can't be wrong. :thumbsup:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Wtf would be the purpose of getting ridiculed your whole life, tortured horribly and eventually crucified because you MAY be known of in 2000 years, at which point you're gone and rotted away since you don't believe in what you're preaching? They don't compare to the Jesus I believe in, obviously, but I could name a couple people just from these boards that would probably volunteer for all that torture and pain just to be known of in 2000 years.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Marluxian
All 5 senses can't be wrong.What makes you think you even have senses, or that they're infallible?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
Wtf would be the purpose of getting ridiculed your whole life, tortured horribly and eventually crucified because you MAY be known of in 2000 years, at which point you're gone and rotted away since you don't believe in what you're preaching? They don't compare to the Jesus I believe in, obviously, but I could name a couple people just from these boards that would probably volunteer for all that torture and pain just to be known of in 2000 years.

That's different though. That's a guarantee that they'll be known. If someone didn't really believe in what they were doing, you think they'd risk all of that pain and torture (and death) for the infinitesimal chance they'd be remembered forever?

Plenty of people have been crucified and tortured and were forgotten in a year.

[Warriorbird]

What makes you think you even have senses, or that they're infallible?

-Latrin

Once again, the "smack you in the mouth" test is appropriate for that philosophical drabble. It's also very disapproved of by most relavent Christian theologians.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
If someone didn't really believe in what they were doing, you think they'd risk all of that pain and torture (and death) for the infinitesimal chance they'd be remembered forever?
Of course not.


Plenty of people have been crucified and tortured and were forgotten in a year. No doubt. Unless they were claiming to be the Messiah on his second coming, that is not surprising in the least.

[Edaarin]

Sorry, I can't ascribe to any religion where Alanis Morissette is God.

[SpunGirl]

So it's OK for Jesus to fib? I mean, I thought lying was wrong and all that. Let's examine the reason for his "fib."

In fact, if Jesus and God and the whole shebang is real and really IS the way things work after all, let's examine that! According to the way things currently stand in the Christian religion, humans are supposed to find Jesus and be "saved" by admitting that they are sinners, that Jesus was the son of God and he died for us, yada.

Back when this new school of thought first came about, a lot of really cool things supposedly happened. A dead man supposedly came back to life. Heck, even before that, God was parting seas and smiting all kinds of naughty boys and girls.

When was the last time something like this happened? I don't mean "my prayers were answered" or "I felt the grace of God." I mean a REAL, tangible event witnessed by both believers and nonbelievers alike. And no, seeing the Virgin Mary in your grilled cheese doesn't count.

Hold on, because I AM going somewhere with this.

Despite God having been MIA for quite some time as far as the whole miracle thing goes, Christians say we are still supposed to worship him, accept Jesus, repent, or risk eternal damnation and hellfire. All this because God really LOVES us, and Jesus LOVES us, and they both (or he, if they're the same, whatever) really want everyone to be saved. "He is not willing that any should perish," and all of that.

So WHY WHY WHY does God make it so difficult? Why are all these obstacles, like logic and science, thrown in our path to thwart the way to faith and salvation? After all, if God created us, surely he knew what kind of things our brains would be capable of. If you accept creationism, you also have to think God foresaw all that humanity would become.

The bottom line is that if God really loved us and really wanted all of us would be saved, he'd make it obvious. He'd slap us all with the +20 mighty bitchslap of holiness and do things that simply could not be denied. If he's too lazy or unwilling to do that, then I don't for a second believe he loves us so much and is just pining away hoping we all decide to start believing.

-K

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by SpunGirl]

[CrystalTears]

If someone/something showed you a miracle, would you believe it immediately? Be honest. Would you really? It sure didn't work before, but all of a sudden now it will?

Since when has anything worth having been easy to get? When you first felt love for your husband before you were married, did you snap your fingers and he magically fell into your arms? Did everything just fall into place when you wed? Did you agree on everything or is the relationship actually work once in a while?

Why does someone have to prove anything to be believed? Do you tell your husband to prove he loves you? Do you ask for proof that his faith and love in your relationship is real? The whole point of faith is believing something is real and not needing proof to know that it exists.

Your husband is obviously lazy and unwilling to prove his love. Of course the thought that you can't just believe and trust in his love is crushing to his soul. There is already doubt in the love, so why fight to save something that you already don't believe in? It would be insulting to even attempt it.

That is why, I feel, that God doesn't prove Himself. He shouldn't have to. You either believe in Him or you don't.

[Edited on 12/9/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Marl]

Good point CT but........she actually sees and interacts with her husband on a daily basis so it is very relavent here is it?

[SpunGirl]

Exactly. And yes, he DOES. Jake works hard to make sure I know how much he adores me, and I do the same for him. It's part of what makes our relationship work so well - we're both willing to go to to any ends to make the other feel appreciated and loved.

Jake wants me as a wife, I want him as a husband. That's important to both of us, to maintain our relationship. So we work very hard at it- from both ends.

I see plenty of Christians work very hard at their relationship with God. They pray, they go to church, they try to act in a manner in line with God's teachings. I think that's nice and all, but I require something more tangible.

Again, if it's true that "He is not willing that any should perish," and not believing = perishing, you'd think God would work harder to bring people over. Saying "oh, you have to have faith," is all well and good, but why is salvation a club exlusively reserved for people who can just believe, and people who ask too many questions like, "where's the proof?" are cast out?

If I saw the Red Sea part, you'd be damn sure that'd get my attention. Burning bush that talks to me, that'd probably make an impression as well. Right now, all I have to go on are a bunch of stories... and while I love stories, I don't believe everything I read.

-K

[Artha]

I asked a baptist friend of mine a question like that, once.

God requires your faith. Considering everything that's offered, it doesn't seem so much to ask.

[Marl]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c50/zigger421/Accept_Jesus_the_Hardway.jpg

[SpunGirl]

But I don't even know if what he's offering is real. To me it seems like the religion is saying, "believe this. Because it's in the bible. If you don't, you're screwed. If you do, you get nifty stuff. How do we know? Well, it's in the bible! Yes, I know there are other holy books out there, but they've got it all wrong. How do we know? It's in the bible!"

For all the input we've received from God in the past few centuries, the interpretation could be completely fucked. How would we know?

-K

[Ravenstorm]

I've always liked how (some) Christians, and they haven't always even been the rabid fundamentalist ones, try to claim the Earth is really only six thousand years old (or seven and a half or fifteen or whatever their particular calculations of the BIble comes to) and say that all those fossils and other things were just planted there by God as a test of faith.

Yes, carbon dating says they're millions of years old but God made it that way to test you. How utterly malevolent of him. I thought Satan was the deceptive one...

Raven

[radamanthys]

Under the same logic, the earth could be 5 minutes old.

Everything that exists now was created to appear as it should if the world were older that.

I read that argument in a book called "Telelogical.... fuck, I can't remember the name of the telelogical philosophy book.

Whatever, it's too late for this, and I have a final tomorrow.

[Nilandia]

Whoa, dang. People are still talking.

I will say that what I'm seeing in the thread is partly valid question, partly misconception/miscommunication. Rather than stir up debates and clutter the boards even more, though, if anyone's curious or would LIKE to debate, I'm open to any sort of discussion off the boards. You guys know where to find me.

One thing I can't resist, however...



I've always liked how (some) Christians, and they haven't always even been the rabid fundamentalist ones, try to claim the Earth is really only six thousand years old (or seven and a half or fifteen or whatever their particular calculations of the BIble comes to) and say that all those fossils and other things were just planted there by God as a test of faith.

The six thousand year figure you're quoting would be courtesy of Bishop Ussher, which I've referenced before. PLEASE don't get me started on him, as it's done nothing but harm for the rest of us.

I'm undecided as yet on the whole creation/evolution side of things. I don't know if I believe that it was creation alone with no evolution at all, or evolution was the mechanism used in creation. Either way, I believe that God had a hand in it.

Heh. Imagine my shock when I was sitting in biology class one time to see a film of Carl Sagan declaring that evolution was a fact. Guy apparently needed to read up on the scientific method. Evolution's a theory, no matter how well grounded in evidence it may be.

Gretchen

[Caiylania]

Show me a virgin who is pregnant.

Sad thing is... I've met one. She didn't believe in sex before marriage, hit 35 and realized if she was going to have a kid, it needed to be soon. So if you define virginity as only being lost by intercourse, she was.... a pregnant virgin.

Got to love those fertility clinics :D

Latrin, I would truly love for you to address some of the things I said in my post. Really, I am curious.

[Necromancer]

Gretch,

Evolution IS a fact. Evolution as a natural mechanism through which living organisms change has been proven time and time again. Evolution as the origin of species, on the other hand, is a theory. Though only because it is impossible to prove what actually happened without having been there. It's not that we have evidence that says that it isn't what happened, or that we don't have ample amounts of evidence saying it IS what happened, it's just that it cannot be proven from our position so far in the future.

One thing that I've always wondered, and Gretch maybe you can answer this for me, is how Christians deal with the actual history of Jesus Christ. How do the facts get incorporated into your faith in this particular individiual as the messiah.

The fact I speak of are as follows:

The individual that now receives credit for being the messiah was one of hundreds of messiah figures during the second messianic era (the first yielded hundreds of Jesus Christ figures as well, but none of them had lasting legacies that spanned this long). During the second messianic era, the individual who now is referred to as Jesus Christ (Remember that Jesus Christ isn't a name, it's a title. It's a derivative of the words Zeus and Christos, which is greek/latin for savior) wasn't even the most popular candidate for savior. In fact, he was one of the relatively unknown candidates for most of the period. Generally speaking, the title of Jesus Christ was bestowed upon war heros (The Jews were heavily embroiled in war during this period) who performed exceptionally well (to clarify: it wasn't a title handed out FOR good wartime service, but people tended to believe that anyone who performed remarkably well in war was sent by God to save them and get them out of their war), but of course all of them ended up dying in battle eventually, so they tended to lose favor after that. The Jesus Christ in question fulfilled only three of the Biblical prophecies for the coming of the savior (one of which was riding through the Gates of Bethleham on a donkey...so I'm not sure that one really counts), and he was branded as legally insane (by Roman authorities) long before he ever claimed he was the son of god.

He was indeed crucified (crucifiction being a popular form of the death penalty for the Roman government at the time, it was quite common). Though no stories of his rising from the grave three days later can be found until slightly over 100 years after the fact. So no one actually wrote that they saw Jesus three days after he died; they wrote about it one hundred years after he died, making the claim suspect.

Now, historians will tell you that these are the facts as best as we can ascertain. Having said that, many of these historians are indeed biblical scholars and devout Christians. My assumption has always been that people who accept this particular person as Jesus Christ simply don't know the actual history of the person and the era, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a theory used to explain all of this and still consider this person to be THE Jesus Christ.

Any thoughts?

[StrayRogue]

Any philosopher of science will tell you that nothing, ever can be proven as 100% fact.

[DeV]

Exactly. And based on the fact that science only answers empirical questions, it is primarily concerned by what we can observe and not much else. Obviously, that leaves room for many unanswered questions especially with regard to religion.

[Tsa`ah]

Pertaining to the pay off ...

Don't know what to tell you other than you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

My personal belief is that the carpenter's son did exist. He was a reformist, he had a following, he did good things with the best intentions.

What does he have to gain? I don't think he looked for fame, wealth, or a spot in history. I think he was a genuinly good man looking out for the little guy.

Who really stood to gain the most from this guy? His apostles.

If you can deify a mortal man and build a power structure upon that belief after he's dead and buried ... well you could set yourself up as pretty powerful group of individuals. And hey ... if that initial structure survives and spreads ... well a sucker is born every day right? They'll poney up a tithe so long as it gets them out of hell and makes them one of the beautiful people.

Is that indicative of every christian? Absolutely not. There are the good and the bad in every religion, it's just unfortunate that the bad continue to fleece the general, yet ignorant, good.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV
No doubt. Unless they were claiming to be the Messiah on his second coming, that is not surprising in the least.

Plenty of people whose names we don't know claimed to be God and were killed for it. Claiming you're God doesn't get you remembered, in most cases.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
So it's OK for Jesus to fib?Uhhhh, I thought we were playfully joking around.
When was the last time something like this happened?I've heard that 12 people in the world have stigmata at all times. Just gotta go find 'em.
Christians say we are still supposed to worship him, accept Jesus, repent, or risk eternal damnation and hellfire.It is not essential (I almost said fundamental there, close one) to a Christian view that accepting Jesus is required for salvation.
Why are all these obstacles, like logic and science, thrown in our path to thwart the way to faith and salvation?I don't mean to take shots at you, but there are plenty of people who know way more about science than you or I ever will and are quite strongly religious, and the same goes for logic.
The bottom line is that if God really loved us and really wanted all of us would be saved, he'd make it obvious.The penultimate line there is that it is not obvious *to you*.

Now, in the vein of "how come God hasn't X?":

Could God have made us exactly the same way and have everyone end up saved: yes, God can do anything.
Could God have made us exactly the same way and have no one ever be hurt or feel bad or anything: yes, God can do anything.

The question: why hasn't he?

I don't have an answer for you (more's the pity). However, I do not believe it's correct to therefore conclude that God either doesn't care/love or is not omnipotent. I do believe it is much more likely that there is a piece of the puzzle we're all missing. It is possible for God to transcend logic (of course), so it is possible for God to make us knowing everything and still not knowing everything (to keep us human), but I don't know how that could work. The more likely explanation, in my mind, is that it is human-driven failure on our part, not that God set us up to fail in the first place.
Originally posted by Necromancer
It's a derivative of the words Zeus Jesus is the 0ish AD version of Josh, derivative of Joshua, from Yehshua or "Yah Saves" in one of them old-timey languages (Yah being Yahweh). Nothing to do with Zeus. I hope someone told you that as a reference to Die Hard 3.
The Jews were heavily embroiled in war during this periodSome of them (the Zealots/Cyreneans (sp)) sure. I'm thinking that whole "Pax Romana" thing pretty much negates any "heavily embroiled in war" claims though.
So no one actually wrote that they saw Jesus three days after he died; they wrote about it one hundred years after he died, making the claim suspect.Most of the Gospels were written before 100 AD, and I can assure you Jesus didn't die in 0 AD. And that's just using the Gospels, and not bringing up the sources and letters that predate them.

So yeah, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I advise you to get a second opinion next time. :)
Originally posted by Caiylania
Latrin, I would truly love for you to address some of the things I said in my post. Mk.
That we must be perfect to be before God?I don't believe that.
For a god to not love us because of mistakes/sins we commit through our lives?I don't believe that either.
We shouldn't have needed Jesus to die 'for us'.It would have been hard (impossible) to convince the Jews otherwise. If you're saying we should never have sinned, then yes, I agree.

As an aside, I've always found teleological arguments awfully unconvincing.

edit:
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
If you can deify a mortal man and build a power structure upon that belief after he's dead and buried ... well you could set yourself up as pretty powerful group of individuals.Again, the apostles weren't in much better shape than Jesus was. Every single one was martyred for their faith except John (son of Zebedee) who got exiled and Judas who killed himself. Don't you think at least one of them would have said "Yeah uh we made it all up, sorry, won't happen again" when faced with impending painful death? Even Paul, who one could make the best case for of cashing in on the Jesus fad, got martyred.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV
No doubt. Unless they were claiming to be the Messiah on his second coming, that is not surprising in the least.

Plenty of people whose names we don't know claimed to be God and were killed for it. Claiming you're God doesn't get you remembered, in most cases.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Hulkein] Do you mean son of God or Jesus as God? Personally, I do not believe Jesus is God and make sure to differientiate between the two. Some religions interchange the words though, so if that is why then it's understandable. Back to the point though. That definitely isn't the only reason Jesus is remembered. Simply because he claimed to be the son of God. There are many other factors involved which served to seal his fate as well as his rememberance.

[SpunGirl]

"He is not willing that any should perish." That's the crux of it, isn't it? So if he doesn't want that, why doesn't he work a little harder to make ithappen? 12 people out of the entire worldwide population is hardly a large-scale miracle.

I terms of physical manifestations, God has been absent for a really, really long time.

Also, how is believing in Jesus not essential? Isn't that the point of Christianity - that Jesus was the Christ, and that he was the son of God? Isn't that the main split between OT and NT?

-K

[Nilandia]

You are correct on a number of facts, Jesse.

There were a number of messiah figures of the time and Judea was a hotbed of conflict and rebellion, the most well-known of which being the revolt of 70 AD which spawned the destruction of the temple of Herod (with the exception of the Wailing Wall) and the siege of Masada (http://mosaic.lk.net/g-masada.html). In fact, such events were referenced in a number of places in the New Testament, such as some of Jesus' apostles being mistaken for followers of another messiah figure.

Your interpretation of the origin of the name Jesus Christ is interesting, as I had always thought of Jesus to have been a derivative of His Hebrew name, Yeshua. Perhaps you could show me where you found that. The origin of Christos I do not dispute, however.

I was unaware of the title of Jesus Christ being applied to war heroes (or at least those who fought exceptionally well), and would be quite interested to see where you came across such. I will admit that I am woefully inexperienced in reading contemporary accounts of the Jewish revolts, including those of Josephus, so I will fully concede that there is much I do not know.

I will, however, dispute that Jesus fulfilled only three biblical prophecies, but analyzing each would be a debate unto itself. For the sake of brevity, I will say that I believe that much more than three were fulfilled. (One prophecy you mentioned actually doesn't mention where the messiah's ride on a donkey takes place. To make sure, I looked up the quoted prophecy, and Zechariah 9:9 makes no mention of a location.)

Crucifixion was indeed a common method of execution of the time, brutal and often reserved for criminals that the authorities wished to "make an example of," as the condemned often took days to die of aesphyxiation. Prisoners also sometimes had their legs broken to hasten their deaths, as I recall. It is somewhat remarkable, then, that Jesus died the same day He was placed on the cross, and without having His legs broken. One point to consider would be why such a public execution was ordered for such an unknown, as you claim Jesus was at the time. Anyway, I digress.

You do bring up an interesting point on the history of the gospels themselves. It is true that the accounts of Jesus' life and death were written after He was on earth. However, it is something to ponder that the culture in which He lived appeared to rely heavily upon face-to-face conversation. Only once in the story of Jesus' life, for example, is He said to be writing, and even then in the dirt (that during the account of the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11).

Because of such reliance on word of mouth, it is feasible to assume that records of the life of Jesus were passed orally and not committed to writing until later for some reason, perhaps the deaths of those who had known Jesus personally.

It is also important to note that some works, such as those of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html) are said by some scholars, maintain a feel of an oral account being almost directly dictated to writing without having been altered too severely, lending further credence to the idea that the accounts of Jesus' life were transmitted orally initially.

Also keep in mind that anything surviving for almost two thousand years is extraordinary. Weather, imperfect storage conditions, fires (such as that of the Library of Alexandria), earthquakes, wars, human migration and simply the passage of time all work against the preservation of writing which would most likely have been on skins or papyrus, both organic materials that degrade.

There is also a high probability of human interference that would prevent the preservation of such written accounts. For example, I'm sure you're familiar with the Gnostic Gospels (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html), sacred writings of a deemed-heretical sect of the early church (the quoted site dates them to the second century) which included the Gospels of Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html) and Mary (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html), the Secret Book of James (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretjames.html), and so on. These works were discovered in a large jar by a farmer in Egypt. Not knowing what he possessed, some of the works were burned as firewood before the remnant found its way to scholars who were able to assess its worth. There is little telling what may have been contained in the works which have been burned, as well as how many times such scenes were repeated with other discoveries of ancient writing.

Now, these are my thoughts on the matter. You're welcome to accept it, reject it or debate it as you wish.

Gretchen

[Nilandia]

You are correct on a number of facts, Jesse.

There were a number of messiah figures of the time and Judea was a hotbed of conflict and rebellion, the most well-known of which being the revolt of 70 AD which spawned the destruction of the temple of Herod (with the exception of the Wailing Wall) and the siege of Masada (http://mosaic.lk.net/g-masada.html). In fact, such events were referenced in a number of places in the New Testament, such as some of Jesus' apostles being mistaken for followers of another messiah figure.

Your interpretation of the origin of the name Jesus Christ is interesting, as I had always thought of Jesus to have been a derivative of His Hebrew name, Yeshua. Perhaps you could show me where you found that. The origin of Christos I do not dispute, however.

I was unaware of the title of Jesus Christ being applied to war heroes (or at least those who fought exceptionally well), and would be quite interested to see where you came across such. I will admit that I am woefully inexperienced in reading contemporary accounts of the Jewish revolts, including those of Josephus, so I will fully concede that there is much I do not know.

I will, however, dispute that Jesus fulfilled only three biblical prophecies, but analyzing each would be a debate unto itself. For the sake of brevity, I will say that I believe that much more than three were fulfilled. (One prophecy you mentioned actually doesn't mention where the messiah's ride on a donkey takes place. To make sure, I looked up the quoted prophecy, and Zechariah 9:9 makes no mention of a location.)

Crucifixion was indeed a common method of execution of the time, brutal and often reserved for criminals that the authorities wished to "make an example of," as the condemned often took days to die of aesphyxiation. Prisoners also sometimes had their legs broken to hasten their deaths, as I recall. It is somewhat remarkable, then, that Jesus died the same day He was placed on the cross, and without having His legs broken. One point to consider would be why such a public execution was ordered for such an unknown, as you claim Jesus was at the time. Anyway, I digress.

You do bring up an interesting point on the history of the gospels themselves. It is true that the accounts of Jesus' life and death were written after He was on earth. However, it is something to ponder that the culture in which He lived appeared to rely heavily upon face-to-face conversation. Only once in the story of Jesus' life, for example, is He said to be writing, and even then in the dirt (that during the account of the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11).

Because of such reliance on word of mouth, it is feasible to assume that records of the life of Jesus were passed orally and not committed to writing until later for some reason, perhaps the deaths of those who had known Jesus personally.

It is also important to note that some works, such as those of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html) are said by some scholars, maintain a feel of an oral account being almost directly dictated to writing without having been altered too severely, lending further credence to the idea that the accounts of Jesus' life were transmitted orally initially.

Also keep in mind that anything surviving for almost two thousand years is extraordinary. Weather, imperfect storage conditions, fires (such as that of the Library of Alexandria), earthquakes, wars, human migration and simply the passage of time all work against the preservation of writing which would most likely have been on skins or papyrus, both organic materials that degrade.

There is also a high probability of human interference that would prevent the preservation of such written accounts. For example, I'm sure you're familiar with the Gnostic Gospels (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html), sacred writings of a deemed-heretical sect of the early church (the quoted site dates them to the second century) which included the Gospels of Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html) and Mary (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html), the Secret Book of James (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretjames.html), and so on. These works were discovered in a large jar by a farmer in Egypt. Not knowing what he possessed, some of the works were burned as firewood before the remnant found its way to scholars who were able to assess its worth. There is little telling what may have been contained in the works which have been burned, as well as how many times such scenes were repeated with other discoveries of ancient writing.

Now, these are my thoughts on the matter. You're welcome to accept it, reject it or debate it as you wish.

Gretchen

[Nilandia]

Deleting this one. Had server problems and I got a double post.

Gretchen

[Edited on 12/9/2005 by Nilandia]

[SpunGirl]

Also, Latrinsorm, regarding the joke about Jesus "fibbing" - I knew you were joking. But the point is that you made that joke because there is no answer to the question, "why doesn't he come say hey?"

Now, you may be OK with not being able to answer that, because all sorts of other answers about afterlife and stuff have been provided for you. Anyone asking for my soul, I'm going to need a little more of a compelling reason to believe than "because it's in this book," see?

-K

[Sean of the Thread]

Professor Beaten For Evolution Views

(CBS) LAWRENCE, Kansas A Kansas professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was taken to the hospital Monday following what he said was a beating.

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_340085451.html

[SpunGirl]

That's about as Christian as people who murder doctors and bomb abortion clinics, yay!

-K

[Nilandia]

All of which I happen to disagree with, thankyouverymuch.

Insert respectful request here to see such people as the extremists they are and not representatives of the majority view.

Gretchen

[SpunGirl]

I agree, which is why I said "that's about as Christian as..."

Well, it's not a very Christian attitude to say the least.

-K

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Professor Beaten For Evolution Views

(CBS) LAWRENCE, Kansas A Kansas professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was taken to the hospital Monday following what he said was a beating.

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_340085451.html
Alright, so you know too much history when you see Lawrence, Kansas and think of Quantrill's Raiders (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/CONTEXTS/Kansas/quantril.html). Interesting to note, however, that Quantrill (http://americanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa072601b.htm) gave Jesse James and his brother, and the Youngers, all western outlaws, their start.

Gretchen

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
That's the crux of it, isn't it?God does not trample upon our free will, that's the ultimate gift. What God wants when it comes to our salvation is irrelevant not because God is *unable* to gainsay us but because he *chooses* not to.

As I said in the previous post, this doesn't mean that God couldn't fix things so that everyone freely comes to salvation and have us all have free will.
Also, how is believing in Jesus not essential?Why would it be?

Also, for the Jesus not talking to you thing, I can only pray that you begin to hear.

[SpunGirl]

Trust me, if he called me up on the phone or appeared before me, I'm sure I would. If he wants me to hear so bad, why make it so obscure? I spent a good 10 years (between 8-18, at the very least) listening for the voice of Jesus, God, SOMETHING. It's not like I never gave it a fair shot.

I don't think God has to trample on free will to make his presence known. Again, it's been a few millenia and not a peep. No seas parted, no plagues upon the Earth, nothing. Hello, anyone up there?

-K

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by SpunGirl]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
I don't think God has to trample on free will to make his presence known.I just meant in regards to the him willing everyone to be saved and stuff. 2 Peter 3, if anyone was curious where it's from. Or possibly 2 Peter 9, I'm getting a little fuzzy.

[Warriorbird]

God does not trample upon our free will, that's the ultimate gift

Right. Just humans do that.

[SpunGirl]

Latrinsorm, my basic question is that if he doesn't WANT anyone to perish, why would he make it so easy to ignore him?

Ignoring God is easy, and there has been zero interjection by the man, the myth, the being himself in the last few thousand years to make it otherwise. He doesn't have to FORCE anyone to believe, but if he's the being you say he is, he sure could make his presence a lot more known.

-K

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Professor Beaten For Evolution Views

(CBS) LAWRENCE, Kansas A Kansas professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was taken to the hospital Monday following what he said was a beating.

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_340085451.html

That's hysterical.

That headline is biased, though. "Professor Beaten For Evolution Views." He was beaten for insulting the guys, not for his evolutionary views.

"Professor beaten for insulting others because of their views" would be more accurate.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure Fox will bias it the other way for you. There's a place for folks who believe the Earth is only 6k years old.



[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

I'd rather no bias either way, to tell ya the truth.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Latrinsorm, my basic question is that if he doesn't WANT anyone to perish, why would he make it so easy to ignore him?

Ignoring God is easy, and there has been zero interjection by the man, the myth, the being himself in the last few thousand years to make it otherwise. He doesn't have to FORCE anyone to believe, but if he's the being you say he is, he sure could make his presence a lot more known.

-K

I agree.

Let's say I have a friend, and like me her father was not part of her life. She has never met him, talked to him, or even seen a picture.

Now, her mother tells her year after how much her father loves her, but he just can't be in her life right now. No reason given. He is just absent and location unknown.

Her mother gives this friend a letter, that she says was written by the dad telling her that he loves her. The letter also gives his wisdom on life, how to treat others, what not to do and what to do. Tries to tell her wrong from right. The letter ends saying that one day he may come back into her life if she does all this.

Girl goes to mom, and says, did you make up all this crap?

Once again, if God is our Father. HE is the one with responsibilities to us. Should children be good and do as their parents say? Sure. Ones that are there.

No child who gets a letter like that is going to love, respect, and strive to earn the right to see their father. To earn that sort of relationship the father has to be PART of it.

See where I am going with this?

A parent's duty is to show their love to their child AND guide their child. A 2000 year old outdated letter doesn't cut it.

Would, a freakin, phone call, hurt?

This probably made no sense, but hey, the Bible doesn't make any sense to me either. So fair is fair!

[Hulkein]

A lot of people do get what you would call a 'phone call' from God... Then they're dismissed by people without faith as crazy, liars, delusional, what have you.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
why would he make it so easy to ignore him?I honestly can't fathom how you can. :(

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Hulkein
A lot of people do get what you would call a 'phone call' from God... Then they're dismissed by people without faith as crazy, liars, delusional, what have you.

Let's give that girl a brother. Now say 'Dad' called brother, but never spoke to the sister. Ever. How is she supposed to still believe he loves her, when he hasn't once talked to her? Maybe brother is just making it up to make her feel better, or even to hurt her. Who knows?

If he makes no effort to speak to her as well, why should she make the effort to love and believe in him? EVERY child deserves to hear their parent's voice, the parent shouldn't pick and choose.

[Viridian]

I am christian.

1. I never discredit other religions I really can't, my mother is a pagan/wiccan. I love her she is my mom she taught me everyone believes differently.

2. I am out raged what is carried out in Allah's name. And moses warned the people of what would happen. It was a sad thing, personally I don't know if this event actually happened, historically they can't find evidence to back up the claims the bible has made.... BUT it's the message of the story that counts. No race should be enslaved, ever, God's favored or not. You think we could have learned that lesson like oh, 300 or so years ago.

3. I belive we did evolve, a day in the eyes of God is unimaginable to us, what could be a day to him, could be a million to us. And we all evolved from dirt, it just took a long time. ;)

4. I belive in miracles wether it be a pregnant virgin, or a half-god man...whatever. Hey? why not.

Anywho, yeah, some people have sticks up their asses, I'm not going to lie, I think there are plenty of people who take things too literally. The bible should be seen as a book that shows how one should lead a good life.

It's like a code with the basic morals and values. Anyone who tries to twist it into something more should be punched in the head.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Viridian]

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by SpunGirl
why would he make it so easy to ignore him?I honestly can't fathom how you can. :(

Ok, now for a real friend. Dawn lived a life of hell on Earth. Her parents are drugged up alchoholics. She had a cousin that raped her and her family refused to believe her. Her brother made a point to have sex with as many of her friends as he could not caring how that affected her ( i was NOT one of them) and so on.

Yet she prayed. She prayed God would help her, would do something. Her cousin would be invited to visit, get her alone. THey still wouldn't believe her.

Finally my Mom stepped in and offered to take a Guardianship of Dawn, she could move with us, and get a new start on a new life. Her parents agreed. Dawn thought God had answered.

Her mom got drunk, called my Mom and refused to sign the papers. We had to move and in the random times I heard from Dawn her life just got worse and worse.

Constantly around drugs with her parents and brother, she did them herself. They bought her drugs, cigarettes, all of it. Brother was racist and got her involved with skin heads, introduced her to a guy she started dating who ended up being a dime store robber and got arrested. She witnessed a murder, got raped again, and basically almost killed herself.

She stopped praying to God sometime after the rape. He doesn't exist to her.

You could say it is quite easy for her to ignore him. She finally got her life together and is happy now, but any faith she had in God is long gone. She was a child. It is the adult who could finally take care of herself, since no one else stepped in.

[Necromancer]

The name origin you're thinking of, Yeshua, tends to be misinterpreted. It is a title, and not an actual name. The man whom we refer to as Jesus was not named Yeshua, he was titled Yeshua later (the book of Enoch later explains that Yeshua was a secret name given by God; it was not something that the man himself claimed was his own). Jesus, which is often thought to come from Yeshua, seems to have actually come from the word Zeus, which was interpreted to reference a divine king status.

As it stands, the man in question was refered to by many different names. Joshua son of Nun, Jehu son of Nimshi, and Yeshua son of Marah were three more well-known names. We use Jesus Christ now for various reasons.

I seem to have been unclear with the war heros. The other messianic figures were not refered to as Jesus Christ, they were simply considered to be The Messiah. Jesus Christ as a title and name was used long after the fact. The man himself didn't necessarily ever say his own name was Jesus Christ (despite what is written in a few books of the Bible); he was just dubbed as such later. Though it is possible that people called him Jesus Christ at that time; it is unlikely that it was the primary name he went by. (note: the diary of the official who oversaw his crucifixion mentioned a name, but I forget now which name it was)

Yes, we could argue which prophecies he did and did not fulfil until we were blue in the face; this is still being argued. However, there are only three that are verifiable. And you're right that the prophecy I mentioned didn't specify that he would ride through Bethleham; I was just pointing out where it actually happened and what event people point to when they're invoking this particular prophecy.

I think you're vastly overstating how little writing was going on during the time that the man now refered to as Jesus Christ was killed. In fact, we only know that this man was alive through that sort of official documentation. Though only two documents, to my knowledge, of his time actually mention the man. One document was the diary of the man who oversaw his death (as mentioned earlier), and the other was a document by the Roman Government branding the man as legally insane. You're right that documents get destroyed, but rising from the dead three days later and ascention later are much bigger events than a simple crucifixion. And yet, nothing for over a century. In fact, not a single literate contemporary actually wrote about the man. The Gospels we have today were not written by anyone who ever saw the man. In fact, these books were all written AFTER the establishment of the church, and the names of the apostles attached to them were fabricated.

And the stories used to describe Jesus and his life bear a remarkable similarity to stories of older religions. Like Jesus, Adonis was born to a virgin mother in a cave outside of Bethleham. Like Adonis, Osiris, and Dionysus, Jesus's followers consumed him in the form of bread. Attis too was sacrificed on the Spring Equinox and arose again on the third day, becoming God and rising to the heavens. Many of his miracles also seemed to be copied. Making water into wine was actually a common occurance by followers of Dionysus (Heron was the name of the man who designed the system that removed the water from containers and refilled them with wine without anyone seeing)

Centuries later (before the Gospels in question were written), priestesses of Niveh would cure the blind with spittle, and many stories spawned from that describing that feat being accomplished by various gods and demigods (including Jesus Christ). Demeter multiplied loaves of bread and fish for her followers, just like Jesus was written to have done afterwards. To explain the fact that all these stories had been written about other deities performing these miracles, early Christians argued that the Devil had created these tales during those times to confuse the followers of Christianity that he knew would one day find out about the "true religion". References to this can be found in St. Augustine's writings, though even he didn't believe it. Finally, the four Gospels we even have to use were selected from over 200 Gospels that were destroyed by the Bishop Theodore of Cyrrhus.

How do Christians deal with these facts today? What is used to explain these similarities, and how do they explain that the four Gospels chosen by the Bishop were the real Gospels and not fake?





Even if there was a story that was passed on only orally for over a century, I see no reason to believe that what ended up being put to writing a century later by religious individuals was an accurate reflection of what really happened. Ever played telephone with a group of five people over a space of two minutes? It's ugly stuff. Ever played that game with an actual story? I have, it's even worse.

Surely there's a better way to account for the lack of documentation than by relying on an "orally transmitted tradition" (complete with mechanisms that assure the end result isn't much like the beginning result) or "time passing destroys records" (since we DO seem to have numerous records for other events in his life and since it was supposedly a very talked about phenomenon that would incite many people to write about it). I say this with an open mind; there is clearly something people have to explain these inconsistencies.

Bringing up human interference with the Gospels is an interesting point, but I wonder if it isn't a double-edged sword.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Book of EnochSorry, no.
And yet, nothing for over a century.Again, no.
Like Jesus, Adonis was born to a virgin mother in a cave outside of Bethleham.Do you really expect people to accept this stuff when you make such trivial errors?

[Necromancer]

Adonis was born to a virgin mother, Myrrah in a location that is now believed to have reference the area of Bethleham. Jesus was said to have been born in a stable, but at the time in question, the vast majority of stables were actually caves. Early Christian writers, such as Martyr and Origen, explicitly state that he was born in a cave. The early Church accepted this as fact, it was only later that people began to say he was born in a manger, or a stable as opposed to, instead of also, a cave.

In terms of official documentation during that first century, the only substantial religious document that we have is the Letter to the Church of Corinth (which was actually from the 2nd or 3rd century, but was right on the cusp of when Jesus Christ started to be mentioned). We have hardly anything that else that so much as mentions the Jesus Christ in question from that first century, and I mentioned the only two documents we actually have. The earliest Gospel we have is from around 50 AD, and it was from Paul. That was long after Jesus's time.

And I'm not sure what you're arguing about the Book of Enoch. Are you arguing that it doesnt' mentioned Yeshua as a secret name given by God? If so, you need to read it. If you're arguing that the Yeshua in the Book of Enoch was NOT Jesus Christ, you are allowed to argue that, but Yeshua was the son of God (translated as the Son of Man actually) in the Book of Enoch. This is also what Jesus Christ is said to have been.

I guess the real point here is, if you expect people to take your arguments seriously, why don't you actually make some instead of saying "You're wrong"? May help.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by Necromancer]

[Drew2]

- "Why doesn't God make his presence obvious?"
- "Because he does not want to take away our free will."
- "That's a convenient answer."

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
why don't you actually make some instead of saying "You're wrong"?So, if I understand you correctly, you're allowed to make any statement you want about early Christianity and Jesus himself with 0 backup, but I'm not allowed to call you on them point blank?

p.s: The stable thing wasn't what I was talking about. :)

[Necromancer]

Feel free to dispute facts, but have something other than "You're wrong", yes. "You're wrong, actually the Book of Enoch didn't mention Yeshua at all" is valid. "You're wrong, Myrrah wasn't actually a virgin" is valid. "Book of Enoch. Wrong." Isn't valid because it isn't anything.

Feel free to give me alternate facts if I am incorrect. I'm no scholar on the subject, I'm open to different interpretations and facts that call the ones I've been told into question. But you haven't really made an argument; at least I did that.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Nilandia
There were a number of messiah figures of the time and Judea was a hotbed of conflict and rebellion, the most well-known of which being the revolt of 70 AD which spawned the destruction of the temple of Herod (with the exception of the Wailing Wall) and the siege of Masada (http://mosaic.lk.net/g-masada.html). In fact, such events were referenced in a number of places in the New Testament, such as some of Jesus' apostles being mistaken for followers of another messiah figure.

Sometimes I feel like a broken record.

There are several "messiahs" in what you call the OT. "Messiah" simply means anointed. Messiah in Christian terms takes on a completely different twist ... yet none are willing to accept that particular twist coming from "pagan" origins prior to their "savior" being born.


Your interpretation of the origin of the name Jesus Christ is interesting, as I had always thought of Jesus to have been a derivative of His Hebrew name, Yeshua.

The child and mother would have both been stoned for blasphemy with that name, and the father for good measure. Perhaps his mother and those who believed him to be divine called him that, but never in public, nor would he have been lived long proclaiming that to be his name. Maybe that's what people want to call him today ... but most assuredly no one would have called him that while he lived, nor do any account validate the claim that it was his name.


Perhaps you could show me where you found that. The origin of Christos I do not dispute, however.

Jesus is most accurately named in the new testaments as Barabus.



I will, however, dispute that Jesus fulfilled only three biblical prophecies, but analyzing each would be a debate unto itself. For the sake of brevity, I will say that I believe that much more than three were fulfilled. (One prophecy you mentioned actually doesn't mention where the messiah's ride on a donkey takes place. To make sure, I looked up the quoted prophecy, and Zechariah 9:9 makes no mention of a location.)

I will dispute that your "messiah" fulfilled any prophecy as the OT is not, nor has it ever been considered a prophetic or messianic text until the founding of Christianity. Everything predicted within your OT, was fulfilled in your OT ... or has always been considered a work of moral fiction until Christianity got a hold of it.


Crucifixion was indeed a common method of execution of the time, brutal and often reserved for criminals that the authorities wished to "make an example of," as the condemned often took days to die of aesphyxiation. Prisoners also sometimes had their legs broken to hasten their deaths, as I recall. It is somewhat remarkable, then, that Jesus died the same day He was placed on the cross, and without having His legs broken. One point to consider would be why such a public execution was ordered for such an unknown, as you claim Jesus was at the time. Anyway, I digress.

Because he broke and defied Roman rule and law by simply teaching. He had a following and posed a real threat to the infrastructure in place.


You do bring up an interesting point on the history of the gospels themselves. It is true that the accounts of Jesus' life and death were written after He was on earth. However, it is something to ponder that the culture in which He lived appeared to rely heavily upon face-to-face conversation. Only once in the story of Jesus' life, for example, is He said to be writing, and even then in the dirt (that during the account of the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11).

That he was noted to be literate denotes rabbinical training. Very few were literate in that time and those that could read and or write were high ranking government officials and clergy. Judaism and many other religions, at the time, were largely oral traditions. Since it is likely that the apostles were illiterate, the life of the man would have not been put to scroll until his following included educated in the written word.


Because of such reliance on word of mouth, it is feasible to assume that records of the life of Jesus were passed orally and not committed to writing until later for some reason, perhaps the deaths of those who had known Jesus personally.

Logically yes, likely not until the ranks of those subscribing to events as described orally included those who could write ... as mentioned.


It is also important to note that some works, such as those of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html) are said by some scholars, maintain a feel of an oral account being almost directly dictated to writing without having been altered too severely, lending further credence to the idea that the accounts of Jesus' life were transmitted orally initially.

Also keep in mind that anything surviving for almost two thousand years is extraordinary. Weather, imperfect storage conditions, fires (such as that of the Library of Alexandria), earthquakes, wars, human migration and simply the passage of time all work against the preservation of writing which would most likely have been on skins or papyrus, both organic materials that degrade.

It's not at all extraordinary. Those found were preserved in the best manner of the age and the scrolls themselves were of several materials ... including metals. That they weren't completely ravaged with the passing of time is no more extraordinary than finding intact ships at the bottom of any body of water. The conditions were simply there for such relics to survive.


There is also a high probability of human interference that would prevent the preservation of such written accounts. For example, I'm sure you're familiar with the Gnostic Gospels (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html), sacred writings of a deemed-heretical sect of the early church (the quoted site dates them to the second century) which included the Gospels of Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html) and Mary (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html), the Secret Book of James (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretjames.html), and so on. These works were discovered in a large jar by a farmer in Egypt. Not knowing what he possessed, some of the works were burned as firewood before the remnant found its way to scholars who were able to assess its worth. There is little telling what may have been contained in the works which have been burned, as well as how many times such scenes were repeated with other discoveries of ancient writing.

Again, you nearly allude to divine intervention when the answer has been seclusion and dumb luck. Had the farmer burned it all .. we never would have known. Had the farmer not found anything ... well, we would have to wait for more dumb luck or never know.


Now, these are my thoughts on the matter. You're welcome to accept it, reject it or debate it as you wish.

Gretchen

Largely rejected on the basis that most biblical scholars throw out history of all sorts in order keep their messiah relevant.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Feel free to give me alternate facts if I am incorrect.Yehshua, the written books, and the war thing. All you did was repeat what you said before I corrected you. Which is fine, copy and paste it for all I care, but don't be telling me I haven't made any arguments.
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Jesus is most accurately named in the new testaments as Barabus. I believe that's spelled Barabbas.
Everything predicted within your OT, was fulfilled in your OT ... or has always been considered a work of moral fiction until Christianity got a hold of it. Christianity which was founded by (wait for it) the Jews of the period. Of course your bold claim that you know more about their Judaism than they did is irrefutable, so no need to worry about backing up anything you say.
Since it is likely that the apostles were illiterate, the life of the man would have not been put to scroll until his following included educated in the written word. Paul was certainly an educated man. I don't really get why this is an issue either way though.
It's not at all extraordinary.While it's not unheard of, things surviving for thousands of years don't exactly litter the street either. I can think of two things in England (both made of stone), though the desert is certainly a better place to preserve something.

[Warriorbird]

Christianity which was founded by (wait for it) the Jews of the period.

SOME Jews of the period.


Paul was certainly an educated man.

Who never knew Jesus. Hell of a salesman though. Lot of the lasting power and problems with Christianity can be laid on him.

[Necromancer]

Paul wasn't one of the apostles, he was a man who lived centuries after Jesus Christ and who actually knew nothing of his life.

Tsa'ah made a good point with the name Yeshua. Many people today mistakenly believe that Yeshua was the name he went by during life, but it is a title and not a name.

Whether Jesus is actually a direct translation derivative of Yeshua or actually a derivative of Zeus is hotly contested, but it seems to be more convincing (to me at least) that it was a derivative of Zeus; which marked part of the merging of new and old religions and cultures that was endemic in Christianity at this point. There are many other important instances of this blending of old Pagan and new Christian beliefs, linguistics, and practices that helped Christianity to spread to new groups of people and that were themselves symptomatic of this mingling.

[Jazuela]

I've been reading this thread and keeping quiet because it's really very interesting and I had nothing to add at the time. I wanted to address some of Spun's thoughts, with some of my own.

I do not believe in the god described in the judeo-christian texts. Since I don't believe in that god, I'm free to believe in any "deity" I choose, and define that deity however it suits me to define it. I'm wondering (Spun in particular) if perhaps your main issues are with "that" god, as it's defined by "those" people. If that's the case, why not just define it however it makes sense to you?

I used to ask a lot of the same questions. "Why doesn't he show himself to me, physically, if he TRULY wants me to acknowledge his presence?" And eventually I answered myself: "It does. But first, get rid of all that "He" shit. It isn't a he. Stop personifying it, it isn't a person. Stop giving it a personality. It doesn't have JUST one. It - is the energy from which everything exists. It - is also the lack of energy from which nothing exists. It has no feelings, yet it is ALL feeling. It has no desires, but IS desire. It has no needs, but needs everything. It is its own paradox."

Why does god allow people to rape and pillage and destroy the earth and all this and that? Answer to myself: God doesn't "allow" or "disallow" anything. This planet began its existence, it became populated, and everything that has happened to it as the result of humanity, is the result of humanity. Not some personified deity floating around in some heavenly cloud that only the dead can see.

Does God love us? Answer to myself: God IS love. It doesn't project its love specifically to me, or to you, or to my computer chair, or the rabbit that's hopping across my yard. It -is- love. It's not a person. People "need" to love, and be loved. God doesn't need either of those things, because it already IS those things.

Then what's the point of god? Why should I worry about whether or not I believe in it? Answer to myself (paraphrased from a siddha yoga book that I enjoyed reading a few years ago): God dwells within me, as me. And also with you, as you. Whether I worry about it or not, there it is. So there's really no need to worry, or dwell on it.

Will I go to heaven or hell? Answer to myself (paraphrased from a couple of different books by different authors): Heaven is the experience of existing in love. Hell is the experience of existing in the lack of love. I choose to exist in love, therefore I am in heaven.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Paul wasn't one of the apostles, he was a man who lived centuries after Jesus Christ and who actually knew nothing of his life.

Tsa'ah made a good point with the name Yeshua. Many people today mistakenly believe that Yeshua was the name he went by during life, but it is a title and not a name.

Whether Jesus is actually a direct translation derivative of Yeshua or actually a derivative of Zeus is hotly contested, but it seems to be more convincing (to me at least) that it was a derivative of Zeus; which marked part of the merging of new and old religions and cultures that was endemic in Christianity at this point. There are many other important instances of this blending of old Pagan and new Christian beliefs, linguistics, and practices that helped Christianity to spread to new groups of people and that were themselves symptomatic of this mingling.
Obviously, I'm not replying to every single point that I would like to, else that would keep me busy for a LONG time, but what you mentioned here, Jesse, caught my attention.

You would be quite right in noting that a blending of pagan and Christian practices took place in the early church. Three examples that I can think of off the top of my head:

- A fresco or mosaic (can't remember which) depicting Christ as Sol Invictus, which was a pagan theme of Greco-Roman art.

- In the book of John itself, the phrase which begins it, loosely translated, is "In the beginning was the Word." Now "Word" here is actually "Logos," which carried significant connotations to the Neoplatonist movement of the time.

- The depiction of Christ as the Good Shepherd. This motif is actually firmly grounded in pre-Christian art.

Anyway, just a side note.

Gretchen

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Jazuela
I'm wondering (Spun in particular) if perhaps your main issues are with "that" god, as it's defined by "those" people. If that's the case, why not just define it however it makes sense to you?



This is a good (and fair!) question. How it's defined by others IS what bothers me, along with the entire exclusionary nature of the faith. I ask people of that faith because I want to know how they'll answer within context of what they believe, and what they know as rational people.

If I ask someone "why do you believe the bible" and their answer has to do with references TO the bible, well, that's retarded. That's like asking a question of your magic 8 ball, then asking, "was that the right answer?" and being overjoyed when it says "yes." (OMG MAGIC 8 BALL RULES!)

As far as defining things for myself, I haven't gotten so far on that. There are a few things that I definitely believe. To be honest, if anyone has the inside track it's the nature-worshipping Pagans. The manifestation of the things they honor can be seen DAILY. As I've stated before, God has been absent for quite some time.

-K

[StrayRogue]

Oh my...

[SpunGirl]

Despite my disagreements with her on issues of religion, I think Nilandia is actually very smart with regards to several topics.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by longshot
You were indoctrinated with the worst fairytale bullshit before you had a chance to say your own name.I'll say only this on the subject of my childhood experiences with religion: You don't know my parents.
You can insulate your pathetic life with lies that those who choose to see the world differently will suffer a life of eternal damnation.You're getting as bad as Warriorbird with the whole "Hey he's a Christian he must be X Y and Z." I recommend you read my responses more carefully or, if it's not too distasteful, ask me personally what my views are before railing against them.
People like you make me embarrassed to live in this country. You could always give Japan another try. :)

[Jazuela]

<chuckle> Yeah us nature-worshipping pagans are somethin else aren't we? But see, that IS our "god." That's the god in our lives, defined how we feel it most appropriate. That some of us choose to call it Gaia, some call it Goddess, some call it Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Cali, Inana, Hera, Venus, Mama, Her Royal Bootylicious - is irrelevent. That -is- our god. That is what we have chosen to honor, because it has given us the gifts of life. The Eternal Womb, or whatever else you wanna call it. My personal preference is Zelda, but that changes depending on my mood. God doesn't really mind what you want to call it, since it is ALL names, and NO name all at the same time.

God doesn't get offended. God is not jealous. God doesn't feel left out if you choose to worship "other gods before it" - because it IS "other gods." It's all of that, and then some, with two snaps up on both hands and a bag o'chips.

God doesn't punish - because he'd be punishing himself. Even according to the old testament - "And god said, 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'" Man is descended of God. We got the God-DNA in us, know what I mean? So if God's punishing us, he's punishing himself. And no god that *I* would care to worship, would ever intentionally punish himself. Therefore, it isn't logical that the god that we're so used to hearing about exists. Not because there is NO god, but rather, the god *I* choose to believe in is simply not defined as such.

As for Jesus, I haven't read the new testament much at all. But the Rabbi where I once worked as a secretary told me that the Reform Jewish movement generally acknowledges that the "Rebbe" existed, and that he might well have been hung on a cross for political purposes (as is claimed, if you go through the rhetoric and poetry). That he was "the" Messiah the Jews categorically deny. That he might have been "a" Messiah is up for debate, but not discounted.

THE Messiah, my rabbi explained, hasn't come yet. And when it does it won't be a person. It will be an era of peace. The Messianic Age, which is what we were taught we are still waiting for.

That's why I broke off from Judaism. I got tired of waiting for a Messiah and chose instead to create my own. So far, so good - I'm mostly at peace with myself and most of the rest of world (most of the time). Now if I can just beat the rest of y'all into submission my plot will finally succeed! :)

[StrayRogue]

Opiat of the masses.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Jazuela

That's why I broke off from Judaism. I got tired of waiting for a Messiah and chose instead to create my own.

Believe me... we tired of you first.



Originally posted by Jazuela
Now if I can just beat the rest of y'all into submission my plot will finally succeed! :)

I wish you luck. Really.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Skirmisher]

[Drew2]

Gotta love Longshot for his ability to sweep in and put some bitches in their place.

[Warriorbird]

The alternate notion is your parents were way too tolerant, Latrin. Then again you don't put much of your background out there except when you want to back down from something. Not that I blame you, mind, given the setting.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I believe that's spelled Barabbas.

It's transliteral, you can butcher it any way you want.


Christianity which was founded by (wait for it) the Jews of the period. Of course your bold claim that you know more about their Judaism than they did is irrefutable, so no need to worry about backing up anything you say.

We could argue back and forth, but you are partially correct in that Christianity was founded by Jews stepping outside of Judaic dogma. It was also founded by pagans, Greeks, and a number of other ethnic and religious groups that chose to adopt something easier to live with. They chose to go with a reward system and the promise of milk and honey. They couldn't live with the rewards of being a good Jew. The reward for being a good Jew ... that's the reward. No heaven, no hell, nothing easy.

But alas, you can't accept my word for the whole "messiah" explanation. Nor can you accept my explanation of our prophecies being fulfilled in the very texts they originate from, nor can you accept my explanation of the latter portion of Judaic texts being moral fiction.

It's easy to not accept my explanations. It's even easier to deny my explanations without ever answering my questions pertaining to the divinity of your messiah.

Here's a suggestion for you ... research it. I get tired of saying the same shit over and over and you offering nothing in rebuttal other than "you're wrong because I say so". Get the facts for yourself and stop being a lazy fuck that depends on his own ignorance as a defense.

A bit of advice, should you decide to get over your Catholic mindset ... don't use Christian sources ... that seems to be your biggest problem.


Paul was certainly an educated man. I don't really get why this is an issue either way though.

As pointed out, the Paul you reference was not the apostle. And of course you don't get the comment ... you never get the comments. It was reinforcing that your NT was written by people who weren't even alive during the lifespan of your messiah. They wrote down the stories, and in doing so wrote them in a manner more acceptable to them. It was as much of an oral tradition as early Judaism was. Christianity lacked the scholars educated enough to put the oral tradition to scroll.


While it's not unheard of, things surviving for thousands of years don't exactly litter the street either. I can think of two things in England (both made of stone), though the desert is certainly a better place to preserve something.

Again, it is nothing extraordinary. Everything that could have preserved such texts was in place. Had the cradle of civilization been South America ... nothing but stone would have survived that long.

These things survived because someone had the presence of mind to preserve them in the best way possible for the era. They survived beyond what such measures were capable of because the earth's wobble increased by 1 degree over time ... causing the area to become a desert. The earth's wobble increased because the distance between the earth and moon is ever expanding.

It's not divine ... it's a naturally occurring event that was beneficial for the preservation of historic text ... nothing more.

[longshot]

--------------------------------------------------


Name of Violation: Hostile post/off topic
Action taken: Post deleted
Comments: Come on, I may agree with finding fault with many/most religions, but there is NO need to go so overboard on Latrinsorm or Nilandia.

Feel fre to repost the civil and on topic portions, but I was not about to sit and edit your post for you as you are more than smart enough and have been here long enough to know what is and is not really appropriate.

~Skirmisher

My reply...

SInce when are you a mod?

Why don't you "come on!" and realize that I'm going to call out someone if they say something stupid?

Just because I do it in a more creative manner doesn't give you the right to deprive other people of reading it.

This dumb hooker specificially said that she believes her religion to be compassionate, but that all non-believers in her housewife version of the world will burn in hell.

If that doesn't deserve some kind of "fuck you", I don't know what does. Excuse me for having the balls to say it.

It's not your decision on the "need" for me to post what I did, and don't hide your bullshit move under the view of appropriateness.

Stop being so heavy handed in editing my posts.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
It was also founded by pagans, Greeks, and a number of other ethnic and religious groups that chose to adopt something easier to live with.This is similar to saying that America was founded by the Chinese. Yes, the Chinese had an indelible impact on the America of today, but they were entirely uninvoled in the founding of America.
I get tired of saying the same shit over and over and you offering nothing in rebuttal other than "you're wrong because I say so".When you're looking at one of the most researched texts in existence and saying "that's wrong because I say so", surely you can forgive me if I'm compelled to extend you the same courtesy. People didn't buy the quantization of light just because Einstein said so, they bought it because he had proof (photoelectric effect).
It was reinforcing that your NT was written by people who weren't even alive during the lifespan of your messiah.Paul was certainly alive during the life of Jesus. He was born around 0-10 AD. It's certainly possible he hadn't heard of Jesus until he got involved in that whole persecuting the Christians thing, but to say he wasn't even alive is a pretty silly claim. This isn't to say that all letters that say "Paul" on them were written by Paul, of course.
It's not divine Of course it isn't divine, but to say that 2000 year old scrolls are nothing out of the ordinary is an overstatement.

[Warriorbird]

If we're going to pull posts just because someone's an ass... a lot of us would be LONG gone.


PAUL, ST.

PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).

Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.

The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."

After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.

Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.

Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.

Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.

Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.

The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him. Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as their inspired teacher. The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Warriorbird]

Strange how he was born after Jesus's death, yet knew him according to Latrin...

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by longshot
My reply...

SInce when are you a mod?

Why don't you "come on!" and realize that I'm going to call out someone if they say something stupid?

Just because I do it in a more creative manner doesn't give you the right to deprive other people of reading it.

This dumb hooker specificially said that she believes her religion to be compassionate, but that all non-believers in her housewife version of the world will burn in hell.

If that doesn't deserve some kind of "fuck you", I don't know what does. Excuse me for having the balls to say it.

It's not your decision on the "need" for me to post what I did, and don't hide your bullshit move under the view of appropriateness.

Stop being so heavy handed in editing my posts.

Love you too Longshot. :heart:

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Skirmisher]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Strange how he was born after Jesus's death, yet knew him according to Latrin... ....

Jesus died in 33ish AD. The higher numbers in AD are the future, the lower numbers are the past. I seriously can't believe this is a point of contention.

And as said in my previous post, it's entirely possible that Paul (as Saul) never met Jesus, as Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication. I merely refute the claim that Jesus was dead before Paul was alive.

[Hulkein]

<< Just because I do it in a more creative manner doesn't give you the right to deprive other people of reading it. >>

Yeah, for real.

It reminds me of when Frank Costanza is yelling at Kreuger, George's boss, "YOU COULDN'T SMOOTH A SILK SHEET IF YA HAD AN IRON AND... I lost my train of thought."

Jerry: Awwww.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We could argue back and forth, but you are partially correct in that Christianity was founded by Jews stepping outside of Judaic dogma. It was also founded by pagans, Greeks, and a number of other ethnic and religious groups that chose to adopt something easier to live with.

It was founded by Jews, it was some years later before Paul starting preaching to the Gentiles. It is your opinion that it was easier to live with, lets not forget the early Christian were persecuted and feed to the Lions.


They chose to go with a reward system and the promise of milk and honey. They couldn't live with the rewards of being a good Jew. The reward for being a good Jew ... that's the reward. No heaven, no hell, nothing easy.

I thought the promise of milk and honey was Israel? Personally I think the idea of the possibility of going to hell is much worse than no hell. But you are speculating on what people 2000 years ago were thinking which is on par with mind reading of dead people.



It was reinforcing that your NT was written by people who weren't even alive during the lifespan of your messiah.

Patently false. Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime and the scriptures were written by people who knew Christ personally and by those who were under the direction of his disciples. Certain academics cling to the idea that the NT was written hundreds of years after Christ died but for the most part they are in the minority and the ones I met had agendas they were furthering.



They wrote down the stories, and in doing so wrote them in a manner more acceptable to them. It was as much of an oral tradition as early Judaism was. Christianity lacked the scholars educated enough to put the oral tradition to scroll.

Matthew and John were most likely written by eyewitnesses to Christ's life. Mark was a disciple of Peter (one of Christ's original disciples) . Luke was a follower of Paul and most likely interacted with the orginal disciples. Most things of that era weren't written down because most people weren't literate. The accuracy of the gospels most probably far exceed most things recorded in that time. The original apostles were motivated to tell Christ's stories and to have them recorded.

[Warriorbird]

And as said in my previous post, it's entirely possible that Paul (as Saul) never met Jesus, as Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication. I merely refute the claim that Jesus was dead before Paul was alive.

I'd previously been told a later date for Paul's birth than you, apparently.

At this point I've seen references of 10-30. A lot of people settle on the "Jesus was 33" notion, but I've seen anywhere from Jesus dying at AD 30 to AD 36 for Jesus's death.

My point was if the 30 and 30 corresponded, he wouldn't have been alive at all. By the notion of the year 10, Paul would've been about 23, which sounds far more reasonable.

Hell. Wikipedia puts him at AD 3.

None the less, not seeing any references that say they knew each other.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

[TheEschaton]

I just got one argument for the fundamentalist Christians: Gandhi.


Any fundamentalist who can look me straight in the face and say Gandhi is burning in hell because he didn't believe in Jesus, is a fool and I should be allowed to beat them repeatedly around the head.

And some people here would call me a fundamentalist Christian. ;-)

As for the whole "You-must-accept-Jesus-to-be-saved", this may be the Catholic in me, but I believe in good works lead to your salvation, not your salvation (i.e., your Christianity) leads to your good works. Namely, I believe in what some theologians call "the gratuitous love and mercy" of God. Namely, none of us deserve God's love and mercy, but God gives it to all of us, whether we accept it or not.

Therefore, I believe people who reject God in theory their whole lives, yet live according to God's teaching, do the work of God and will be saved. God's not going to hold a grudge because you weren't baptized. And those who accept God in theory, but then lead their countries into war, killing and destroying and generally misrepresenting everything God and God's Son ever taught....they'll go to Hell (which I believe, as someone else stated earlier, is merely the absence of God in one's life). Cross Reference: C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, and the example of Tash versus Aslan.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Gosh. That sounds all sane and stuff. No one will ever buy it.

[TheEschaton]

Well, I still believe in blind faith, and mystery, and weeping statues of Mary at Vietnamese churches, Warriorbird, so no worries. ;-)


-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I think I could go for the weeping statues if they were really sexy weeping statues. It's always bothered me that they never depict Mary as a hottie. Something had to be motivating God.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think I could go for the weeping statues if they were really sexy weeping statues. It's always bothered me that they never depict Mary as a hottie. Something had to be motivating God.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

Just wanted to say your avatar makes me snicker. <3 denny crane

[Warriorbird]

Hell yeah.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
This is similar to saying that America was founded by the Chinese. Yes, the Chinese had an indelible impact on the America of today, but they were entirely uninvoled in the founding of America.

And this is a prime example of your semantic bull shit at work.

In the span of time it took to cannonize the bible and found an organized belief structure, the line between Christian and Jew was almost non-existant outside of Jewish communites. Within those communities it was entirely secular. There were those that subscribed to the messianic belief, those that subscribed to the messianic belief and Christ as that messiah, and those that maintained traditional Judaic belief.

Outside of Jewish communites you had other groups that subscribed to the "Christian" faith. What you failed to point out was that there wasn't a label for this belief. Christianity didn't really come into existance until the councils in Carthage around 387 AD. It is in that Era that "Christianity" took stage. And guess what guy ... that council was not Jewish, nor did it contain Jews that subscribed to the messianic thought.


When you're looking at one of the most researched texts in existence and saying "that's wrong because I say so", surely you can forgive me if I'm compelled to extend you the same courtesy. People didn't buy the quantization of light just because Einstein said so, they bought it because he had proof (photoelectric effect).

Again, more semantics and bullshit on your part.

Of course it's one of the most researched works in all of history ... however you just point to research with holes and missing explanation. I'm not making statements about your OT because I say so, I'm making statements about your OT because it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR NT AND NEVER HAS! The research you use to support what is not there is severely lacking and ignores the entirety of Jewish law, tradition, and theological dogma. It's not me that says this .... it's history that says this.


Paul was certainly alive during the life of Jesus. He was born around 0-10 AD. It's certainly possible he hadn't heard of Jesus until he got involved in that whole persecuting the Christians thing, but to say he wasn't even alive is a pretty silly claim. This isn't to say that all letters that say "Paul" on them were written by Paul, of course.

As an aside, most of my reading shows much conflict as to the time of birth and death of the "author" Paul. Almost all "Christian" slanting literature has him nearly walking hand in hand with Christ. Non-slanting Christian literature has places him after Christ's death.


Of course it isn't divine, but to say that 2000 year old scrolls are nothing out of the ordinary is an overstatement.

No it's not. It is stating that right things were in place, nothing more. It's not out of the ordinary ... it's fucking science.


Originally posted by xtc
It was founded by Jews, it was some years later before Paul starting preaching to the Gentiles. It is your opinion that it was easier to live with, lets not forget the early Christian were persecuted and feed to the Lions.

No, Christianity as it is today, what it sprang from was not founded by the Jews. Read more history of the non-christian slant and use my above text as reference if you must.

Jews certainly were. Those of the messianic belief, especially in reference to Christ, were as well ... but not because they believed in a devine messiah, but because they were not in agreement with the beliefs of established powers.

Christians, as you like to reference, were not fed to lions ... Christianity has chosen to use Jewish victims as martyr symbols in the Christian faith.


I thought the promise of milk and honey was Israel?

Nice pot shot, but no.


Personally I think the idea of the possibility of going to hell is much worse than no hell. But you are speculating on what people 2000 years ago were thinking which is on par with mind reading of dead people.

No, it's not mind reading, it's history and tradition. Perhaps you should look into it. The aspect of hell was adopted to keep people on the straight and narrow and in line. It's part of a reward system and rewards are not always positive. What keeps a Jew on the straight and narrow if there's no heaven or hell? Tradition, respect, faith, and just being a good person because being a good person is it's own reward. If you're a bad person ... you just die or get thrown out.


Patently false. Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime and the scriptures were written by people who knew Christ personally and by those who were under the direction of his disciples. Certain academics cling to the idea that the NT was written hundreds of years after Christ died but for the most part they are in the minority and the ones I met had agendas they were furthering.

And that is an example of Christian slant that has no basis. Considering the literacy levels of the society, the social climate, the oppressive nature of Roman rule, and hey ... throw in anything else ... and I would say (non-biased history supporting me) that your statement is more false than anything.

Is it possible that a number of apostles could read and write? Sure it is. Is it likely however? No, it's not even remote.

And I'm curious what "agenda" anyone could be furthering. The only agenda on the table is that of the Christian "scholars" that feel this need to validate their belief. In doing so history, logic, science ... anything that is in conflict is thrown out the window, denied, or just rewritten, edited, or what have you till it fits.

Hey, I can put together a 1 million piece jigsaw puzzle as well .... give me some scissors and don't expect the image to match the box though. Largely what Christian "scholars" have done since Carthage.

Also, as stated, the "author" Paul's timeline varies so much that the best answer is "no one knows but the guess is interesting depending upon your stake in the claim".


Matthew and John were most likely written by eyewitnesses to Christ's life. Mark was a disciple of Peter (one of Christ's original disciples) . Luke was a follower of Paul and most likely interacted with the orginal disciples. Most things of that era weren't written down because most people weren't literate. The accuracy of the gospels most probably far exceed most things recorded in that time. The original apostles were motivated to tell Christ's stories and to have them recorded.

Again ... see above and read conjecture that defies the times.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Christianity didn't really come into existance until the councils in Carthage around 387 AD.Council of Jerusalem, kthx.
I'm making statements about your OT because it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR NT AND NEVER HAS!...according to you.
It's not me that says this .... it's history that says this.It's truly extraordinary how any history that disagrees with your position has a "Christian slant" or has "holes" whereas any that agrees with your position is "non-biased". Truly extraordinary.
As an aside, most of my reading shows much conflict as to the time of birth and death of the "author" Paul.Considering there was more than one "author" Paul, I understand your confusion. I can assure you that Paul I, original Paul, was alive during Jesus' time. As I've said several times, it's not especially likely they ever met.
It's not out of the ordinary ... it's fucking science.Then certainly you won't mind producing a large number of 1900-2000 year old documents. Considering they're so ordinary.

A star passing through the sun's Oort Cloud is a very basic scientific event. It's also extremely rare, and therefore extraordinary.
ignores the entirety of Jewish law, tradition, and theological dogma.This is a circular argument. You're arguing that you can disagree with an allegedly Christian-slanted source because it disagrees with your version of history (taken from "non-biased" sources).

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Council of Jerusalem, kthx.

That is nothing but faith on your part. Historical accountings of the Council of Jerusalem, like Christ, are lacking. Carthage is a solid starting point. You can rely on faith or historical fact .... faith only gets you by in religious circles.

...according to you.

Again, you are too lazy to research. Start talking to Rabbis, learn the traditions, laws, and history. If you come back after that and say "according to you", well then we can chalk it up to the totality of your faith and complete ignorance of anything that doesn't agree with you.


It's truly extraordinary how any history that disagrees with your position has a "Christian slant" or has "holes" whereas any that agrees with your position is "non-biased". Truly extraordinary.

There's nothing extraordinary about it. The non-biased history relies on solid findings, the study of those findings, and a study into the era in which they came. The slanted history pretty much discards anything that comes into conflict with what they were taught of the bible. The slanted history is not much different than a cafeteria style meal. Some of this, I don't like that, this may taste good with that .... none of that it gives me heartburn. You can close your eyes and refuse to accept that it's raining, but that doesn't change the fact. You can believe it's not raining and you’re not going to get wet ... but that will only work so long as you stay indoors.

Considering there was more than one "author" Paul, I understand your confusion. I can assure you that Paul I, original Paul, was alive during Jesus' time. As I've said several times, it's not especially likely they ever met.
Again, this is nothing more than a leap of faith that holds no historical basis. It's the circular argument on your part on behalf of your faith. We can accept that your Paul (the author) and the apostles were educated and a council actually existed, or we can look at the reality of the era and come to the conclusion that it's very improbable that so many literate people came together and recorded an unbiased accounting of a man's existence.
It could have happened, there could also be a god. Since there is no proof of either .... it's a matter of faith, not history.

Then certainly you won't mind producing a large number of 1900-2000 year old documents. Considering they're so ordinary.

A star passing through the sun's Oort Cloud is a very basic scientific event. It's also extremely rare, and therefore extraordinary.

And we come to semantics again. Your communities pounce on ancient scriptures surviving the test of time as if your god provided a miracle. In the exact sense of the word, yes ... it is extraordinary that such documents were found ... not that they survived. We have more pre-historical artifacts on record than we do biblical (scripture). So yes ... the existence of said documents are not extraordinary by any stretch of the term. The discovery is extraordinary, the documents are not.
And before you go there, these are not just bones, spears, and stone tools. We're talking garments and hide based adornments. Considering the nature of processed paper, bronze, and copper in comparison to the decomposition of crude treated leather ... It's like comparing the finding of a wheat cent to a Spanish gold doubloon.

This is a circular argument. You're arguing that you can disagree with an allegedly Christian-slanted source because it disagrees with your version of history (taken from "non-biased" sources)
It's not circular on my part, you either assert nothing, or run for the hills when it's brought up ... or assert faith. Faith and fact are not synonymous. I can disagree with a Christian based source for 2 very profound reasons.
1. Christian based fact distorts its Jewish "origins" to in an effort to legitimize itself. This is not my take, this is a few thousand years of heritage, law, and tradition that Christian dogma just ignores. When a Christian source is questioned about their OT legitimizing their NT, including the moral fiction, nothing but circular arguments steeped in nothing but Christian faith are offered. Hence this entire trend of posts.
2. Lack of historical fact. Paul, the Council of Jerusalem, Christ (and his divinity) ... are all articles of faith, not history.

[TheEschaton]

Wow, Jews vs. Christians, round 2, GO!



It's truly extraordinary how any history that disagrees with your position has a "Christian slant" or has "holes" whereas any that agrees with your position is "non-biased". Truly extraordinary.

I hate to do it, but I agree with Latrin here. It seems to me that there is just as solid historical evidence placing many of the gospels as being written during the time of Jesus. Which ones were included in the Bible, yes, that was a political, secular process initiated by Constantine, around 313 AD, to suit the needs of the soon-to-be "Holy Roman Empire" (Oof, I'm a little verklempt. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman. Discuss amongst yerselves.)

The "traditional" story of Paul is that he was alive during the time of Christ, and was one of the Sadduccees who persecuted the early followers of Christ, after his death, before he was converted. I read somewhere a secular account of this, but I'd have to dig for it (more to the feeling of: "What happened to that Saul guy, he used to be a good guy, now he's one of them Jesus freaks.", if not in those words exactly). Traditional, Paul came from one of the educated sects, so it's not hard to believe he could read and write. Luke, the evangelist, was a doctor, Matthew was a tax collector, and thus needed to be educated, and John was crazy, and crazy people pick up things to spread their crazy messages. ;)

Only one which sometimes confuses me is Mark. In the Bible, he's one of the deacons who the Apostles appoint to spread the message of Jesus. It's implied that most, if not all of these deacons knew Christ, travelled with him, and thus were able to speak on such things. I personally like his gospel the best. Simple, cleancut, spreads a pure, unadulterated message, unlike John's with its "In the beginning was the Word.." and "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light" rhetoric, and unlike Matthew and Luke's gospels, which were targetted to certain audiences (the former, to unbelieving Jews, the latter, to Gentiles).

-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
As an aside, most of my reading shows much conflict as to the time of birth and death of the "author" Paul. Almost all "Christian" slanting literature has him nearly walking hand in hand with Christ. Non-slanting Christian literature has places him after Christ's death.

My study of early Christianity was at the University of Toronto by primarily secular historians and theologians. They work with 71 AD and start moving backwards. Paul's letters failed to include significant events of 71 AD so it is generally believed his letters were well written before that. Most believe he was alive during Christ's time. Again this wasn't learned in Church or Synagogue.


Originally posted by xtc
It was founded by Jews, it was some years later before Paul starting preaching to the Gentiles. It is your opinion that it was easier to live with, lets not forget the early Christian were persecuted and feed to the Lions.


No, Christianity as it is today, what it sprang from was not founded by the Jews. Read more history of the non-christian slant and use my above text as reference if you must.

Jews certainly were. Those of the messianic belief, especially in reference to Christ, were as well ... but not because they believed in a devine messiah, but because they were not in agreement with the beliefs of established powers.

I read your text and I agree for the most part. However as you know Christianity was a sect of Judaism that was founded by and followed by Jews. They believed Christ was the Messiah and as such were not in agreement with the establised powers . I can't speculate if they believed he was divine. The earliest reference I can find for a belief in Christ's divinity is the Council of Nicea which is some 300 odd years after Christ's death.


Christians, as you like to reference, were not fed to lions ... Christianity has chosen to use Jewish victims as martyr symbols in the Christian faith.

This has been so widely established in history I am not sure what to say. Christians were fed to the Lions and persecuted for not following Roman law. This is matter of historical fact. Nero was reknown for his hatred of Christians. Here is an academic link for you.

http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/nero.htm


I thought the promise of milk and honey was Israel?


Nice pot shot, but no.

Not a pot shot, don’t be so defensive. Every Saturday in Toronto some television stations run advertisements to visit Israel, the land of milk and honey. I don’t think I am the only person that has heard Israel be called the land of milk and honey.


Personally I think the idea of the possibility of going to hell is much worse than no hell. But you are speculating on what people 2000 years ago were thinking which is on par with mind reading of dead people.


No, it's not mind reading, it's history and tradition. Perhaps you should look into it. The aspect of hell was adopted to keep people on the straight and narrow and in line. It's part of a reward system and rewards are not always positive. What keeps a Jew on the straight and narrow if there's no heaven or hell? Tradition, respect, faith, and just being a good person because being a good person is it's own reward. If you're a bad person ... you just die or get thrown out.

Yes I am aware of the Christian adaptation of the heaven and hell concept. Again my knowledge of early Christianity comes from many secular University Professors not what I was taught in Church or Synagogue. What is mind reading is your guessing as to why some Jews followed Christian teachings.


Patently false. Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime and the scriptures were written by people who knew Christ personally and by those who were under the direction of his disciples. Certain academics cling to the idea that the NT was written hundreds of years after Christ died but for the most part they are in the minority and the ones I met had agendas they were furthering.


And that is an example of Christian slant that has no basis. Considering the literacy levels of the society, the social climate, the oppressive nature of Roman rule, and hey ... throw in anything else ... and I would say (non-biased history supporting me) that your statement is more false than anything

Is it possible that a number of apostles could read and write? Sure it is. Is it likely however? No, it's not even remote.

Again it is widely believed by most historians and theologians in academic circles that Paul was alive during Christ’s lifetime. Despite the lack of literacy of the time, scribes most likely wrote down what was dictated to them. If not for this ability, none of the Torah would have been written.


And I'm curious what "agenda" anyone could be furthering. The only agenda on the table is that of the Christian "scholars" that feel this need to validate their belief. In doing so history, logic, science ... anything that is in conflict is thrown out the window, denied, or just rewritten, edited, or what have you till it fits.

You accuse Christian theologicans of a biased view of history yet hold out no possibility that any member of another religion could be doing the same. There are those academics who practice a non-Christian religion whose hate of Christianity is so overwhelming it taints everything it touches. Again my secular Professors were the most interesting ones.


Also, as stated, the "author" Paul's timeline varies so much that the best answer is "no one knows but the guess is interesting depending upon your stake in the claim".

Is is accepted by most historians and theologians that Paul was alive during Christ's time and I am not talking about catholic.org. I do agree that one's view is slanted depending on your stake in it.


Matthew and John were most likely written by eyewitnesses to Christ's life. Mark was a disciple of Peter (one of Christ's original disciples) . Luke was a follower of Paul and most likely interacted with the orginal disciples. Most things of that era weren't written down because most people weren't literate. The accuracy of the gospels most probably far exceed most things recorded in that time. The original apostles were motivated to tell Christ's stories and to have them recorded.

Again ... see above and read conjecture that defies the times. [/quote]

It doesn't defy the times at all, as I have previously pointed out. If they weren't literate, they would have had their experiences written down by scribes.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I hate to do it, but I agree with Latrin here. It seems to me that there is just as solid historical evidence placing many of the gospels as being written during the time of Jesus. Which ones were included in the Bible, yes, that was a political, secular process initiated by Constantine, around 313 AD, to suit the needs of the soon-to-be "Holy Roman Empire" (Oof, I'm a little verklempt. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman. Discuss amongst yerselves.)

Considering that the Roman empire nailed a couple thousand eligible Yeshuas on crucifixes, it really isn't that difficult for me to believe that at least one fellow who called himself Paul, or was later dubbed so by other followers, in whatever way it seemed fit into the Common Era scribing and bookwriting of the time, found spark in the eccentricities of captial Roman punishment, and wrote it down onto paper where it could quickly be absorbed by an inquisitive public.

The above isn't meant to be some kind of deliberate jab at Christianity, but rather my ~2000 C.E. scientific viewpoint of "what might have went down."

- The Termite

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Satira
PS Jews don't believe in hell.

I had actually gone over quite an interesting passage in Exodus involving the "sending off" of the Golden Calf, a pascal lamb, idols and other anti-Hashem paraphernalia crafted by Aaron and Co. while Moses allegedly received the tabernacle. There is debate on the bottomless, fiery unknown which they were cast into, and how it is a pretty good indication of a concept that modern day scholars might deem as being some evolving, theo-chronologically form of "Hell."

[Terminator X]

Do I believe that those who don't accept Jesus to be going to Hell? Yes. Do I consider my beliefs to be tolerant and loving? Yes. A seeming contradiction, but allow me to elaborate. I believe that God set up a standard of absolute perfection as necessary to be with Him. God is perfect, so those who go to Him need to be as well.

Of course, we can't do that on our own, and that's why Jesus died: to build the bridge, so to speak, allow us to become perfect and be able to approach God. In that, there is love. We can't live up to God's standards, but God provided a way for us to come to Him.

Anyone at all who accepts Jesus is seen as perfect. It doesn't matter who the person is before, so long as they are sincere. In that, there is tolerance. In this case, tolerance does not mean that God will accept just anyone. Why should He accept someone who completely denied His existence and tried to live without Him? In fact, it is my belief that Hell's worst punishment is the complete absence of God. Those who rejected God and wished to be without Him will get their wish, but I believe it will not be to their benefit.

Regarding the fate of people who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity. I honestly don't know. I'm glad it's not my choice, either.

...What is problematic here, in my opinion, is that having a practiced sect of Christianity highly involved with original sin and other womb-to-tomb ideologies, simply suggesting that the standard of not meeting perfectionism, with the inherent backlash of fire and brimstone, implies that no human being could possibly make it through the pearly gates, what have you. Now, in retrospect, belief in Jesus will, as you said, has automatically reached perfectionism and gained insta-heaven entry.

This is where things begin to get tricky.

On the one hand, you have the mathematical truth of believing in Jesus meaning you have achieved perfectionism and will reside in the Christian heaven after death. On the other hand, you have about a billion different verses and passages implying that if you so much as scratch your nose in the wrong way, you've already sunk down to at least the fourth or fifth Circle.

Perhaps it is closer to perfect, when whatever people who hold these ideologies so close to heart are really going for when they step out of the house every day and breathe in the fresh scent of diplo-religious immunity ... or not. Remember, there is always room for interpretation as this thread has so pleasantly elaborated...

When I read about St. Paul (mostly the Councils, though) excercising a high amount of, for lack of better words, damage control on the emphasis that original sin be placed as far away as possible from the act of dying, it makes me wonder about the elaborate set-ups of "if we write this here and that there, then we can block out a loop-hole in passage X from being exploited." The more you have collective ideas being put into writing up unquestionable documentation and analysis, the more and more any dogma that follows the Bible-building becomes engraved thicker in stone.

Lastly, for anyone who believes that certain "others" aren't exactly going down the same path as your Perfect self will be... at the crossroads... then I myself find it kind of sad that any individual of this type of self-proclaimed reasoning would physically be able to get upset as a result of other people, non-linear to your thought patterns, become slightly aggravated when it is implied that they're going straight to the Christian Hell.

If you absolutely have it engraved in your mind that by meeting imperfectionism/non-Jesusism with ~2000 year old recruiting tact need be excercised daily and consistently, with its simultaneously being a *good* thing to practice, because letter-shaped ink in a man-made and man-altered-and-altered-and-altered-again creation we call "The Bible" says so... then could one possibly imagine what would happen if an individual of these righteous set of standards actually made it into a position of power?

- The Termite

[TheEschaton]

Dude, use some periods. I stared at that blankly for some few minutes, before giving up. But what I think you said seems to be what I said a few posts after the given one.


-TheE-

[Terminator X]

Yeah, that's like 5 page breaks...

Wussy :wasntme:

- The Termite

[Warriorbird]

So the millions of people who died before Christianity was founded were pre-doomed?

[Hulkein]

The belief is that when Jesus was killed it absolved all of those who died before him of original sin, and the gates of heaven were opened to them, as well.

At least I think that's what I was taught back in grade school/high school.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I hate to do it, but I agree with Latrin here.:(

You wound me, sirrah!
"Holy Roman Empire"I'm pretty sure the Holy Roman Empire was a German thing and they (the Romans) just called the Roman Empire the Roman Empire after Constantine.
Originally posted by xtc
This has been so widely established in history I am not sure what to say.One gets used to it after awhile.

[Necromancer]

http://www.break.com/movies/tradingspouses2.html

Ya know, I always try to remind myself that the religious right is comprised of good people who are balanced individuals who have made rational decisions with good intentions, that they mean well and truly are trying to make the world a better place, even if they're actually making it a far worse place to be.

Then I see things like this, and I think to myself, "Huh. Maybe they really are just ignorant and crazy"

[CrystalTears]

Yeah because all Christians behave like that. :rolleyes: Grow up.

[Necromancer]

Yeah, clearly that was facetious. Learn to relax.

[Jenisi]

I do tend to get annoyed with obessive religious fanatics of ANY religion. Though I don't mind getting into a discussion with a fellow philosphing friend of mine or anything though, I love a fun debate. I really have no problem accepting after my death there is "no one" there, but rather "something", if that makes sense. I understand quite a few things about the universe and the world and I'm always one to accept I don't know everything, and admit that perhaps what I think to understand, I might not.. But that doesn't mean I should ignore things I do know. To be honest, I would just rather prefer not having a heaven or hell. I like knowing what I do here is my own choice and I have to deal with the consequences here and that I only have one shot. An afterlife is such a pain in the fucking ass to worry about considering all one has to deal with here. I've always been a realist, and a strong believer in free-will. I am the best person I can be and if I "meet" a maker in an afterlife he'll "love" me just as much regardless of what I do here because afterall, I am just a product of said "maker" so if I fail, the only person "it" has to blame is itself.

[Latrinsorm]

How can you believe in free will and blame someone/something else for your actions?

[Jenisi]

I didn't say I believed in an afterlife please re-read the post.

[Latrinsorm]

Right but you did say IF there was, you'd put any blame on the creator. Hence my question: if you believe in free will, how can you put the blame on something/someone else in any situation?

[Necromancer]

Because agency is always constrained by circumstance? And if you believe in a creator, then circumstance is at least partially their/its design, which means your agency was at least partially constrained in some way that they/it planned.

[Jenisi]

Fundamentalist Christian t-shirts! Get em while you can!

http://www.christianshirts.net/index.php

[Artha]

Those shirts are awful, but I looked at each and every one. It's like a car wreck.

[DeV]

I'm feeling that Get Stoned Like Paul shirt. That's tight.

[Celephais]

Those shirts are ridiculous, the fact that their is a business that thrives hauking that crap to gullible masses is ridiculous (oh wait...)

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jenisi
Fundamentalist Christian t-shirts! Get em while you can!

http://www.christianshirts.net/index.php

Don't see anything fundamentalist about those.

Care to expound?

Not that I'd wear any, but none on the first page (all I looked at) are over-the-top.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

That Trading Spouses woman = fucked up!




Because agency is always constrained by circumstance? And if you believe in a creator, then circumstance is at least partially their/its design, which means your agency was at least partially constrained in some way that they/it planned.


Ah, but us liberal Christians believe in evolution. ;)

You evolve past the contrictions, into a better person, and therefore reflect better on your creator/designer.

-TheE-

[Celephais]

http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/small/closet150.gif
My favorite part is the speech bubble to re-assure you, that he is infact, not gay.

And lets not forget this favorite.
http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/small/pants150.gif


Here are some other over the top ones for you
http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/small/satan150.gif
http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/small/murderer150.gif ... However that's relevant

and completely over the top:
http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/small/hell150.gif

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Celephais]

[TheEschaton]

This one kind of scares me:

http://www.christianshirts.net/designs.php?id=197

And the abortion one with the Nazi swastika in the O? That's just wrong.

"Terrorists kill 4,000 Americans every day. They are not prosecuted. They are not in prison. They are abortion doctors."

These sound like the nuts who sniped an abortion doc two streets away from me some years back, WHILE HE WAS WASHING DISHES, AFTER EATING DINNER WITH HIS FAMILY.

Oh, but he was a Jew, so he didn't count.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Besides the 'Satan is Pro-Choice' the rest are normal Christian teachings. Don't see how that qualifies as fundamentalist... More like basic Christian teaching.

[Necromancer]

You assume a binary relationship between individual and environmental constraints. But the individual emerges precisely through the play of these constraints, thus there is no evolving past them. There is only evolving due to them. The communication break between performance and audience and between iteration and reiteration, fortunately, allows different individuals to emerge in identical social constraint/circumstance (because there is no circumstance that is not inherently a constraint, even if among other things)

Thus we get constrained diversity and, consequently, constrained agency.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Because agency is always constrained by circumstance? And if you believe in a creator, then circumstance is at least partially their/its design, which means your agency was at least partially constrained in some way that they/it planned. If the creator was omnipotent, certainly the creator could create a universe where completely free (and unconstrained) will and a divine plan simultaneously coexisted. I don't know how that could happen, logically, but I do know that omnipotence means able to do anything, and free will and divine plan is a thing (however contradictory).

Call me crazy if you must, but I get the feeling that Christian shirt website is marketed towards pro-lifers.

[Artha]

Call me crazy if you must, but I get the feeling that Christian shirt website is marketed towards pro-lifers.
I didn't really see that. :shrug: