Religious discussion thread

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Then explain what is the core purpose of religious doctrine and dogma which comprise the tenets of any given "religion"?

What is the core purpose of art? To provide a sense of meaning to people who can't find it anywhere? To be a blanket of mind-control protecting the ignorant? And writing? Classics? Philosophy? Hmm...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
if you are speaking of Buddhism for instance, I agree, but if you are talking about... "god" based belief systems, then I don't know which one of these truly brings the "individual" to the forefront.

a) Buddhists spend an awful lot of time praying at alters to deific figures for not being "god-based."

b) Does the presense of another person make you unable to focus on your individual character? Or, in fact, does it turn out to be utterly integral to it?

[ewallace]

Then explain what is the core purpose of religious doctrine and dogma which comprise the tenets of any given "religion"?

I don't think it's possible. It's different for everyone, and that's the problem I have with your statement.


If it is not an uncertainty in someones life then why be drawn to the doctrinal and dogmatic practices to bring meaning to your own life?
For me, I try to follow the teachings of the bible. I don't get caught up in what I believe to be more "human traditions", commonly referred to as dogma.

[Chang Style Novice]

Which teachings of the Bible? I hope not Leviticus and Deuteronomy!;)

[themeecer]

Multiple post.

[themeecer]

Multiple post.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by themeecer
You say you want discussion and all you do is sit there and insult, goad, and yell at people.


Originally posted by themeecer Guys, all I am going to say is there will come a time when you look back on your words here with sorrow. You make a mockery of God now but someday you will be begging for forgiveness. I just hope that you do it on this side of the grave, while there is still time. If not, I'll shake the dust off my shoes and bid you adieu.

[David Jamieson]

You make a mockery of God now but someday you will be begging for forgiveness. I just hope that you do it on this side of the grave, while there is still time.

This is a statement made by someone who already has a belief.
It refuses to accept the idea that it could be wrong.

By the way, the New testament is a collection of interpretations of the teachings of Jesus. There are no direct quotes, but only ruminations of the sermons he allegedely gave. Matthew Marke Luke and John are not the apostles, they are later disciples and came a full 100 or so years after the death of Jesus.

The only "recorded" words of Jesus are those of the roman judiciary. You can search for them by looking for "the seven things jesus said"

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The only "recorded" words of Jesus are those of the roman judiciary. You can search for them by looking for "the seven things jesus said"

Well.... and the Gospel of Thomas, which contains a significant amount of cross-over with the NT gospels, which suggests they would thus qualify as "recorded words of Jesus" as well.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Serpent
Don't start that again. Every time someone mentions something that might contra or challenge your beliefs you say, "Go read this book" or "that website".

No dice.

I could point you to a whole bunch of books for the case against Christ. But what's the point.
Serpent, chill out. What in the world happened in your childhood to make you so hateful to people at every turn? You say you want discussion and all you do is sit there and insult, goad, and yell at people.

Sorry if I refer to other books but I am in the habit of quoting my sources. Also I'm in the habit of not wasting every moment of my life on here arguing with spiteful people that argue for the sake of argument. I will briefly answer your charge, but nowhere near what the extent that was done in the book I directed you to. That would be a waste of my time. And quite honestly, people tend to skip over lengthy posts that go on for pages, I know I do.


Originally posted by Serpent
You claim that you were quoting Jesus. Not a chance. You simply cannot prove that. In fact, the evidence is heavily against it. Still, what do you care for actual evidence of anything?

Anyway, I thought you were going to bed? :p

On the contrary the evidence points heavily for that and it is much more provable than documents that historians have no reluctance treating as authentic. What the New Testament has going for it is the unprecedented number of copies that have survived. The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like.

We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy.

Even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers.

There are over five thousand New Testament Greek manuscripts that have been cataloged. Not only has the New Testament survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure. (As scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix have calculated. Opps sorry, quoted the source again.
;) )

In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.

Earlier you say that Jesus never wrote anything down, or we have no record of that. You are correct. However, what he did say he said to masses of people. He didn't only converse with his disciples. There would be multiple instances where listeners of Jesus' actual words, years later would read of them in the original manuscripts. This being the case, if something was written that was contradictory to what Christ said, they would have picked up on this. The leaders of the synagogue would have utilized this in their arguments against Christianity. We would have had hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus was going around. Surprisingly, we have no credible record of this, none. What we do have are over 5,000 accounts that claim the opposite.

If what the original 12 apostles wrote and preached about Christ were not true, they would have known it. They would have known it was a lie. They ate with the man, they talked with him, they later saw the resurrected Christ. These 12 were later killed for what they believed. Some were crucified upside down, others on different shaped crosses. Why would every one of the 12 die horrific deaths in defense of a lie?

[themeecer]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by themeecer
You say you want discussion and all you do is sit there and insult, goad, and yell at people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by themeecer Guys, all I am going to say is there will come a time when you look back on your words here with sorrow. You make a mockery of God now but someday you will be begging for forgiveness. I just hope that you do it on this side of the grave, while there is still time. If not, I'll shake the dust off my shoes and bid you adieu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry for the deletion of my posts above, they were being posted before I got done writing. Honestly, that wasn't meant hateful at all. It may have sounded that way, but I truely meant that out of love. I do care for your well being, even if you don't feel that is at stake.

[The Willow Sword]

Have some FUN

www.jesusdressup.com


"christ didnt come here to give us the Willies"

George carlin(Dogma)

[dezhen2001]

Christopher M: sorry i forgot to make the distinction, i had it in my head :)

dawood

[dezhen2001]

We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy. not all ;)


Earlier you say that Jesus never wrote anything down, or we have no record of that. You are correct. However, what he did say he said to masses of people. He didn't only converse with his disciples. There would be multiple instances where listeners of Jesus' actual words, years later would read of them in the original manuscripts. This being the case, if something was written that was contradictory to what Christ said, they would have picked up on this. The leaders of the synagogue would have utilized this in their arguments against Christianity. i read an interesting book recently talking about how christianity came to be etc. It included the gospel of Thomas, gospel of Philip and a slightly different gospel of Mark. As well as other stuff Really interesting how they reconcile the differences of the accounts and things.

Also i dont know if you have researched the Jewish Talamud at all? But it has some pretty interesting things to say about Jesus. Some that were recently discovered in older manuscripts etc.

All kinda interesting if ur in to that kinda thing :)

dawood

[chen zhen]

;)hehe (http://www.thedeepdark.com/atheism/images/thinkingmind.jpg)


Also i dont know if you have researched the Jewish Talamud at all? But it has some pretty interesting things to say about Jesus. Some that were recently discovered in older manuscripts etc

From what I've heard, it can't be good.:o

[dezhen2001]

LOL at that pic :)

dawood

[TonyM.]

That's very funny! Whew! Glad I'm spiritual and not religious.
Considering that religious comes from the latin meaning to be bound that should have been self evident.:D

[chen zhen]

http://www.worldwidewolf.de/atheism.gif
http://nowscape.com/atheism/madlyn_risen.gif
http://www.mouser.org/atheism/caution.gif
http://www.geocities.com/prevailingmyth/tomatoes.jpg

[dezhen2001]

LOL TonyM. im glad my brain isnt QUITE like that :)

dawood

[fa_jing]

$10 to anyone who can successfully explain from a Christian point of view why the 144,000 going to heaven in Revelations are all Jewish, and likely male virgins. See Revelations 7:4-8, and 14:4.

Also I have read that many early Christian groups did not include Revelations as part of their scripture, and that it was only included after great debate.

[MasterKiller]

In Rev. 14:1-5, a second 144,000 redeemed from the earth who have marked on their foreheads the names of Christ and the Father. These are both virgin and spotless, for they "follow the Lamb wherever he goes."

Jews and Christians both get to go.

[chen zhen]

http://www.chez.com/pielaurent/God.jpg
http://www.rasnaimaging.com/people/lapus/godlite.gif

[Christopher M]

Ah, atheism... probably has the highest concentration of dogmatic fundamentalists of all the religions. :p

[MasterKiller]

7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

[chen zhen]

Is it time to pull off religious nonsense quotes now?:rolleyes:
I can play that game.
ok, here goes the nonsense:

-----

Section IX. Real Designation is Undesignate

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a disciple who has entered the Stream of the Holy Life say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Stream-entrant?

Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Stream-entrant" is merely a name. There is no stream-entering. The disciple who pays no regard to form, sound, odor, taste, touch, or any quality, is called a Stream-entrant.

Subhuti, what do you think? Does an adept who is subject to only one more rebirth say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Once-to-be-reborn?

Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Once-to-be-reborn" is merely a name. There is no passing away nor coming into existence. [The adept who realizes] this is called "Once-to-be-reborn."

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a venerable one who will never more be reborn as a mortal say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Non-returner?

Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Non-returner" is merely a name. There is no non-returning; hence the designation "Non-returner."

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a holy one say within himself: I have obtained Perfective Enlightenment?

Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because there is no such condition as that called "Perfective Enlightenment." World-honored one, if a holy one of Perfective Enlightenment said to himself "such am I," he would necessarily partake of the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. World-honored One, when the Buddha declares that I excel amongst holy men in the Yoga of perfect quiescence, in dwelling in seclusion, and in freedom from passions, I do not say within myself: I am a holy one of Perfective Enlightenment, free from passions. World-honored One, if I said within myself: Such am I; you would not declare: Subhuti finds happiness abiding in peace, in seclusion in the midst of the forest. This is because Subhuti abides nowhere: therefore he is called, "Subhuti, Joyful-Abider-in-Peace, Dweller-in-Seclusion-in-the-Forest."

------


:cool: Did I do well?:D:p

[Former castleva]

"Ah, atheism... probably has the highest concentration of dogmatic fundamentalists of all the religions. "

...Is not a religion...at times,from time to time,these myths have to be beaten. :)

[chen zhen]

Atheism is not believing in a religion (duh), but just living with things as they are. Without religious dogmas.

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13

[MasterKiller]

Is it time to pull off religious nonsense quotes now? Just trying to answer Fa_Jing's question, CZ.

Now go make me some wooden shoes.

[red5angel]

Atheism is approaching the borderline for religion. My roommate and neighbor are so "religious" about being atheist I am still waiting for them to publish a book and build a place to meet other atheist to talk about being good atheist.

[fa_jing]

yes, I know about the multitude. Your explaination of these 144,000 being seperate from the other 144,000 is okay. Only the second group gets redeemed from the earth, so it's still a little unclear. I'll give you the ten bucks if you can find the ORIGINAL fall of Satan in the bible (as in Milton's "Paradise Lost"), not the one in Revelations during the tribulation where he gets cast out of heaven. Since Satan was around since at least the book of Job, and probably since Genesis, this was all prior to the tribulation which may or may not have begun yet.

[red5angel]

weird, I was under the impression satan fell before the bible was written for the most part?

[fa_jing]

Hey that's pretty good! OK, I'll let you have half of the pot, $5, but you'll have to tell me where Christians get details of the "fall" from, if not from Scripture?

[chen zhen]

Just trying to answer Fa_Jing's question, CZ.

Fine-o.
Just noticed that many people started doing it. It was not directed towards you specifically, MK.



Now go make me some wooden shoes.

So u can have something to eat your cheeseburger & freedom fries out of?
Don't player-hate.:o

[Chang Style Novice]

I like Unitarian Universalists. I've gone to see some great jazz shows at their church. Of course, they only barely count as religion. As someone (I think Kung Lek) said a ways back, they kept all the community and ditched all the dogma. Plus their tax free, which is truly the best of both worlds!

[Former castleva]

"Atheism is approaching the borderline for religion. My roommate and neighbor are so "religious" about being atheist I am still waiting for them to publish a book and build a place to meet other atheist to talk about being good atheist."

"Good atheist". :D
I understand that,but it is not approaching the borderline for religion,by definition of it (it is impossible) There is not even a world view,not a philosophy of any kind,not an ethical system...
These are the kind of myths that an atheist is likely to run to. :cool:

[chen zhen]

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=147

[MasterKiller]

CZ, you sure spend a lot time reading atheist sites. One could almost say that you study them religously.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by fa_jing
Hey that's pretty good! OK, I'll let you have half of the pot, $5, but you'll have to tell me where Christians get details of the "fall" from, if not from Scripture?

Here's a start. Isa 14:13 Would look up more, but my belly says feed me. I had notes written on this somewhere and I can't find them.

[chen zhen]

I just found it somewhere in the thread. It's the first time I saw it.

I don't like the word atheism. Because it still implies that you have to belong to "something". Which I don't.
I believe in what I see, in reality, not in old stupid books full of hatred written in the middle east 2000 years ago.

[ewallace]

So do you believe in Ghandi chen zhen?

[Black Jack]

My friends mom had a gangbag with christ and his disciples. We found out and cornered them in a Long John Silvers parking lot. During the rumble I got christ in the clinch and knocked him silly with some thai elbows and then choked his skinny ass out with a rear naked strangle.

I finnished off his number #5 basket meal, kicked him in the choda, and for laughs stole his f@ggy datsun.

[Shaolin-Do]

Jesus is common around here... So many jesus's....
What about Buddy Jesus?!
RTB is slacking with the link posting....
:D

[chen zhen]

Why?
u could as well ask me if i believe in George Bush, or a tree, or table. Why do I have to believe?

[ewallace]

Well, chances are you have opportunities to see GB, a tree, or a table. However, Ghandi passed away over fifty years ago...supposedly. ;)

[ZIM]

"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's neighbor and this fact goes far to account for religious intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell." -A. Crowley :p

Seems appropo (http://totl.net/Gods/)

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by themeecer


Here's a start. Isa 14:13 Would look up more, but my belly says feed me. I had notes written on this somewhere and I can't find them.

I give your response a passing grade, too. The text refers directly to the king of Babylon, however many Christians often interpret text, especially Old Testament text as referring to multiple levels of meaning. Both the obvious, a political/historical figure in this case, as well as past or future personages or events.

[fa_jing]

Well, it's now $3.33 for each of MasterKiller, Red5Angel, and themeecer. Please send me a S.A.S.E as well as a $4.95 handling fee and I will gladly remit payment.

:D

[themeecer]

Hmm .. I'll come up with more later so I can take their money as well. How about paypal? :D

[fa_jing]

Well, we can skip the S.A.S.E, but the handling fee of $4.95, per $3.33 earned is not negotiable!!

;)

[ZIM]

Hmm.. (http://www.brunching.com/10qpt.html)

Drinking game for the end of the world:

If the righteous ascend into heaven while the sinful remain on the Earth to face the tribulations of Satan, take a drink.

If four horsemen ride out, and the fourth rides a pale horse, and the name of that who sits on on the horse is Death, take a drink.

If the sun is blackened as a sackcloth of hair, take a drink.

If the moon becomes the color of blood, take a drink.

If the stars of heaven fall unto the earth, take a drink.

If the kings of the earth, and the great man, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man hide themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, take a drink.

If hail and fire mingled with blood are cast upon the earth, and a third of the trees and all the green grass is burnt up, take a drink.

If a third of the sea turns to blood, take a drink.

[MasterKiller]

themeecer can have my money if he'll properly explain why God kicked Liluth out of the Garden, and how that pertains to male/female relations within a Judeo/Christian subtext.

[Shuul Vis]

GOOD GUYS! Keep Themeecer spewing his nonsense here, on this thread, so that the rest of them can remain on topic or at least without having his crucifix hung all over them.

[Christopher M]

In what way is atheism not a religion?

A "negative belief" is just as much a belief as "positive belief." "Negative" and "positive" are only qualifiers of relativity; they have no meaning whatsoever in absolutes.

Many self-proclaimed atheists are devoutly religious, dogmatically ascibing to their beliefs, and crusading vigorously to convert the "pagans." To make the point, atheism is a belief about God / a religious belief. And many atheists care very deeply and are very serious about their particular belief about God. And again, "negative belief" is the same as a belief.

Varieties of agnositicism are the stance upon religion which qualifies as not-a-religion in the absolute sense. There are agnostics who simply don't care about beliefs of God / religious beliefs. In other words, questions of God/religion are absurd (in the formal sense) to them. Contrast this with atheism.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's neighbor and this fact goes far to account for religious intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell." -A. Crowley

Would be a better quote if it wasn't coming from Crowley. Unless you believe in 'as I say, not as I do.'

And even igoring Crowley's "idiosyncracies", this line is sound in theory, but how many hospitals have the Thelemites built? Hostels? Universities? How many millions in foreign aid, all out of voluntary donation, per year?

I think there's a parable that addresses this somewhere...

[Christopher M]

Regarding the Fall, perhaps to understand it one should be familiar with each of it's variations, especially including both Adam and Lucifer as well as the Gnostic variation. Hearing the same story told in very different ways may be helpfull in revealing the underlying concepts by preventing the reader from reifying (getting hung up upon) the objects used to tell the narrative.

It might also be interesting to read Julian Jaynes and ask, as he does, what stories might be around if people were telling stories about the change out of the bicameral state; with the above in mind.

[Black Jack]

Chris that is not extactly cookie cutter true about atheism.

I am an atheist. It's simply about logic and acknowledging the bullsh!t of the whole fictional dogma of religon. Now I used to be a bit more militant on trying to get some people to get their head out of their arse but now I am more open to the fact that some people need something "greater" than themselves to believe in and if that something however illogical or full of crap gets that person through one more day or helps them cope with the stresses of life than that alone has merit.

I only really have a direct problem with it now when stated religous groups try to push their dogma in public government based areas. Schools, courts, whathaveyou.....something they are NOT supposed to do anyway because of separation of church and state.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Black Jack
I am an atheist. It's simply about logic and acknowledging the bullsh!t of the whole fictional dogma of religon.

Ok, so regarding beliefs about God, you feel the same way about people like Themeecer as they do about you. It seems to me that the "difference" you are describing here is "But I know I'm right!" Of course, this is exactly how fundamentalist Christians and Moslems and Buddhists and everyone else feels about their beliefs. So, if you can step away and look at everyone objectively, the difference you're describing doesn't seem to be any difference at all.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Shuul Vis
GOOD GUYS! Keep Themeecer spewing his nonsense here, on this thread, so that the rest of them can remain on topic or at least without having his crucifix hung all over them.

Sorry Shuul Vis, I'm protestant, so that would be a cross and not a crucifix. Though I'm quite fond of crucifixes. (What movie is that from?)

[chen zhen]

"In what way is atheism not a religion?"

Everything does'nt have to be a religion.

"Well, chances are you have opportunities to see GB, a tree, or a table. However, Ghandi passed away over fifty years ago...supposedly."

I don't know sh!t about ghandi, but he supposedly did have a big influence on the political evolvement of modern India. But that does'nt make him a religious figure.
btw: I think there's bigger possibilities for me to see Ghandi than Dunya..:p

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
Everything does'nt have to be a religion.

Certainly not. But beliefs about God and beliefs about other religious topics are good candidates for "being religion." Many religious people think their beliefs are special because they're the "right" ones; by insisting the same of atheism, you're more making my point than refuting it.

[ZIM]

CM's right about atheism, although maybe it'd be less 'offensive' to word it as 'a variety of religious belief'.

Within atheism, there's those who simply don't believe, then those believe there is no god and will attempt to prove that. One is passive, the other active. As well, there's philosophical [usually existentialist] and scientific [positivistic] atheism.

Last: for those who are atheist, how do you intend to express your belief for your burial? I find that many families will not respect the beliefs of an atheist, and I for one would be quite off-put to have my beliefs ignored. If nothing else, a civil burial would be an example for those left behind to have the courage to follow their beliefs, should they also be atheists- as it should be. Is this critical for the atheists in this thread, or a non-issue?

[ZIM]

Would be a better quote if it wasn't coming from Crowley. Unless you believe in 'as I say, not as I do.' I just thought it was funny, considering the source. ;)

[Former castleva]

"Within atheism, there's those who simply don't believe, then those believe there is no god and will attempt to prove that. One is passive, the other active. As well, there's philosophical [usually existentialist] and scientific [positivistic] atheism."

"Weak","Strong"...I do not know who decided to make this stuff up... :rolleyes:

ChristopherM,
Consider seriously what religion really is,and then reconsider the semantics.
A religion has to do with a willful belief in supernatural,deities,whatever.It is also likely to be an institution,involvement includes living the life with(in) it,doing various rituals etc.
All you can honestly say about someone who is an atheist,trough knowing the person is that he/she feels there is no reason to adopt a belief in a deity (this does not necessarily mean that the person in question cannot be spiritual,sure he/she can,while it is rather unlikely that one would be entertaining a religion,with exceptions kept in mind) This,I´ve said before.If you´re looking for a heart warming world view,or even heart freezing world view/philosophy/moral code,you have to pick that up from somewhere else.
You can still see books lying around,websites and all this,furiously stating that we´re talking about a religion here (oh plee´ease.Don´t take us down with you) Secular humanism has had some of this rap too...wait a minute,secular humanism is actually what could be considered an ethical system (but&still,not A r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n)

[dezhen2001]

btw: I think there's bigger possibilities for me to see Ghandi than Dunya.. im confused coz in arabic it means something else :D

dawood

[Former castleva]

Care to translate? :D

[dezhen2001]

nothing extravagant... i think it literally means something to do with living on the earth :) so ur already part of Dunya :)

could be wrong though

dawood

[Former castleva]

That´s how it seems.
I find it hard to believe you actually took the time to learn arabic,gongrats.

[dezhen2001]

ummm... im very far from fluent, its an islamic term (hence why i could be wrong :D). i can read reasonably well just have no idea what it means lol :)

dawood

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Former castleva
A religion has to do with a willful belief in supernatural,deities,whatever.

No, a religion has to do with a willfull belief about religious topics. There are religions which don't believe in dieties, religions that don't believe in the supernatural, and so on. You're continuing to treat "negative beliefs" as if they don't count as beliefs. This is absurd. Is libertarianism not a political stance, because it's ideology is all via negativa? Is dieting not a nutritional plan? Is abstinence not sexual behavior? Is cold not a temperature?

Any belief can be rewritten through clever use of semantics to be a "negative belief," simply because "negative" is nothing but a qualifier of the thing in relation to something else. So if you cannot discuss "negative beliefs" as beliefs, then you cannot discuss anything as beliefs. This stance is directly opposed to rationalism.


All you can honestly say about someone who is an atheist,trough knowing the person is that he/she feels there is no reason to adopt a belief in a deity

No, if they really are an atheist, we can say with complete confidence that they've adopted a belief about diety. In the same way that if someone really is a libertarian, we can say with complete confidence that they've adopted a belief about politics.

If someone makes no claims whatsoever about diety, then it might be the case that they feel there is no reason to adopt such a belief.

Can't you see the differences between these two things?

[Former castleva]

"No, a religion has to do with a willfull belief about religious topics. There are religions which don't believe in dieties, religions that don't believe in the supernatural, and so on. You're continuing to treat "negative beliefs" as if they don't count as beliefs. This is absurd. Is libertarianism not a political stance, because it's ideology is all via negativa? Is dieting not a nutritional plan? Is abstinence not sexual behavior? Is cold not a temperature?"

See what I wrote,I know that not all of the religions write down similar concepts,but they´ll still be united.A diety/"watchmaker" etc. is evident in various highly popular or religions of very little popularity,some of which few of us have even heard of.
But as I said,that´s not everything.


"No, if they really are an atheist, we can say with complete confidence that they've adopted a belief about diety. In the same way that if someone really is a libertarian, we can say with complete confidence that they've adopted a belief about politics.

If someone makes no claims whatsoever about diety, then it might be the case that they feel there is no reason to adopt such a belief.

Can't you see the differences between these two things?"

I don´t think you understood what I wrote.That´s what I see.
That´s all I have to say to you,I´m not riding this sled.

[ZIM]

Which Enemy of the Christian Faith Are You? (http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christquiz.html)

Types of Atheists (http://www.geocities.com/revgaud/what_atheism.html)

The Brights (http://www.the-brights.net/)

What kind of Zombie are you? (http://quizilla.com/users/zombotheclown/quizzes/What%20kind%20of%20Zombie%20are%20you%3F/)

Whatever... :rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

I think there are atheists who have definitely turned it into a belief system, but I don't think by default it has to be. For instance, say a group of people believed a giant worm named Saul created the earth from a withering piece of lettuce from a gorgon's tuna fish sandwhich. Despite no supporting evidence aside from the existence of the name Saul, the existence of lettuce, and the intrinsic fishiness of the world. To not believe in Saul is not a belief, or everyone here is a believer in no-Saul from the moment I made him up, aren't they? I mean, is there a single fiber of your beings that doesn't not believe in Saul? Fanatics!

I mean, atheism is merely not believing in anything that isn't, so, ideally, it is not belief, it's only when people take it to mean "believing in not believing" that it is a belief. Atheism is a misnomer that causes the problem, because it is an attempt to describe the act of not having irreconcilable concepts at odds with the real world as core beliefs in the real world.

After all, isn't everyone who doesn't believe in Zeus an atheist? Or are they relative atheists?


I've known atheists who believed, and others who didn't. Atheists who believe are imo actually just people who place their own judgement at some deity level, but atheists who don't are just sensible people who believe in fish and loaves miracles as much as they believe in The Professor's House. As good stories. Unfortunately, they must be tactful because there is a certain level where others are no longer required to substantiate extraordinary claims with extraordinary proofs. I suppose some might say my atheists who don't believe are agnostics, but that's just a polite way of saying "they're atheists who are tactful". Agnostics aren't concerned with gods because gods are mythology, but they're too polite to bring it up. Good as archetypes, good for art.

That's all my opinion, of course. Except the Saul bit, that you are all negative believers in with all your beings. Infidels.

[David Jamieson]

seen on a pub wall -

"Nietschze is dead" ~God

Ah the mystical and the esoteric, that which we are not granted the faculties to comprehend fully and therefore, we simply must have faith and believe.

This has become from a reality that is true of us all in our weakest states of emotion, to a tactic, used by the unscrupulous to take from anyone who would give them.

It is the most unfortunate predicament of the hopeless that they must seek it (hope) in someone elses descriptions of a better and new world for them if only they suspend logic for a moment and believe.

Spirituality is within and can be shared, but there is no material cost associated with your ethereal self wellness.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to legislate against stupidity and poor interpretation of reality. :(

And so we continue to huddle together against the dark and the cold and refuse to accept the bitter that is existance. If we would just stop doing this and instead open up to all that there is and accept that all there is in our universe is indeed enough! Why add more?!

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
To not believe in Saul is not a belief, or everyone here is a believer in no-Saul from the moment I made him up, aren't they? ... ideally, it is not belief, it's only when people take it to mean "believing in not believing" that it is a belief.

If you're saying that the issue is distinguishing between "not holding a belief" and "holding a negative belief," I would agree completely. I'd add that I believe my position so far has been consistent, as the people involved have been quite explicit about "holding a negative belief," and not "not holding a belief."

[KC Elbows]

I was more summarizing my viewpoint based off of experience with "atheists" from both camps, intersprersed with absurd bits about agnostics and tuna fish. Not really replying to any specific argument on here.

[Christopher M]

Makes sense. Tuna fish is yummy.

[KC Elbows]

Figures. I make it onto the religious discussion thread for the tunafish portion of the discussion. :D

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Just curious mecer, im not try to start any sort of flames, but do you believe there is a difference between christian god and the god indians worshipped?

(Ive read some very interesting literature in regards to 'god' by the indians, and some other very interesting literature on the indians and their pagan beliefs by christian white settlers....)

You are talking to a Christian who is part Cherokee Indian. You are asking me to compare Yahweh with the Great Spirit. Well, I believe originally they were the same, since I believe the world was destroyed by a worldwide flood and the Indians are descendants of Noah.

I guess your question goes back to the question of if a group of people haven't heard of Christ do they still go to Hell? I tried to answer this a few days ago and the browser crashed and I lost everything I typed, so here I go again.

The apostle Paul said something very interesting about this when he was debating some Greek philosophers in Athens.

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
This is important, because he's pointing out that there's a sovereign plan in creation, where each person is assigned a place of birth. God knows where we will be born and raised, and he puts us in a position where we might seek him. We are clearly told that wherever we live-in whatever culture, in whatever nation-he is within reach of every one of us. There is always the possibility of a person crying out on their knees, `God, help me,' and if that happens there are ways in which God can minister to them that are beyond our understanding.

God might send someone to share the gospel with them.

Originally posted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel"Or let me tell you what happened in the case of a Muslim woman who worked for a very well-known institution in her country. She told me how she was leaving her office at the end of her day's work and was very unhappy in her heart. As she was walking, she muttered, `I don't know why I am so empty,' and after that, out of the blue, she said, `Jesus, can you help me?' She stopped on the side_walk and said to herself, `Why did I name him?' Well, that woman ended up becoming a Christian."

"In her case, I think God saw a heart that hungered for him but did not know how to reach him in the cloister of her existence. I think this was God breaking past the barriers of her environment because she was already breaking through the barriers of her inner life, seek_ing after him. Thus, God can reach into any cultural situation in response to anyone who wants to know him.

So there are ways that God can reveal himself that go far beyond our own understanding. Note, I am only stating this in the case for those who have never been around the gospel, who have never had a chance to hear of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If they have heard and choose to remain in their 'faith,' then they are without excuse.

[MasterKiller]

Well, I believe originally they were the same, since I believe the world was destroyed by a worldwide flood and the Indians are descendants of Noah. Aren't we all supposed to be decendents of Noah? I mean, God supposedly killed everyone but Noah and his family, right?

[dwid]

So there are ways that God can reveal himself that go far beyond our own understanding. Note, I am only stating this in the case for those who have never been around the gospel, who have never had a chance to hear of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If they have heard and choose to remain in their 'faith,' then they are without excuse.

This is an insufficient way to sweep aside what is one of the huge problems apparent in Christianity.

I find it so egotistical and downright elitist that so many Christians feel that everyone is responsible for coming to God and is bound to hell if they don't.

I was raised in a strict Christian environment, Christian schools, etc... and this is one of those issues no Christian I have ever met has a satisfactory response to.

My mom always says that at some point after death and before the "afterlife" everyone gets to choose if they haven't been exposed at all to God's "message" throughout their lives.

My response to such nonsense is what about the Buddhist, for example, who spends his whole life in a culture that supports Buddhism. The belief system fulfills all his spiritual needs and gives him an ethical foundation through which he lives a good life. Say this Buddhist meets a Christian missionary, but he doesn't change religions because he is perfectly happy, possibly moreso than the missionary who is attempting to convert him. He doesn't have this emptiness or depression that Christians assume all people have who don't follow their path.

According to you, this guy goes to hell for making what is a perfectly rational decision about his faith.

It's ludicrous.

[Christopher M]

Don't hold that against Christians, since it's not a Christian belief.

[dwid]

Is that a reply to me or MK?

If it's a reply to me, I understand, that it's only a very vocal minority of Christians that are this arrogant, but it's an arrogance supported by the faith, the same arrogance that supports manifest destiny and all that.

[Shaolin-Do]

"God knows where we will be born and raised, and he puts us in a position where we might seek him"

However... :) Accoding to Christian beliefs, anyone worshipping a false diety goes to hell. People believe what they were taught to believe, more or less. If you grew up in Tibet studying buddhism for 20 yrs, and someoen brings to you christianity, that will not be what you believe. You have already established some sort of "self" at this point (hopefully) and thereby established some sort of beliefs on which you base your moral character and life. This is my main argument with christianity. God is god, christian god is muslim god is indian god is buddhist god... Jesus Christ is just a christian figurehead. This may not be your belief, but almost all christians I know believe that other religions go to hell, for worshipping the wrong god. However, how is it the wrong god? How is it even a different god? By todays standards, any of the "wisemen" and the like who spoke to god, would be institutionalized for schizophrenia(sp?) and delusions of grandeur.

[MasterKiller]

SD,

Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the same God...where they differ is their belief in his prophets.







And Buddha never made any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.

[norther practitioner]

By todays standards, any of the "wisemen" and the like who spoke to god, would be institutionalized for schizophrenia(sp?) and delusions of grandeur.

maybe you should listen to that bum next time you walk by him, see what his view of god is (you know the one always preaching and whatnot)...

[Shaolin-Do]

"And Buddha never made any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god"
My apologies, was typing faster than I was thinking. :)


"Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the same God...where they differ is their belief in his prophets."

Hence the comment "jesus is the christian figurehead for god."

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by dwid
Is that a reply to me or MK?

You; sorry.


I understand, that it's only a very vocal minority of Christians that are this arrogant, but it's an arrogance supported by the faith

Well, I think it's supported by some aspects of the Protestant faith, rather than the general Christian faith. Particularly the Protestant doctrines that require Scripture for salvation, eliminate the concept of Purgatory, and put primacy in fundamentalism.

To be fair, that is - to your position, following the above, there are Protestant faiths who explicitly make the exclusionary remarks you're commenting against.

There are Christians, though, Orthodox and Catholics, who, of course, have vehemently opposed all these things since their conception. That is, and moreover, whose faiths have explicitly rejected the exclusionary remarks in question.

[dwid]

point taken

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Accoding to Christian beliefs, anyone worshipping a false diety goes to hell.

That's just simply incorrect. According to Catholic and Orthodox thought, Hell (meaning 'eternal seperation from God') is a state which follows a life of mortal sin, of which there is only one: not wanting, at the core of your being, to be united with God. In other words, Hell follows only free will.

[MasterKiller]

So, worshipping a chicken would be cool as long as I thought that doing so would unite me with the Godhead?

[Shaolin-Do]

Dude, its in the 10 commandments.
Anyone worshipping a false idol is condemned to hell.
As far as almost all christians I know are concerned, they believe that any god OTHER THAN CHRISTIAN GOD, is wrong. Not the same. Different and wrong, and being condemned to hell for believing different.
Oh, and Ive been told MANY times that Im going to hell for not being baptised or worhipping jesus.

[Christopher M]

What do you mean by "would be cool"?

[Shaolin-Do]

"would be cool"
Gain acceptance and entrance into heaven.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by dwid
This is an insufficient way to sweep aside what is one of the huge problems apparent in Christianity.

That isn't a sweeping away of the problem. Honestly that is a tough question. Until recently I hadn't found scripture that even remotely addressed it. (Not saying more isn't there .. I just haven't found it) The best answer I can give you is I don't know. But I tried to make an educated guess there. One thing I do know is that I serve a just God. Whatever does happen, it will be 'right.' There will not be anything unfair to what he does.


Originally posted by dwid
I find it so egotistical and downright elitist that so many Christians feel that everyone is responsible for coming to God and is bound to hell if they don't.

Not to sound ugly here, but honestly it doesn't matter how you feel. If God is who he says he is, and I believe he is. He is in control of this universe; He knows of everything that is happening in all periods of time. In our finite minds we have absolutely no way of understanding his mind. We may not understand why something happens, but in the grand scheme of things, He does. In his grand scheme, there is only one way to Heaven, through his son. I believe there are ways for people to come to a basic knowledge of this even on the remotest island. Note, I am not saying there are exceptions to the rule only that there are ways the rule is exposed to everyone.

[MasterKiller]

What do you mean by "would be cool"?

Kosher....hip....OK....permissable....

I mean, if the only mortal sin is to not want unification with the Godhead, then me worshipping a chicken in order to be united with the Godhead should be all right in his books.

[fa_jing]

wierd. Anyway, historically, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches were models of tolerance, from what I have heard. For instance, the barbaric treatment of indigenous peoples in the Carribean and South America by Catholics in the name of "christianizing" etc. OTOH we should remember that Catholic priest dude that spoke out on behalf of these same indigenous people - you know, what's his name? :)

[Shaolin-Do]

"In his grand scheme, there is only one way to Heaven, through his son."

And here inlies my point which I just addressed.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Dude, its in the 10 commandments.

Which are not part of the covenant between man and God according to Catholic and Orthodox understanding; so it's of little consequence, but even so...


Anyone worshipping a false idol is condemned to hell.

No they don't say that. They command against idolatry, which is neither "worshipping a God other than the Judeo-Christian God" (which would imply such a thing exists, which is pantheism, which is a heresy; so we can conclude confidently they're not saying that) nor "creating an image of God" (which would be iconoclasm, another heresy; so again we can conclude confidently they don't mean this), but rather "worshipping the image of something rather than the thing itself" (which is what idolatry means - and it is something which applies just as much to worship of the "Judeo-Christian God" as well as worship without material representation). And moreover again breaking this commandment would be a venal, not a mortal sin; so even if you broke it, it wouldn't **** you to Hell.

That's alot of weight against your point.


As far as almost all christians I know are concerned, they believe that any god OTHER THAN CHRISTIAN GOD, is wrong.

You have my condolences for being exposed to Christians who treat you like this. I'm sure you know better than to conclude from "there are Christians who X" to "Christians are X", which is precisely, of course, the line seperating regular people from bigots.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
Anyway, historically, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches were models of tolerance, from what I have heard.

Was this meant as a refutation of any remarks I have made, or an unrelated comment?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Kosher....hip....OK....permissable....should be all right in his books.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're asking.

Are you under the impression that anything can only have two worths i) condemns you to Hell, or ii) is good?

[dwid]

Meecer,

I just can't reconcile these statements:

"One thing I do know is that I serve a just God. Whatever does happen, it will be 'right.' There will not be anything unfair to what he does.

In his grand scheme, there is only one way to Heaven, through his son."

The expectation is itself unfair. You can believe as much as you like that everything god does is right as rain, but the god who only gives one very culturally specific way to get to him is an unfair one by definition. For every story like the one you posted about the Muslim woman, there are thousands like the one I made up about my theoretical Buddhist. Even if I believed in the model of reality you believe in, I could never devote myself to a god that could be so cruel.

[MasterKiller]

Are you under the impression that anything can only have two worths i) condemns you to Hell, or ii) is good?

According to Catholic and Orthodox thought, Hell (meaning 'eternal seperation from God') is a state which follows a life of mortal sin, of which there is only one: not wanting, at the core of your being, to be united with God. In other words, Hell follows only free will.

Do I go to hell for worshipping a chicken if my intent in doing so is unification with the Godhead?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Do I go to hell for worshipping a chicken if my intent in doing so is unification with the Godhead?

No.

[MasterKiller]

Kick @ss.

[Shaolin-Do]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MasterKiller
Do I go to hell for worshipping a chicken if my intent in doing so is unification with the Godhead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"No. "

"In his grand scheme, there is only one way to Heaven, through his son. "

Hmm...?
:confused:

Edit: the 2 of you have contradicted each other.

[Christopher M]

Especially if it's General Tsao's chicken.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Edit: the 2 of you have contradicted each other.

Shouldn't be a surprise, as we believe patently different things.

That said; going specifically by the quotes in your post, I don't see any contradiction.

[Shaolin-Do]

I have an excellent recipe for that stuff... for anyone who is interested. Just pm me.
;)

[Shaolin-Do]

You- Catholic
Mecer - christian?

Apologies... Im in the bad habit of lumping all of these religions together as "christian"

[Christopher M]

He's Protestant. I'm Catholic/Orthodox.

Assuming we both adhere strictly to the different religions, we would part ways quite dramatically on a number of important points.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Was this meant as a refutation of any remarks I have made, or an unrelated comment?

It sure was a refutation. If all Catholics cared about was willingness to be close to God, then in what sense were they bringing "salvation" as stated to the indigenous people?

FYI: The beliefs of modern Catholicism seem to an outsider to have gone through much change (positive to me) since the 1960's Conference or whatever it was called.

[themeecer]

I disagree with Christopher M on this point .. but he is my only friend on this thread so I won't make a big deal about it. :D

I did find your exchange with MK funny. In some ways I understand your meaning behind what you told him, but I disagree that we are not still under the 10 commandments. And to me this would be a graven image, a live one, but still an image. And not to mention the fact that the chicken would flog MK's eyes out when he tried to pray to it.

SD .. I don't like to make the distinction of one is Catholic and one is Christian. I believe we are both Christians, and I will be in heaven beside him someday.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
It sure was a refutation. If all Catholics cared about was willingness to be close to God, then in what sense were they bringing "salvation" as stated to the indigenous people?

a) I didn't say that was the only thing the Catholic religion cared about. I said it was the only thing which "sent" you to Hell. Big difference.

b) Another big difference: what Catholicism says, and what a self-proclaimed Catholic you meet says.

Some combination of the above should answer your question.


The beliefs of modern Catholicism seem to an outsider to have gone through much change (positive to me) since the 1960's Conference or whatever it was called.

Vatican II. Some good changes, some bad ones; as would be expected. For the most part, there's been an increase in ecumenical sentiment, if that's what you mean.

[MasterKiller]

And not to mention the fact that the chicken would flog MK's eyes out when he tried to pray to it. Forgive him, mighty Chickor, for he knows not what he says.

[Shaolin-Do]

Catholics also always tell me "im not christian. Im catholic."
Where inlies the difference? Other than the fact that every catholic church Ive visited with friends creeps the living hell out of me.

"I disagree that we are not still under the 10 commandments. "

"The 10 commandments? Ppphhhtt. That stuff was written like... 200 years ago!"
-homer simpson, on following the 10 commandments.
:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by themeecer
I believe we are both Christians.

Yes we are. But that doesn't mean we hold the same beliefs; nor that our differences are cosmetic, shallow, or otherwise negligible.

Let me know if you wanted a discussion about our disagreements you've noticed (eg. 10 commandments).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Catholics also always tell me "im not christian. Im catholic."
Where inlies the difference?

They shouldn't say that; they're certainly Christians. I assume they mean to differentiate themselves from Protestants, which is reasonable. Catholics/Orthodox believe largely the same things, thought they sometimes say it in different ways. Protestants have some important different beliefs; a reasonable elaboration of which would probably be longer than you'd read (and certainly longer than I'd type now).

Some of the more classic differences have allready been mentioned: Protestants don't believe in Purgatory, Catholics/Orthodox do. Protestants believe salvation comes from faith and scripture, Catholics/Orthodox believe it comes from faith and good works. Protestants base their religion on scripture (the Bible), Catholics/Orthodox base their religion on the cultural transmission of Catholicism/Orthodox. Catholicism/Orthodox is essentially mystical whereas (classical) Protestantism isn't. All sorts of stuff on this on the web; wikipedia is quite good.

The Protestant emphasis on scripture results in, relative to (and from the point of view of) Catholicism/Orthodox, fundamentalism (direct reading of the Bible; contra reading it in light of the cultural transmission) and judaizing (closer adherence to Jewish ideas).

[Shaolin-Do]

So to get to my base point....
Do you feel that one who worships god, or believes in god, yet does not believe in jesus, will go to hell?

And what happens to buddhists to believe in no such thing as hell? (Or that earth is hell)?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Do you feel that one who worships god, or believes in god, yet does not believe in jesus, will go to hell?

No.


And what happens to buddhists to believe in no such thing as hell? (Or that earth is hell)?

Same thing that happens to the rest of us.

[themeecer]

Yes I do.

[Shaolin-Do]

:confused:
:confused:
:confused:

[The Willow Sword]

. well shaolin-do you bring up an interesting question. If one believe's in one type of fantasy but rejects another type of fantasy. will in fact that fantasy affect the others fantastical view of the fantasy itself?
will the make believe rules of one fantasy affect the make believe rules of anther fantasy?

lets take it in context of jr tolkiens books and anne Mcaffreys books. both are fantasy books. they got some real neat stories in them and they are very similar(ie anne mcaffery is a tolkien wannabe, heheh J/k i love annes stories). can they both be combined and have one anther affect each other in the same way? well yes i think they can. but only in fantasy. in a make believe world with make believe characters i guess anything is possible.

i will just bet that didnt make sense at all to you.

well here let me explain.

when you believe in a story so much and when you get a bunch of other people to believe in a stroy soooo much that you will fight and kill other people to keep that story going.and when you start to pontificate and preach that story onto others and make them feel bad because thier story is not the same as yours and you think your story is THE story. its time to start really looking at your overall mental stability an health.
now they have certain drugs on the market that will help you with this. paxil,,zoloft,,,prozac.
i just wish they had these things back in the roman days on through to the medeval period. when all the crusades were happening. and the burning times. Pagans too for they really did thier part in feeding X-tians to the lions. they really could have used a zoloft drip in to the veins.
well anyway ,,thats my interpretations for now.
oh and dont forget to play the new and exciting game http://www.jesusdressup.com/

TWS

[MasterKiller]

Yes I do.
Before Jesus was born, did people go to hell for not believing in him? What about on the day he was born, do all the poor suckas in Ecuador who died that day go to hell because they had not yet heard of him?

[themeecer]

Good question MK. No they didn't. Short answer, the Jews looked towards the coming of the Messiah, we look back into the past for him. They believed in his coming so they were covered. Also they were covered by the old law, we are under the new law now.

A good symbolism of this in the bible and in a good movie (Prince of Egypt), is the account of Moses. During the last plauge, when the first born died, the jews had a way to prevent this. God told them to apply lambs blood to their doors so that the spirit would pass over and leave them alone. The blood covered them. Just like today we have Christ's blood to cover us.

And for the people in Ecuador, I have to go back to the example of the peoples that never heard of the gospel, above.

Dang it .. I apologize for my briefness, but I'm trying to eat and have class to get to here in a bit. Good discussion by the way.

[MasterKiller]

God told them to apply lambs blood to their doors so that the spirit would pass over and leave them alone. The blood covered them. Just like today we have Christ's blood to cover us. The God of Moses is such a drama queen...

[themeecer]

LOL. He holds blood ... thus life and life force in high regard.

[The Willow Sword]

mentally ill to be all giddy about smearing lambs blood on your door.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[norther practitioner]

which prob. spread more disease than it prevented...

[The Willow Sword]

;)

[ewallace]

Do you feel that one who worships god, or believes in god, yet does not believe in jesus, will go to hell?

I believe that as well.

[ZIM]

My beliefs are a great deal closer to CM's than themeecer's, esp. WRT where various believers 'go to' after death. Sussing it out a bit, here:

10 commandments: states "Thou shalt hold no God before Me, for I am a jealous God"- which all just admits there ARE other gods, else why be jealous? One might figure then, that one could concievably go to the heaven ordained by the prior belief, but that this God would regard it as Lesser. A Hell, in fact. But one man's trash is another's treasure, no? ;)

Romans- states somewhere in there that "Those who have not the Law yet still uphold the Law, are a Law unto themselves." Sure, it's just Paul's ravings, but this is interpreted to mean that an honorable man/woman who upholds the good works and faith-towards-the-Godhead that Christianity also upholds is worthy of Divine reward, though of what kind, I can't say and neither can any other mortal.

Ah, there's more- I just want to go get some booze, right? Long day. ;)

[ZIM]

Yeah, whatever. I'll find it.

If Fundamentalists wanna tell everybody that they're going to Hell and whatnot, then thats just groovy with me, and I'll tell you why: to pronounce judgments upon your fellow man is to say that you are worthy to take up the power of the Godhead unto yourself- and "God Help You" if you choose to do that. :eek:

Pride was the first Sin.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
"Thou shalt hold no God before Me, for I am a jealous God"- which all just admits there ARE other gods, else why be jealous?

What the jealousy refers to here is the conception of different places for gods. God, here, is concieved in terms of his relationship specially and specifically with a cultural group. Since there are other cultural groups, it follows necessarily that there are other places for gods, regardless of whether or not there's other gods. Jealousy is a necessary condition for such a god, as any undermining of the special and specific relationship between cultural group and god is an attack against the conception itself of god. In other words, jealousy is a necessary, constitutive description of that state of being.

And this is exactly why Paul's ravings are so crucial; what he was on about was making sure that religion was not a matter of wondering what "place for gods" God happens to occupy, but about reconceptualizing the entire question such that "place for gods" becomes an absurd/meaningless concept: thus making jealousy no longer a necessary, constitutive description. Fulfilled, not destroyed, and so on.

The fundamentalist position, rediscovered honestly enough by rejecting the church fathers while requiring acceptance of the old covenant, is clearly precisely a return to the old conception of religion.

Splash.


Looking for that dam ned silly straw...

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rm2:13-16)

Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

If, then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rm2:25-29)

[dezhen2001]

interesting thread... will have to read more after work :)

themeecer: have you ever asked a Jew about the Messiah? They tell of somthing ever so slightly different to Christ.

dawood

[themeecer]

Have I asked one personally? No, I have not. I was speaking of the Jews before the coming of Christ. Many ended up rejecting Christ and are still awaiting their Messiah, because they picture him coming in glory and not humbly like Jesus did.

[ZIM]

You know CM, the problem I have with your reply is that I can't tell at all whther you are agreeing with the spirit of what I wrote but not the details, or condemning it outright. Thats the problem with cleverness and theology, to me. :p

Thanks for finding the refs!

Hey- funniest line in the Present Testament comes from Luke-

"And another said, I have taken a wife, so therefore I cannot come."

[The Willow Sword]

supposed to go like he is coming with fire and brimstone and all that and JUDGING AND CASTING DOWN IN FLAMES AND BURNING AND CHARRING? that doesnt seem very humble if you ask me.

you know i saw a bumper stcker once that i had a great reply to . the bumper sticker said "in case of rapture, this vehicle will suddenly become unmanned". or something like that.

my reply sticker says. "in case of rapture, i get your SUV".:D

[themeecer]

Willow, ummmmm .. I think you are alluding to the second coming. Though you are off base on it, not going to happen like you say. The Jews are still awaiting the first coming. You do get extra points for throwing in the liberal mantra of the use of the word "judging."

[MonkeyKing]

There's nothing like a second cuming!

[Subzero]

HI.Second post on this forum.
I have a question for all the christains.
What do u think of the book of job?
It's my favourite book in the bible.
God tells satan to kill jobs family take away all his land and livestock and torture him.Just to see if he would still love god after it.What a nice chappy he is.
Then when job finally curses god his friends say he's a bad guy.
WTF?

:confused:

As martial artists if god said "I'm gonna kill your family" or sent someone else to do it would u answer
A)Sure whY not.
B)NO and i'l fight you even though i have no chance of winning to try and stop u.

(Now it's a religous and maoral debate) :D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
I can't tell at all whther you are agreeing with the spirit of what I wrote but not the details, or condemning it outright.

Ahhh, my work here is done. :p

I meant it as an agreement, but it took on a life of it's own.

Regarding the Paul quotes, do you know he actually goes further than what is covered there? All of that is to establish an argument for rejecting the concept of the law, not just making it relative.

[Subzero]

I haven' read al of this disscusion yet.But i take it ur tlkaing about pauls letters.He condems women too.Unfortunately thought this can't really be used ne more as an argument.They've found out that they weren't actualy pauls.DStupid bible editors:)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
What do u think of the book of job?

If you're asking me how I would rationalize statements about God made in Job (or elsewhere in the Old Testament; there's probably better examples than Job you could have used) with the Christian faith, I guess the simple answer would be that I don't.

One of the central Christian beliefs is in something called the "New Covenant," which describes that the relationship between man and God was fundamentally different before Christ than after him. As I come after, and Job comes before, it's not in the least bit surprising to find this to be the case.

[ZIM]

Thanks for clarifying, CM! Yes, I know somesuch about Paul in that regard, he's just not one of my faves, is all. Basically, I stick to Gospels [incl. Thomas], Acts, Epistles of James, Jude, John, etc. In all cases just guidelines, not Law, and of course, the writings of George Fox, Woolman, Margaret Fell etc. James 3? is the justification for Works, IIRC. States clearly that faith alone will not profit.

But you know, I come from a different direction than you- not a theologian despite my curiousity- and again from themeecer as well. Closer to Deism, but with works, if you need pigeonholes. :) Binding tenet, if any, is found within Luke, parable of the watchful servants. It'll do for now, anyway, since I'm no expert. Laodiceans is important, too- I keep forgetting everything. ha.

Subzero- what makes you think any of it was written by anybody they were supposedly written by? [jeez, that was a weird sentence] :p

[ZIM]

WRT Job- If God came to you and said He was going to do such things, what? Are you going to get a second opinion? Maybe I'd check to see if that was actually God before I decided to do anything rash. ;)

[MasterKiller]

Nice post Xebby.

[ZIM]

berserker-

actually, you can go further than that. If you look into the Gnostic traditions, some of them examined the stories of Genesis, esp. the lines where [after the whole Tree thing] Adam was hiding and God was saying things like "where are you? Why do you hide from Me?" etc.

They concluded that this being could not possibly be God- so they named the God of the OT "Samael": the Blind Idiot God. Yes, there's a lot more to it than that, but interesting out of context, no?

C'mon! Give us Hell! :D CM will no doubt correct me. :p :p No problems, really.

[dezhen2001]

themeecer: its interesting how the Jewish people interpret certain key passages from the Torah, especially the ones that Christians say are talking about Jesus :) If u have never asked, its worth doing for sure.

dawood

[fa_jing]

cannot resist...must post http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/mainpages/FAQ.html

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
James 3? is the justification for Works, IIRC. States clearly that faith alone will not profit.

The real trick with justification I think is that "faith and works" or "faith and scripture" aren't each talking about two things: faith and something else; rather, the something else modifies what is meant by faith, and vice-versa. It's a conjugative phrase.


Closer to Deism, but with works, if you need pigeonholes.

I've never fully accomodated this word. :( If you mean Deism (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), then I'd say this is entirely consistent with a Platonic Christianity (like Catholicism, Orthodox, Gnosticism) or any other emanationist stance, except for the remarks about miracles/revelations/and such.

Although perhaps this is the very difference between deism and emanationism. From the latter perspective, at least, a purely self-regulating mechanism is not contrary to a concept of external influences. Perhaps it would be too simple to describe this as the position that science and miracles are not necessarily conflicting. For instance, if you confronted someone who holds this position with the observation that there is a neural substrate underlying mystical experience, they wouldn't be surprised, nor would this make the experience any less mystical - the neural substrate here being an example of how the mechanism is self-regulating / self-contained. Hmmm... this is harder to explain than I thought. It's like, if the movements of your hand effect the movements of the shadow on the wall, that doesn't mean there's no light behind your hand (quite the contrary!). It's quite logical to an emanationist (and deist?) that "miracles" would accord themselves to natural law, as the natural law itself is an extension of the source of the miraculous. Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure of it.


They concluded that this being could not possibly be God- so they named the God of the OT "Samael": the Blind Idiot God.

Odd as it may sound, I don't think there's any real difference between what the [Christian] Gnostics are saying and what the [other] Christians are saying; at least in this regard. Once you stop thinking about God as being a guy who hangs out somewhere, and try to accomodate a more complex conception thereof, the differences between the OT god is not the same as the NT God and the relationship between man and God in the OT is not the relationship between man and God in the NT basically disappear.

At this point it seems like they're both struggling with the same issues, and basically coming to the same conclusions. If they were being particularly flippant, they may have expressed their struggles as:


Maybe I'd check to see if that was actually God before I decided to do anything rash.

Do you think? :p

I think I said this before... but when you read the same story told in very different ways, it gets easier to focus on the underlying themes rather than the objects being used to convey them. :)

[templefist]

Well, I believe originally they were the same, since I believe the world was destroyed by a worldwide flood and the Indians are descendants of Noah.

Does that include South Americans too, what about the Mayans?

[ZIM]

LMAO at the commentary WRT flippant Gnosticism.. :D Correct I'd bet! Sometimes we think that they were too mystical, but behind that, no they weren't, not at all... :p

WRT Deism- yeah, its a kind of difficult thing. I keep trying to reach for good definitions to convey, but really it all comes down to experience and perception. Your thoughts re: Emanationism vice Deism were thought-provoking and concise/clear to me. As the Society speaks of Light consistently, that was a good way to visualise it- and the neural substrate idea fits as well. So, yes on the whole I think you're right. :)

Where we depart from Deism is in mindfulness [to use a buddhist phrase]. Deists believe that the Diety takes no part in His creation after, like He left. Not quite the case.
---------------
Different subject is brewing: second comings and diffs, etc. My thoughts re: this are that the situation is a little like a ball being thrown, a ball being caught. The catcher, to follow the analogy, makes corrections to it [catcher being a diety, after all] as it descends... whump, into the mitt. Not a theologian, I. ;)

[chen zhen]

wtf? (http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/mainpages/handbook.html)
:confused:

"Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favor. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others."
- The Buddha

;):D Nice said.

"There is no coercion in religion. Such a truth should open up for us new doors to understanding religion. How can anyone be forced to be attracted to a beloved, and how can anyone become a follower of a principle, if the motivation is not already always present in his heart?"
-The Koran

Good:)

[dezhen2001]

http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/handbook/s_messiah.html

interesting :)

dawood

[ZIM]

Yeah, I can agree with what was written in that link.

[Subzero]

Don't u find it strange that god changes how he acts towards humans.How has his realtionship changed?Is god some sort of skitzo?One minute it's "I'LL KILL U ALL FOR EATING MEAT ON A FRIDAY!!!" And then he's all "I love you all, i want to cuddle you".Why did things change.Did god realise that he had actuly committed more crimes against humanity then ne one had or has up until now.
Heres the case against god:

[Subzero]

The purpose of this prosecution is to find the defendant, an entity
by the name of Jahweh, guilty of mass murder and other crimes to
a degree not ever seen before in the courts of Humanity. This prosecution
will use his word, a book titled "Holy Bible" as a confession when
it applies to murder, and book of perversions as it applies to the
spreading of unsavoury materials to children. For this purpose, the murders
will be counted as he has listed in the Bible, while the unsavoury
materials will count as being listed each time mentioned, while multiplied
by number of children given to. This is estimated at some three billion.
Hate speech is given this multiplier as well. At various points in his
confession he states murder of cities - as a number cannot be provided,
we will state a charge of genocide. Also, assorted plague weapons have been
loosed by this madman, and will count as crimes against Humanity. Where
orders are given to repression, it will be called as hate speech. All
prophets in this book are considered inspired by Jahweh. Finally, the
book of Revelation will be used as his conspiricy to murder.

It is the intent of this prosecution to find the guilty of all charges,
but not to find every charge he is guilty of. His confession is far too
extensive for one hearing.

The charges of murder.

Genesis 6:7. - Genocide
Genesis 19:24 - Genocide
Genesis 38:7 - 1st degree murder.
Genesis 38:10 - 1st degree murder.
Exodus 7:19 - Crime against Humanity.
Exodus 9:6 - Crime against Humanity.
Exodus 9:9 - Crime against Humanity.
Exodus 9:19 - Crime against Humanity.
Exodus 11:5 - Genocide
Exodus 17:14 - Genocide
Exodus 32:27 - Genocide
Exodus 32:35 - Crime against Humanity
Leviticus 10:1-2 - 1st degree murder, 2 counts
Numbers 3:4 - 1st degree murder, 2 counts
Numbers 11:1 - Genocide
Numbers 11:13 - Crime against Humanity.
Numbers 16:20-49 - Genocide
Numbers 16:41-50 - Crime against Humanity
Numbers 21:3 - Genocide
Numbers 21:6 - Crime against Humanity
Numbers 21:34-35 - Genocide
Numbers 25:1-5 - Genocide
Numbers 25:69 - Crime against Humanity
Numbers 26:10 - Genocide
Numbers 31:7 - Genocide
Numbers 31:18 - Crime against Humanity
Numbers 33:4 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 2:21-22 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 2:30 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 2:33-36 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 3:3,6 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 4:3 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 7:2 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 7:16 - Genocide
Deuteronomy 7:20-23 - Crime against Humanity
Deuteronomy 25:19 - Genocide
Joshua 6:7 - Genocide
Joshua 7:16-24 - Genocide
Joshua 8:8 - Genocide
Joshua 10:10 - Genocide
Joshua 10:11 - Crime against Humanity
Joshua 7:24-16 - Genocide
Joshua 11:6-17 - Genocide
Joshua 11:20 - Genocide
Judges 1:2-7 - Genocide
Judges 1:17, 19 - Genocide
Judges 3:15-22 - 1st degree murder
Judges 3:28-29 - Genocide
Judges 4:15-16 - Genocide
Judges 11:21 - Genocide
Judges 11:33 - Genocide
Judges 12:6 - Genocide
Judges 16:28-30 - Genocide
Judges 20:37 - Genocide
1 Samuel 5:9 - Genocide
1 Samuel 6:19 - Genocide
1 Samuel 15:2-3 - Genocide
1 Samuel 23:4-5 - Genocide
1 Samuel 25:38 - 1st degree murder
2 Samuel 5:19 - Genocide
2 Samuel 6:7 - 1st degree murder
2 Samuel 12:18 - 1st degree murder
2 Samuel 21:1 - Crime against Humanity
2 Samuel 24:13 - Crime against Humanity
1 Kings 20:28-30 - Genocide
1 Kings 20:35 - 1st degree murder
2 Kings 2:23-24 - 1st degree murder, 42 counts
2 Kings 3:19-25 - Genocide
2 Kings 6:18 - Crime against Humanity
2 Kings 8:1 - Crime against Humanity
2 Kings 15:5 - Crime against Humanity
2 Kings 17:25-26 - Genocide
2 Kings 19:35 - Genocide
2 Kings 23:20 - Genocide
1 Chronicles 2:3 - 1st degree murder
1 Chronicles 13:9-10 - 1st degree murder
1 Chronicles 21:7 - Genocide
2 Chronicles 13:15-20 - Genocide
2 Chronicles 14:8-14 - Genocide
2 Chronicles 15:6 - Genocide
2 Chronicles 25:12 - Genocide
2 Chronicles 36:16-17 - Genocide
Job 1:19 - Crime against Humanity
Isaiah 37:36 - Genocide
Jeremiah 2:30 - Genocide
Jeremiah 4:25-26 - Genocide
Jeremiah 5:3 - Crime against Humanity
Jeremiah 28:16-16 - 1st degree murder
Jeremiah 33:5 - Genocide
Jeremiah 50:21 - Genocide
Jeremiah 50:27-30 - Genocide
Lamentations 1:15 - Genocide
Lamentations 4:10-11 - Crime against Humanity
Ezekiel 9:4-10 - Genocide
Ezekiel 22:31 - Genocide
Ezekiel 24: 15-18 - 1st degree murder
Amos 2:9 - Genocide
Amos 4:10 - Genocide
Obidiah 1:9 - Genocide
Nahum 1:5 - Crime against Humanity
Zepheniah 3:6 - Genocide
Luke 1:20 - Crime against Humanity
Acts 5:5 - 1st degree murder
Acts 5:10 - 1st degree murder
Acts 12:23 - 1st degree murder
Acts 13:8-11 - Crime against Humanity
Revelation 2:23 - Conspiricy to Genocide
Revelation 6:4 - Conspiricy to Genocide
Revelation 6:8 - Conspiricy to Genocide
Revelation 8:7-13 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 9:4-6 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 9:15-19 - Conspiricy to Genocide
Revelation 11:13 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 14:10-11 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 14:19 - Conspiricy to Genocide
Revelation 16:2 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:3 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:4 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:8 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:10 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:12 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 16:17 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 18:8 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 19:20 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 20:9-10 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
Revelation 20:15 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity
revelation 21:8 - Conspiricy of Crimes against Humanity

Cruelty to Animals
Genesis 6:7
Exodus 20:24
Exodus 29:11-37
Exodus 29:36-39
Leviticus Chapters 1 - 9
Leviticus 5:8-9
Leviticus 7:1-6
Leviticus 7:18-27
Leviticus 7:30-36
Leviticus 8:14-32
Leviticus 9:8-21
Leviticus 14:2-32
Leviticus 16:6-28
Leviticus 22:12-14, 18
Numbers 15:3
Numbers 15:13-14
Numbers 15:24
Numbers 18:17-19
Deuteronomy 21:1-8
Deuteronomy 28:31
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 8:31
Judges 14:5-8
Judges 15:4-8
1 Samuel 11:6-7
1 Samuel 15:2-3
1 Kings 8:5
1 Kings 8:63
Jeremiah 7:20
Jeremiah 50:27-30
Haggai 2:22
Zecheriah 12:4
Zechariah 14:15
Mathew 8:32
Mark 5:12-13
Luke 8:27-37
Hebrews 9:13-14, 22
Hebrews 12:20
Revelation 16:3

Hate Speech (each verse said 3 billion times)

Exodus 21:15
Exodus 21:24
Exodus 21:29
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Exodus 22:24
Exodus 23:27
Exodus 30:21
Exodus 31:14
Exodus 35:2-3
Leviticus 10:6-9
Leviticus 18:25
Leviticus 20:2-5
Leviticus 20:9
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 20:11
Leviticus 20:12
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:14
Leviticus 20:15-16
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 21:9
Leviticus 23:29-30
Leviticus 24:14-23
Leviticus 26:7-8
Leviticus 26:16-39
Leviticus 27:28-29
Numbers 1:51
Numbers 3:10
Numbers 3:38
Numbers 4:15
Numbers 4:20
Numbers 14:12
Numbers 14:29
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Numbers 18:22
Numbers 18:32
Numbers 19:1-22
Numbers 23:24
Numbers 24:8
Numbers 25:16-17
Numbers 35:33
Deuteronomy 6:15
Deuteronomy 7:4
Deuteronomy 7:10
Deuteronomy 9:3
Deuteronomy 12:27
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Deuteronomy 18:20
Deuteronomy 19:11-13
Deuteronomy 19:18-21
Deuteronomy 20:13
Deuteronomy 20:16
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Deuteronomy 21:22
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Deuteronomy 22:22
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Deuteronomy 28:18
Deuteronomy 28:20-22
Deuteronomy 28:27-28
Deuteronomy 28:36-40
Deuteronomy 28:41
Deuteronomy 28:48-49
Deuteronomy 28:50-52
Deuteronomy 28:53-55
Deuteronomy 28:56-57
Deuteronomy 28:68
Deuteronomy 29:20
Deuteronomy 30:7
Deuteronomy 32:21-26
Deuteronomy 32:35
Deuteronomy 32:39-43
Joshua 6:26
Joshua 7:15
Joshua 9:21-27
Joshua 10:19
Joshua 24:19-20
Judges 5:31
Judges 11:24
1 Samuel 2:10
1 Samuel 2:31-34
1 Samuel 11:2
1 Kings 15:29
1 Kings 16:4
2 Kings 9:10
2

[Subzero]

Kings 9:37
2 Chronicles 15:13
2 Chronicles 21:14-19
Psalms 2:8
Psalms 50:22
Psalms 52:5-7
Psalms 59:8
Psalms 68:21
Psalms 110:6
Proverbs 13:24
Proverbs 19:18
Proverbs 20:30
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 23:13-14
Proverbs 26:3
Proverbs 29:15
Proverbs 29:19
Isaiah 8:9
Isaiah 9:19-20
Isaiah 11:4
Isaiah 13:6-9
Isaiah 13:15-18
Isaiah 14:21
Isaiah 19:2-4
Isaiah 34:2-3
Isaiah 34:5-8
Isaiah 42:13
Isaiah 47:13-14
Isaiah 49:26
Isaiah 62:2-6
Isaiah 66:16
Isaiah 66:24
Jeremiah 4:4
Jeremiah 4:6-7
Jeremiah 5:6
Jeremiah 5:15-17
Jeremiah 6:11-12
Jeremiah 6:21
Jeremiah 6:22-23
Jeremiah 7:20
Jeremiah 7:33
Jeremiah 8:2
Jeremiah 9:15-16
Jeremiah 9:21-22
Jeremiah 9:25-26
Jeremiah 11:11
Jeremiah 11:14
Jeremiah 11:22
Jeremiah 12:3
Jeremiah 12:12
Jeremiah 12:17
Jeremiah 13:13
Jeremiah 14:12
Jeremiah 14:15-16
Jeremiah 15:2-4
Jeremiah 15:7-9
Jeremiah 15:14
Jeremiah 16:3-7
Jeremiah 16:10-11
Jeremiah 17:28
Jeremiah 18:11
Jeremiah 18:21
Jeremiah 19:3
Jeremiah 19:7-9
Jeremiah 19:11-13
Jeremiah 21:4-6
Jeremiah 21:7
Jeremiah 21:9-13
Jeremiah 22:25-30
Jeremiah 24:10
Jeremiah 25:26
Jeremiah 25:31-33
Jeremiah 25:37-38
Jeremiah 27:8
Jeremiah 29:17-18
Jeremiah 29:21-22
Jeremiah 30:23
Jeremiah 34:17-20
Jeremiah 45:15-18
Jeremiah 44:6
Jeremiah 44:11-13
Jeremiah 45:5
Jeremiah 46:10
Jeremiah 47:2-4
Jeremiah 48:8
Jeremiah 48:10
Jeremiah 48:42-47
Jeremiah 49:2
Jeremiah 49:17
Jeremiah 49:37
Jeremiah 50:32
Jeremiah 50:37
Jeremiah 51:21
Jeremiah 51:39-40
Ezekiel 5:10
Ezekiel 5:11-17
Ezekiel 6:4-5
Ezekiel 6:7-14
Ezekiel 7:3-9
Ezekiel 7:13-28
Ezekiel 8:18
Ezekiel 14:8, 9, 15
Ezekiel 21:3-5
Ezekiel 21:8-17
Ezekiel 21:31-32
Ezekiel 20:20-22
Ezekiel 24:3-14
Ezekiel 25:7
Ezekiel 26:6
Ezekiel 26:7
Ezekiel 28:10
Ezekiel 28:22
Ezekiel 29:2-5
Ezekiel 29:11
Ezekiel 30:8-26
Ezekiel 32:3-6
Ezekiel 32:21-32
Ezekiel 33:27-29
Ezekiel 35:3-15
Ezekiel 38:21-23
Ezekiel 39:17-20
Hosea 5:14
Hosea 7:13
Hosea 7:16
Hosea 8:14
Hosea 9:11
Hosea 9:14
Hosea 9:16
Hosea 10:14
Hosea 12:14
Hosea 13:7-8
Hosea 13:16
Amos 1:4-2:2
Amos 2:3
Amos 5:3-6
Amos 7:1-2
Amos 7:4
Amos 7:9-11
Amos 8:3, 8, 10
Amos 9:1-4
Amos 9:8-10
Micah 3:2-3
Micah 5:6-15
Nahum 2:13
Nahum 3:3
Nahum 3:15
Nahum 3:19
Zepheniah 1:2-3
Zepheniah 1:17
Zepheniah 2:5
Zepheniah 2:9
Zepheniah 2:12
Zepheniah 3:8
Zechariah 11:6
Zechariah 11:9
Zechariah 11:17
Zechariah 12:4
Zechariah 13:3
Zechariah 14:2
Zechariah 14:12
Zechariah 14:13
Zechariah 14:18
Malachi 4:1
Malachi 4:3
Malachi 4:6
Mathew 3:10, 12
Mathew 5:17
Mathew 5:29-30
Mathew 7:13-14
Mathew 8:12
Mathew 10:14
Mathew 10:28
Mathew 11:20-24
Mathew 13:41-42,50
Mathew 15:4-7
Mathew 18:8-9
Mathew 24:37
Mathew 24:50-51
Mathew 25:30
Mathew 25:41
Mathew 25:46
Mark 3:29
Mark 6:11
Mark 7:9-13
Mark 9:43-49
Mark 16:16
Luke 3:9
Luke 3:17
Luke 10:10-15
Luke 12:5
Luke 12:46-47
Luke 19:27
John 5:14
John 15:6
Acts 3:23
Romans 1:31-32
Epheisans 1:4-5, 11
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
2 Thessalonians 2:8
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Hebrews 10:28-29
James 2:13
1 Peter 4:19
2 Peter 3:7
Jude 1:4
Jude 1:5

Pornography (each verse said 3 billion times)
Genesis 4:1
Genesis 4:14
Genesis 4:25
Genesis 6:4
Genesis 9:20-25
Genesis 12:15
Genesis 16:1-4
Genesis 17:10-11, 23-24
Genesis 19:8
Genesis 19:30-38
Genesis 21:1-2
Genesis 24:2,9
Genesis 24:16
Genesis 26:8
Genesis 29:21-30
Genesis 30:1-4
Genesis 30:15-16
Genesis 34:1-31
Genesis 35:22
Genesis 38:2-4
Genesis 38:8-10
Genesis 38:13-18
Genesis 38:24
Genesis 39:7-18
Genesis 49:4
Exodus 4:24
Exodus 19:15
Exodus 20:26
Exodus 22:19
Exodus 32:1-35
Exodus 34:16
Leviticus 15:2-15
Leviticus 15:16-18, 32
Leviticus 18:6-18, 20
Leviticus 18:19
Leviticus 18:23
Leviticus 20:5
Leviticus 20:6
Leviticus 20:14
Leviticus 20:15
Leviticus 20:17. 19-21
Leviticus 21:15
Leviticus 21:20
Leviticus 22:3-5
Deuteronomy 21:11-14
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Deuteronomy 22:22
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28
Deuteronomy 22:29
Deuteronomy 23:1
Deuteronomy 23:10
Deuteronomy 25:5-10
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Deuteronomy 27:20
Deuteronomy 27:21
Deuteronomy 27:22
Deuteronomy 27:23
Deuteronomy 28:30
Joshua 2:1
Joshua 5:2-3
Judges 5:30
Judges 14:1-3
Judges 16:1
Judges 19:22-30
Ruth 3:3-4
Ruth 3:6-9
Ruth 3:11-14
Ruth 4:13
1 Samuel 1:19-20
1 Samuel 2:21
1 Samuel 2:22
1 Samuel 18:25-27
1 Samuel 19:24
1 Samuel 21:4-5
2 Samuel 3:14
2 Samuel 6:14, 20-22
2 Samuel 11:2-5
2 Samuel 12:11-12
2 Samuel 12:24
2 Samuel 16:21-22
2 Samuel 20:3
1 Kings 1:1-4
1 Kings 11:1-3
1 Chronicles 9:4
Esther 2:2-4
Esther 2:8-9, 12-17
Esther 2:9-12
Proverbs 5:18
Proverbs 7:18
Proverbs 20:27
Song of Solomon 1:2
Song of Solomon 1:13
Song of Solomon 2:3
Song of Solomon 2:6
Song of Solomon 3:4-5
Song of Solomon 4:5
Song of Solomon 5:4
Song of Solomon 5:5-6
Song of Solomon 7:1-13
Song of Solomon 7:6-8
Song of Solomon 7:12
Song of Solomon 8:3
Song of Solomon 8:8-10
Isaiah 3:16-17
Isaiah 8:3
Isaiah 20:2-5
Isaiah 23:17-18
Isaiah 32:6
Jeremiah 3:1
Jeremiah 3:2
Jeremiah 3:6
Jeremiah 3:9
Jeremiah 3:13
Jeremiah 5:8
Jeremiah 13:26-27
Lamentations 1:8-10
Lamentations 1:10
Ezekiel 16:6-41
Ezekiel 16:26
Ezekiel 22:1-16
Ezekiel 23:1-49
Ezekiel 23:20
Ezekiel 29:7-9
Hosea 2:2-3
Hosea 2:10
Hosea 3:1
Hosea 9:1
Amos 2:7
Amos 2:16
Nahum 3:4-6
Matthew 19:12
Mark 14:51-52
Romans 1:26-28
1 Corinthians 5:1-5
1 Corinthians 6:15-16
1 Corinthians 7:5
1 Corinthians 7:29
1 Thessalonians 4:4
Revelation 2:20
Revelation 2:22
Revelation 14:8
Revelation 16:15
Revelation 17:1-16
Revelation 18:3
Revelation 18:9

If found guilty of these crimes, Jahweh will be subject to imprisonment for
the life span of ninety nine universes.

The prosecution would like to thank http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for
its excellent research of the defendant.
_________________
:: www.robstro.com ::

Exodus 31:15
whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.



There.Sorry had to put that in through a few posts.

[dezhen2001]

wow that was a long post... if i actually knew the Torah and New testament it may have been interesting for me - but alas, i dont so its gone right over my head :D

dawood

[chen zhen]

what's the deal with "pornography"..?
:confused:

I don't remember reference to pornography in the bible..:rolleyes:

[The Willow Sword]

Good work.

[Shaolin-Do]

There are references to incest as well...
But I guess that would be under pornography?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Subzero
Don't u find it strange that god changes how he acts towards humans.How has his realtionship changed?Is god some sort of skitzo?One minute it's "I'LL KILL U ALL FOR EATING MEAT ON A FRIDAY!!!" And then he's all "I love you all, i want to cuddle you".Why did things change.
After Jesus studied Buddhism, his whole perspective shifted.;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
Don't u find it strange that god changes how he acts towards humans.How has his realtionship changed?Is god some sort of skitzo?One minute it's "I'LL KILL U ALL FOR EATING MEAT ON A FRIDAY!!!" And then he's all "I love you all, i want to cuddle you".Why did things change.Did god realise that he had actuly committed more crimes against humanity then ne one had or has up until now.

Do I find it strange that a culture evolved which stopped referring to God by "I'll kill u all for eating meat on a friday" and instead referred to him by "I love you all, I want to cuddle you"?

No, I don't find that strange at all. In fact, I find it quite laudible: I find it to be an extraordinary change for the better.

You don't?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TonyM.
...the Gospel According to Thomas. Yeah, I know the authenticity of this work is questionable

Where did you get the impression that it's authenticity was questionable?

[Subzero]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
There are references to incest as well...
But I guess that would be under pornography?

And on that note something that one ofmy pasl said on another forum:

Good programme on BBC 4 this past Monday. Called Did Jesus Die?


It was about the strong evidence suggest that the resurrection and assention did not take place. now aside from the fact that neither event is in the original (hebrew) bible at all, there was a great deal of evidence which suggests that jesus, survived the crusifiction (many others did also) but was believed to be dead by the romans. He was taken to a tomb, but, in the bible the herbs taken to the tomb by apostles, mary magdelane etc are all healing herbs, not embalming ones. it's then put forth that he fled to kashmir, where there is a grave believed by many to be the tomb of Jesus. The man in the tomb died in 84 AD and was a man hailed as a healed who had lived there between 6AD and 13AD, (times in the bible when jesus whereabouts are not covered) and then returned there in 38AD. His footprints are there, moulded in wet clay and they bare the marks of crucifixion.

It is suggested that shortly after jesus's birth, (known to be in 4AD), he was taken and trained as a Bhuddist monk. this is thought because "3 Wise men" are only known to search for a newly born child in the buddist faith (when they try to find the reincarnation of their dead Budda. also many scriptures in the bible plagarise buddist scriptures written 500 years earlier. i'm sorry i cant name them as i didn't write it down but am off to check BBC site to see if i can get more info. more stuff was on programme but can't remember will return soon with more.

but i reiterate perhaps the most important point. in the original bible, the resurrection and assention do not feature at any point in any way

[chen zhen]

Did Jesus Die?

we sure as hell don't see him walkin' around nowadays, do ya'?:D:p


it's then put forth that he fled to kashmir, where there is a grave believed by many to be the tomb of Jesus.

Interesting. That is the same idea the islamic sect Alawism is based on!:eek:
In fact it's exactly what they say too.
The idea seems too unbelievable, though.
:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
but i reiterate perhaps the most important point. in the original bible, the resurrection and assention do not feature at any point in any way

What is this "original bible" you are referring to?

[Subzero]

LMAO
Ur saying that someone who's teaching's r incredibly similar to someone 500 yeas previous to him (and others) is less likely to have leant these form someone else than he is to havebeen raised for the dead.:rolleyes:

I never said that he didn't die, just that he died at a later date than was in the bible.

Let me get this straoght.U have decided to believe in one secondary text 2000 years old that has been changed and mistranslated countless times, rather than one whichhas only been translated onece?

Why believe in one rather than the other?

Another point.Unless u r catholic the ressurection neve occuerd.Catholics believe thatjseus body went up to heaven, whereas other christaians normaly believe that it was just his spirit.
So in effect jesus was not ressurected.He was just a ghost:D

[Christopher M]

Was that directed at me? :confused:

[Subzero]

I want t o make clear that i did notsee this program persoanly so cannot completly defend what it said.
I believe it ment the original scrools that formed the bible.
I'l try and find a link.

[Subzero]

No.Sorry
It was directed more at chan zen.
Sorry about that.I don't like to get personal in debates (especially religous ones).I try to direct my questions to all christians on teh thread.
Infact i think it's about time i made my religous stand point clear.
I do not at the moment believe in god.However this does not mean that i never will.I fully accept thatthere is a chance that a god exists.
I do however believe that there is some sort of spiritual side to human nature.

On religion debates i never want to insult ne ones persoanl beliefs.I am only trying to further my knowlege so that i myself can come to more balanced and fair conclusion.

If i ofend ne one please say and i will apologise (unlees i say ifi believe something to be more likely than the other.)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
No.Sorry

That's ok; it just wasn't clear to me.


I try to direct my questions to all christians on teh thread.

This might be confusing; as you know, there's some significant differences among Christian beliefs.

You're more likely to get a response from me by directing something specifically at me or at something I have said.

Frankly, I find this much less likely to be taken as offensive than if you just post general criticisms about something.

Also, when you do this, you run the risk of criticising something which only exists in your own imagination, rather than something anyone else actually believes.

[Subzero]

Very well chris m.
Just don't want to make enemies here and then tat will spred to other threads and so on.BUt ok.
I c ur point.:)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
I believe it ment the original scrools that formed the bible.
I'l try and find a link.

Could you?

I'm just having trouble assessing this claim without knowing what you're trying to say. I'm assuming by "bible" here you mean the new testament. But in that case, it wasn't around until ~400AD, at which point there had allready been all sorts of talk about the resurrection and ascension.

If you mean some of the original books in isolation, that's quite possible. Indeed, it makes sense, as we can read these books now and notice for ourselves they don't mention these things.

But on the other hand, other such original scrolls did, and some of these others later got incorporated into the new testament.

So I'm not sure where this leaves your remark that "in the original bible, the resurrection and assention do not feature at any point in any way."

[Subzero]

I wil reiterate that i did not see the progarm.
This was just someting to get us thinking.
U know like how buddhists argue about their beliefs to try and better understand them.
I believe that what was ment was the scrolls for the new testamnet.
As i'm sure u probably aware.The names Adam and Eve were wrongly translated orgianlly.These r not individual names but refered to man as in the race of man and women as in tehr ace of woman.
Just to show how things r mistanslated.
I wish i'd seen this progarn sounds very interesting.

[Subzero]

Originally posted by berserker

He was on of "the infected" that came back 18 DAYS later in that movie, not a pretty sight, had him tied to the stake and slavering and vomiting, he was black too and then kiled most of the wicked soldiers, i think hes still alive.

U seem to have missed the point.
If he had been resurected then he would not have died.
But as i have said earler if u believe that he wasa spirit when he went to heaven then he was not resurected becausehe was still dead.

[Subzero]

ok.............
So do u think i believe in the ressurection?
Do u?

[Subzero]

lol.
Fair enough.:D

[themeecer]

Ok, I grant you that the soldiers that crucified Christ didn't go to medical school. But remember they were experts in killing people. If a prisoner somehow escaped, the responsible soldiers would be put to death themselves, so they had a huge incentive to make absolutely sure that each and every victim was dead when he was removed from the cross. A soldier drove a spear into his side and "blood and water flowed." The water was from a pericardial and pleural effusion. Basically, water that had build up in the membranes surrounding the heart and the lungs. This effusion was most probably from heart failure. Anyway, a spear was driven through his lung and most probably into his heart as well.

Do you honestly think a person that had endured (1) psychological nightmare the night before that was so intense that it resulted in hematidrosis (sweating blood), (2) Roman flogging (which sometimes was so severe that the spinal cord was exposed, and underlying skeletal muscles were reduced to quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh), (3) hypovolemic shock (which is evident from the beating and his collapse when carrying the cross, and asking for something to drink), (4) having spikes driven through his wrists (hands) and feet (the pain from this had to be described by inventing a new word excruciating, which literally means 'out of the cross) (5) having his arms dislocated and stretched about six inches (6) being slowly killed by asphyxiation and then (7) having a spear driven into his side. All of this done by experts in death. No, there is absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead.

If Jesus wasn't dead and later regained consciousness, he had to deal with the big rock on his tomb door. He had to deal with the Roman soldiers. He was later met on the Emmaus road, strolling for long distances. How could he have walked after nails had been driven through his feet? How could he have used his arms after they were stretched and pulled from their joints? Remember, he also had massive wounds on his back and a spear wound to his chest. But let's say he did all that. A person in that kind of pathetic condition would never had inspired his disciples to go out and proclaim that he's the Lord of life who had triumphed over the grave.

[Subzero]

I agree that i would be an incredible feat.But there are numerous acounts of people survivng crucifiction.
I don't think u can use the "is that liely argument"
As i think itis less likely that he came out unscaved and went satright to heaven

[themeecer]

Point me to these accounts, I want to read them. (Not denying your claim) And I will only consider Roman crucifictions.

You have to admit a person that survived even a minor crucifiction would be in no shape to apear to hundreds of people and appear to be whole. Now take that idea and magnify it by the level of abuse and torture Jesus went through.

[Subzero]

Yeh i agree.
Don't have a link my self.
Butmy friend actually saw the program and said he was gonna get one for another forum.I'm gonna see him in two dasy but i'l try and find one b4 that.
I'm interested too.

[dezhen2001]

i had never heard that kashmiri account before, learn something new every day :)

dawood

[chen zhen]

http://www.mm2000.nu/sphinxjj.html
;)

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by themeecer
LOL. He holds blood ... thus life and life force in high regard.
Lots of life exists on this planet without an ounce of blood flowing through it.

[Chang Style Novice]

Anybody know if the Celtic hooped cross is related to the symbol of Sol Invictus (a cross profiled against the sun)? I was talking about this with a friend last night, and he told me Constantine was stationed in Britain shortly before becoming Emperor, and it got me to thinking about the similarity of the two symbols.

Celtic Cross (http://www.austinfirst.org/images/cross.celtic.jpg)

Sol Invictus (http://vandyck.anu.edu.au/introduction/earlychristian/L21-09b.jpg)

It's a bit hard to see, but the Sol Invictus image is a mosaic of Christ with a Sun shaped Halo and a cross subimposed behind it.

[MasterKiller]

Celtic crosses pre-date Christ by about 1,000 years, but I don't think anyone knows for sure what they mean.

[Chang Style Novice]

That would seem to support the idea that Constantine could have seen them when he was in Britain, then introduced a variation on them (that combined Christ and a pagan sun god of the same name) when he returned to the Eastern Empire and converted to Christianity.

[Christopher M]

Dunno anything about Sol Invictus, but it could be... the cross in a variety of contexts long predated Christianity. Early Christians used the fish as their symbol, and it's been speculated that they might be aghast at the thought of wearing a cross. In Hellenistic metaphysics, the cross is symbolic of the World-Soul (http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Plotin-Soul.htm).

[Chang Style Novice]

Heck lots of 'em still use the fish symbol, or at least it's undergone a revival in the last decade or so. Don't tell me you've never seen this bumper decal!

Ichtys (http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/seffle/images/Ungdom/ichtys_fis-image.jpg[/url)

And all the cute variations on it.

Funny variation 1 (http://www.aps.org/apsnews/images/Bumper1.jpg)

funny variation 2 (http://www.firebirdarts.com/darwin/carsilver.jpg)

[Christopher M]

Yeah... usually next to a Billy Graham sticker! :eek: :p

[Chang Style Novice]

Pssst - I edited my post above. I think you'll like the first variation especially!

[Christopher M]

lol... I've never seen one of those Darwin ones. That's awesome.

[MasterKiller]

And then there is always the Big fish that says "Truth" eating the Darwin thing...See a lot of those here in the Bible Belt.

[fa_jing]

Around here most car decals are of a vicious-looking "Calvin" from "Calvin & Hobbes" boldly taking a wee-wee.

[MasterKiller]

Alas, even the Christians have adopted those stickers as well. They usually have a Calvin kneeling before a cross.

Of course, nothing says sacriledge like Jesus T-tshirts (http://www.yourservechristiant-shirts.com/images/tshirtart/hooked.jpg), so Jam with the Lamb! (http://www.yourservechristiant-shirts.com/images/tshirtart/jamforthelord.jpg), because he will pump you up. (http://www.mannaforu.com/ct_PR14187771.htm)

[Chang Style Novice]

LOL. It's truly an inspiration to see people taking their faith so seriously.

[themeecer]

I had an idea for a bigger fish eating the Darwin fish quite a while before I saw any. I should have jumped on that idea and made some money.

[Shaolin-Do]

The darwin fish would kick the crap out of the jesus fish.
The jesus fish doesnt have legs. :D

"Around here most car decals are of a vicious-looking "Calvin" from "Calvin & Hobbes" boldly taking a wee-wee."

I have a great idea for a variation on that... But you will never know until I get it copywritten!
:)

[ZIM]

Fishes? Can't feed the multitudes with these. (http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html)

Ok- nobody went on board with the last question, so how about....

"Is there any evolutionary advantage to professing any established Faith whatsoever, versus 'pure' atheism, especially in regards to reproductive advantage [or generally if you prefer]?"

OR

"Any evolutionary advantage to having BELIEF in a Diety [with same etc's as above]?"

Or maybe DISadvantages. They are slightly different, but take your pick...;) Geez, i can go either way on this...

PS: i like the Hindu fish

[ZIM]

Answer part 1:

Yeah, if you go to church, you can get laid more often. But its church women, so what can you do? :p Works for Protestant ministers and Charismatics and Cult leaders, anyway. But we're more interested in the rank and file, here.

Chances are, a church-going person is more interested in finding a mate and raising a family, than in just 'dating'. But it depends on which Faith one invests one's time in- some are celibate, so avoid those. I will not say either way whether a marriage that starts in a church lasts longer- and no, I don't believe it does, for the record.

Established mainstream Faiths are [in general] better for this. But, see above smart-@ss remark about it being church-going women, who are in general more than averagely a pain in the neck. Also, in some areas, what is mainstream is also where inbred cousins go, so run away if thats the case for you.

"Pure" Atheism, OTOH, is great for shock value amongst the guys, but it won't get you laid. Religious arguments just aren't very sexy for women, so you're better off saying you're jewish and would she "like to find out for sure?"

In this sense, a person that professes a Faith is more likely to breed and pass on his/her genetic issue than the opposite number, regardless of having more or better "brains", etc. Thus it is apparently an evolutionary advantage.

But all of this has to do with professing a belief, not having a belief. ;)

[ZIM]

Part II: short and sweet

Having a belief, OTOH, is dangerous for your offspring, if not you. Too many Faiths advocate Martyrdom, which is notorious for ending whole lines of hereditary issue. But, if you are lucky, you'll get into one of those Faiths that advocate genocide instead, thus eliminating competition and ensuring your line's survival.

OK- this was all in jest- but I liked it. ;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
Ok- nobody went on board with the last question, so how about....

What question?

Regarding evolution and religion, if you're also being serious, I think the first step in such a discussion must be to recognize that two there are two things going on, biological evolution and cultural evolution, and they're quite different.

The second step must be to recognize that in both of these cases, there must be, in fact, strong positive selection pressures for religion/religious experience. In the case of biology, we've evolved a complex structure for handling religious experience; in the case of culture, religion is pervasive. I should note here I'm presupposing at least a general belief in Darwinism for the biological discussion.

Once these steps are taken, then I think the interesting stuff comes in trying to determine what role these two things (biological capacity for religious experience; and cultural instutitions of religion) are playing such that they would have consistent positive selection pressures. Some might also find it interesting to use either of these discussions for evidence for or against the ontological validity of the experience.

But I'll leave it at that, as I'm not sure if you were being serious, and I'm not sure if people will agree with my first two steps.

[TigerJaw]

There are some benefits to having religion in a developing society. Take the pioneers for example. They had a number of particularly harsh christian sects which instilled discipline into the people and made them follow the rules. In a community trying to survive, this is important. Religion gives easy access to a good dose of frightening, and there's nothing like it for law enforcement.

[Chang Style Novice]

In "Guns Germs and Steel" Jared Diamond posits that religion's sociological function is as a justification for what he terms "kleptocracy" ie: the concentration of power and resources in an elite. This is a neccesary condition of moving from tribe to state to empire. Which is another way of saying, the larger the society, the less equal its inhabitants.

[Chang Style Novice]

HAH! This thread has been moved to street/reality fighting! Who says Kung Lek has no sense of humor?

[ZIM]

I was being serious, but answering my own question in a humorous, if ribald, way. To kick off the idea, you see.

It could very well be answered in a serious way but I wanted to keep it light to begin with.

[chen zhen]

Why has this been moved to Street/reality?!

Bad mod-decision, IMO.

[Subzero]

yeh......:confused:

[ZIM]

Ok, to take the question a bit more seriously this time;

Hmm. I don't know that I precisely agree or disagree with biological capacity for religious experience. Certainly, I'm aware that certain regions of the brain are stimulated in response to such experiences, but they are also stimulated by UFOs and certain drugs as well [both of which have garnered their own religions. So there's the uncertainty.].

But, maybe its just as well to say that we have real biological interactions with religious activity, that each has evolved hand-in-hand; religions are a useful tool, as it were, as well as an earmark of our continued evolution [I speak here WRT archeological record].

[Subzero]

Nice avatar btw.
In briatain(i'm guessing most peple on here are form the US)there was a great documentry on about the "God spot" of the brain.This was stimulated by religous experience but as you say i think it was also stimulated by otehr paranormal experiences.
Oddly it messed with the tempral lobe and caused halusonations.

I have a question.I want all the different types of christains to answer it so i can get an idea of the differenceof oppinion.

What do think of cannon jeffery john?The man who was gonna be appionted a bishop but was urged not to by the anglican church community (a small minority) to not ake the position becasue he was gay b4 vowing sllubusy.

Incase u don't know it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3073855.stm

[ZIM]

Was he incompetant? If so, then OK. But as I'm reading it, it's because he was gay and there was political problems from Nigeria. Pretty dumb, I think. C of E has ordained women, have they not?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TigerJaw
Take the pioneers for example. They had a number of particularly harsh christian sects which instilled discipline into the people and made them follow the rules. In a community trying to survive, this is important.

Given that we know the lifestyle itself was harsh and demanded discipline, what extra explanatory power are you getting from religion here?


Originally posted by Chang Style Notive
Jared Diamond posits that religion's sociological function is as a justification for what he terms "kleptocracy" ie: the concentration of power and resources in an elite.

Is there only one model of religion, that which would accord itself to this kleptocracy? Or have there, for example, been religious movements among the lower class?

It seems possible to me that in both of these cases we may be putting the cart before the horse: claiming something is a result of religion, when it seems more appropriate to conclude that the religion was the result of the something.


Originally posted by Zim
I don't know that I precisely agree or disagree with biological capacity for religious experience. Certainly, I'm aware that certain regions of the brain are stimulated in response to such experiences, but they are also stimulated by UFOs and certain drugs as well

Visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory centers are also stimulated by "UFOs and certain drugs", right?

The idea here is of a certain sensory system, like vision or olfaction, that seems associated with the sorts of things we call "religion."


Originally posted by Subzero
[B]Oddly it messed with the tempral lobe and caused halusonations.[/I]

It's part of the temporal lobe; and hallucinations are things which occur following endogenous stimulation of a sensory system, so that's exactly what we're talking about.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
What do think of cannon jeffery john?

Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what it is you're asking.

[themeecer]

Ummm .. what are we now doing in the street/reality fighting section?

[shaolin kungfu]

I was wondering that to. Seems like an odd place for this thread.:confused:

[Subzero]

I left a link for u about the gay bishop

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3073855.stm

There you go again.
It pretty much explains the story.
and no he wasn't incopitenet.

[Christopher M]

I'm familiar with the story. What I don't understand is your question.

[Subzero]

OH.Sorry about that.
I ment do u think that becaus ehe was gay he shouldn't even have been comsidered or that it was right for him to step down.
It was really ment as a broad question.
Do u agree with ****sexuality.
Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?

Just whats ur views.

[ZIM]

As far as my views go:

The article said he was with his partner for 27 years- thats prettty significant, regardless of sexuality. While I do not myself "agree" with ****sexuality, it really is none of my business, IMO. I think there have been, and still are, many gay clergy. The requirement for celibacy mitigates this, however. In the Catholic church, I think they do not bar gays per se from being clergy, since all are celibate anyhow [in theory, at least].

It really comes down to 'do you think there would be some undue influence from a gay clergyman, whether active or celibate?' For that, I can't say as it depends on the man, what undue influence means to you, etc. The same issues pertain to school teachers.

After all of that, there are considerations WRT biblical precedents and such but I don't feel that they weigh very heavily for me.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
I ment do u think that becaus ehe was gay he shouldn't even have been comsidered

Since "considering" means weighing, to the best of one's ability, the pros and cons of a stance, and then choosing the most fortuitous one - I can't ever find myself disagreeing with the act of consideration.


... or that it was right for him to step down.

It seems like this was a decision he came to himself after his own consideration, so it would be difficult to fault him on it.


Do u agree with ****sexuality.

I don't understand the question. How can one simply agree or disagree with "a thing." Do you agree with trees?


Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?

I think "celibate" here is being used in a sense which negates "gay" or "straight", so I don't think your question makes sense.

[Subzero]

My point was that if they were celibate then it shouldn't matter if they were gay or straight.Or do u dissagree with that.

As to agreeing with ****sexuality i ment do u agree with it in accordance with your religion.
Ie do you think that ****sexuality is a sin?

And he stepped down only after emennse internatioanl pressure and a 7 hour long meeting with the arch bishop of canterbury.
Considering he sadi he would not step down unless asked to by the arch bishop of canterbury.Seems a lottle satrange.And he said he stepped down to save the unityof the anglican church.Not becasue he wanted to for his own personal feelings.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
My point was that if they were celibate then it shouldn't matter if they were gay or straight.Or do u dissagree with that.

From the previous post:

"Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?"

I think "celibate" here is being used in a sense which negates "gay" or "straight".


As to agreeing with ****sexuality i ment do u agree with it in accordance with your religion.

If you mean something beyond the following specification, then I still don't know what you mean.


do you think that ****sexuality is a sin?

Not a mortal sin, surely. Almost anything, and certainly any sexual relationship, ****- or hereto-, could be a vehicle for venal sins. That is, something by which you express a distance between God, your fellow man, and your true self.


he sadi he would not step down unless asked to by the arch bishop of canterbury...he said he stepped down to save the unityof the anglican church...

Not becasue he wanted to for his own personal feelings.

:confused: I don't see the contrast you're drawing here.

[Subzero]

Do u not think it was more likely that he stepped down because of international pressure (there was very little here in britain) rather than he thought thathe was not fit for the job.Which should be the only real reason for him stepping down i think.
If he was supproted by senior church men.He shouldn't have cared about what some biggeted members of the church believed.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
Do u not think it was more likely that he stepped down because of international pressure

That was probably pretty important.


rather than he thought thathe was not fit for the job.

a) I didn't say he thought he wasn't fit for the job.

b) Isn't part of the job relating to public pressure?

[Subzero]

Yes.But part of the job is not to be crticised by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologise for your sexuality.Even though you are now cellibate.
Also i think the 7 hour meeting with the arch bishop of canterburymight of had something to do with it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
But part of the job is not to be crticised by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologise for your sexuality.

No, his job is not "to be criticized by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologize for your sexuality." But that seems like an empty comment to me. His job is about his relationship with the church-goers, and that's where the point of contention is. I don't think your observation here changes this one bit. I mean, that would be like if you kept coming to work naked, and your boss gave you hell about it, and you replied, "My job here isn't not to be naked is it!?"


Even though you are now cellibate.

Would he be celibate if he became bishop? I didn't read that part.

[Subzero]

He is already cellibate.
And that is totaly differnt.It would be stoping someone form doing there job because of how they are born.(and don't say u r born naked:D )

He had been a very popular person in his parish and was seen as an honest nice man.

I really just wanted to see your own personal feelings on ****sexuality (because of your religion.

Althugh i don't support the decision the cannon made there are references against ****sexuality the new testament (and loads inthe old testament.)
Timothy
1:10
For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Corinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Not the most understanding of people for one of the church fathers was paul.
Unfortuantly with pauls clear hatred for ****sexuals, how could any christain say it would be ok to be ****sexual and christain.Or even tha someone will not go to hell for being ****sexual?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
He is already cellibate.

Saying you haven't had sex in a while and making a commitment to celibacy are two entirely different things. It's my understanding he did the former.


And that is totaly differnt.It would be stoping someone form doing there job because of how they are born.

Assuming for sake of discussion that ****sexuality is a trait animals are born with - yes, and lots of people are prevented from having lots of jobs due to the circumstances of their birth.


I really just wanted to see your own personal feelings on ****sexuality (because of your religion).

Then ask me some questions about that.


there are references against ****sexuality the new testament (and loads inthe old testament.)

Thanks. Are you using these to explain your faith? :confused: For some reason I was under the impression that you weren't a Christian...


Timothy
1:10
For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

If you're interested in understanding Paul's writing (or indeed, anyone's writing) I would strongly recommend you read it from beginning to end, rather than taking a small snippet of it and trying to understand it. Quite often, the latter approach will give you an idea which is quite different than the writer's idea.

This is certainly the case with the example from Paul you've used here. Timothy 1:9 reads "Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,". The citation you've given above is a list Paul is providing of people for whom the law was made. Timothy 1:8 reads "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully:".

If you wish to understand what he is saying, please note especially: "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully; but the law is not made for the just man." Which is why the law is an untenable position. What Paul is doing is examining the law on it's own terms and finding it to be untenable, which causes him to replace it with the Christian (contra Jewish) idea of grace. This is the consistent argument Paul puts forward throughout his writings in the New Testament.

He goes on in Timothy to explain his position first by explaining how he himself is unjust according to the law, and how this was undone: "Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious... Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus... A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners...But for this cause have I obtained mercy: that in me first Christ Jesus might shew forth all patience" (Tim 1:13-16). Then he explains who all is worthy of this: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men... Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Tim 2:1-4). For a more complete version of this argument from Paul, see Romans 2 through 8.

What you've done here is a slightly more subtle version than if someone had said "****sexuals are bad; this is something I must disagree with," and only quoted the first half of it, then used that to call them anti-****sexual.


Corinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

This one is taken even out of context even more explicitly.

Corinthians 6:11 reads, following this list: "And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God." And preceeding your quote is not the command to judge, but not to judge: "Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have lawsuits one with another." (Cor 6:7)

So here we have Paul telling us that we're all "washed, sanctified, and justified" through Christ's grace, and moreover that we shouldn't be judging in the first place. This is quite different from the conclusion you drew from taking bits of his writing out in isolation.


Not the most understanding of people for one of the church fathers was paul.

When you read him without understanding, you find him to be without understanding. Do you think this fault is Paul's?


how could any christain say it would be ok to be ****sexual and christain.Or even tha someone will not go to hell for being ****sexual?

Perhaps if they'd actually read him?

[Subzero]

He goes on in Timothy to explain his position first by explaining how he himself is unjust according to the law, and how this was undone: "Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious... Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus... A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners...But for this cause have I obtained mercy: that in me first Christ Jesus might shew forth all patience" (Tim 1:13-16). Then he explains who all is worthy of this: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men... Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Tim 2:1-4)


But does that not mean that ****sequality is a sin?Surely u would need to apologise for it (like cannon gefory john was asked to).


More important than law is surely is surely heaven.what about my other quote.It clearly states that you won't get into heaven if you "defile yourself with mankind".

And i don't care about a persons sexuality.And i'm certainly not christain.
:D
I don't think anyone has ever asked me that on a religion discussion b4.:D


I was just wondering how the church could possibly start to say that it would accept ****sxual church members (who didn't won't to apologise for there sexuality).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
But does that not mean that ****sequality is a sin?

No, it does not mean that ****sexuality is a sin. Where did you get that? :confused:


More important than law is surely is surely heaven.what about my other quote.It clearly states that you won't get into heaven if you "defile yourself with mankind".

No it doesn't. It clearly establishes a position based around that idea, then discards it as untenable.

This is analogous to you saying "You know what I hate? This idea that we should hate ****sexuals." And someone quoting you as saying "We should hate ****sexuals." Obviously, not a fair assessment.


And i'm certainly not christain.

Then why are you trying to interpret Christian scripture, and telling the Christians their interpretation is wrong and they must follow yours? Isn't that a little silly?


I was just wondering how the church could possibly start to say that it would accept ****sxual church members.

Again, maybe if they'd read Paul. I'd wager there's a high probability that they have, BTW.

[Subzero]

:



No it doesn't. It clearly establishes a position based around that idea, then discards it as untenable.

This is analogous to you saying "You know what I hate? This idea that we should hate ****sexuals." And someone quoting you as saying "We should hate ****sexuals." Obviously, not a fair assessment.



Then why are you trying to interpret Christian scripture, and telling the Christians their interpretation is wrong and they must follow yours? Isn't that a little silly?

Give me a qoute to show this and i wll apologise for my mistranslation.BU i don't see why paul would change his mind (or get to his point) so late after is original point.
It has been sugested that paul was not responsiblr for everything that went into the bible in his name.BUt it is unknown which is Paul and whic is this other person.



Again, maybe if they'd read Paul. I'd wager there's a high probability that they have, BTW. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Christopher M]

You haven't brought up anything which I didn't respond to in my original reply on 07-31-2003 03:38 PM. Until you've read that, I don't think a discussion can continue in an intelligible manner.

[Subzero]

:confused:
Isn't the point of a disussion to try and fully defend your point?

Or can u just not give me a qoute?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
Or can u just not give me a qoute?

I gave six in my original reply. Since you've never mentioned them and continue to act like I've never given any, I'm given the impression that you're simply not reading what I write. This isn't a discussion.


Isn't the point of a disussion to try and fully defend your point?

Yes, and I did in my original reply. If you would like to read that and respond to what's in it, then perhaps a discussion can occur.