Judas: A True Blue Hero

[FuXnDajenariht]

So did anyone see that NGC special? The Gospel of Judas. That was intriguing as hell but im not the least bit surprised something like that surfaced. Do you think it has any validity? What really got me thinking though. The 2 different sides of the story dont bother me so much. There might even be a little truth to both sides. But what bothers me is the fact that Jesus, this enlightened soul, thought that he had to commit suicide to follow gods plan. I never bought that for some reason.

[Shaolinlueb]

yeah doesnt surprise me./ they crucified jesus on a friday. all crucifixtions were held on mondays so they could leave the bodies to starve to death over the week. judas set him up, it was jesus's plan to be reborn a messiah. after all he was an egyptian magician who was a follower of john the baptists, broke off and went on hsi own, and integrated many isis and osiris tales and stories into his teaching. yes its true lol. dieing and rising 3 days later is what isis and osiris did, and the our father is very similar to one of the ancient egyptian occult prayers. and yes jesus did get his first "apostles" from the baptist cult.
now if you believe it who knows who cares. it was an interesting read. its called "the templar revelations" actual biblical historians and such.

[metsubushi]

It's not shocking at all.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

[FuXnDajenariht]

you lost me lueb. :confused:

speaking of jesus though. that guy that played him on the show was ****in' creepy. :D

[Anthony]

It's Easter time, so, time for TV shows and movies which center around Christ. And, of course, controversy = ratings. It's amazing how many TV docs. try to portray Christ differently based on texts that have been debunked by scholars (of course they don't emphasize this). Such as the gnostic texts. Makes you wonder what's the agenda behind it.....probably just ratings.

[Indestructible]

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm


This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

[KC Elbows]

How do you debunk texts based on events that are largely unverified? I understand why the gnostic scriptures didn't make it into canon, but there's a difference between something not being in the mainstream of christianity and something being somehow more false than the mainstream based on that. For instance, Christ's "why have you forsaken me" makes a lot more sense from a gnostic perspective, as he is still as human as the rest of us to the gnostics, whereas it seems like every view I've heard on that statement from more mainstream christians tries very hard to avoid giving him human failings at all. I may simply not be familiar with better explanations than that.

[FuXnDajenariht]

who says gnostics texts are debunked? this is news to me. in relation to what? are you saying they aren't ancient texts used by early 1st, 2nd and 3rd century christians, or are you saying compared to the mainstream bible they have no validity? that would all be highly up to debate and if you believe the latter thats just your own bias showing through. now im not saying your guilty of this but it really is a shame most christians dont know the history of their own bible or religion.

[FuXnDajenariht]

I read something like that recently Indestructible. The part that really caught my attention was about Jesus being a student of the Essene sect, and that the Essenes were heavily influenced by Buddhist missionaries that flooded into Egypt, Greece, i think Italy and Judea. That they were basically a western sect of Buddhism.

[SAAMAG]

This debate wouldn't be worth having since neither side can be proven or disproven. Personally, I think that the Bible is not the whole story, just the whole story the church wanted its followers to know. It is one of the most grand pieces of manipulation out there. The church used guilt and fear of persecution to keep the peasants at bay and the church in power. The Bible was pruned to do just that and continues to be "translated" in different forms.

At this point it is a matter of faith and personal belief. No one will ever know the truth until they're dead. Don't get me wrong...I believe in God, not the institution of the church.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Jesus was just a man who sat differently and refused to bathe. I find his fable to be no more entertaining than anything the Bros. Grimm have told....


But it sure does have people shook, huh?

[Wood Dragon]

are you saying they aren't ancient texts used by early 1st, 2nd and 3rd century christians,.

Pretty much.

The Gnostics departed -wildly- from what was commonly believe by the early Christian communities.

They were, in all respects, a different religion.

[Chief Fox]

Jesus couldn't of lived in india, he was white. See attached picture for rock solid proof!

[tug]

Jesus couldn't of lived in india, he was white. See attached picture for rock solid proof!


Sweet! But there are some who say he is a she. Any thoughts on that?

[GeneChing]

In college, I was very into the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi Library. There's no question of their archeological authencity. The question is more of a religious one - wheter or not you'll allow these writings into your belief system. Just like today, there were many sects of Christianity and many different texts floating around. The Bible itself was a compendium of some of these selected texts (which is why the all the books read so differently). The alternate texts were excised from the Bible for a reason. That really intrigues me. Personally, I love reading the different interpretations, but then I'm not Christian, so for me it's more of a philosophic/spiritual exercise. For the same reason, I read the Koran and the Kebra Nagast. The Gospel of Judas sounds really juicy, so I can't wait until someone presents it in a nice little paperback like Elaine Pagel's Gnostic Gospels.

[Chief Fox]

Sweet! But there are some who say he is a she. Any thoughts on that?
Impossible! Who ever heard of a bearded, female, carnival side show savior? The idea is completely ridiculous.

[Anthony]

"now im not saying your guilty of this but it really is a shame most christians dont know the history of their own bible or religion."

I honestly agree with you 100%. But, think about it, how widespread would a religion (any religion) actually be if all of it's followers had to be historians (the point is to get you to heaven not to get you to write a book). Religions would be inaccessible to the illiterate or people without means. People have to work, raise children, etc. As far as any religion is concerned, to follow it's tennets, as simply as you learned them, should be enough to give your life meaning. Maybe fables serve this purpose better than fact upon fact. Like Gene said, Biblical history really intrigues me as well but time really doesn't permit me to read everything I can so I'm not an expert either.

"This debate wouldn't be worth having since neither side can be proven or disproven.

This is why I don't get too involved in Religious discussions. I'm not the best Catholic by a long shot so I don't like to get on a high-horse and say this or that. I can't speak for everyone but Religion does give my life more meaning (helps you cope with death, or tragedy, etc.) than the mundane/boring work, pay-bills, exercise, watch TV, go to a bar, etc. You hear a good sermon on a Sun. and you feel better when you come out. If your not religious you don't get this part of it. It's all a matter of facts for you. It's easy to make jokes when you've never experienced it.

"Personally, I think that the Bible is not the whole story, just the whole story the church wanted its followers to know."

You can take this 2 ways. One is to assume the Church is evil and wants to rule the world (which most people seem to do right off the bat) or, another, is to assume that what is in the Bible is all that the Church thought people needed to know to be good Christians.

"At this point it is a matter of faith and personal belief. No one will ever know the truth until they're dead. "

That's as good as anything I've ever heard. I mean I make moral choices based on Religion (in part). If I turn out to be wrong at least I can say I did what I thought was best.

[SanHeChuan]

Gospel or no, I have never though Judas a bad guy, and I have never thought him a betrayer. What needed to happen, happened. How can you fault a guy who was pivotal in the greatest occurance in Christian history. Stupid Church :rolleyes: :D I don't need a gospel to tell me the obvious. Ask you self what would have happen if Judas didn't play his part. Would there even be a Christianty?

[FuXnDajenariht]

This debate wouldn't be worth having since neither side can be proven or disproven. Personally, I think that the Bible is not the whole story, just the whole story the church wanted its followers to know. It is one of the most grand pieces of manipulation out there. The church used guilt and fear of persecution to keep the peasants at bay and the church in power. The Bible was pruned to do just that and continues to be "translated" in different forms.


Your right. There isn't much proof for either side. Thats why historians are doing what their doing today. It has to be debated one way or another. Their trying to find some proof to show people the truth. I dont think we should cop out and let fundies like Pat Robertson spout off any nonsense that they want based on lies and manipulation. Give people all the facts and let them deicide for themselves. Thats exactly the choice church fathers didn't allow people to make 2000 years ago and people are trying to fix that now. The true betrayers of Jesus weren't Jews or Judas but some of his so called "followers".

[FuXnDajenariht]

Pretty much.

The Gnostics departed -wildly- from what was commonly believe by the early Christian communities.

They were, in all respects, a different religion.

This is what i mean...

No they were not of a different religion. They were a different sect that has as much or maybe more claim to call themselves Christians than any Orthodox. Look it up.

[KC Elbows]

This is what i mean...

No they were not of a different religion. They were a different sect that has as much or maybe more claim to call themselves Christians than any Orthodox. Look it up.

Exactly. Considering that the gnostics set, as a goal, achieving the path of Jesus(recognizing God in themselves, etc), it would be hard to call them anything other than christians.

[Anthony]

KC Elbows and FuXnDajenariht (or anyone else who posts here), could I ask if you guys are Catholic? I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just curious to know who is commenting.

If you don't mind, also, what is the extent of your religious education? Mine is all through grade school and college.

Thanx.

[SevenStar]

"now im not saying your guilty of this but it really is a shame most christians dont know the history of their own bible or religion."

I honestly agree with you 100%. But, think about it, how widespread would a religion (any religion) actually be if all of it's followers had to be historians (the point is to get you to heaven not to get you to write a book). Religions would be inaccessible to the illiterate or people without means. People have to work, raise children, etc.

although that sounds plausible, go talk to a muslim. Not only will he know the koran inside and out, he will also likely know the bible better than you will. If they can learn in such depth, why can't a christian?


You can take this 2 ways. One is to assume the Church is evil and wants to rule the world (which most people seem to do right off the bat) or, another, is to assume that what is in the Bible is all that the Church thought people needed to know to be good Christians.

both ways seem to boil down to control of some sort...


That's as good as anything I've ever heard. I mean I make moral choices based on Religion (in part). If I turn out to be wrong at least I can say I did what I thought was best.

according to the bible though, that's not good enough...

[SevenStar]

Gospel or no, I have never though Judas a bad guy, and I have never thought him a betrayer. What needed to happen, happened. How can you fault a guy who was pivotal in the greatest occurance in Christian history. Stupid Church :rolleyes: :D I don't need a gospel to tell me the obvious. Ask you self what would have happen if Judas didn't play his part. Would there even be a Christianty?

That doesn't mean he wasn't a bad guy - that simply means that his wrong doing was manipulated for a good cause in the long run. It was part of the plan.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

[Sal Canzonieri]

But you guys are missing one important thing.

these 'artifacts' of ancient documents are of "stories" about
this character we call Jesus Christ.
They aren't historical events they are writting about.
They are the equivalent of fables.

It's been proven by researchers that Jesus never existed.
The essenses wrote about a Christ in their docuements,
it wasn't until after the year 200 that Christian church leaders
named this Christ "jesus. The original Christian church are all
from the followers of Paul (Saul), who originally persecuated Jews
who were believing in the Christ of the Essenes.

There is an ex-priest that is suing the Catholic church in Rome
for defrauding the people, after 70 years of research.
You can read all the court deposition translations at this site:

http://www.luigicascioli.it/dueprove_eng.php

http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php

He clearly explains when and how the idea of a coming Christ messiah
changed into a present Christ into a crufied Christ into a Jesus Christ.
he also shows when the forgeries were done at various times to try to
create this Jesus Christ.
There is no historcial document from the time he was to have existed anywhere
that ever mentions him in any way.

Only John the Baptist is mentioned in various histories written during the time period.

There was a John, and his brothers and their followers (who have the exact same names as the apostles), who was a rebel against Rome and was executed.
The process of playing telephone and mixing this factual historical figure and events with essense Christ messiah ideas that Paul created the early Christian church from.

Read it all at that site and see for yourself.
Many well known bible scholars have read his research and concluded with him.


Do you need a Christ to believe in God?
No.

[Judge Pen]

The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe.

As for Judas, he gets a bad wrap, but I think I read somewhere that there are some Orthodox sects that have his as one of the Saints.

As for the humanity/divinity of Christ: I've always believed that he was both 100% divine and 100% human. He never sinned, but he had doubts, fears and frailty like any man. It would discount what he did if it were any other way.

[mantis108]

I agreed with JP to a certain extend.


The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe.

Faith based salvation might seem as an easy way out but that doesn't change the fact that there is courage to accept suffering involved. It may not be a "smart" thing to do but experiencing "God" or divine through emperical means can not be deemed as "easy". Personally, it takes discipline and lots and lots of discipline. Given the intelligence and education level of the past. Well, faith base may well be a viable option. It's not my cup of tea but to each their own. ;)


As for Judas, he gets a bad wrap, but I think I read somewhere that there are some Orthodox sects that have his as one of the Saints.

Well, there is always 2 sides to a story. It good to know about both sides for sure.


As for the humanity/divinity of Christ: I've always believed that he was both 100% divine and 100% human. He never sinned, but he had doubts, fears and frailty like any man. It would discount what he did if it were any other way.

Isn't there a film "Jesus Christ Superstar"? Rome culturally has always worshipped "heroes" much like modern day North American culture. Just look at UFC today, they are curcifying the Saint of BJJ - Royce and also Icon of toughman Ken Shamrock. These are the once upon a time heroes of UFC. Now, they are the scarifical lambs on the alter of UFC paving the way for business progress. So Rome was smart to make Jesus a star in order to have the Cross as the coat of arms iconic symbol to sell monarchism . Market economy, my friends, market economy. This can never happen without a faith based salvation mass. Without industrial military complex what would the world be? We may not like it but that's where technology advancement mainly came from. So...

Mantis108

[Shaolinlueb]

i may have lost you, but read that book i posted. at least the 2nd half. its pretty interesting. talks about jesus being form egypt origianlly and such.
and the bible was only the bible since like 400ad or so. 327 maybe is the exact day the guys met to form it. there are a ton of gospels not in publication and the church or peter is fairly new, there was a church of another disiple that was more popular but there was a abomination or something. I can look it up when i get back. christianity in the day of jesus was very different to what it is today.

[Judge Pen]

i may have lost you, but read that book i posted. at least the 2nd half. its pretty interesting. talks about jesus being form egypt origianlly and such.
and the bible was only the bible since like 400ad or so. 327 maybe is the exact day the guys met to form it. there are a ton of gospels not in publication and the church or peter is fairly new, there was a church of another disiple that was more popular but there was a abomination or something. I can look it up when i get back. christianity in the day of jesus was very different to what it is today.

There's also a theory that Jesus traveled extensively along the silk trade routes prior to his Gospel and that explains many of his teachings bearing a striking resemblance to Buddhist teachings.

[KC Elbows]

KC Elbows and FuXnDajenariht (or anyone else who posts here), could I ask if you guys are Catholic? I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just curious to know who is commenting.

If you don't mind, also, what is the extent of your religious education? Mine is all through grade school and college.

Thanx.

Raised Catholic, attended Catholic private schools for some time. Not the best source for opinions on gnosticism, though. Catholic sources are pretty biased about groups like that. I don't necessarily see the ommission of the gnostic texts as some plot, gnosticism would be a hard religion to get mass appeal for because of the work involved.

I am not a catholic now, and view biblical scholarship as something that can yield fruit, or red herrings. People get so caught up in what the "proper interpretation" is that they sometimes get swept into explaining as theology story elements that clearly serve a function for the storytelling and not the theology, or even blunt the message(imo). An example of a place where I think the message got blunted was the return of all of Job's stuff. I think it uglies up the book.

I'm no scholar, just periodically join in discussions.

[Shaolinlueb]

There's also a theory that Jesus traveled extensively along the silk trade routes prior to his Gospel and that explains many of his teachings bearing a striking resemblance to Buddhist teachings.

yep yep. heard that too.

[KC Elbows]

yep yep. heard that too.

Isn't it commonly believed that Thomas did that? Maybe I'm thinking the wrong disciple, but I recall reading that one disciple who has a gnostic gospel was considered the "link" between East and middle east or some such thing, and I was thinking it was Thomas.

[Anthony]

"The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe."

I think you have the wrong understanding about that. You don't just get saved because you believe or have faith.....that's a prerequisite....you then have to act (the hard part) upon that faith. It's about your actions more than your knowledge of facts. I can believe in Jesus but if I act evil it ain't gonna help. I honestly think that Christianity is the hardest religion to adhere to (that's up to debate of course). If any of you have questions, read a book first (doubt you'll do that) or go to church and listen to a sermon to see what is being said.

We study our religion, it's not that we don't try to learn more (that's never been true). The inspiration of the religion is more important than the facts. Facts are good for arguing with wise a-sses that don't want to accomplish anything other than make you feel stupid. I don't bother with people like that. I have my faith and if some hater wants to challenge me I just direct him to a Biblical scholar, book or Professor who knows more. There are plenty of them. I can keep learning about my religion it's just that unless I dedicate alot of time to it I can't debate fact upon fact. I don't want to, to me, it's about the message.


"although that sounds plausible, go talk to a muslim. Not only will he know the koran inside and out, he will also likely know the bible better than you will. If they can learn in such depth, why can't a christian?"

Good point, but who knows. I see Muslims reading the Koran on the subway all the time. I'll be the first to tell you that Christians should act more like Christians.

[FuXnDajenariht]

KC Elbows and FuXnDajenariht (or anyone else who posts here), could I ask if you guys are Catholic? I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just curious to know who is commenting.

If you don't mind, also, what is the extent of your religious education? Mine is all through grade school and college.

Thanx.

I always had a deep interest in christianity but now has more to do with my interest in history. I had my christian education forced upon me like most kids. I tried the model christian thing for a while but i found it empty and lacking something, for me personally. When i tried to ask simple questions about my faith to the people around me all i got was hostility or cop out answers like "its because the bible says so". That wasn't good enough for me though, so i resigned myself to being an atheist or agnostic. That was up until a couple years ago when i started researching other religions that i find more compatible with my thinking. Then i heard about Gnostic "heresies", and after only reading a few lines it felt like the missing piece that no one seemed to be able to satisfy my questions with. Its much more in line with my feelings and thoughts regarding religion, and it gives christianity so much more depth in my opinion and gives new meaning to other things in the bible.

lol Who knows. If Gnostics and what i believe were Jesus' true words represented Christianity i might very well had been the biggest Jesus-freak in my family today. ;) As of now though, i have a healthy respect for their beliefs. I think it maybe says something about his teachings if as distorted as they most likely were and are it still draws billions of people around the world. lol or that could be generations of fear and paranoia.......

[Judge Pen]

"The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe."

I think you have the wrong understanding about that. You don't just get saved because you believe or have faith.....that's a prerequisite....you then have to act (the hard part) upon that faith. It's about your actions more than your knowledge of facts. I can believe in Jesus but if I act evil it ain't gonna help. I honestly think that Christianity is the hardest religion to adhere to (that's up to debate of course). .

I was generalizing a bit. There's a major split among protestant faiths that involve what I've heard called "Positive salvation" or "once saved, always saved." Can one negligently lose their salvation? Works vs. faith. It's a pretty heated debate in some circles.

Not to step on either's toes, I was being a bit vauge with that statement--faith is more than a slient belief, (after all, don't the demons in hell "believe") but some groups certainly believe that once you make that commitment you are saved even if your later actions aren't necessarily in confomity--you are human and you will still sin--but as long as you still believe and repent from your sins then you still have your salvation. That's the argument, anyway.


If any of you have questions, read a book first (doubt you'll do that) or go to church and listen to a sermon to see what is being said.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Can't people debate a point on a public forum without being considered closed minded or uninformed? I'm sure there are more open-minded christians here then you would think.

[Anthony]

"That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Can't people debate a point on a public forum without being considered closed minded or uninformed? I'm sure there are more open-minded christians here then you would think."

Yes...I agree. I was going to go back and edit that sentence out because it came right after a paragraph that I deleted and that part should have been deleted with it. When I submitted the reply I realised the sentence was in there and for some reason the "edit" option wasn't there. Notice how the sentence seems to come out of nowhere.

I forget exactly what I was saying but I think it had to do with people who (not really anyone here) weren't necessarily interested one way or the other in Christianity. So the first negative thing they hear (as unlikely as it may sound), they are quick to accept as fact and repeat it back to you in an effort to antagonize you. They don't want to learn anything about the religion, they just want to pizz you off because it's not "their" religion. Anyway, it was a bit of a rant so I deleted it. So, that's why I said to them: "If any of you have questions, read a book first (doubt you'll do that) or go to church and listen to a sermon to see what is being said. " Which pretty much means that sometimes people obsess over facts before seeing the inspirational aspect or the message which may be more important to some people.

[KC Elbows]

Judge,

I don't think angels have the same option for belief: they know. Same with demons, at least that was always my understanding of the catholic view on it.

[FuXnDajenariht]

But you guys are missing one important thing.

these 'artifacts' of ancient documents are of "stories" about
this character we call Jesus Christ.
They aren't historical events they are writting about.
They are the equivalent of fables.

.............



I read most of what he had to say Sal and he frankly seems like a bit of a nutjob. You have some who say of course Jesus never existed and others who says he without a doubt did. I think most historians agree hes a mix of an actual historical figure, maybe more than one and of folk legends and myths. But i think thats missing the point.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Whats this general consensus that you speak of? Theres a lot of evidence and i mean alot to point the fact that the Orthodox church decided to "make sh!t up" as you put it. The Council of Nicea seems to have been an entire meeting dedicated to making sh!t up.

Is anything written in non-canonical scriptures really sillier than some of the things Catholics claim and believe in? These "frauds" somehow have the same age-frame and lineage as any bible gospel, written in the same ancient languages.

Those Gnostics must of really had it in for them orthodox christians. They sure went through a hell of a lot of trouble to repress and substitute the truth for lies. They must have been part of that world wide conspiracy against Christians. Still telling lies and deceiving people.....oh wait no....they were wiped out of existence. i forgot. aww sh!t....guess thats not it.

[Judge Pen]

Judge,

I don't think angels have the same option for belief: they know. Same with demons, at least that was always my understanding of the catholic view on it.

It goes to free-will--the option to believe or not to believe and then the option to follow or not follow. Angels don't have free-will and demons are nothing but fallen angels, right? But the demons chose to revolt under the leadership of Lucifer; to try to overthrow heaven. So they developed free-will at some point; didn't they?

[kwaichang]

Perhaps unless someone has a theology degree they should stick to discussing martial arts, this is KUNG FU FORUM isnt it ?? KC

[MasterKiller]

It goes to free-will--the option to believe or not to believe and then the option to follow or not follow. Angels don't have free-will and demons are nothing but fallen angels, right? But the demons chose to revolt under the leadership of Lucifer; to try to overthrow heaven. So they developed free-will at some point; didn't they?
I don't think that's what KC is saying. Angels have free will, but they don't have an option to not believe because they are in God's presence all the time; there is no doubt in their minds God exists.

Satan has free will before the fall; otherwise, he could not have chosen to rebel.

[SevenStar]

I think you have the wrong understanding about that. You don't just get saved because you believe or have faith.....that's a prerequisite....you then have to act (the hard part) upon that faith. It's about your actions more than your knowledge of facts. I can believe in Jesus but if I act evil it ain't gonna help. I honestly think that Christianity is the hardest religion to adhere to (that's up to debate of course). If any of you have questions, read a book first (doubt you'll do that) or go to church and listen to a sermon to see what is being said.

It's hard trying to follow everything verbatim, but if you repent, you are forgiven. That makes it much easier. There was a man in the bible... I'm trying to think of his name... He strayed from God and ended up living in the mountains with his daughter (or some relative... daughter is in my mind). He was having sex with her and it was still said that he died a holy man.


Good point, but who knows. I see Muslims reading the Koran on the subway all the time. I'll be the first to tell you that Christians should act more like Christians.

which is part of the joke of christianity now. It's no different from the joke of TMA. it has been massively degraded over time. most christians just go to church and say "I'm a christian." I see many of those same people drunk as he11 on saturday night at my club talking about leaving early so they can go to church in the morning. The thing with christianity is that once you have been saved, if you repent, it's said that you will still go to heaven. That is the biggest and worst possible loophole you can give a person. That's why they say that being faith based makes you lazy. I know "christians" who can't even tell me how many books are in the old testament...

[SevenStar]

Perhaps unless someone has a theology degree they should stick to discussing martial arts, this is KUNG FU FORUM isnt it ?? KC

or perhaps those not interested should not read the thread... notice that ALL of the forums here are MA related. This one is the most general of them. Such discussion SHOULD be here in the most general forum.

[Judge Pen]

I can't tell you how many books there are in the Old Testament without looking it up, but I've read them all at one time.

[dwid]

Forgot to add this. It seems kinda sad to me that this Easter is celebrated by all sorts of bizarre, misconstrued news items clearly intended to cast doubt on Christianity in general. This whole Judas thing came riding on the heels of an almost completely scientifically worthless study about prayer and heart patient recovery. Before you go thinking that prayer doesn't work for heart patients, you should know two things about the study. First, the patients' prayers for their own sakes were never asked about or studied in any way. Second, the people who did the praying were random strangers who knew only the first name and face of the afflicted. Those two items completely invalidate the study as most people would agree that it is a completely different scenario if you pray for your own sake and if it is your family and close friends praying for you.

I know this is mostly irrelevant to the bulk of this thread, but I feel compelled to comment on it nonetheless. First, the prayer study, whatever its scientific shortcomings, is an attempt to further investigate claims based on more poorly designed studies that claimed that prayer led to better health outcomes. Lots of hardcore Christian types loved this previous research, and I didn't hear a lot of criticism on flaws in its design from the many Christians that I heard refer to it when it was news. I also remember hearing a lot more in the media about this study than about the more recent one.

Secondly, I would think most sensible Christians would be glad to be rid of the notion that prayer makes people have better health outcomes. This idea is, in fact, a slippery slope that leads to people blaming God when they don't get the medical outcomes they ask for. I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer.

Anyway, for the record, as I will no doubt be considered anti-Christian by some for these remarks, I was brought up Christian and had Christian education k through 7th grade. I am not a Christian, but I respect many people who are (including my wife). I just think that many Christians have a tendency to feel persecuted by things like the study in question, when in fact, such items are just by-products of the innate curiousity of human beings. We investigate. Sometimes you will like the results and sometimes you won't.

[Anthony]

"It seems kinda sad to me that this Easter is celebrated by all sorts of bizarre, misconstrued news items clearly intended to cast doubt on Christianity in general."

This Easter?.....try EVERY Easter.

I think I can still remember last years ridiculous headlines. Your statement is pretty much what it all comes down to. A well made documentary or written article, no matter what it's based on (fact or fiction) will always sound like truth because it's on TV or in Time or Newsday. The ones who make/write them obvioulsy don't go out of their way to say that it's based on nonsense because people just wouldn't watch. They try to make it sound like there's been some amazing discovery......yeah right. Every year around Easter or Christmas there's an "amazing new discovery" about Christianity that might "change the way you see the religion for ever." I guess to make money they have to make it sound like it's something that nobody ever saw or heard before. There will be another one next year too.

Like you said, it's just sad. It confuses Catholics who study the Bible but aren't necessarily well versed in Theology (I would know alot less myself if I didn't go to college) and it gives fuel to the monkeys who are so quick to believe in anything that they can use against you. For example, my grandmother read the Bible every day (that I noticed). She's from the "old country" and her generation didn't have much schooling. I doubt she knew anything about Christianity other than what was in the Bible or from going to church. What would she be able to say if someone brought up some made up nonsense to her? Nothing.

[MasterKiller]

I love celebrating the risen saviour by eating chocolate bunny ears.

Easter is not about Christ, just like Christmas is not about Christ. Christians have a nasty historical habit of latching onto any holiday they want in an effort to subvert non-Christian celebrations.

Next thing you know, Halloween will be the day Jesus ate his first pumpkin pie.

[Anthony]

As far as "prayer=better outcome always," I was taught to pray but was never taught that as a fact. You also hear that "God has a plan that you may not understand." Peoples individual interpretations are subject to slight differences.

"I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer. "

Did you tell those people that they were being naive when they were praying? I'm not sure I fully understand your comment about time spent at a hospital and what it's supposed to proove but it sounds like your judging people who are going through a tragedy (when all they may have left is prayer) or at a time when their faith is most tested.

Maybe if you caught up with them a few years later you could find out if they still bame God or if they were just caught up in the emotion of loosing a child.

[Anthony]

"Easter is not about Christ, just like Christmas is not about Christ." - MasterKiller

Everyone already knows that Easter is about the Easter Bunny, and Christmas is about Santa Clause and Presents!.......derrrrrrr.

[dwid]

"I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer. "

Did you tell those people that they were being naive when they were praying? I'm not sure I fully understand your comment about time spent at a hospital and what it's supposed to proove but it sounds like your judging people who are going through a tragedy (when all they may have left is prayer) or at a time when their faith is most tested.

Maybe if you caught up with them a few years later you could find out if they still bame God or if they were just caught up in the emotion of loosing a child.

The point is regarding the slippery slope of believing prayer will improve the likelihood of a loved one's health improving. If you believe God heals some kids, then you are forced to wonder why not others.

And no, I did not tell people they were naive for praying, nor would I. As stated above, the point is not whether these specific people were praying or not, the point is simply that when you place the responsibility on God for making you well, then it logically follows that God is responsible when he does not make you well.

Also, regarding: "God has a plan that you may not understand." This has always struck me as a bit of a copout. Simplistic statements like this and like "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answers are not the ones we want," etc... don't really explain anything, they merely attempt to divert from the discussion.

[KC Elbows]

It goes to free-will--the option to believe or not to believe and then the option to follow or not follow. Angels don't have free-will and demons are nothing but fallen angels, right? But the demons chose to revolt under the leadership of Lucifer; to try to overthrow heaven. So they developed free-will at some point; didn't they?

I prefer to think that they were built that way: note that in the stories involving Satan that are thought to be representations before the fall, his job is still the tempting of humans. I think of it as a clever omnipotent beings built in way of giving an example to men of the nature of evil, that it is often a hair breadth from the nature of good. Who watches over the souls in hell? The reminder of the warning. Always a task for the angels, fallen or otherwise. They'd make great office workers.

[mantis108]

The Vatican has a relatively new Pope. I don't think people has warmed up to him yet. The previous Pope was coined "the People's Pope" but what kind of Pope is this Pope going to be? Sometimes, these talks and challenges from the interested parties are meant to draw a response from the "reigning" Pontiff. I think there are people out there that wanted to see how this Pope going to hold up to these types of challenges to "authority".

It's interesing to keep watch. May be they could have a reality show/soap opera called - Vatican Watch. ;)

Mantis108

[Anthony]

"....the point is simply that when you place the responsibility on God for making you well, then it logically follows that God is responsible when he does not make you well. "

Like I said above I really think this a matter of how the individual feels about prayer. I don't think the Church gives you any definites as far as what you should "expect" God to do when you pray so I don't think they teach you to make God responsible. I hate to bring up the obvious but if they were fully dependent on God they wouldn't be in a hospital in the first place. I think any anger toward God for "doing this to me" is probably a result of emotions running high.

"Simplistic statements like this and like "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answers are not the ones we want," etc... don't really explain anything, they merely attempt to divert from the discussion."

There are plenty more expressions "God works in mysterious ways," or "God's testing you," you've probably heard them. The only goal of that discussion that I can see is to learn what God is thinking and that's impossible so I don't see the point of it. I think prayer will always remain subjective. If it's naive to assume that God doesn't get involved in people's personal lives then, on the flip side, wouldn't it be incredibly arrogant to assume that he definately doesn't. I mean (for arguement's sake), if God's the almighty creator than who are we to say we understand how he acts.

[KC Elbows]

All that aside, why does all this always come out at Easter every year? No one addressed that point with an argument.


It's the same reason that they don't play Rudolph's Baby New Year in June. No sex, no guns, you people are lucky you get TV time at all.

[Wood Dragon]

Exactly. Considering that the gnostics set, as a goal, achieving the path of Jesus(recognizing God in themselves, etc), it would be hard to call them anything other than christians.


Not even close. The Gnostics held that Salvation was only available to pre-selected "in group", not all Humanity.

Also, the whole "Aeon/Yaldaboath/Demiurge" concept was wildly varied from anything previously held by the Early Church, or it's Jewish precursors.

[Judge Pen]

I prefer to think that they were built that way: note that in the stories involving Satan that are thought to be representations before the fall, his job is still the tempting of humans. I think of it as a clever omnipotent beings built in way of giving an example to men of the nature of evil, that it is often a hair breadth from the nature of good. Who watches over the souls in hell? The reminder of the warning. Always a task for the angels, fallen or otherwise. They'd make great office workers.

Interesting perspective. I always thought that the fall occurred before the creation of man; I never considered otherwise. As for the book of Job, I always thought it was neat that even though Satan and God were enemies they engaged in these debates over the nature of man.

How do you reconcile this perspective with the book of Revelation that says that Satan and the demons will also burn in the lake of fire?

[Shaolinlueb]

gnostics werent people. it was a time period i though. anyways is christianity today peters church? there was a form of christianity popular before peters but it was whiped out. it was one of the disciples but i dont remember. anyone got any info on it? i dont have the book on me.

[The Willow Sword]

Yeah i watched that show and whereas i was intrigued by it all. it still doesnt change my opinion that "religion" in of itself is a propagated mentally ill concept.

i mean yeah i can acknowledge and respect people's "right" to believe in whatever they wish to believe(if you want to believe that daisies and dog food are creations of the divine then by all means believe). What really gets my goat is when these "religions" start getting so radical and fundamentalist that they choke the very nature of "spirituality"(which in my opinion is far different from what "religion" is")

For Centuries the clergy in all facets of organized religion have spawned some of the worst atrocities upon humankind(and i dont exclude judaism and the muslim faith.of course christianity takes the cake on becoming such an oppresive and totalitarian religion/its right up there with how the old pagan regimes of the time oppressed everyone). i dont buy in to all that gentleness and tolerance and acceptance that i hear resonate throught the christian world and yet the actual PRACTICE of these concepts i rarely EVER witness. Seems like christ's "teachings" dont really resonate in the way that supposedly he wanted them to.

As for the Gospel of Judas. What we see here is a text that tells a different perspective on that whole christian ideology, and remember,,this text was written 200 years AFTER the supposed time of christs life. SO THAT should tell you that it is a "perspective" and not necessarily a "gospel Truth". But TRUTH has a different definition for everyone. so my truth isnt going to be yours and certainly this would also apply to some gnostic writing his "truth" about Judas and then storing it away. As we saw from that show,,the clergy in power at the time dismissed it as heretic writings because it did not fit with what the gospels of john and matthew etc. were saying.
Hey dont get me wrong,,just because i dont follow christianity and i feel like it is mentally ill doesnt mean that i dont believe that these events ever happened. and i am no atheist. like i said i can respect everyone's "RIGHT" to believe what they want. But when those beliefs become so fanaticle that millions have been murdered to propagate it's "teachings". i tend to just see these religions for what they are "political tools to control the uneducated simple minded masses".
i know what your thinking( he is a communist) nope wrong again.
Just a "mystic" that has seen and experienced alot and follows his own "path" rather than travels a path that is littered with sorrow tears and blood.

As always,,TWS

[Anthony]

"But when those beliefs become so fanaticle that millions have been murdered to propagate it's "teachings".......etc."

Your not the only one who dislikes many atrocities that happened in the past in the name of religion. The last Pope appoligized for many of those things that the Church did.

Anyway, it seems that your judging a religion itself based on a certain contingency of it's proponents (many muslims disagree with modern day terrorist acts). There are so many off-shoots and sub-groups of some religions and there are different interpretations among them, even among individuals. If you have a corrupt lawyer for instance (or several), are you going to do away with the entire legal system because it's controlling you? It's just not good logic.

Also, if your judging based on attrocities, at least don't be one sided, you could mention all the missionary and charity work being done around the world that would indicate that the concepts are being put into practice by many. Non-religious people never seem to know or mention these things....how curious.

I don't have a problem with you not being religious or with your opinions (their yours). For a non-religious person to have a knowledge only of all the "bad" and to ignore all the "good" in order to make their point is extremely typical and, in my opinion (to use your own words), "uneducated and simple minded."

[neilhytholt]

I'm not going to say anything bad about people's religious beliefs, but I'm going to write something addressing the institution of religion, in churches and organized religion.

These institutions by nature are corrupt because they are run by men (or sometimes women). They are political institutions where the purpose many times becomes the advancement of certain people's interests over those of over people's. For example, state sponsored religion where you have to join that religion or else bad things happen to you, either persecution or being put in jail, or losing out due to social or economic stigma, etc.

The fact that we can even engage in an open debate about this is something relatively rare, because in past history it was the usual mode that religion was sponsored by the state.

Anyway, to say that the Catholic church is correct vs. another church being correct is just a matter of politics. A group of men got together and said this version of the Bible is the correct version. Okay, so how did they decide? It was all political. But fundamentalist types will say it was the 'divine will' or something like that, and then that's where all the fights start. The fights start when one person says their particular religion is correct and somebody else's isn't correct and then they start fighting with other people.

It just seems kindof stupid, because obviously there is no proof that any religion is 'correct'. But humans are obviously political creatures who tend to put their interests ahead of others.

[The Willow Sword]

The last Pope appoligized for many of those things that the Church did.

Whatever. it will take a heck of a lot more than a dead popes "apology" to correct the "wrongs".


Anyway, it seems that your judging a religion itself based on a certain contingency of it's proponents (many muslims disagree with modern day terrorist acts). There are so many off-shoots and sub-groups of some religions and there are different interpretations among them, even among individuals. If you have a corrupt lawyer for instance (or several), are you going to do away with the entire legal system because it's controlling you? It's just not good logic.

i am "judging" as you write BASED on what i have studied in History and what i see and experience today. Yes you do have all these "off-shoots" of this and that and the other having to do with christianity and islam and judaism, blah blah. yet we really dont see any of these "offshoots" being dealt with if the Main Authorities of these religions feel that they are "not the way it is supposed to be followed or expressed". it just proves my point about what i stated about "mental illness". Bringing up the "LAW" is a poor example in my opinion because the very nature of "LAW" is extremely corrupt and corruptable. the "LAW" and its authors seem to have this "do a little evil to do good" mentality, and i think THAT is more mentally Ill than religion.


Also, if your judging based on attrocities, at least don't be one sided, you could mention all the missionary and charity work being done around the world that would indicate that the concepts are being put into practice by many. Non-religious people never seem to know or mention these things....how curious.

Another thing i find arrogantly presumptious about religion especially all the "good missionary work" you mention, is that these "missionaries will go in to poor and oppressed areas of the world and "set up shop" and bring the "good news" and all that other happy horse manure,,yet this goes to the HEART of what i state about "atrocities". take the native americans who had to be forced to follow the "missions" and their " good work" or else be either killed or imprisioned and enslaved(which they became anyway due to the political policies of the time that DIRECTLY correlated with the Missions( i speak of the early times as well as the 1800's and beyond.
Or how about the other Missionary work that is done where YES, i will agree that they provide medical assistance to the sick and food and such,,however i wonder if these impoverished people would still get the same attention if they did NOT convert? i hardly think so.
There always seems to be a "hidden agenda" with respect to any religion. that agenda to "spread the word" and to "convert", those so called "heathans".
How arrogantly presumtious to think that ANY religion be thought of as the "true" way just because some fanatical apostles said it was so. or because some book written 1500 years ago tells you what is "true" and the "way".
Quote scripture to me all you want. its not going to change what i see right in front of me, and what do i see? i see a whole HOST of charlatans and snake oil salesman and radical ultra conservatives who seek not to do anything more than empower themselves by brainwashing the simple masses who will blindly follow their way because they need to "feel better" about their lives because they are suffering and whatnot. It seems callous of me i know,,,but it is my opinion that any system of organized fundamentalist religion does NOT seek to work in your benefit to save your soul, or to do anything really other than brainwash and control YOU.

Man i love easter time,,,gettin out all that pent up religious constipation. Peace,,TWS

[mantis108]

I tihnk Neilhytholt brought up a good point on state sponsored religion.

I believe that SSR is a mean for the ruling class to delegate and even totally off load it's responsibility to educate the people. Education for the mass costs huge amount of money. It most likely not going to fit the ambition and agenda of the ruling party. Look at most of the third world countries and middle east countries. Education is quite low on their pirority. If the people of these country realize that they are being ripped off by their own government, I think they will revoke their own government just as hard as they would in fighting those that don't share their "faith". Here's the rub, it's a Sin to kill your own kind of the same "faith" (almost all monothesitic traditions agreed on that one). But it's more than okay in their view to practically murder those who are deemed non believers. Redirect the anger of the people/followers caused by the incompetency of the Church and State (oldest play in the book). Sure it's also a Sin to kill but who knows they "think" that the big guy upstairs wants you to do His will. Any organized religious doctrine (well, policy for that matter) is subject to interpretations - Yin and Yang. Double standard is a game the so called statemen and politicians are good at. Well, religious leaders play that game too.

As long as a well balanced education opportunity is not a basic human right for whatever reason and/or excuse. The government can trump its people with state sponsored religion which more than likely won't bite the hand (pun intended) that feeds it. Poor human resources only breed poor states. It's a vicious cycle.

Watch the movie "Paradise Now". You might fight it interesting how people live and think in those regions.

Mantis108

[Brad]

That's just how people are. People that label themselves christians, muslims, jews, athiests, etc... you'll allways find groups of people hating others because of what they believe (or don't believe). Get enough armed like minded haters together under some sort of leader and you end up with these violent masacres. People in general are just fundamentally flawed, and so is everything we touch/create (including our religious groups). Whether or not the bible is the literal truth/only way, etc. the one twp parts I really like is the idea that no human being is born perfect, and that anyone can be forgiven.

Also, on the idea of instant forgiveness making people "moraly lazy" that was talked about earlier, I disagree. If someone uses that as an excuse to be a jerk 6 days a week, odds are they'd act like that anyway. On the bright side, maybe their going to church on Sunday is saving some others from grief at least one day a week ;) Being forgiven isn't just about going to church on Sunday or saying a prayer to wipe the slate clean. You have to really recognize that you've done something wrong and make a REAL effort to become a better human being. It also means being about to forgive others for what they've done. The happiest people I've met tend to try to be like this in some way.

[neilhytholt]

I tihnk Neilhytholt brought up a good point on state sponsored religion.

I believe that SSR is a mean for the ruling class to delegate and even totally off load it's responsibility to educate the people. Education for the mass costs huge amount of money.

Mantis108

All systems of government that humans have designed (okay, maybe there are some counter-examples, but I don't know them) seem to be designed for the elite to control the masses and basically sponge off of them, except communism.

And when or where was there ever pure communism? In socialism the elite still had higher status than the masses and still sponged off of them.

So various systems have been designed to keep the lower classes down. Slavery, through force, or caste systems, etc. Lack of education was just a part of this. But how efficient were the past systems? Having a basically uneducated work force obviously worked for trades in the past, but as technology advanced, it requires more education for the workers.

Also, when people are kept down, that lowers their morale and they have a tendency to rebel. Especially in slavery, you incur problems with morale, overhead with having to feed and clothe a large group of people, and manage all of that, and there's the constant threat of insurgency.

Therefore, our current system seems to be an experiment in the illusion of freedom. The elites keep control, but everybody has an illusion of freedom. Are you truly free? No. Who you elect is chosen by the elites. The politicians get money from the elites and are put in power by the elites. You still have to follow certain laws, pay certain taxes, and most people have to work a job making money for the elites to survive, but there is this illusion of freedom and this illusion of equality.

Obviously, it is just an illusion of equality or else everybody would be living in big houses like Bill Gates and driving Ferraris, right? Is there upward mobility? Not for people who are born poor and lack a lot of education, as the persistent poverty and ghettos attest. Most of these people will never move up. But there is less chance of rebellion and insurgency because there is no hard and fast system keeping people down. As long as people have a basic set of needs met and the illusion they can get more (reinforced through the media and through the lottery, etc.) they will not rebel. If a few do you have a huge police force and army in place to quell the insurgency.

And now we have replaced religion with science. Most people never understood religion. Most people now don't understand science. They think they do, but they accept it like they would a religion without understanding the basic premises or doing the experiments for themselves.

So I guess we'll see if this system lasts, if it is better than nobles and slavery and castes and all of that. We are still in the beginning stages because obviously not everyone in the world lives in a system like that, and that poses a threat when somebody brought up under a more totalitarian government with a SSR like like Islam can affect somebody brought up under so-called 'Democracy'.

[Anthony]

"yet we really dont see any of these "offshoots" being dealt with if the Main Authorities of these religions feel that they are "not the way it is supposed to be followed or expressed".

There are no "main authorities." That's why they are offshoots, because they broke "off." from the main (at least the ones I'm thinking of). And there are too many to mention. My point was not to blame the whole....hence the terrorist example.

"There always seems to be a "hidden agenda" with respect to any religion. that agenda to "spread the word" and to "convert", those so called "heathans". How arrogantly presumtious to think that ANY religion be thought of as the "true" way just because some fanatical apostles said it was so. or because some book written 1500 years ago tells you what is "true" and the "way".

Well, that's the definition of religion (that you believe in it). If you didn't think it was right, you wouldn't be religious. So if people do missionary work to "save souls" as arrogant as it sounds to you, the person doing it believes they are right (yes, they are putting forth their own agenda and that bothers you). Your point makes no sense to me. It's like your saying that religious people shouldn't believe in their religion or else their arrogant. So, I guess they are arrogant. And yes tragedy has resulted throughout history because of that. Bar rule: "no religion, no politics." I guess that's why because of the arrogance and anger it generates.

"Whatever. it will take a heck of a lot more than a dead popes "apology" to correct the "wrongs".

Yes...whatever. I don't think some wrongs can ever be corrected (until we invent a time machine). So there we have it.

"what do i see? i see a whole HOST of charlatans and snake oil salesman......etc. "

What can I tell you....you'll see what you see. When I said missionaries and "good" works I mean that in a broad sense and wasn't referring to any specific acts of charity or goodness. I see alot of goodness and I know the bad. If you see more bad than good or only bad, it's fine with me. I'm sure as hell not gonna go tic for tak with you and for every bad thing you cite I'm gonna cite a shining example of morality.

If I understand your posts correctly (I may not), your main problem is that religious people (any religion) believe that they are right, and, that organized religions (or any institutions) have an agenda. I agree on both counts. Happy Easter.

"....gettin out all that pent up religious constipation"

yeah...what's up with that?.....relax a little.

[Shaolinlueb]

christianity different today then it was 2000 years aog. noooo you say? lol

of course it was different. so many things changed. judaism is way different too. religion changes over the years.

some people believe early christianity had sexual sacrimants.

[Sihing73]

christianity different today then it was 2000 years aog. noooo you say? lol

of course it was different. so many things changed. judaism is way different too. religion changes over the years.

some people believe early christianity had sexual sacrimants.

Hello,

Chrstianity is a Faith not a Religion per se. The many chrches which have sprung up in its name are mans reflections of what that "faith" entails. While the church today, at least mans perspectve has changed over the years, the basic belife system and the Bible has not changed.

The books of the Bible compliment one another and lend support to the story of Man and Salvation, as told in the Biblical Faith. The only changes to the Bible are those which modern men have put in place to support their own ends. However, the end result does not fit with the original thus the reaon for some "books" not being included. For example the book of Macabees(sp?) which is a nice histor8ical account whihc includes the event at Masada.

As to Christ having gone to India and lived out the rest of his life there, I think this is a fantasy which can never be proven. What can be proven are some things directly related to Christs' life, Death and Resurrection.

1) Christ definitely was a historical figure and lived a litle over 2000 years ago.
2) Christ was either a Madman a Liar or the Son of God. I have heard several ewish and other Relgious authorities claim that Christ was a Great Prophet. However, there is no way he could have been a great prophet or teacher. He claimed to be the Son of God. If he was not the Son of God then he was either a Liar or Insane.
3) Christ fullfilled all of the prophicis of the Old Testament in both his life and death.

One of the most interesting arguments for Christ being the Son of God and having risen from the dead is in the change in the lives of his Apostles. To a man they all deserted Christ whn he was arrested, tried and crucified. Peter even denied knowing Christ. So please explain to me why these same people would preach a dead Mesiah and gladly go to their deaths, as all but one died as Martyrs? Why would someone who was cowering in fear when their leader was captured and killed suddenly make a full 180" and preach his word after his death??? Especially when one considers the penalites for doing so.

The very idea that Christ faked his death and ressurection is hard to fathom. The Romans were very good at crucifiction and the guards aroudn th tomb would have been killed for letting anyone steal the body after it was buried. Add to that the fact that Christ did not appear only to his own disciples but to literaraly thousands of people after his death and the resurrection becomes harder to dissprove.

No matter what you or I believe there is one thing which is an fact: One day we will know the answer for sure. ;)

[FuXnDajenariht]

I think the son of god is meant as a metaphor. I dont think his being a great prophet is under dispute by anyone. You can't judge him based on his followers. even Islam, the historical and ideological rival of christianity sees him as a great prophet and as an enlightened man.

Thats besides the point though. The concepts in the bible like being the son of god and heaven and hell and the concept of salvation through christ etc etc are all metaphors and should be taken as such. Meaning they dont have literal meanings and thats where people **** up. Hes basically saying wake the **** up and take responsibility for your own life and your own salvation but use me as an guiding example of someone who has done it, and see that it is possible. Hes saying a man can make a heaven or hell of his existence all based on his own perceptions to put it simply. dont be fooled by rosy or poetic language. Other religions convey their message the same way. Look at how confusing Daoism can be for instance if you take things literal. Thats how they spread their message to large audiences of mostly uneducated people, by telling stories or parables.

When you see it that way i dont see how anyone can say religion is faith based. It has nothing to do with blind faith.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Yeah i watched that show and whereas i was intrigued by it all. it still doesnt change my opinion that "religion" in of itself is a propagated mentally ill concept.

i mean yeah i can acknowledge and respect people's "right" to believe in whatever they wish to believe(if you want to believe that daisies and dog food are creations of the divine then by all means believe). What really gets my goat is when these "religions" start getting so radical and fundamentalist that they choke the very nature of "spirituality"(which in my opinion is far different from what "religion" is")

For Centuries the clergy in all facets of organized religion have spawned some of the worst atrocities upon humankind(and i dont exclude judaism and the muslim faith.of course christianity takes the cake on becoming such an oppresive and totalitarian religion/its right up there with how the old pagan regimes of the time oppressed everyone). i dont buy in to all that gentleness and tolerance and acceptance that i hear resonate throught the christian world and yet the actual PRACTICE of these concepts i rarely EVER witness. Seems like christ's "teachings" dont really resonate in the way that supposedly he wanted them to.


...............


I used to think the same way but then i realized people are inherently greedy, selfish and stupid. We will ALWAYS and i means always find a reason to justify the wrongs that we commit against other human beings. Its out of necessity that we're able to delude ourselves into believing certain things It just so happens that religion is much more convenient in justification because it pushes blame away from a person. No one can honestly prove or disprove god, or the concepts we attach to him by extension. You can philosophize on just about anything you want and just pass it off as the will of god and if people question their labeled as heretics. So religion is very versatile in that regard. Christianity has its fair share of the blame just for the sole fact of popularity but it could of been any faith. Look at some communist countries. They claim atheism so they certainly dont need god to help them torture and kill. But if not for religion the justifications would of landed somewhere else. Patriotism, Politics, Science, Philosophy..... We have a gift for reasoning the evil **** we do.

[Sihing73]

I think the son of god is meant as a metaphor. I dont think his being a great prophet is under dispute by anyone. You can't judge him based on his followers. even Islam, the historical and ideological rival of christianity sees him as a great prophet and as an enlightened man.

Thats besides the point though. The concepts in the bible like being the son of god and heaven and hell and the concept of salvation through christ etc etc are all metaphors and should be taken as such. Meaning they dont have literal meanings and thats where people **** up. Hes basically saying wake the **** up and take responsibility for your own life and your own salvation but use me as an guiding example of someone who has done it, and see that it is possible. Hes saying a man can make a heaven or hell of his existence all based on his own perceptions to put it simply. dont be fooled by rosy or poetic language. Other religions convey their message the same way. Look at how confusing Daoism can be for instance if you take things literal. Thats how they spread their message to large audiences of mostly uneducated people, by telling stories or parables.

When you see it that way i dont see how anyone can say religion is faith based. It has nothing to do with blind faith.

Hello,
Faith is not blind nor should it ever be such. As to everything being a metaphor, with this I would dissagre. While there are metaphoric expamples and illustrations used in the Bible. Christ made it quite clear that he claimed to be the Son of God. As tp hisbeing a great prophet how can that be when his claims would be blasphemy if they were untrue? You can't have it both ways. Either he was as he claimed or he was a liar or insane.

[SimonM]

And when or where was there ever pure communism?


Band level societies. That's where. They exhibit EXACTLY what Marx hoped to create with organized Communism. The problem is there are too **** many people and population pressures create these inequal situations.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't believe this new "evidence" about Judas anymore than I believe all the nonsense about Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.

Hoax.

[Shaolinlueb]

where in the bible does jesus claim to be the son of god. or was this a title given to him?

[neilhytholt]

After having an argument about this on the weekend I have to say that the old bar rules should apply. No politics and no religion. Anything else just seems to lead to a lot of arguing and fighting.

[Sihing73]

where in the bible does jesus claim to be the son of god. or was this a title given to him?

There are many examples of Jesus making claims to being God although the more popular title seems to be Son of Man. However for some examples of Christs words which show he claimed to be God or Equal to God please refer to:

John 10:30-33-Same as God they are one

John 14:6-9-He is the only way ot the Father

John 8:57-59-Was present in the beginning

John 6:32-35-He is the bread of life

John 3:16-18-Most famous verse in the Bible.

While it is easy to discount Christs' claims to be the Son of God Jesus made it clear that he and the Father(God) were the same. Therefore, he ether was as he cliamed or he was a liar or insane. Those who claim he was a great prophet ignore this and the fact that if he did not speak the truth he was a Blasphemer. Like I said before you can't have it both ways.

[The Willow Sword]

on Sunday(Easter) i got up and went to go feed the dogs and to also feed the chickens in the coup and gather a few eggs in the nesting box and lo and behold there was the BIGGEST rat snake i had ever seen, eating one of those eggs:eek:

i was just thinking about the irony of it all when i saw that snake devouring an egg and on that day of easter.

Weird Huh? TWS


P.S. oh i caught the snake and relocated him. I like snakes:)

[kwaichang]

We are all Biased by our own perception brought about by life experiences. This said I can say truth in Spirituality and combat are the same it is an individuals own experience and abilities. Many people can say many things but truth is truth. No matter what is done by Man does not change the truth of what is. Religion is mans prostitution of truth for human gains but the truth of the Lord is eternal. To judge a way by ones own thought of right or wrong is to try to put ones self in the same level as God. That is impossible. OK now tear this post apart. BMG KC:cool:

[Studentoflife]

Pretty much.

The Gnostics departed -wildly- from what was commonly believe by the early Christian communities.

They were, in all respects, a different religion.

I agree. I guess the question is, "Which Christian tradition, Orthodox or Gnostic, taught closer to what their leader Jesus taught?" Both writings come from the same time. We will never know which one trully embrassed his teachings. We can look at this point though...The victors wrote their version of Christianity and they kept it that way through intimidation, murder and fantasism. I don't think that's the way Jesus thought. Who knows for sure though right?