westboro baptist WTF

[Dragonzbane76]

This is an organization of messed up individuals. I don't understand there logic but being a nut case doesn't really mean logic is involved in the first place.

Here is an artical that they will be protesting against the dead miners they found. Anyways there is a special hell somewhere for these kind of people.

http://ecopolitology.org/2010/04/09/westboro-baptist-church-gets-out-protested-in-west-virginia/

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Westerboro_Baptist_Church.jpg

[David Jamieson]

there are problems in all the fundamental religions, be they christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, you name it and tre will be people within them that have their own agenda, their hate full and intact and they are oblivious to the teachings of the fold they wrap themselves in.

sort of like a homeless person who makes a coat of money to keep warm without realizing the value of the money.

You can't help them, but think of them as already dead and it may help your perspective somewhat and help you to understand your own reality a little better. :)

[Dragonzbane76]

yeah i'm not religious, so I don't understand many of the things people do for the sake of religion.

[Matt Stone]

When you consider that a large portion of the American population really, truly believes in people made out of dirt, talking snakes, magic fruit, and an invisible being that killed himself in order that he might forgive his creations for being as he made them in the first place, how is it such a stretch to believe that some of them behave like these Westboro nutjobs?

[uki]

all i can say is that each of us gets exactly what we were supposed to experience... i believe in fate/pre-destiny... all things happen for a reason - i personally do not thank anyone when people are killed, yet i do hope a stray comet decides to smack some sense into our species. :D

[Sihing73]

Hello,

For those who believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of GOD; it is pretty clear that ****sexuality is a sin and wrong, period.

Having said that; the Bible and Jesus taught from a spirit of Love. Jesus did not teach us to sit in Judgment of one another, but to help one another in a Spirit of Love. I myself may not feel that ****sexuality is right, however it is not my place to preach that to the rest of the world. If someone asks my opinion I will give it. However, that persons lifestyle is between them and God, not up to me to Judge.

As to the members of this church; I think that we are seeing the hand of God and his Judgment on our society and lifestyle choices. However, I do not think anyone should be thankful for the death of anyone. I also feel it is inappropriate and disrespectful to demonstrate at someones funeral or at the scene of a tragedy.

IMHO, if one truly follows the teachings of Christ then one should offer comfort and consolation not sit in Judgment. I doubt any of us has reached the point where our lives are without blemish or stain, I know I haven't.

FWIW, I feel groups like this give Christians a bad name and are outside the Spirit of the Lord and the Teachings of Christ.

[Lee Chiang Po]

I have always considered religion to be for the poor and uneducated. But I have come to know that there are some rather afluent, educated people that are religious as well. I personally have never felt the need for religion, and I think I would be embarissed if I were to try. Religion is akin to belief in magic, which is impossible. Religion is a good medium to use in the amassing of fortune or for controlling the masses, but it always leads to persicution and prosicution of others as well as murder and genecide. All out of mans vanity.

[Dragonzbane76]

yet i do hope a stray comet decides to smack some sense into our species.

couldn't agree more. Most of the time we see the worst in people. But every once and awhile we see that glimmer of hope. The scale sways back and forth.

[Matt Stone]

For those who believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of GOD;

For which there is absolutely no evidence… It is far more likely the “word of man” as decided by overly controlling, self-centered, power-hungry middle-eastern religious leaders who employed the legitimization of mythology to control the superstitious masses.


it is pretty clear that ****sexuality is a sin and wrong, period.

Without any justification of any kind whatsoever… It’s “wrong” because the bible says it’s “wrong,” and that’s that. That’s hardly justification for anything. “It’s wrong because my book says it’s wrong” is equally applicable to the book I have on my coffee table that says heterosexuality is wrong (no, I don’t really have a book like that, but that’s not the point). “But my book is the right one!” Who gets to win with that kind of foundationless argument? "But it’s the bible!" So? It’s no more authoritative than the eddas, the sutras, or any other “sacred” writing. Please, these people need better justification for their twisted ideas than this circular silliness.


Having said that; the Bible and Jesus taught from a spirit of Love.

No, no, not really… Even Jesus (and I pronounce it “hay-zeus”) had a mean streak. Of course, he usually took it out on inanimate objects (they don’t fight back) for such terrible behavior as not having fruit when he wanted a snack, but he was still quite the intolerant. And condemning anyone to Hell for eternity certainly is a twisted and bizarre form of love, don’t you think? Encouraging your followers to abandon their families in order to follow him? Sounds a little Jim-Jones-ish, don’t you think?


Jesus did not teach us to sit in Judgment of one another, but to help one another in a Spirit of Love.

Really? How is it, then, that so many Christians have gotten this so terribly, terribly wrong, then? Who has “th3 r3al Kr1st1An1ty” then?


I myself may not feel that ****sexuality is right,

Then don’t participate in it. I don’t think that sweet tea is “right” so I don’t drink it, and I don't think anal fisting, hang-gliding, bestiality, or wine tasting is “right” so I don’t do those, either.


however it is not my place to preach that to the rest of the world.

Another point where you’re wrong… All the gospels encourage christians to go out and proselytize, to convey the word of Jesus (again, “hay-zeus”) to the four corners of the earth. With that goes preaching the alleged “values” carried within their holy magic book.


If someone asks my opinion I will give it. However, that persons lifestyle is between them and God, not up to me to Judge.

First, none of my gay friends ever asked my opinion on their lifestyles. I stay out of it, just as they stay out of my heterosexuality (something that’s not right for them). Further, it’s not up to God, just their partner(s). But you do judge, because you say “it’s not right” as opposed to saying “it’s not right for me."


As to the members of this church; I think that we are seeing the hand of God and his Judgment on our society and lifestyle choices.

You mean the United States, the Nation the fundies constantly try to identify as a christian one, “under God,” is the country that’s making such poor lifestyle choices??? And who, pray tell, is making them? With the larger portion of the country identifying itself as christian, it certainly shouldn’t be the christians pointing fingers at anyone else, laying the blame on their behavior as if the christians were somehow any different than anyone else because they believe jewish zombies really exist. That’s flatly nonsensical. If they were busier loving their neighbors instead of spreading hate speech and being caught ass-up/face-down in a pile of cocaine while their gay prostitutes slammed happily away, they may have managed to set a better example...

What we’re seeing is the resultant end state of poor education and allowing adults to believe in fairy tales long after they should have set aside such superstitions…


However, I do not think anyone should be thankful for the death of anyone.

Your death cult religion would disagree… According to your religion, the death of someone, and their alleged pending return to God’s side (because you don’t go to heaven when you die, ever; christians only ever go to heaven after the end of times when Jesus judges the living and the dead – between now and then, you’re just worm food taking a dirt nap), is something to be celebrated. So do you only celebrate the death of those who share your superstition?


I also feel it is inappropriate and disrespectful to demonstrate at someones funeral or at the scene of a tragedy.

Regardless of religion – that of the protestor or the decedent – such actions are distasteful and rude. These douche bags do so and feel they’re perfectly justified “through” Jesus (whatever that means).


IMHO, if one truly follows the teachings of Christ then one should offer comfort and consolation not sit in Judgment.

See above. You’re not reading your entire bible if you think you’re encouraged to sit by and just be comforting. Jesus, especially according to Paul, wants you out there in peoples’ faces.


I doubt any of us has reached the point where our lives are without blemish or stain, I know I haven't.

Well, these folks believe they’ve been “born again” and “saved” and so they can do as they please in the name of “da Lowrd.” Hard to argue with that, don’t you think? They genuinely believe, as do most religious people that I’ve had to endure, that they’re morally superior to anyone and everyone else. They pay lip service to the contrary position for the sake of social graces, but they don’t believe it for a minute. If they thought it, knew it, and believed it, they wouldn’t be pointing fingers in everyone’s faces all the ****ed time! There are entire networks devoted to 30 minutes of “feel-good” god-speak, punctuated with hour-long anti-everyone-else rants by raving whackjobs, with nary a “moderate believer” stepping into the public realm to decry their behavior. If that self-belittling attitude is really the belief du jour, more christians should start DWJSTD (or Doing What Jesus Said To Do).


FWIW, I feel groups like this give Christians a bad name and are outside the Spirit of the Lord and the Teachings of Christ.

Christians give christians a bad name. The bible gives whatever morality plays contained therein, and whatever lessons might have been learned therefrom, a bad name by including all the other heinous garbage that’s right there under your nose. By not getting that crap gone, christians make themselves look even worse by trying to argue those evil passages are the best an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god could do through his all-too-human writers. Some god, if he couldn’t manage to get the books to say what he meant them to say in the first place. Hell, even I, a lowly, atheistic human can manage to write exactly what I want to say, how I want to say it, usually first time out. How many tries did their god take and he still hasn’t managed to get people to figure out what he’s been trying to say (if he were real, that is; the fact that all the assembled religions contain equally vile material, and they all point fingers at the others and cry “foul,” and none of them make any sense whatsoever without extensive explanation and apologetics, makes for quite a substantial case for “they weren’t inspired by any god whatsoever”)?

Enjoy.

[Sihing73]

Hello Matt,

Perhaps you should re-read the Bible. ;)

Yes, Jesus wanted his followers to spread the word and to bring the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. However as the parable of the Sower clearly explains it is not man that brings forth fruit but the Holy Spirit. Thus one is to present the gospel but is not required to sit in Judgment and ram it down anyones throat. So if I tell someone something regarding what teh Bible says, I can continue to do so providing they are receptive or I can pray and let God work in their hearts. It really is not up to me. Although, some are called to be preachers and evangelists and they will do things differently.

I guess you also missed the references to nt judging others found in the New testimant as well.

If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God; then yes if it says something is wrong it is wrong. FWIW Christianity is not a religion it is a Faith.

Where was Jesus' mean streak which you refer to? The only incident which would even come close would be with the Money Changers in the Temple and, IMHO, one would be hard pressed to consider that a "mean streak".

Also, I am not a member of any "Death Cult". Also your reference to "worm food" agains shows your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible and it's teachings. The Bible clearly states that to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord. Yes, all will be judged in the end but until then, those in death are not in some semi-comatose state awaiting judgment.

You are welcome to your beliefs just as I am welcome to mine. If you are correct in your beliefs than no big worry. However, if those who believe in the Bible are correct........................................... ......one day we will know for sure:eek:

[Matt Stone]

Perhaps you should re-read the Bible. ;)

Nah... Other, far better written fiction out there to be had.


If you are correct in your beliefs than no big worry. However, if those who believe in the Bible are correct........................................... ......one day we will know for sure:eek:

That's called "Paschal's Wager," and it's a shoddy way to live... You live under the presumption that, in order to maximize the chances of "winning," it's better to believe, living a lie of a life, obeying rules out of fear of retribution and punishment, than chancing living otherwise.

It's dishonest.

Be good because being good is the good thing to be. Not because some bronze-age goat-herd cult religion (and it is a religion; you're trying to play games with words by saying it's a "faith" thinking that "faith" is anything but a synonym for "religion") says its sky-god is going to punish his creations in an eternity of burning hellfire if you don't obey him (but he LOVES you!).

And if you can be good without god (and you can - people do it every day), what need is there of god? If we're capable of identifying right and wrong, good and evil, predicated upon that which injures our neighbors the least, what need is there of an antiquated fear of a long-dead fictional Mesopotamian deity just because your mommy and daddy couldn't see fit to dispose of that childish story (designed to keep ignorant children well-behaved)?

Modern humanity no longer believes that Zeus, Odin, Baal, or Ra are any more "real" than Santa, leprechauns, purple fairy-winged dragons, invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. You tell me why those deities aren't "real," and you'll have a satisfactory answer for why your make-believe friend isn't real, either...

[Dragonzbane76]

(grabs popcorn, passes bowl around. ) :)

[David Jamieson]

Passing Judgment on others is not what Christians do.
In fact, the act of passing judgment on others according to what scriptures teach is as unchristian as it gets and is just as bad a reflection on the person who is doing the judging.

You don't have to like things, but you do have to accept reality as according to the teachings of jesus.

Jesus never told anyone to hate anything.
Jesus never said anything about judging others, in fact he more than once stated exactly the opposite.

It is not anyone's place to judge, to make judgment or to pass judgment on another.

this is not about rule of law either, it is about your spiritual nourishment, of which you have none when you participate in hate.

According to the teachings of jesus you must: "render unto Caesar what is Caesars and render unto god what is gods"

If you taint the immortal soul you believe in with hatred and intolerance, then you are staining yourself and making your own judgment by god to be more severe, by your own beliefs.

If there is one thing Jesus made clear it is that we should love each other no matter what. So people who actively use scripture to make arguments about their own moral perspective are in fact sinning before jesus and before god.

nobody said it would be easy being a spiritually conscious person. nobody said it's easy to be a christian.

To be these things truly, it is difficult. The churches are filled with ruinous minds and offensive people from priest to worshiper.

Often we cloak our evils in righteous garbs simply so that we may stomach their foulness more readily.

It is much easier to not have to deal with ones own spiritual shortcomings when they can point fingers and jabber about someone elses. This is the unfortunate truth of the matter and this is what needs to be corrected in those people who claim to be christian.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am a christian, though I have not always been so.
How I became is irrelevant.
Hate, bigotry, intolerance and unaccepteance are all traits of LACK of Christian love.
People that act this way are examples of those LACKING Christian ideal, not those "full of them".
They are full of something else.
There are things that Christians do NOT do, they are commanded to NOT do and passing judgment, like David said, is One of them.
We ARE commanded to LOVE our neighbours and that means EVERYONE.

Christianity has MUCH to answer for because it has strayed away from the path of Jesus (who has nothing to answer for) and become an "organization" and has become the "will of man" and not "the love of God".

Salvation, for Christians is via Jesus Christ, but many people think that means BEING a Christian in the "doctrinal sense", it does NOT mean that.
One can be saved if one is NOT a christian because Salvation comes from Jesus and Jesus is the only path to God.

You may ask, what's the difference? doesn't that mean you have to be christians?

I answer thusly:
"For man nothing is possible, For God all is possible"
Christianity has been corrupted by man, Jesus has not, CAN NOT and as such, He is our saviour and judge so it is up to JESUS to decide Salvation.

[Matt Stone]

So all of you believe wholly in the story of Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis? Word for word, inerrant?


He is our saviour and judge so it is up to JESUS to decide Salvation.

Please explain - why did God have to incarnate himself as a human so that he could have himself killed, a human sacrifice, in order to forgive his creations, who he, in his omniscience, knew beforehand would disobey him and therefore made deliberately "flawed?" Why couldn't he just say "Aw, shucks, you rascals! I forgive you because I love you."

Please explain - what is the purpose of human sacrifice... Plenty of examples in the bible where God really seems to enjoy the death of his creations and calls it "pleasing."

Please explain - why is blood sacrifice necessary at all?

And lastly, if you don't believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve, then there was no original taint of sin which would require God to commit suicide in order to forgive anyone in the first place, rendering the entire story moot, pointless, and calling into question whether it happened in the first place... (which is likely didn't, but that's another discussion entirely)

[Dragonzbane76]

I'm not religious, as I posted above, I was just curious as to why these kind of people do the crazy things they do?

[sanjuro_ronin]

The bible is NOT innerant.
And many christian scholars say so, Bruce Metzger is an example of one.


Please explain - why did God have to incarnate himself as a human so that he could have himself killed, a human sacrifice, in order to forgive his creations, who he, in his omniscience, knew beforehand would disobey him and therefore made deliberately "flawed?" Why couldn't he just say "Aw, shucks, you rascals! I forgive you because I love you."

God made NO one flawed, man's choices made them flawed.
Christianity is unique among religions because it says this:
God is here, way up here and we are down here.
Some religions say that by doing A,B and C you can get THERE.
Christianity says, nope, sorry, not gonna happen, it can't, we are imperfect.
So what does God do?
God comes DOWN to US in the form of his only begotten Son Jesus.
His becoming human allows man to relate to God on OUR level and is also the ultimate act of Love from God and it is also a huge gift for us and God' way of saying, " you guys such but I love you and you are worth it, so worth it that I will die and suffer for you, when I don't have to, because you guys have so much potential to be "like me".


Please explain - what is the purpose of human sacrifice... Plenty of examples in the bible where God really seems to enjoy the death of his creations and calls it "pleasing."

Please explain - why is blood sacrifice necessary at all?

Jesus said, " I require love, not sacrifice".


And lastly, if you don't believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve, then there was no original taint of sin which would require God to commit suicide in order to forgive anyone in the first place, rendering the entire story moot, pointless, and calling into question whether it happened in the first place... (which is likely didn't, but that's another discussion entirely)

God didn't commit suicide, but you are free to believe he did or to NOT believe he did.
The story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the "mistake" man did-
Turning from God when they had found God and God asked very little of them.
Just like we do everyday, not just to God, but to those we love.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm not religious, as I posted above, I was just curious as to why these kind of people do the crazy things they do?

Because they are crazy and stupid.

[David Jamieson]

So all of you believe wholly in the story of Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis? Word for word, inerrant?



Please explain - why did God have to incarnate himself as a human so that he could have himself killed, a human sacrifice, in order to forgive his creations, who he, in his omniscience, knew beforehand would disobey him and therefore made deliberately "flawed?" Why couldn't he just say "Aw, shucks, you rascals! I forgive you because I love you."

Please explain - what is the purpose of human sacrifice... Plenty of examples in the bible where God really seems to enjoy the death of his creations and calls it "pleasing."

Please explain - why is blood sacrifice necessary at all?

And lastly, if you don't believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve, then there was no original taint of sin which would require God to commit suicide in order to forgive anyone in the first place, rendering the entire story moot, pointless, and calling into question whether it happened in the first place... (which is likely didn't, but that's another discussion entirely)


Uh, I believe you should be required to provide scripture and context in regards to your remarks.

For instance, you say -plenty of examples of human sacrifice in the bible? In god's name? where? Abraham and Isaac? God stopped him before he killed Isaac (or if you're a muslim then it's about Ishmael. either way, the kid lives) Or maybe you're talking about the old testament and the great flood? sodom and gemorrah? David? Joshua?

Where are these plenty of human sacrifices you speak of?

also, in my belief, god incarnates in all of us. Everyone who is born is given the breath of god for their lifetime here. We all are children of god and have god within us, always. This is in the new testament and old. Jesus was a teacher. What of his teachings do you see to be "wrong"? Christians believe that god incarnated as Jesus to teach us how to be humans and how to move upwards and be better humans than our base selves.

Your last point of the adam and eve tale doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you could clarify more.

[Dragonzbane76]

Because they are crazy and stupid.

probably the best answer i'm going to get. :(

Thought maybe someone had some insight to it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

probably the best answer i'm going to get. :(

Thought maybe someone had some insight to it.

Dude, people do a say stupid things and many people like to "blame God" for that stupidity, this is nothing new.
I know that it sucks to admit this to ourselves, but many humans are *******s.

[1bad65]

Someone posted about this trach on Fark years ago. It was a nice, concise post with links and everything. The guy said this 'church' was nothing about religion, nor were these protests. He said the goal is money, specifically lawsuit money. He showed how the cult leader Fred Phelps has sent his kids to law school, and has repeatedly filed lawsuits, all for money. He said you can do all the research you want, and you will see it to be true. Phelps himself was a lawyer, although he has been disbarred for perjury.

[kfson]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

People should be allowed to say anything that they are allowed to believe.
No faith should be so weak that it is not allowed to be questioned.
The NT, James, tell us the TEST all we are told.

[David Jamieson]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

Voicing an opinion is fine. But when it is demonstrated that your opinion is wrong, how should you respond?

When it can be shown through scripture that your opinion is wrong, do you change your opinion?

Is correcting someone throwing them off a path? What is a spiritual path? Should it be peppered with land mines of wrong that are about hating others?

all religions that are practiced by more than 1 person are cults because they have no foundation of physical evidence on which to be factual or self evident.

all churches, temples, mosques, synagogues etc are cult centers that practice cult activities. By their very nature, all organizations that prescribe and subscribe to a set of beliefs that have no physical basis in reality are in fact cults.

If you are a member of a congregation, you are a cult member, period.

Can you live with your cult? Can you live with your cults ideas? Do you believe your cult is doing the right thing?

You see, how it is all on the shoulders of the individual.

But on the hard side, hate is hate and harm is harm.

Having an opinion is one thing. Spreading it as if it was truth is another entirely. :)

[kfson]

Voicing an opinion is fine. But when it is demonstrated that your opinion is wrong, how should you respond?

When it can be shown through scripture that your opinion is wrong, do you change your opinion?

Is correcting someone throwing them off a path? What is a spiritual path? Should it be peppered with land mines of wrong that are about hating others?

all religions that are practiced by more than 1 person are cults because they have no foundation of physical evidence on which to be factual or self evident.

all churches, temples, mosques, synagogues etc are cult centers that practice cult activities. By their very nature, all organizations that prescribe and subscribe to a set of beliefs that have no physical basis in reality are in fact cults.

If you are a member of a congregation, you are a cult member, period.

Can you live with your cult? Can you live with your cults ideas? Do you believe your cult is doing the right thing?

You see, how it is all on the shoulders of the individual.

But on the hard side, hate is hate and harm is harm.

Having an opinion is one thing. Spreading it as if it was truth is another entirely. :)

I can't answer your post because I don't know what your foundation is for truth, right, wrong. Although from your previous statements, I will play.

There are some people who have chosen a path of hate while they are here or maybe even before they came here. Could it be that their opinions can help others cull such thought because by the very sulphurous nature? Could it be that their path of hate is to purge or burn out that very hate in themselves?
Now, when a group in the middle east kills a man because he says he thinks something will happen in the future is when red flags should go up. Though the death of such a man may have been seen as necessary by him and part of that man's life path.

[David Jamieson]

I can't answer your post because I don't know what your foundation is for truth, right, wrong. Although from your previous statements, I will play.

There are some people who have chosen a path of hate while they are here or maybe even before they came here. Could it be that their opinions can help others cull such thought because by the very sulphurous nature? Could it be that their path of hate is to purge or burn out that very hate in themselves?
Now, when a group in the middle east kills a man because he says he thinks something will happen in the future is when red flags should go up. Though the death of such a man may have been seen as necessary by him and part of that man's life path.

I will tell you then.

My idea of what is right and what is wrong is drawn from judaeo-christian tenets.
Killing is wrong, bringing harm is wrong, etc. Fairly cut and dried.

Could've would've should've doesn't hold much water with me.
I understand the gray areas, but nevertheless I am still taken aback when people choose such deliberately black and white paths and selectively so as well.

often it is these people who are hypocritical in many areas of their lives.

no human has the right to tell any other human that they are less than human.

fact is, all humans are humans and so long as they do no harm against each other, physically or mentally, then we shall function well with each other.

as soon as someone harms, they have done the wrong, they have failed in teh path.

hate = harm.

[solo1]

David you and I will have our differences but I think we can both agree that the folks at Westboro Baptist are a pack of inbred jackals.

Where in Ontario? my wife is from Thunder Bay and Toronto. Cant say enough good things about Canada or Canadians.

[David Jamieson]

David you and I will have our differences but I think we can both agree that the folks at Westboro Baptist are a pack of inbred jackals.

Where in Ontario? my wife is from Thunder Bay and Toronto. Cant say enough good things about Canada or Canadians.

If people didn't have differences, we would live in a terribly dry and boring world. lol:D

Heated discussion is stimulating, especially on social hot topics. These days, there is certainly no shortage of those!

I don't think the people are inbred jackals, but I can agree that they are on the wrong tack with their boat. their message is contrary to that of Christianity and their hatred is poor form no matter who it comes from.

I live closer to Toronto, In a town in the North East called Markham. It's one more blob on the map that is congruous with Toronto's Geography though. :)

I'll tell you a secret. I love America! lol And Canada! (secretly, I think we should be one nation)

[solo1]

your secret is safe.

[SoCo KungFu]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

Yes there is transgression. Why these people are allowed to display is beyond me. If I was to go outside a black mans home and or a black church and spout racist hate eventually I'd be taken in for disturbing the peace. And rightfully so, because my actions would be violating the rights of another human being to be free from discrimination and happiness. I see these people as no different. Funny thing about people is, everyone thinks that they should just be able to do as they please with no regard for anyone else. But you are not. You are only privy to your "freedoms" (speech, congregation, etc.) so long as your freedoms do not impede on those of another.

[Matt Stone]

The bible is NOT innerant.

So which parts are wrong?


And many christian scholars say so, Bruce Metzger is an example of one.

Theologians and scholars know the bible is flawed and mostly factually wrong, but that particular nugget of information isn't making its way to the assembled masses... They still think it's perfect, despite the truckloads of blatant errors.


God made NO one flawed, man's choices made them flawed.

Apologetics. If God is omniscient, he knew every potential thread of future events, every line of the cosmic flow chart, every possible outcome based upon every possible variation in decisions. He knew in advance what was going to happen. He set the entire thing in motion... None of it was a surprise. He deliberately, intentionally constructed Adam (if we accept for the sake of argument that Adam was real; he wasn't, but that's a different discussion - even more important because if Adam wasn't real, then there was no reason for Jesus' execution/sacrifice), knowing full well what he was capable of doing. God knew the likelihood was that Adam would fall, and he placed the temptations there to begin with. Don't blame it on the talking snake, either. Who made him? Who put him in the garden? Who made him without free will, meaning he was compelled to tempt Adam and Eve, according to God's twisted designs...


Christianity is unique among religions because it says this:
God is here, way up here and we are down here.
Some religions say that by doing A,B and C you can get THERE.
Christianity says, nope, sorry, not gonna happen, it can't, we are imperfect.
So what does God do?
God comes DOWN to US in the form of his only begotten Son Jesus.
His becoming human allows man to relate to God on OUR level and is also the ultimate act of Love from God and it is also a huge gift for us and God' way of saying, " you guys such but I love you and you are worth it, so worth it that I will die and suffer for you, when I don't have to, because you guys have so much potential to be "like me".

That's flatly insane... "I deliberately made you flawed and imperfect, intentionally placed moral hurdles in front of you that I knew you'd never be able to get over, so now I'm going to show you how great a guy I am but incarnating myself so my own blood sacrifice, my own staged death, will cause me to forgive you for being the ****heads I made you to be." Seriously? That's the best an omnipotent, omniscient deity can do? Crap job of creation if you ask me.


Jesus said, " I require love, not sacrifice".

Cite, please.


God didn't commit suicide, but you are free to believe he did or to NOT believe he did.

Was Jesus also God? If so, sending himself to die amounts to suicide. He caused himself to be killed. Kind of like "suicide by cop," just in this case it's "suicide by Roman."


The story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the "mistake" man did-

I love this... If Adam and Eve's story was symbolic, what did Jesus have to die for? Without the literal occurrence of Adam/Eve's disobedience, there was no disobedience for Jesus to die for. It makes Jesus wholly irrelevant, and therefore undermines the entire premise of christianity from the start...


Turning from God when they had found God and God asked very little of them. Just like we do everyday, not just to God, but to those we love.

They "found" God? How so? God created them and set them in the garden with him. According to Genesis, God walked bodily in the garden with them, ogling their "sinful" nakedness like some sort of pedophile... It wasn't until Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that the realized their nakedness was "dirty," becoming exactly like God (meaning God knew their nakedness was "dirty," but he did absolutely nothing to cover them up, making him a bit of a perv... See Gen 3:5). You have to question God's omniscience here as well, as in Gen 3:8 God had no idea where Adam and Eve were, needing to call out to them to ascertain their location. Sounds a lot less like a story about the divine and more like the poorly thought out parable created by an uneducated, illiterate goat-herd with an extraordinarily limited understanding of critical thinking, logical argument, or cohesive writing styles...

[Matt Stone]

Uh, I believe you should be required to provide scripture and context in regards to your remarks.

For instance, you say -plenty of examples of human sacrifice in the bible? In god's name? where? Abraham and Isaac? God stopped him before he killed Isaac (or if you're a muslim then it's about Ishmael. either way, the kid lives) Or maybe you're talking about the old testament and the great flood? sodom and gemorrah? David? Joshua?

Where are these plenty of human sacrifices you speak of?

You've already provided the human slaughters. Re-read what I wrote, though... I said "creations," and by that I'm including anything and everything that walks, crawls, flies, swims, etc. God's killed off everything once over (except Noah if you believe the flood story, a story that has absolutely no foundation whatsoever), has always been really keen on burnt offerings, and blood sacrifice, up to and including his own "son" really seem to get his motor running. For that matter, the only human sacrifice I have to cite is Jesus his****self. Really, no other one is needed.


also, in my belief, god incarnates in all of us. Everyone who is born is given the breath of god for their lifetime here. We all are children of god and have god within us, always. This is in the new testament and old. Jesus was a teacher. What of his teachings do you see to be "wrong"? Christians believe that god incarnated as Jesus to teach us how to be humans and how to move upwards and be better humans than our base selves.

And killing Jesus was important why, again?


Your last point of the adam and eve tale doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you could clarify more.

Which point was that?

[Matt Stone]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

No. Your right to spew hatred ends where your hatred splashes up against my right now to be subjected to it.

Christians ***** about atheists being outspoken, being "disrespectful" for questioning religion generally, complaining about being "under attack." They call for atheists to be silenced. Right... back... atcha.

Atheists simply question the claims presented by the religious. The fact that the religious can't manage to answer the hard questions without resorting to "it's magic," or because they think their sky-daddy-god and mythology are so fragile that they can't withstand some healthy criticism and inquiry, is certainly not the fault of the atheist camp.

These human filth, picketing funerals and imposing their evil upon grieving families, relieves them of their "right" to say what they like. If this was a group of white men picketing a gathering of traditionally black fraternities, there'd be a ridiculously public outcry, condemning the obvious hate-speech being brought to the public square. But because these cultists are doing so in the name of their zombie god, nobody, including people from their own general religious background, is stepping up to publicly, loudly, aggressively condemn these hate-mongers for their actions... Because they know deep down their religion, perhaps more moderately practiced, really does contain that kind of hate and venom.

[Matt Stone]

I can't answer your post because I don't know what your foundation is for truth, right, wrong.

Truth, right, wrong, good, evil, are independent of any "god."

See the "Epicurean Riddle" -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Another form of the argument is as follows:


God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).


So, if there really is a perfectly good, loving God, the fact that evil runs rampant in the world, that people suffer and die horribly in every corner of the planet, easily disproves either God's goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, or simple existence.

It is wrong to hurt others. This is independent of religion or culture. The allowance for injuring others is an aberration, universally despised. Same with theft and lying, both being but subtle shades of hurting others. We do not need a god to provide us with guidance on how *not* to harm others.

[SoCo KungFu]

Truth, right, wrong, good, evil, are independent of any "god."

See the "Epicurean Riddle" -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Another form of the argument is as follows:


God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).


So, if there really is a perfectly good, loving God, the fact that evil runs rampant in the world, that people suffer and die horribly in every corner of the planet, easily disproves either God's goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, or simple existence.

It is wrong to hurt others. This is independent of religion or culture. The allowance for injuring others is an aberration, universally despised. Same with theft and lying, both being but subtle shades of hurting others. We do not need a god to provide us with guidance on how *not* to harm others.

Not that I much care as a biology student adhering to evolutionary theory, but just because. You are jumbling different schools of thought. What you are most referring to are those such as Calvinist doctrine. What your argument is illustrating is an issue with predestination. But that isn't the only idea out there. There are others who more prescribe to free will. Which your argument somewhat touches on, but not completely.

When man ate from the tree of good and evil, in essence we gained independence from the creator, free will. It was our choice. So, you may say:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Its none of the above. We made the choice of independence. Just because I know that if you've been double fisting tequila shots all night and go get on a motorcycle that you are going to wreck and possibly kill yourself, does that mean you are predestined to do so? A god may see the outcome, just as we can. But he is not bound to intervene, that is (our) free will. Its not that a god is unable, nor is it that unwilling. It is simply, god respecting our wishes so to speak. In allowing us our independence to choose, and suffer our own consequences of our choice, he/she/it loves.

At least, if you so adhere to that doctrine.

Personally, I think its much more interesting studying how all things on earth are related, biologically that is. Even if at times very far removed.

[Matt Stone]

When man ate from the tree of good and evil, in essence we gained independence from the creator, free will. It was our choice.

Then we didn't gain free will by eating of the tree... We had to have it to begin with, as God prohibited eating from the tree to begin with, and without free will Adam and Eve would have happily complied.


So, you may say:
...

A god may see the outcome, just as we can. But he is not bound to intervene, that is (our) free will.

If an earthly parent stood idly by while their children participated in dangerous behavior, they'd be reviled far and wide for their absentee parenting and for doing nothing to prevent said behavior. That implies that God is an absentee father, too uncaring to step in and do something. No intervention on his part. Frankly, that's ****-poor parenting. If God is so active in the lives of his followers that he listens to every prayer, and as Jesus promises, acts upon them, why then is he so obviously absent from every actually important event?


Its not that a god is unable, nor is it that unwilling. It is simply, god respecting our wishes so to speak.

What??? How many devout believers, perhaps in the slums of India, beg God daily to bring them relief from their suffering. Nothing happens. Nothing at all. So God's respecting the wishes of whom, precisely? The easier hurdle is that God does not exist, as the definitions of what God is considered to be do not allow that kind of non-action on his part.


In allowing us our independence to choose, and suffer our own consequences of our choice, he/she/it loves.

I'm the father of two teens. Like hell will I stand idly by while they make a mess out of their lives. I'll be hip deep in their lives, helping to guide them, being very present, very available. That's love. Standing back, watching you suffer, doing nothing to alleviate that suffering while you kneel, begging for aid, is not love. It either proves God doesn't exist, doesn't care to get involved, enjoys the suffering, or is powerless to intervene, all of which (except the whole "not existing" option) pretty much eliminate him from the duty description of "loving, all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good God."


Personally, I think its much more interesting studying how all things on earth are related, biologically that is. Even if at times very far removed.

I'd agree... There is so much more wonder to be had with the natural world... It actually cheapens things, makes them less special, if they were all created by an omnipotent deity. Things are amazing because it was so random, such an impossible chance, that life would arise as it did. If a perfect, all powerful god created everything, he sure did a ****ty job...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Matt, you seemed to have been exposed to a very fundamentalist view of christanity and I can see why you are hostile to it.
My advice, if you care enough to take it, is to look to the true meaning of Christianity ( love thy neighbour, judge no one, salvation through Grace) and to read the NT without and preconceived notions of what you THINK it means.
May I suggest this website as a start:
www.biologos.org

Of course if you don't care either way, that is fine too.

[kfson]

Everyone has the right to hate someone else. There isn't anything you or anyone else can do to stop that... unless the hating person has agreed to allow him/herself to be changed by someone else.

[David Jamieson]

Everyone has the right to hate someone else. There isn't anything you or anyone else can do to stop that... unless the hating person has agreed to allow him/herself to be changed by someone else.

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.

[kfson]

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.
Don't you think that is their right?

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.
They have the right to hold up hate signs in public.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.
So they have chosen a crippling path.

[Matt Stone]

Matt, you seemed to have been exposed to a very fundamentalist view of christanity

Not really "exposed," but "surrounded" is more like it. That same fundie perspective is everywhere you look. There are entire channels on cable devoted to revisionist history, agenda-pursuing news reporting, end times prediction, fake faith healings and other scientific fraud, punctuated only briefly with the occasional feel-good sermon. There are news networks devoted to advancing the same agendas, and they routinely decry any alternative perspectives.


and I can see why you are hostile to it.

How could anyone not be? One of my complaints is that the moderate believers, which demographic it seems you are a part of, do little to step up and call out the televangelists; the shysters; the frauds; the heinous and evil preachings of the Westboro psychotics; the Popes that hide their pedophile priests instead of exposing them to the same legal processing any "civilian" would get; the drug-addled, tax-evading preachers who participate in the same "extracurricular activities" they condemn from the pulpit. Instead, the moderate believers just navel-gaze and think kind thoughts (prayer = what people do when they can do nothing, but still want to feel like they contributed). That makes them, more or less, part of the problem.


My advice, if you care enough to take it, is to look to the true meaning of Christianity ( love thy neighbour, judge no one, salvation through Grace) and to read the NT without and preconceived notions of what you THINK it means.
May I suggest this website as a start:
www.biologos.org

See, here's the thing... You presume I haven't! It is reading the bible without preconceived notions (and that means in either direction - your notions presume the bible is valid; I'd challenge you to read the entire bible, OT and NT (since Jesus said OT law was still in effect, Matt. 5:18; and no apologetics about "Jesus 'fulfilled' the law," since laws aren't "fulfilled," they're obeyed...), without assumption of its validity... Biblical scholarship has done more to turn people to deism and atheism than anything else!

And if "grace" is what's required for salvation, since "grace" is given by God, cannot be earned through "works" (according to Paul), then whether I'm ever granted that gift is strictly up to God (not that I believe he exists, but for the sake of discussion). If he's the loving, devoted, caring sky-father that the feelgood-christianity tries to make him out to be, then he'll see that I've lived a moral, ethical life, I've loved my fellow man enough to place my own life on the line (I'm career military, two tours in Iraq so far - yes, there are atheists in foxholes, far, far, far more than anyone realizes), and I routinely go out of my way to help out others... All I haven't done is suborn my reason and intellect to believe for belief's sake. Even Thomas was given opportunities for proof. I'm waiting for just one...

Further, your argument just doesn't work... "All I'd ask is that you give real Nazi-ism a chance. Just read about it with an open mind..." "All I'd ask is that you give NAMBLA a chance. Just read about it with an open mind..." You can do that dance ad infinitum... It's a logical fallacy that all I have to do is approach a metaphysical worldview, the foundations of which are people made out of dirt, magic fruit and talking snakes, that espouses a polarized elitist mentality cloaked in feelgood language, and it'll all fall into place somehow.

I can get pretty stories with morals at the end from all sorts of places. I don't need to find them in the writings of bronze-age goat-herding desert tribes. George Lucas did a far better job of authoring a story about forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and love than Matt, Mark, Luke or John (or, more accurately, the many contributing ghost authors, revisionists, and plagiarizers who contributed to the books attributed to those four, likely non-existent, authors) did.

[Matt Stone]

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.
Don't you think that is their right?

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.
They have the right to hold up hate signs in public.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.
So they have chosen a crippling path.

Their hatred isn't a right. They have a legal right to speak as they like. No laws shall be made to curtail their ability to speak publicly, freely, in whatever hate-filled speech they choose. That being said, I'm not talking about people making laws to prevent it. I'm calling for the "other" christians to take a public stand identifying these psychotics for the hate-mongers (and non-christians) they are. The moderate religious need to distance themselves from these people, take active steps to inform the public at large that this is not representative of their allegedly loving religion (though it really is fully in line with what's in the bible), and further marginalize these fringe fundies as the wackjobs they truly are.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Matt, you make far too many assumptions.
But then, so do I :)
yes I am a moderate, but I don't think I can be viewed as doing little to step up and curb or fight against the intolerances of fundies, as you call them.
Over the last few years I have done quite a bit trying to get people to not only understand the message of love that Jesus preached, but doing it without being a bible thumber and at times VS cults like the JW's and some more radical ones.
This is a MA forum, so not the place for discussion like this.

You obviously have decided that the bible holds "nothing" for you and question it's legitmacy and you are quite correct to do so.
The bible is a collection of works, written and edited by men that felt they were under divine inspiration and as such, must be taken as just that.
As a Christian, there is ONLY ONE word of God and that is Jesus Christ and not some book.
Nor does ANY organized religion or group speak for Jesus.

Grace is a gift and indeed, no works will make us anymore deserving of it, but it is a gift that must be received.
If you believe in Grace then, even without any conditions, there is THAT condition, it must be received.

There is a reason why no man is allowed to judge, because no one knows what is in the heart or another, only God does and he will Judge that heart and will do so with love and compassion.

We all find our path in life, for some it is a Christian path in Jesus for others it is a Christian path in Atheism ;), but for all, there is hope and faith and love and the greatest of these is love.

The only thing I can ask you Matt is to be open to the fact that you may be wrong, just as easily as you may be right, just as I am open to the fact that I may be wrong, just as easily as I may be right.

[Reality_Check]

The bible is a collection of works, written and edited by men that felt they were under divine inspiration and as such, must be taken as just that.
As a Christian, there is ONLY ONE word of God and that is Jesus Christ and not some book.

Not to take sides, but the only evidence for Jesus Christ and the word of (the Christian) God is that book (and the various non-cannonical works, e.g. Gospel of Thomas). So how can Jesus Christ be the "ONLY ONE word of God...not some book" when that very book that is the only evidence of his existence and his words in the first place?

I hope that made sense. :confused:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not to take sides, but the only evidence for Jesus Christ and the word of (the Christian) God is that book (and the various non-cannonical works, e.g. Gospel of Thomas). So how can Jesus Christ be the "ONLY ONE word of God...not some book" when that very book that is the only evidence of his existence and his words in the first place?

I hope that made sense. :confused:

What I am trying to say is that, what is written in the bible, can't contridict the actual word of God, Jesus and his teachings.
EX:
Jesus tells us to love thy neighbour, including are enemies.
Some where elses in the bible, Paul for example, says that we must throw out those that don't agree with what He/the apostles are teaching.
This is contrdictory, so what do we do?
Take what Jesus said and reconcile it with what Paul said and sense Jesus is the word of God, his word carries more weight, so either Paul was wrong or misunderstood or taken out of context, wither way, one does NOT "throw out" but one does indeed, "Love".

Is that what you meant?

[Matt Stone]

Matt, you make far too many assumptions.
But then, so do I :)

Conceded.


yes I am a moderate, but I don't think I can be viewed as doing little to step up and curb or fight against the intolerances of fundies, as you call them.
Over the last few years I have done quite a bit trying to get people to not only understand the message of love that Jesus preached, but doing it without being a bible thumber and at times VS cults like the JW's and some more radical ones.

How about not "versus" the fringe groups that are silent and already self-embarrassing (the JWs have claimed end of the world several times - obviously they were wrong, and nobody seems to take them seriously anymore as their own proselytization has marginalized them). How about versus Westboro, Pat Robertson, New Life Church, Rick Warren and more prominent, mainstream, yet no less fundamentalist, elitist, separatist wackjobs?


This is a MA forum, so not the place for discussion like this.

This is the "off topic" forum, so this is exactly the place for discussion like this. Where would it be better held?


You obviously have decided that the bible holds "nothing" for you and question it's legitmacy and you are quite correct to do so.

But the way you phrase that is condescending and implies that I'm somehow in error.


The bible is a collection of works, written and edited by men that felt they were under divine inspiration and as such, must be taken as just that.

Just as the eddas, the suras, the sutras, and all other manner of allegedly "revealed" texts should be taken - as man made texts, hoping to extol that which is best in mankind, but focused through the cultural lens of that particular time period and geographic location, completely absent of any actual divine contribution.


As a Christian, there is ONLY ONE word of God and that is Jesus Christ and not some book.

But the word is in the book... You can't separate the two. And given that the book is the only record of what the alleged person allegedly said (since there's absolutely no verification that a personage of such acclaim and impact ever existed whatsoever, and references to his existence in the few histories of the time have been proven to be forgeries), they are, then, inseparable.

And you demonstrate the elitism... There is no more legitimacy for a claim to the primacy of christianity, for the legitimacy of christianity to the exclusion of all other religions, than any other religion possesses. There is the inherent exclusivity and separatism of religion, illustrated easily for all to see...


Nor does ANY organized religion or group speak for Jesus.

Then there better be a whole lotta universities, seminaries, churches, and pastors shutting down shop ASAP. Since Jesus isn't speaking for himself, that makes them the de facto mouthpieces, basing their commentary on the biblical fabrication alleging to record what he said.


Grace is a gift and indeed, no works will make us anymore deserving of it, but it is a gift that must be received.
If you believe in Grace then, even without any conditions, there is THAT condition, it must be received.

God's let Joshua deal with him directly, putting human constraints on belief, and Thomas got away with Jesus providing him immediate prophecy to convince him. Why the conditions on the rest of us who are in so dire need of his grace?


There is a reason why no man is allowed to judge, because no one knows what is in the heart or another, only God does and he will Judge that heart and will do so with love and compassion.

No, he won't do it with love and compassion... Again, go to the book. There's no love and compassion in the book. There's heaven for a select group, limited in number, and there's hellfire for everyone else. It's actually quite clear...


We all find our path in life, for some it is a Christian path in Jesus for others it is a Christian path in Atheism ;), but for all, there is hope and faith and love and the greatest of these is love.

A "christian path in atheism?" What ever do you mean by that? :confused:


The only thing I can ask you Matt is to be open to the fact that you may be wrong, just as easily as you may be right, just as I am open to the fact that I may be wrong, just as easily as I may be right.

The difference, my friend, is that I am quite open to being wrong. Being wrong is the first consideration I make... I'd happily run to the corner and beat the drums to get folks in line for Jesus if he'd only give me one easily identifiable sign that something happened, something that might not have happened on its own, and that was easily, irrefutably linkable to his involvement. So far, in 2000 years, not a thing... Occam's Razor's a real ***** sometimes, and the far simpler solution is that "he doesn't exist." So I content myself with living a life based on ethics, not fairy tales (though I'm not above using Star Wars or Warhammer or Tolkien to explain an ethical dilemma or moral construct to someone ;) ).

[Reality_Check]

What I am trying to say is that, what is written in the bible, can't contridict the actual word of God, Jesus and his teachings.
EX:
Jesus tells us to love thy neighbour, including are enemies.
Some where elses in the bible, Paul for example, says that we must throw out those that don't agree with what He/the apostles are teaching.
This is contrdictory, so what do we do?
Take what Jesus said and reconcile it with what Paul said and sense Jesus is the word of God, his word carries more weight, so either Paul was wrong or misunderstood or taken out of context, wither way, one does NOT "throw out" but one does indeed, "Love".

Is that what you meant?

Somewhat. But since what is written in the Bible is the only example of the "actual word of God, Jesus and his teachings" how can you tell if it's contradictory to those teachings? In effect, how do you know that what the Bible says Jesus taught is in fact what was taught? You can't say what Jesus taught supersedes the Bible, when the Bible is the only place with those teachings. There is no independent example with which to compare. Without the Bible (and various non-cannonical works) there is no "Jesus and his teachings".

[sanjuro_ronin]

How about versus Westboro, Pat Robertson, New Life Church, Rick Warren and more prominent, mainstream, yet no less fundamentalist, elitist, separatist wackjobs?

We do what we can, when we can, as I assume you are.


This is the "off topic" forum, so this is exactly the place for discussion like this. Where would it be better held?
Don't even go there with the off topic, LOL !!


But the way you phrase that is condescending and implies that I'm somehow in error.
I agree that you are right to question the bible, hos does that sound condesending?


But the word is in the book... You can't separate the two. And given that the book is the only record of what the alleged person allegedly said (since there's absolutely no verification that a personage of such acclaim and impact ever existed whatsoever, and references to his existence in the few histories of the time have been proven to be forgeries), they are, then, inseparable.

And you demonstrate the elitism... There is no more legitimacy for a claim to the primacy of christianity, for the legitimacy of christianity to the exclusion of all other religions, than any other religion possesses. There is the inherent exclusivity and separatism of religion, illustrated easily for all to see...

The book is simply that, a book, it is not what teaches us about God and Jesus.
I am an elitist, but that has to do with ma MA, not my faith ;)


Then there better be a whole lotta universities, seminaries, churches, and pastors shutting down shop ASAP. Since Jesus isn't speaking for himself, that makes them the de facto mouthpieces, basing their commentary on the biblical fabrication alleging to record what he said.

Those places express opinions and views, they do NOT speak for God and Jesus.

God's let Joshua deal with him directly, putting human constraints on belief, and Thomas got away with Jesus providing him immediate prophecy to convince him. Why the conditions on the rest of us who are in so dire need of his grace?

They both has to receive God's gift, just as anyone else.
Ever try giving someone something that they don't want to receive?
How did that work out for you?


No, he won't do it with love and compassion... Again, go to the book. There's no love and compassion in the book. There's heaven for a select group, limited in number, and there's hellfire for everyone else. It's actually quite clear...

Don't ever take one book (Revelation) over the Word Of God, it doesn't work that way.
It's as clear as how you choose to interpret a hand full of passages over the direct teachings of Christ.


The difference, my friend, is that I am quite open to being wrong. Being wrong is the first consideration I make... I'd happily run to the corner and beat the drums to get folks in line for Jesus if he'd only give me one easily identifiable sign that something happened, something that might not have happened on its own, and that was easily, irrefutably linkable to his involvement. So far, in 2000 years, not a thing... Occam's Razor's a real ***** sometimes, and the far simpler solution is that "he doesn't exist." So I content myself with living a life based on ethics, not fairy tales (though I'm not above using Star Wars or Warhammer or Tolkien to explain an ethical dilemma or moral construct to someone ).

I am glad that you are open.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Somewhat. But since what is written in the Bible is the only example of the "actual word of God, Jesus and his teachings" how can you tell if it's contradictory to those teachings? In effect, how do you know that what the Bible says Jesus taught is in fact what was taught? You can't say what Jesus taught supersedes the Bible, when the Bible is the only place with those teachings. There is no independent example with which to compare. Without the Bible (and various non-cannonical works) there is no "Jesus and his teachings".

Oh, I understand what you mean now.
And I think Matt brings up the same issue too, but I don't think either one of you will like the answer, at least I don't think you will because you see, the answer is the Holy Spirit, that guiding force of God and Jesus 's essences that, if we allow it, guides us to the truth of God's Love.
Yeah, I know, it isn't the answer you want and I wish there was a more "concrete" or "factual" one.

[David Jamieson]

Conceded.



How about not "versus" the fringe groups that are silent and already self-embarrassing (the JWs have claimed end of the world several times - obviously they were wrong, and nobody seems to take them seriously anymore as their own proselytization has marginalized them). How about versus Westboro, Pat Robertson, New Life Church, Rick Warren and more prominent, mainstream, yet no less fundamentalist, elitist, separatist wackjobs?

the JW's have not claimed end of the wrold several times. :rolleyes: their teaching is that when the people who were born before 1914 die out and there is none of that generation left, then the end of the world as we know it will occur. So, at best, we are close according to them, but they haven't made "several" calls.

As for Mormons and ADLS members. Well, they are a conundrum in and of themselves. They appear to be churches that sprang forth out of necessity to be removed from old world ways. Very in keeping with Americanism though, but not really "Christian" in a Judaeo-Christian sense. Still, peaceful enough. Televangelists are not Christian in practice, they are profiteers who sell readings of scripture to finance wealthy lifestyles and power both political and social. Frauds in essence, to the last unfortunately.



This is the "off topic" forum, so this is exactly the place for discussion like this. Where would it be better held? In a church basement really. :p




But the way you phrase that is condescending and implies that I'm somehow in error. arguing about scripture is always an error, especially if one takes a position of stating it as fact.




Just as the eddas, the suras, the sutras, and all other manner of allegedly "revealed" texts should be taken - as man made texts, hoping to extol that which is best in mankind, but focused through the cultural lens of that particular time period and geographic location, completely absent of any actual divine contribution. Each of these in essence carries more or less the same base message, but to each culture, an accordance of tehir own context and understanding. IE: It's hard to sell a euro on the idea of god being a nepalese aesetic. Blong hair blue eyed jesus painting is much easier to sell, especially when it tool about 1000 years to get the foot in the door! lol




But the word is in the book... You can't separate the two. And given that the book is the only record of what the alleged person allegedly said (since there's absolutely no verification that a personage of such acclaim and impact ever existed whatsoever, and references to his existence in the few histories of the time have been proven to be forgeries), they are, then, inseparable. True. there is no Jesus without the New Testament and without the records of the essenes and a nasorenes.


And you demonstrate the elitism... There is no more legitimacy for a claim to the primacy of christianity, for the legitimacy of christianity to the exclusion of all other religions, than any other religion possesses. There is the inherent exclusivity and separatism of religion, illustrated easily for all to see...

I think this is related to out innate tendency towards tribalism. How can he promote a thought form that is not native to his own belief structure? he can't and shouldn't be expected to anymore than you should be expected to correlate all the texts into one final text that brings it all together.




Then there better be a whole lotta universities, seminaries, churches, and pastors shutting down shop ASAP. Since Jesus isn't speaking for himself, that makes them the de facto mouthpieces, basing their commentary on the biblical fabrication alleging to record what he said. Nope. these folks provide life guidance according to the interpreted word of Jesus as laid out in the gospel. they are doing what they are expected to do. Priests as a construct existed as a social fabrication long before Jesus was walking around as a human. Everything is continuity, not abruptly beginning with the story of Jesus. THat needs to be recognized I think.




God's let Joshua deal with him directly, putting human constraints on belief, and Thomas got away with Jesus providing him immediate prophecy to convince him. Why the conditions on the rest of us who are in so dire need of his grace? God lets' all of us deal directly with God. Many of us, do not choose to do so and ignore god. Or come to the mind that there is no god or that god is not possible to comprehend, so just fetch wood and carry water (which may be the way I think..:D )




No, he won't do it with love and compassion... Again, go to the book. There's no love and compassion in the book. There's heaven for a select group, limited in number, and there's hellfire for everyone else. It's actually quite clear... There is nothing of the sort. there is no set number for who goes to heaven and there's no hellfire for everyone else. This is found exactly NOWHERE in the new testament. This is a fabrication of New world cults who believe in the rapture (which is also not mentioned in the bible). In fact, there is very little about the end times in the bible. Revelations has more to do with the fall of rome when studied with a scholarly eye.




A "christian path in atheism?" What ever do you mean by that? :confused: An atheist can be a loving, giving and compassionate person. This is a Christian Path as well. Although, it's not necessary to deem it "christian" in particular as ChHristianity is not a requirement to practice these things at all.




The difference, my friend, is that I am quite open to being wrong. Being wrong is the first consideration I make... I'd happily run to the corner and beat the drums to get folks in line for Jesus if he'd only give me one easily identifiable sign that something happened, something that might not have happened on its own, and that was easily, irrefutably linkable to his involvement. So far, in 2000 years, not a thing... Occam's Razor's a real ***** sometimes, and the far simpler solution is that "he doesn't exist." So I content myself with living a life based on ethics, not fairy tales (though I'm not above using Star Wars or Warhammer or Tolkien to explain an ethical dilemma or moral construct to someone ;) ).

If it was easy, then your faith wouldn't be a requirement. If everything was just handed to you in order for you to easily understand then you would work for nothing and you would be grateful for nothing. YOu would also learn nothing. :)

What you are stating though is the position of a nihilist really. If it is your prerogative to not believe in Jesus, then so be it. I doubt you'll convince someone who does believe though. Especially not in a few paragraphs in a kungfu forum. ;D

But consider this:

You are living in 2010. This date is calculated according to the CHurches declaration of the birth of Jesus.

If you live in the west, you get a holiday at Christmas and Easter and it is built into your social construct.

Most of the rule of law you live under is drawn from Mosaic law (the laws of Moses).

Most of the social construct you function within is based on the traditions and knowledge of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and knowledge. pretty much exclusively.

there are few places that do not function within this construct. But the whole world recognizes 2010 as the operative date for all business, all trade, all modern time keeping.

While some keep their ancient calendars as cultural tradition for religious holidays and cultural holidays, we all otherwise adhere to the Gregorian Calendar.

The whole world still exists under the rule of Rome. :) In a Christian context.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Revelations has more to do with the fall of rome when studied with a scholarly eye.

Revelation was indeed, basically, anti-roman propaganda literature that was then converted to apocolyptic literature.

[David Jamieson]

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.
Don't you think that is their right?
I think I stated it outright that it is their right to think and feel as they wish.


It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.
They have the right to hold up hate signs in public.
Do they? Words bring great harm. They can harm the psyche of another. Saying hateful things IS a hateful action.


Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.
So they have chosen a crippling path.
They intend to cripple others with their hatred as well, so while they are spiritually and intellectually lame, they wish to further their lameness by imposing it on others.

[Pork Chop]

going back to the original topic
i just want to give props to Papa Bear (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/national/main6352722.shtml)

[kfson]

Oh, I understand what you mean now.
And I think Matt brings up the same issue too, but I don't think either one of you will like the answer, at least I don't think you will because you see, the answer is the Holy Spirit, that guiding force of God and Jesus 's essences that, if we allow it, guides us to the truth of God's Love.
Yeah, I know, it isn't the answer you want and I wish there was a more "concrete" or "factual" one.

I wish more "Christians" would use the Holy Spirit for their way of being.
Very rarely do you you here about the Holy Spirit in the mainstream church. Why?

I wonder what the Holy Spirit would have to say about those hate signs? Never mind, I was just informed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wish more "Christians" would use the Holy Spirit for their way of being.
Very rarely do you you here about the Holy Spirit in the mainstream church. Why?

I wonder what the Holy Spirit would have to say about those hate signs? Never mind, I was just informed.

Organizations like to do the thinking for you, cults like to do the thinking for you.
See, Christianity is funny that way,it is very anti-organization and anti-cult and this is why-
It advocates ONE leader- Jesus Christ and no earthly leaders at all, because the whole of Christianty (believers) is the church and the the guiding force is The Holy Spirit that lives in us all.
Now, the HS may decide to lead you in a different path at times, but as long as we follow it and use the guidelines given to us by the HS so that we know it is what is leadung us, we will be OK.
What are the guidelines you ask?
God is love and all those that profess love have God and those that have God have the HS.
Anyone that does not profess love does not have God nor the HS.

[David Jamieson]

Organizations like to do the thinking for you, cults like to do the thinking for you.
See, Christianity is funny that way,it is very anti-organization and anti-cult and this is why-
It advocates ONE leader- Jesus Christ and no earthly leaders at all, because the whole of Christianty (believers) is the church and the the guiding force is The Holy Spirit that lives in us all.
Now, the HS may decide to lead you in a different path at times, but as long as we follow it and use the guidelines given to us by the HS so that we know it is what is leadung us, we will be OK.
What are the guidelines you ask?
God is love and all those that profess love have God and those that have God have the HS.
Anyone that does not profess love does not have God nor the HS.

Christian churches such as the RC church and teh Orthodox church are in fact "cults" by definition.

Christianity doesn't advocate only Jesus as their leader, the RC church advocates their pope as leader and as vicar of Christ on earth. The same goes for the eastern orthodoxy and their pope and for Episcopalians it is the queen etc.

Christianity as a religion is as fractured and messed up as any organized religion.

The holy spirit is not guiding you in my opinion. But it is your own spirit, your own breath, your own life that was basically a gift. It is not an intelligent being that makes decisions and then presses you towards them. You make the decisions and you pay the consequences good or bad.

God's guidance to us was that we have our own free will now that we are out of the garden.

God is all things. In a Christian sense, God is also hate, indifference and evil itself. God is all things, God is omnipresent, God is omniscient and god created everything including duality, the devil, evil and good.

As creatures of god, we meet all these expressions and all have a purpose.

If we were naught but do gooders, we would not need free will to learn good and evil. We would not be out of the garden, we would be back in it.

But, this is only my opinion. I personally do not believe in the trinity model as laid out by the church. It is inelegant, complicated, contradictory and not necessary in my opinion.

But, again, I reiterate, like all things religious or pertaining to god(s), we only have our own opinion, we onl have our own belief. Someone else validating your own certainly doesn't help the expansion of one's own knowledge either.

Know thyself, and you will come to understand many things. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Christianity is NOT an organization David, no matter how much organizations want people to think that.
Jesus was very anti-organization, as is god, they dealt with people, individuals, not organizations.


The holy spirit is not guiding you in my opinion. But it is your own spirit, your own breath, your own life that was basically a gift. It is not an intelligent being that makes decisions and then presses you towards them. You make the decisions and you pay the consequences good or bad.

Our own spirit is only complete when we accept the HS into us.
And yes, we are responsible for ALL we do, always.

As for the Trinity, it is simply a human doctrine, mans attempt to understand God's nature ( as if you could).
Is Jesus God?
If you believe him to begotten, Yes he is God, just like a human child is human because his father is human and not a beaver or turtle or whatnot.
Is the HS God?
Of course, it is the spirit of God, what else can it be?
Does god have a distinct personality? yes, why not?
Does Jesus? Yes.
Does the HS? Yes, though can be a tough one for some.

Do we need a trinity doctrine to understand this?
No, not really.

[David Jamieson]

Christianity is NOT an organization David, no matter how much organizations want people to think that.
Jesus was very anti-organization, as is god, they dealt with people, individuals, not organizations.



Our own spirit is only complete when we accept the HS into us.
And yes, we are responsible for ALL we do, always.

As for the Trinity, it is simply a human doctrine, mans attempt to understand God's nature ( as if you could).
Is Jesus God?
If you believe him to begotten, Yes he is God, just like a human child is human because his father is human and not a beaver or turtle or whatnot.
Is the HS God?
Of course, it is the spirit of God, what else can it be?
Does god have a distinct personality? yes, why not?
Does Jesus? Yes.
Does the HS? Yes, though can be a tough one for some.

Do we need a trinity doctrine to understand this?
No, not really.

Christianity is an organized religion and by default, an organization if 2 or more people are involved in the propagation of it. By definition, the church is an organization, no matter what the church.

I don't believe in the construct of the trinity or the holy spirit to be anything other than a construct of the early Christian church.

I do appreciate christianity for it's teachings, but am wary of its interpretations in their myriad versions.

To me, it is as dead simple as any other organized religion.

IE: Be good to each other. Each and all of us.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If Christianity has an organization, what is it's name?

[David Jamieson]

If Christianity has an organization, what is it's name?

The Vatican would be the principal organization. With the Pope being top man on the totem pole.

The Patriarch of Constantinople has the honor of primacy in the Eastern Orthodoxy, but does not carry the same authority as the Pope does in Catholicism.

The Church of England is another form of the organization of Christianity.

The Lutheran Church is another.

And so on down the line.

The greatest schism of the organization being the "great schism" which occured when Constantine moved the Church.
There are differing views between these two.

To deny it as an organization is stretching it though. I bet you learned about it in a church, which is an organization. In fact, if not for the organization of the scriptures into what we now call the bible, you wouldn't know anything about Christianity in it's current form as compiled in it's current written form.

Not many Essenes wandering around or Nasorenes. I can tell you that much and if you are not a gnostic christian, then you are a member of an organized version of christianity.


Otherwise...really? lol You don't think the church is an organization?

[sanjuro_ronin]

AH !!
The CHURCH is an organization, not Christanity.
The Vatican is not Christianity, its the RCC.
And so forth.
There are man run organizations of denominations, but Christianity is not a building, a structure or anythign like that.
There is one head and it is a spiritual head and that is Jesus and the WHOLE of believers make up the body with no one else having any greater authority than anyone else and all SERVING each other.
That was what Jesus Taught.
That his teachings got changed is a given, but such is human nature.

[David Jamieson]

AH !!
The CHURCH is an organization, not Christanity.
The Vatican is not Christianity, its the RCC.
And so forth.
There are man run organizations of denominations, but Christianity is not a building, a structure or anythign like that.
There is one head and it is a spiritual head and that is Jesus and the WHOLE of believers make up the body with no one else having any greater authority than anyone else and all SERVING each other.
That was what Jesus Taught.
That his teachings got changed is a given, but such is human nature.

hin sight is 20/20

lemme put it this way.


If not for the church, you'd be saying "Jesus who?"

You have the benefit of being around after the clay has dried for a couple of thousand years. Don't sell short the need for organized teachings. In fact, your whole idea of the Christian god is based entirely on what the Churches present to you. IN your case, it's the catholic church although you may not profess to be catholic, but your construct is.

It certainly has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. he never said anything about trinity, or holy spirit being part of the trinity or any of that.

It is not found in the gospels and it is completely a construct of the organized church and the theology that propels it forward through time and space. :D

Having said that:

Q: which vegetable has more Iron?

a) A Tomato
b) Jim Brady

A: A Tomato is not a vegetable! Trick question!

[sanjuro_ronin]

hin sight is 20/20

lemme put it this way.


If not for the church, you'd be saying "Jesus who?"

You have the benefit of being around after the clay has dried for a couple of thousand years. Don't sell short the need for organized teachings. In fact, your whole idea of the Christian god is based entirely on what the Churches present to you. IN your case, it's the catholic church although you may not profess to be catholic, but your construct is.

It certainly has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. he never said anything about trinity, or holy spirit being part of the trinity or any of that.

It is not found in the gospels and it is completely a construct of the organized church and the theology that propels it forward through time and space. :D

Having said that:

Q: which vegetable has more Iron?

a) A Tomato
b) Jim Brady

A: A Tomato is not a vegetable! Trick question!

You are assuming dude, I am NOT a trinitarian, though I understand the concept behind it and it was never a biblical concept, it is a human doctrine.
As for the rest, you are quite correct, hindsight is 20/20.
It is good that we live in the information age.

See, I don't have an issue with organized teachings, I have issues with organizations that put themselves above those teachings, that's all.

[1bad65]

The Vatican would be the principal organization. With the Pope being top man on the totem pole.

No way. That completely leaves out every Protestant religion. Don't lump us in with a religion headed by a Hitler Youth who condones child rape.

[David Jamieson]

You are assuming dude, I am NOT a trinitarian, though I understand the concept behind it and it was never a biblical concept, it is a human doctrine.
As for the rest, you are quite correct, hindsight is 20/20.
It is good that we live in the information age.

See, I don't have an issue with organized teachings, I have issues with organizations that put themselves above those teachings, that's all.

oh absotively my friend.

a teacher is never above the teachings.

[kfson]

I wonder where the "CHURCH" stands on the primacy of the voice of the Holy Spirit over the dictates of the Pope?

[kfson]

They intend to cripple others with their hatred as well, so while they are spiritually and intellectually lame, they wish to further their lameness by imposing it on others.

Do you think your statement is imposing?

[Pork Chop]

No way. That completely leaves out every Protestant religion. Don't lump us in with a religion headed by a Hitler Youth who condones child rape.

he was luftwaffe, get it right :D

[dimethylsea]

No way. That completely leaves out every Protestant religion. Don't lump us in with a religion headed by a Hitler Youth who condones child rape.

Theists are theists. You are just arguing with them over color of the invisible fairy on the roof.

Oh and who gets to decide what to call whatever color that invisible fairy is of course.

[David Jamieson]

Do you think your statement is imposing?

no. do you feel imposed upon by it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wonder where the "CHURCH" stands on the primacy of the voice of the Holy Spirit over the dictates of the Pope?

Officially or unofficially?
It depends on the organization ( not the church).
JW's for example, believe that the HS works only through the annointed ones and primarly through their Governing Body.
Typically, most organizations work the same way.
Vatican councils and such.
Fact is, in the bible, both the OT and NT, you will not find any instance of God or the HS working with an organization, but indeed through individuals or a small group of individuals that are, typically, outside the established organizations of their time.

[kfson]

no. do you feel imposed upon by it?

No. I don't feel imposed by hate placards, either.

[kfson]

Officially or unofficially?
It depends on the organization ( not the church).
JW's for example, believe that the HS works only through the annointed ones and primarly through their Governing Body.
Typically, most organizations work the same way.
Vatican councils and such.
Fact is, in the bible, both the OT and NT, you will not find any instance of God or the HS working with an organization, but indeed through individuals or a small group of individuals that are, typically, outside the established organizations of their time.

"JW's for example, believe that the HS works only through the annointed ones and primarly through their Governing Body.
Typically, most organizations work the same way."
Ah, control of the Holy Spirit by election.

"Fact is, in the bible, both the OT and NT, you will not find any instance of God or the HS working with an organization, but indeed through individuals or a small group of individuals that are, typically, outside the established organizations of their time."
I wonder why that was (is)? What would the Bible or the Holy Spirit say about the apparent control of the Holy Spirit by some earthly governing body? And why does this governing body want to keep the masses from accessing communication with the Holy Spirit?

[David Jamieson]

No. I don't feel imposed by hate placards, either.

Perhaps it is because you are not the one who the hate is being directed at?

Maybe if you were gay, or enlisted, or both, you might have a different opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"
Ah, control of the Holy Spirit by election.


I wonder why that was (is)? What would the Bible or the Holy Spirit say about the apparent control of the Holy Spirit by some earthly governing body? And why does this governing body want to keep the masses from accessing communication with the Holy Spirit?

No organization can keep the HS from people, Jesus himself said that even if HE would silence the crowds, the stones would proclaim his coming.
Or something to that effect.

Organizations control people, that is what they do and the last thing any organization wants is independent thinking, much less independent thinking of the spiritual nature.

Jesus said to put little trust in Man and we all know how easily man is corrupted and how easily the best of intentions are perverted by Man.


In the end, the teachings of Jesus was, regardless of what you are told, even by those in authority ( perhaps especially by those in authority), you must let the HS guide you.

[David Jamieson]

Well, for me, I find more comfort in understanding an established moral code and the reasons for having those mores.

as opposed to an intangible and undefined presence that cannot be proven or disproven and that does not provide any sort of guidelines whatsoever and can be written off as this or that depending on the outcome of the situation.

Better to know thyself.
Better to know good from evil.
Better to make ones deeds fall into teh realm of good as understood.

allowing yourself to be "guided" by any entity real or manifest by beleif other than your own moral declarations, obligations and methods only leaves the door wide open to the unknown.

That's is simply not acceptable for me.

god made me do it or the devil made me do it doesn't cut it with me i guess.

I am not blessed, I work hard and towards my goals.
I am not lucky, I decide whether or not a chance is worth taking, and sometimes it is fortuitous.
I am not alone. My friends and family act together in a crisis and are happy together in prosperity.

the only gift I have from god is my life. As far as I believe. And God has given me free will I believe. God doesn't want to control me with spirits or books. IN my belief, god is benign after life is started. God watches.

No influence, pure free will and we write our own play book. We'll know at the end if we fail, like any test really, if you view life as a test that is. Which many do. Obviously this is what life is regarded as by religions, IE: A Test.

Do it right and win, do it wrong and lose. All religion points to this construct. The problem is that this is a construct that only applies to the physical world as far as we actually know.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, for me, I find more comfort in understanding an established moral code and the reasons for having those mores.

as opposed to an intangible and undefined presence that cannot be proven or disproven and that does not provide any sort of guidelines whatsoever and can be written off as this or that depending on the outcome of the situation.

Better to know thyself.
Better to know good from evil.
Better to make ones deeds fall into teh realm of good as understood.

allowing yourself to be "guided" by any entity real or manifest by beleif other than your own moral declarations, obligations and methods only leaves the door wide open to the unknown.

That's is simply not acceptable for me.

god made me do it or the devil made me do it doesn't cut it with me i guess.

I am not blessed, I work hard and towards my goals.
I am not lucky, I decide whether or not a chance is worth taking, and sometimes it is fortuitous.
I am not alone. My friends and family act together in a crisis and are happy together in prosperity.

the only gift I have from god is my life. As far as I believe. And God has given me free will I believe. God doesn't want to control me with spirits or books. IN my belief, god is benign after life is started. God watches.

No influence, pure free will and we write our own play book. We'll know at the end if we fail, like any test really, if you view life as a test that is. Which many do. Obviously this is what life is regarded as by religions, IE: A Test.

Do it right and win, do it wrong and lose. All religion points to this construct. The problem is that this is a construct that only applies to the physical world as far as we actually know.

You know that little voice that told you to write this?
That one that talks to you when you are doing something wrong?
The one the reminds you to be good and do what is right?
The one the reminds you that it is UP TO YOU?
The one that allows you to know yourself, if you listen to it?
Some call is "consience", some call it our "moral law" and others, Christians, call it the HS.
A name by any other name...

[1bad65]

he was luftwaffe, get it right :D

He was Hitler Youth. What's even worse is he joined after the Nazis murdered a family member of his with Down Syndrome.


Theists are theists. You are just arguing with them over color of the invisible fairy on the roof.

Oh and who gets to decide what to call whatever color that invisible fairy is of course.

Just shut up. You are obviously not a Christian, and have no real idea of it's teachings. I bet you can Goggle up Scripture pretty well though. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

A name by any other name... Well, not quite! There is a big difference between the belief you are guided by a humanist moral compass and the belief a space ghost is constantly whispering in your ear.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, not quite! There is a big difference between the belief you are guided by a humanist moral compass and the belief a space ghost is constantly whispering in your ear.

Hey, I remember that cartoon ( Space Ghost) !

[SanHeChuan]

Just shut up. You are obviously not a Christian, and have no real idea of it's teachings. I bet you can Goggle up Scripture pretty well though. :rolleyes:

Yes anyone who doesn't believe is obviously ignorant of the TRU3 Christianity, because no one would ever give up their faith after years of indoctrination if they had the R34L Christianity. :rolleyes:

Atheists are more likely to actually study Christianity and its doctrines because they don’t take things on blind faith.

Don't Protestants hold that people should read the bible themselves rather than be told what it means by a spiritual leader, so what's wrong with googling scripture. Is the meaning not transparent enough for a layman to understand?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Is the meaning not transparent enough for a layman to understand?

Yes, and no.
Yes that the typical meaning of the WHOLE of a book is, NO that the isolated meaning of an isolated verse isn't.

[kfson]

Yes, and no.
Yes that the typical meaning of the WHOLE of a book is, NO that the isolated meaning of an isolated verse isn't.

Here's an example:

elohim (gods) is the plural of eloah (feminine god).

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning "gods" (elohim not eloah) created the heavens and earth.

[SanHeChuan]

Here's an example:

elohim (gods) is the plural of eloah (feminine god).

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning "gods" (elohim not eloah) created the heavens and earth.

Blasphemy!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's an example:

elohim (gods) is the plural of eloah (feminine god).

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning "gods" (elohim not eloah) created the heavens and earth.

Elohim is a "masculine" noun
1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

b) godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God


Of course the use of a "plural" noun like Elohim can be viewed as a "hint" to God's Triune nature as some have said.

[kfson]

Of course the use of a "plural" noun like Elohim can be viewed as a "hint" to God's Triune nature as some have said.

Isn't "eloah" used later in the first book? Why the change?

If there is a triune, why is a feminine god described in the book? What happened to her?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Isn't "eloah" used later in the first book? Why the change?

If there is a triune, why is a feminine god described in the book? What happened to her?

Its a "gender neutral" noun that can mean him or her depending on context.
Truth be told, the OT is not my forte, for the last 5 years I have studied the NT.
What little I know of the OT is based on relevance to the NT.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As for the femine nature and what happened, that's up for speculation, I suggest an hebrew scholar to get a more informed view.

[David Jamieson]

Isn't "eloah" used later in the first book? Why the change?

If there is a triune, why is a feminine god described in the book? What happened to her?

the feminine god was relegated to Mary in RC version, and others.
Also gets an honorable mention through Mary Magdalene.

But Judaeo-Christianity (including Islam) is patriarchal in nature and denies equality to the feminine.

[David Jamieson]

You know that little voice that told you to write this?
That one that talks to you when you are doing something wrong?
The one the reminds you to be good and do what is right?
The one the reminds you that it is UP TO YOU?
The one that allows you to know yourself, if you listen to it?
Some call is "consience", some call it our "moral law" and others, Christians, call it the HS.
A name by any other name...

nobody told me to write anything, my knowledge is from study, observation and collected experience. nothing given to me by an invisible voice in any way shape or form.

No voice talks to me in my head ever! (thanks god)

No voice reminds me to do what is right, again, I know the difference between good and evil and am as capable as deciding to act on one or the other depending on teh circumstances.

No voice need remind me what I know IE: If you want something done, you must do it.

I know myself through reflection, contemplation and interaction with others. Not through a voice, not through some invisible hand.

my mind is my mind. It is no others and no other directs it except for me.

Of my own free will and accord I decide what way to travel, what way to act. It is a balancing act between having compassion and having self interest and how that compassion can also serve or diminish my self interest.

I take complete and full responsibility for my actions, my successes and my defeats.
It comes from me.

I do not define god on my terms. It is folly to do so in my opinion. But I can define myself on my own terms and at this point in my life, i can do so with not much uncertainty.

:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

nobody told me to write anything, my knowledge is from study, observation and collected experience. nothing given to me by an invisible voice in any way shape or form.

No voice talks to me in my head ever! (thanks god)

No voice reminds me to do what is right, again, I know the difference between good and evil and am as capable as deciding to act on one or the other depending on teh circumstances.

No voice need remind me what I know IE: If you want something done, you must do it.

I know myself through reflection, contemplation and interaction with others. Not through a voice, not through some invisible hand.

my mind is my mind. It is no others and no other directs it except for me.

Of my own free will and accord I decide what way to travel, what way to act. It is a balancing act between having compassion and having self interest and how that compassion can also serve or diminish my self interest.

I take complete and full responsibility for my actions, my successes and my defeats.
It comes from me.

I do not define god on my terms. It is folly to do so in my opinion. But I can define myself on my own terms and at this point in my life, i can do so with not much uncertainty.

:)

I am sorry you have no conscience.
:D

[David Jamieson]

I am sorry you have no conscience.
:D

I do, and it is mine own and no one elses. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I do, and it is mine own and no one elses. :)

On a serious note, that is THE issue you know.
The thing with the HS is, if you believe of course, that it is all about personal responsibility for ones choices and actions,
No more, " the *insert head organization here* told me this was the way".
Nope, YOU are responsible for all your actions.

The HS speaks to us, it is up to US the know what is correct and what we are "hearing", the blame and the responsibilty and the "glory" fall on US and no one else.
When you sit in a church and hear some "preacher" advocate military action or advocate Hate of a group or say that Jesus loves us and commands to love our enemies, but not this guy or that guy, it is that "voice" in our head that tells us, " This guy is a wacko !", that we must listen to ignore and what we do is OUR responsibility, not the preachers ( his responsibility is taking the word of god and perverting it).

[David Jamieson]

I really don't believe god interacts with us in anyway except to provide this world and sustenance.

Virtue is a reward in and of itself.
Punishment will find it's way to you if your wickedness goes far enough.

This is the work of god from my viewpoint.

I might change that too as life goes on. I certainly didn't think that before. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I really don't believe god interacts with us in anyway except to provide this world and sustenance.

Virtue is a reward in and of itself.
Punishment will find it's way to you if your wickedness goes far enough.

This is the work of god from my viewpoint.

I might change that too as life goes on. I certainly didn't think that before. :)

I respect that.


Holy crap, a religious discussion between people with different view points and not one insult !!!
This only happens because it isn't WC forum !!
:D

[Pork Chop]

He was Hitler Youth. What's even worse is he joined after the Nazis murdered a family member of his with Down Syndrome.

he was hitler youth because it was compulsory
he was luftwaffe anti-aircraft by trade

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/international/worldspecial2/21germany.html?_r=1

i saw the thing about the down syndrome murder

he's part of a much larger issue i've been having with my catholic upbringing

i'm a spiritual person and i can't quite see anything else as "right", because that's how I was raised, eventhough i know that one organization in particular has been doing a lot of "wrong". I've tried out various other avenues over the years but can't commit to anything else for any length of time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

he was hitler youth because it was compulsory
he was luftwaffe anti-aircraft by trade

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/international/worldspecial2/21germany.html?_r=1

i saw the thing about the down syndrome murder

he's part of a much larger issue i've been having with my catholic upbringing

i'm a spiritual person and i can't quite see anything else as "right", because that's how I was raised, eventhough i know that one organization in particular has been doing a lot of "wrong". I've tried out various other avenues over the years but can't commit to anything else for any length of time.

The Vatican has MUCH to answer for.

[David Jamieson]

he was hitler youth because it was compulsory
he was luftwaffe anti-aircraft by trade

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/international/worldspecial2/21germany.html?_r=1

i saw the thing about the down syndrome murder

he's part of a much larger issue i've been having with my catholic upbringing

i'm a spiritual person and i can't quite see anything else as "right", because that's how I was raised, eventhough i know that one organization in particular has been doing a lot of "wrong". I've tried out various other avenues over the years but can't commit to anything else for any length of time.

from that article:


It is well established, and readily acknowledged by the pope in his autobiography, that for a time in 1941 and 1942, Joseph Ratzinger, then a teenager, was in the Nazi Party's main organization for indoctrinating young people.

Enrollment in the Hitler Youth was mandatory for any high school age student. After that, he served for a time in an antiaircraft unit that guarded a BMW plant outside Munich - and there are photographs that show the young Ratzinger in the paramilitary uniform of what were called the flak units, composed of under-age soldiers assigned to antiaircraft guns.

Can anyone see the problem with declaring something as "well established and readily acknowledged" in an AUTOBIOGRAPHY?

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth

I'm not buying the whole "nazis made me do it" and "it was mandatory and i had no choice".

Especially not when it's coming out of a story written by the person who is being asked about these inconsistencies with someone of the office of pope.

Not to mention the poor behaviour of the RC church in Germany during the Nazi era.

BUt then, we get almost nothing but propaganda still to this day in regards to the nazis. We hide all the benefits they created and make a lot of noise about the evil they did. We say nothing of our own evil transgressions upon other humans and favour demonizing old enemies.

Anyway, the points of being in not just the Hitler Youth, but actually being in the Luftwaffe as well are established facts with photographic proof that Ratzinger was a nazi. Never mind sympathized, never mind apologetic. He out and out was nazi and he can write 900 paragraphs that say he wasn't but that doesn't change the fact he was.

ridiculous the lengths people go to to protect themselves.

I think this guy should be run out of the vatican with haste. In fact, he should have never been appointed.

But, if one believes the prophecies of St.Malachy, he's the 2nd last pope anyway and will be run out of the vatican with his tail between his legs and make way for the final pope Peter the Roman who will usher in the end of the world! (likely crap, but hey, what the heck) :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

from that article:



Can anyone see the problem with declaring something as "well established and readily acknowledged" in an AUTOBIOGRAPHY?

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth

I'm not buying the whole "nazis made me do it" and "it was mandatory and i had no choice".

Especially not when it's coming out of a story written by the person who is being asked about these inconsistencies with someone of the office of pope.

Not to mention the poor behaviour of the RC church in Germany during the Nazi era.

BUt then, we get almost nothing but propaganda still to this day in regards to the nazis. We hide all the benefits they created and make a lot of noise about the evil they did. We say nothing of our own evil transgressions upon other humans and favour demonizing old enemies.

Anyway, the points of being in not just the Hitler Youth, but actually being in the Luftwaffe as well are established facts with photographic proof that Ratzinger was a nazi. Never mind sympathized, never mind apologetic. He out and out was nazi and he can write 900 paragraphs that say he wasn't but that doesn't change the fact he was.

ridiculous the lengths people go to to protect themselves.

I think this guy should be run out of the vatican with haste. In fact, he should have never been appointed.

But, if one believes the prophecies of St.Malachy, he's the 2nd last pope anyway and will be run out of the vatican with his tail between his legs and make way for the final pope Peter the Roman who will usher in the end of the world! (likely crap, but hey, what the heck) :D

There was a priest, I forget his name, that returned to Germany to stand up against the Nazis, he was hung before the end of the world.
That was a christian, not someone the allows all the Jesus was against to run amok.

[1bad65]

he was hitler youth because it was compulsory
he was luftwaffe anti-aircraft by trade

He could have declined to serve and suffered the consequences. Many did that, he did not.


he's part of a much larger issue i've been having with my catholic upbringing

I've noticed many people who grew up in that 'church' end up leaving it and having issues with it as well.


i'm a spiritual person and i can't quite see anything else as "right", because that's how I was raised, eventhough i know that one organization in particular has been doing a lot of "wrong". I've tried out various other avenues over the years but can't commit to anything else for any length of time.

I can understand, and respect, that. I just hope you haven't turned away from God because of your issues with organized religion.

[David Jamieson]

There was a priest, I forget his name, that returned to Germany to stand up against the Nazis, he was hung before the end of the world.
That was a christian, not someone the allows all the Jesus was against to run amok.

I too believe that someone in the position of pope, if faced with those choices would take the martyrs path.

I know ratzinger was a boy. But nevertheless, the optics of it suck and the trust is simply not there. He should've known better. He knew there were better men than he to fill the position.

Men with less stain, less taint and more piety than what he has.

[1bad65]

I'm not buying the whole "nazis made me do it" and "it was mandatory and i had no choice".

Not to mention the poor behaviour of the RC church in Germany during the Nazi era.

Anyway, the points of being in not just the Hitler Youth, but actually being in the Luftwaffe as well are established facts with photographic proof that Ratzinger was a nazi. Never mind sympathized, never mind apologetic. He out and out was nazi and he can write 900 paragraphs that say he wasn't but that doesn't change the fact he was.

I agree 100%.


I think this guy should be run out of the vatican with haste. In fact, he should have never been appointed.

If this guy was the best they had for the job, that says alot. :eek:

[1bad65]

I too believe that someone in the position of pope, if faced with those choices would take the martyrs path.

I know ratzinger was a boy. But nevertheless, the optics of it suck and the trust is simply not there. He should've known better.

Have you read about the White Rose?

[David Jamieson]

Have you read about the White Rose?

Yes I have.

He would've been a tad too young for that resistance group, but he wouldn't have been unaware of what they were, what they did and what they stood for.

[dimethylsea]

I can understand, and respect, that. I just hope you haven't turned away from God because of your issues with organized religion.


Hey everybody!!! You need to understand.. that it's not thinking there is an invisible fairy on the stairs that's crazy, or even arguing about the COLOR of the invisible fairy on the stairs...


It's just "organizations" devoted to the invisible fairy on the stairs that are misguided.

Everyone should fervently believe in the invisible fairy on the stairs, and accept that often fellow fairy-friends do bad things and can be horrible people.


All Hail The Invisible Fairy On The Stairs!

[1bad65]

Laugh all you want.

When you die, the game is over if you are right. But if you are wrong....

[1bad65]

And why interject that other than to be a ****? Two people are discussing their religious beliefs. Why the need for you to laugh at them?

[dimethylsea]

And why interject that other than to be a ****? Two people are discussing their religious beliefs. Why the need for you to laugh at them?

Don't expect me to act respectful of your religious delusions.

If some woman told me that should had given birth to a child via parthenogenesis, or someone told me he was capable of flying unaided by mind power through the stratosphere I'd laugh at them and wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it.

Similarly I'm not inclined to act as if your delusions are any less batsh1t just because you say it's your "religious beliefs".

If someone has a "religious belief" that they can dine for 40 days and 40 nights on porridge made from radioactive fallout and be unharmed they are crazy. And no amount of kowtowing by others to their crazy is appropriate or positive.

Stop whining and start reading. Learn why you are wrong :D

I recommend everything by Dawkins... he's got the right idea about calling the crazy what it is.

[Pork Chop]

He could have declined to serve and suffered the consequences. Many did that, he did not.


yeah, but as the NYTimes article stated, there are others like Gunter Grass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass) and Jurgen Habermas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas) who were not accused of being Nazis later in life in spite of their time as Hitler Youth. I imagine it was kinda like a compulsory boy scouts.
I think his service in the luftwaffe was more telling.



I can understand, and respect, that. I just hope you haven't turned away from God because of your issues with organized religion.

just like my politics, i've been all over the map (eastern tradition, northern european, my wife's form of christianity, lutheranism, etc, etc).
nothing's really stuck and every few years i go back "home", trying to disseminate all those things i can stomach and do my best to ignore those things that i don't.

[SoCo KungFu]

Laugh all you want.

When you die, the game is over if you are right. But if you are wrong....

So many people try to say this. That's the problem. People have been so conditioned by a fear of something they don't even have the slightest hint of proof could be true.

[SnowDog]

Just thought since good 'ol NAZI Pope keeps popping up in this thread............

http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2008/080310-pope-vs-emperor.jpg


http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/2/128780801431949383.jpg

[1bad65]

I imagine it was kinda like a compulsory boy scouts.

You should research them a bit more. Americans who fought the Hitler Youth were often stunned to find out after the battle they had faced kids because of their fanatical resistance. Unlike the regular German Army units who would often surrender when the outcome was obvious, the Hitler Youth often fought to the death even against overwhelming odds.

[1bad65]

So many people try to say this. That's the problem. People have been so conditioned by a fear of something they don't even have the slightest hint of proof could be true.

There are plenty of things mentioned in the Bible that have been proven true through science and archaeology.

[1bad65]

just like my politics, i've been all over the map (eastern tradition, northern european, my wife's form of christianity, lutheranism, etc, etc).
nothing's really stuck and every few years i go back "home", trying to disseminate all those things i can stomach and do my best to ignore those things that i don't.

I've mostly studied Christianity, but my wife is currently researching Judaism. I will say I will never step foot in a Catholic 'church' again.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My issues with the Roman Catholic Church organization ie: the Vatican, have more to do with their perversion of the Catholic ( Universal) doctrine than with the actual doctrines themselves.
All organized religions have their issues, it comes with being "organized" because it becomes more about keeping the organization "going" than about spiritual truth.
And all organized religions are guilt of that.

[SanHeChuan]

There are plenty of things mentioned in the Bible that have been proven true through science and archaeology.

And...:confused:

Which one of these proves there is a god?

Ten Top Discoveries (http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue=4&ArticleID=15)

Just because people wrote about places and event that were actually around them doesn't mean they were correct about angels and demons etc...

[1bad65]

To me, the Catholic 'church' is just a money making machine. Look at their history.

They don't allow priests to marry or have sex. So of course they will die with no wife or children. I feel they do this so the priests will will their possessions to the 'church' when they die. In the past they sold 'indulgences'. Also, they 'converted' the natives of the New World primarily for labor to mine precious metals. They hid sex scandals for years, and there is proof it was done to avoid lawsuits. They allow rich Democrats to recieve communion, even though abortion is against the beliefs of their 'religion'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me, the Catholic 'church' is just a money making machine. Look at their history.

They don't allow priests to marry or have sex. So of course they will die with no wife or children. I feel they do this so the priests will will their possessions to the 'church' when they die. In the past they sold 'indulgences'. Also, they 'converted' the natives of the New World primarily for labor to mine precious metals. They hid sex scandals for years, and there is proof it was done to avoid lawsuits. They allow rich Democrats to recieve communion, even though abortion is against the beliefs of their 'religion'.

Can't argue with you on that, nor am I inclined to.
Just remember that Catholics are NOT the RCC.

[1bad65]

I'm not going to argue religion with people who will refuse to listen. I'm done being trolled on that topic. If you truly are interested in the Christian religion, and really want information about it, I'd suggest you drop into a church and talk to them.

However, if you post as Sanjuro and Pork Chop are, I'll be glad to discuss religion. But I am done debating it. You can say 'lost', or I 'ducked', or this proves I'm wrong, whatever. It's pointles. I'm not going to convert you, and you aren't going to make me become a non-believer.

[1bad65]

Can't argue with you on that, nor am I inclined to.
Just remember that Catholics are NOT the RCC.

What is the difference?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What is the difference?

Dude, just because the anglican Church is OK with gays and lesbians marrying, do you think ALL anglicans are?
Just because some evangilical "heads" advocate stupid crap, does that mean ALL evangilicals do the same?

People are NOT an organization.

[1bad65]

Dude, just because the anglican Church is OK with gays and lesbians marrying, do you think ALL anglicans are?
Just because some evangilical "heads" advocate stupid crap, does that mean ALL evangilicals do the same?

People are NOT an organization.

I understand that. I thought you meant there were two veins of Catholocism, much like the Baptists beliefs vary from the Southern Baptists beliefs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I understand that. I thought you meant there were two veins of Catholocism, much like the Baptists beliefs vary from the Southern Baptists beliefs.

Well, at one point there was.
Catholisim is universal Christianity, the doctrine of God's gift of Grace for all, not just Christians.
There was a time that some believed that Christian love and fellowship was just for Christians and not for those of the "world".
Catholics believed that ALL are God's children and when Jesus said that ALL are our brothers he meant ALL.
The core doctrine still remains, but Roman Catholisim has become about the "institution" and not the teachings.

[Reality_Check]

I understand that. I thought you meant there were two veins of Catholocism, much like the Baptists beliefs vary from the Southern Baptists beliefs.

There are: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Both are strains of Catholicism.

[David Jamieson]

There are: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Both are strains of Catholicism.

Episcopalians (Anglicans), Presbyterians and protestants are Catholic as well by definition and yes, there are other fragments as well lol.

When talking about the Pope, it's important to denote "Roman Catholic".

the Anglican church is in a state of split right now.
And it has to do with a more Catholic service vs a newer type (bcp vs bsa).
Also part of this split is to do with the ordination of women and the marriage of gays which are the two huge dividing points in Christian churches today.

Many do not agree gays should be blessed in their marriage by a Church. As the doctrine of CHristianity is counter to teh lifestyle of h0m0sexuality, I fully understand why they don't want to marry people that are gay in their church.

As for the ordination of women, I am less certain as to the why's and wherefores of this and attribute it to the patriarchal nature of the churches that don't do this.

I don't think there is biblical instruction in the NT that states women cannot be priests, but under Mosaic law they are not to be and as the OT is part of a lot of practiced Christianity, then I can see where this holds as well. Particularly in a Catholic sense.

Bottom line is that if you make up an organization and set it's rules. Then those are the rules. It is silly for gays to try and force priests of churches to marry them. It is silly for women to try and force churches to make them priests.

What would work better is if gays created their own church. Women can do the same and so on. I mean, you can't add your porch to your neighbours house, so why not attach it to your own. As long as your rule of law is secular humanist, then NO worries!

But you can't take a gay woman and make her a Roman Cathlic priest period. Why bother. It is akin to trying to force Ford to make Toyotas.

[1bad65]

The core doctrine still remains, but Roman Catholisim has become about the "institution" and not the teachings.

I completely agree. And thanks for the info.

[1bad65]

Episcopalians (Anglicans), Presbyterians and protestants are Catholic as well by definition and yes, there are other fragments as well lol.

I think you are wrong on that one. Aren't they called Protestants because they were in protest of the teachings and activities of the Catholic 'church', and thus broke away?

And certain things are done very differently. Baptism, for example. Catholics do it when you an infant. In Protestant religions you do it when you are much older.

[David Jamieson]

I think you are wrong on that one. Aren't they called Protestants because they were in protest of the teachings and activities of the Catholic 'church', and thus broke away?

And certain things are done very differently. Baptism, for example. Catholics do it when you an infant. In Protestant religions you do it when you are much older.

yes, protestants are not considered catholic.
my error.

carry on!

[1bad65]

I heard a comedian years ago say Episcopalians are just "preppy Catholics". :)

[Pork Chop]

just gotta look at how the organization started...
there was no Roman Catholic Church before Constantine.
Constantine had a dream before going to war and in it he saw a symbol that resembled a popular symbol among Christians, guiding him to victory.

Long story short, he used the religion as a vehicle to become the sole emperor of Rome, moved the capital, and stamped out some of the other branches of Christianity at the time.

He was at the council of Nicaea and helped to fashion the Nicene/Apostle's creed, the profession of faith that many Christians (not just Catholics) today still say at every mass.

Interestingly enough, one of the books I have on him said that on his deathbed, he not only received a Christian baptism, but made sacrifices to Apollo as well. There are a lot of conflicting biographical accounts of the guy though, so it's a toss up of what to believe.
After he died he was canonized.

it's hard NOT to see the entire organization as developed for political gains.

fyi, the whole "priests not getting married" thing was a holdover from Roman pagan traditions, as Rabbis have an obligation to go forth and multiply.

[David Jamieson]

Constantine was a pagan through and through.
He probably was completely unaware of his death bed conversion.

It was Bishop Irenaeus who had more to do with the shaping of the bible as we know it now.

Constantine chose Christianity as the faith of the empire of rome because he like their rituals. Christians were a sect of Judaism prior to Nicea.

Jesus was not yet deified and not declared a living god until 3rd century.

Much about Constantine is well known and documented. It's not THAT murky.
Romans kept great records!

Which is why it's odd there's no accounting for Jesus in it. :p

[Pork Chop]

I think council of Jerusalem had more to do with removing significant obligations of Mosaic Law than the council of Nicaea; but yeah, as far as being officially Roman, Nicaea was the start.

As far as constantine, here's what wiki says about his death, and the multiple version (yeah, i know it's wiki, but it's not too bad)


Sickness and death
Constantine had known death would soon come. Within the Church of the Holy Apostles, Constantine had secretly prepared a final resting-place for himself. It came sooner than he had expected. Soon after the Feast of Easter 337, Constantine fell seriously ill. He left Constantinople for the hot baths near his mother's city of Helenopolis (Altinova), on the southern shores of the Gulf of İzmit. There, in a church his mother built in honor of Lucian the Apostle, he prayed, and there he realized that he was dying. Seeking purification, he became a catechumen, and attempted a return to Constantinople, making it only as far as a suburb of Nicomedia. He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, "performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom". He chose the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of the city where he lay dying, as his baptizer. In postponing his baptism, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until old age or death. It was thought Constantine put off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much of his sin as possible. Constantine died soon after at a suburban villa called Achyron, on the last day of the fifty-day festival of Pentecost directly following Easter, on 22 May 337.

Although Constantine's death follows the conclusion of the Persian campaign in Eusebius's account, most other sources report his death as occurring in its middle. Emperor Julian, writing in the mid-350s, observes that the Sassanians escaped punishment for their ill-deeds, because Constantine died "in the middle of his preparations for war". Similar accounts are given in the Origo Constantini, an anonymous document composed while Constantine was still living, and which has Constantine dying in Nicomedia; the Historiae abbreviatae of Sextus Aurelius Victor, written in 361, which has Constantine dying at an estate near Nicomedia called Achyrona while marching against the Persians; and the Breviarium of Eutropius, a handbook compiled in 369 for the Emperor Valens, which has Constantine dying in a nameless state villa in Nicomedia.[234] From these and other accounts, some have concluded that Eusebius's Vita was edited to defend Constantine's reputation against what Eusebius saw as a less congenial version of the campaign.[235]

[sanjuro_ronin]

Constantine was a pagan through and through.
He probably was completely unaware of his death bed conversion.

It was Bishop Irenaeus who had more to do with the shaping of the bible as we know it now.

Constantine chose Christianity as the faith of the empire of rome because he like their rituals. Christians were a sect of Judaism prior to Nicea.

Jesus was not yet deified and not declared a living god until 3rd century.

Much about Constantine is well known and documented. It's not THAT murky.
Romans kept great records!

Which is why it's odd there's no accounting for Jesus in it. :p

Various versions as to why COnstantine did what he did, ony the man knows for sure.
His mom was a Christian, I am sure that was a part of it.
Christianity was very "tolerate" of civil authorites, prefering to change the person from withing rather than change the rules of a given society, I am sure he liked that.
Jesus was considered God ( in essense, not Yahweh, distinction must be made) By Paul, and his were the earliest writings, a mere 20-30 years after Jesus's death and ressurection.
John made it clear in His Gospel and Letters.
There is no Roman record of Jesus being killed, as there was no record of many other Jews that were killed.
There are recordes of his exitence and that of his views and of course of the christian community/cult by Romans Historian Tactius.

[MasterKiller]

prefering to change the person from withing rather than change the rules of a given society, I am sure he liked that. Well, it was Constantine that changed the symbol for Christianity from the fish to the cross because it resembled a sword, so I don't know how much I buy into that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, it was Constantine that changed the symbol for Christianity from the fish to the cross because it resembled a sword, so I don't know how much I buy into that.

The cross was always the "symbol", see Paul's writings :"I boast nothing but Jesus and him crucified", " "...the cross, a symbol of hope for us, but a stumbling block for the jews and * I forget what word he uses here* for the gentiles".

[MasterKiller]

The cross was always the "symbol", see Paul's writings :"I boast nothing but Jesus and him crucified", " "...the cross, a symbol of hope for us, but a stumbling block for the jews and * I forget what word he uses here* for the gentiles".

While the theology of the cross is taught by Paul and the sign of the cross for baptism and protection is reported fairly early, the use of a physical cross rarely appears before the fourth century...


Norman Laliberte and Edward N. West, The History of the Cross (New York: Macmillan Company, 1960)

[sanjuro_ronin]

While the theology of the cross is taught by Paul and the sign of the cross for baptism and protection is reported fairly early, the use of a physical cross rarely appears before the fourth century...


Norman Laliberte and Edward N. West, The History of the Cross (New York: Macmillan Company, 1960)

Will, since they were being persecuted, I don;t think the early Christians would be advertising their faith by the over use of symbols, LOL !

But: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

[MasterKiller]

Will, since they were being persecuted, I don;t think the early Christians would be advertising their faith by the over use of symbols, LOL !

But: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

From your link:

"...beginning of the 3rd century is thought the most likely date."

They did advertise, they just used the icthys (fish).

"The ichthys is seen in first century catacombs in Rome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Ephesus_IchthysCrop.jpg/800px-Ephesus_IchthysCrop.jpg

[David Jamieson]

Various versions as to why COnstantine did what he did, ony the man knows for sure.
His mom was a Christian, I am sure that was a part of it.
Christianity was very "tolerate" of civil authorites, prefering to change the person from withing rather than change the rules of a given society, I am sure he liked that.
Jesus was considered God ( in essense, not Yahweh, distinction must be made) By Paul, and his were the earliest writings, a mere 20-30 years after Jesus's death and ressurection.
John made it clear in His Gospel and Letters.
There is no Roman record of Jesus being killed, as there was no record of many other Jews that were killed.
There are recordes of his exitence and that of his views and of course of the christian community/cult by Romans Historian Tactius.

Tacitus was born in 56 CE. His writings are reiterations. As are Pliny's and others. They do not serve as historical record of historical Jesus. there are exactly zero writings that historically validate Jesus' existence.

Heck, it is still argued as to who Pharoah was when Moses left and took the jews out of egypt (oddly the egyptian records have nothing on this either! and they don't have anything on how hebrews were slaves etc and all writings to that end come from the people making the claims. Nothing to corroborate despite many writers and historians..

As a historical document, the bible is , well... not that good.
Writings of early church elders who wanted to be the power of the church aren't reliable either and the reasons are self evident (you know, an agenda to power and such).

In reality, if you want to believe in Jesus you simply must have faith because there certainly isn't any verifiable proof of his actual existence.

There are plenty of Roman judiciary records form the first century. You would think that someone who was painted as a threat to rome and judean peace would have been documented a little more thoroughly?

I mean obscure Kings of gaul tribes were recorded for posterity!
Heck even in the furthest outposts Rome would record her enemies.

so, why not this jesus fellow?

all writings which have been touted as sources of proof outside the bible for historical jesus (tacitus, josephus etc, I believe there are 4 that get dragged out regularly) all were AFTER the fact. Most by more than half a century with the closet being Josephus but even he was only born in 37CE and wouldn't have been writing anything in the actual time of jesus.

The fact of the matter is that there is yet to be a historical Jesus proven to exist.
Which is extremely odd when considering the heights to which he has been raised.

food for thought.

[sanjuro_ronin]

From your link:

"...beginning of the 3rd century is thought the most likely date."

They did advertise, they just used the icthys (fish).

"The ichthys is seen in first century catacombs in Rome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Ephesus_IchthysCrop.jpg/800px-Ephesus_IchthysCrop.jpg

No One is suggesting they didn't use "the fish", but to suggest they didn't use the cross is, well, not correct.
3rd century is the year 200's and some have dated it earlier, but even if it was the 200's, for a graffiti image to be popular, it probably was being used for some time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Tacitus was born in 56 CE. His writings are reiterations. As are Pliny's and others. They do not serve as historical record of historical Jesus. there are exactly zero writings that historically validate Jesus' existence.

Heck, it is still argued as to who Pharoah was when Moses left and took the jews out of egypt (oddly the egyptian records have nothing on this either! and they don't have anything on how hebrews were slaves etc and all writings to that end come from the people making the claims. Nothing to corroborate despite many writers and historians..

As a historical document, the bible is , well... not that good.
Writings of early church elders who wanted to be the power of the church aren't reliable either and the reasons are self evident (you know, an agenda to power and such).

In reality, if you want to believe in Jesus you simply must have faith because there certainly isn't any verifiable proof of his actual existence.

There are plenty of Roman judiciary records form the first century. You would think that someone who was painted as a threat to rome and judean peace would have been documented a little more thoroughly?

I mean obscure Kings of gaul tribes were recorded for posterity!
Heck even in the furthest outposts Rome would record her enemies.

so, why not this jesus fellow?

all writings which have been touted as sources of proof outside the bible for historical jesus (tacitus, josephus etc, I believe there are 4 that get dragged out regularly) all were AFTER the fact. Most by more than half a century with the closet being Josephus but even he was only born in 37CE and wouldn't have been writing anything in the actual time of jesus.

The fact of the matter is that there is yet to be a historical Jesus proven to exist.
Which is extremely odd when considering the heights to which he has been raised.

food for thought.

Who was Socrates?
How long did it take for Alexander the great to have his FIRST biography written?
Jesus was just some crucified Jew, why would there be any record of him?
Long before there was "proof" of Pilate, the NT spoke of him.

For a historical "un-important" figure ( not a king or emperor), he is a "proven" as any other historical figure.

[David Jamieson]

Who was Socrates?
How long did it take for Alexander the great to have his FIRST biography written?
Jesus was just some crucified Jew, why would there be any record of him?
Long before there was "proof" of Pilate, the NT spoke of him.

For a historical "un-important" figure ( not a king or emperor), he is a "proven" as any other historical figure.

Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristotle and Aristotle was Alexander the great's mentor and teacher.

they are recorded in their own time and are authors as well and therefore stand as historical figures.

But Jesus was not just "some jew". he was said to have argued with Herod the great! And to have personally been seen by Pilate! But not a single verification of any of this?

How strange when you consider how proud the romans were of their victories and not to mention what records they kept, but not only that, the inconsistencies with the telling of the passion and how actual crucifixions took place and so on and so forth.

If you have faith, I believe that is enough. It has to be. there is no historical verification in an recorded or archaeological sense.

the more we know, the more we will come to realize that Jesus was an enlightened man who brought a method for better living.

the construct of it all was created to maintain a power base and to control nations.
Christianity is used as a political tool over and over and over again and in fact it's being brought in as the state religion was the first in the series of uses as a political tool that it went with.

There is exactly nothing instructed or taught or stated about the establishment for hierarchically ordered churches with popes and bishops and priests and deacons and chaplains and other all too secular constructs in the NT.

In fact, it is quite opposite.

In my view, true Christianity was destroyed in the 3rd century with Irenaeus and his efforts to destroy it in it's true form which of course was Gnosticism.

this is why the Qumran Nag Hamadi scrolls are guarded to this day! They outline and illustrate what true Christianity was.

It was gnostic. That truth was destroyed by men who were hell bent on ruling.
The existence of Jesus is irrelevant overall though. Knowing god and reflecting god through deeds is far more important in my pov.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dude, you are using selective reasoning.
There is NO proof that Socrates existed other than what we are told by OTHER historical figures, if THAT is enough of a criteria...well then.

[David Jamieson]

Dude, you are using selective reasoning.
There is NO proof that Socrates existed other than what we are told by OTHER historical figures, if THAT is enough of a criteria...well then.

I can see why you would bring up Socrates.


But:

Socrates is mentioned in documents written by three people who were alive during his purported lifetime. Aristophanes, Xenophon and of course Plato.

The same cannot be said for Jesus.

the Socrates argument holds less water with every year that passes. But Jesus?

I think that Christianity will morph into something else soon seeing as the scrolls are now accessible to a wider body of scholars who are not just catholic priests. lol

Will it change the teachings if jesus is not anymore god than you or i?

are his teachings of love one another wrong?

Jesus serves as an icon, a focus point for the totality of the lesson.
And that's enough for me! :)

[MasterKiller]

No One is suggesting they didn't use "the fish", but to suggest they didn't use the cross is, well, not correct.
3rd century is the year 200's and some have dated it earlier, but even if it was the 200's, for a graffiti image to be popular, it probably was being used for some time.

That's not a graffiti of a cross used as a relgious symbol, it's a graffiti of a crucifixtion, which was quite popular in those days, from what I understand. Albeit a famous one.

The fact is, the "church" used the fish until Constantine reports having a vision of a sign, either while sleeping or seen in the sky, that came to be identified with Christ. With the vision and dream he saw the words, In Hoc Signo Vinces, "In this sign conquer", and assured his victory over Maxentius. He placed the sign at the top of his standard and on the shields of his men and won the battle of Milvian Bridge outside of Rome in 312 .

This sign, a Chi Rho, one of the monograms standing for the word Christ in Greek (XPIETOE), replaced the eagle as the military standard for the legions of the Roman Army. Known as the labarum, over time this sign was replaced by the cross.

The church began to use a cross, either fixed to a pole or carried as a large hand cross, to lead processions. Because of Constantine’s victory, as well as that of Christ’s victory over death (sometimes also viewed as the defeat of Satan), this use of the sign of the cross signified the support and triumph of God. In Christian iconography, the cross appears on banners associated with the resurrection, as well as a cross staff held by Christ after his resurrection, to indicate his victory.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The fact is, the "church" used the fish until Constantine

What facts?
I don't recall Paul mentioning A fish in any of his writings...

[David Jamieson]

What facts?
I don't recall Paul mentioning A fish in any of his writings...

There is some research that points to the fish actually being a compass and square and a secret symbol.

Really!

whole and apart from the story of people who would identify each other with a secret sign (remind you of anyone) lol.

anyway, just tossing it in, shouldn't make the soup any worse. :D

[Pork Chop]

not trying to be obtuse here, but the documentaries I've seen say that the chi-ro was used by Christians prior to Constantine's dream and that is why he embraced the Christianity movement after the dream (and subsequent victory).

I'm curious where it's said that his use of the symbol came first and that it was then applied to Christianity. Genuinely interested in reading the source (not trying to be a d!ck).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, In Paul's epitstles, the earliest of Christian writings, Paul makes it clear the symbolisim of the cross and the crucifixition.

Even in the Synoptic gospels they mention to "take up one's cross" or soemthing along those lines.
The "fisher of men" thing was never viewed as aimed towards symbolisim per say.
The crucifixtion is THE event, next to the ressurection of course, for Christian and as per Paul, it was vital to view it as something to be proud of, to boast in, as opposed to be ashamed of.
It makes sense that, historically, the cross would be a more vital symbol than a fish.
At what point that came to be is hard to tell, but the fact that Paul speaks of it in his epistles that are all dated before the end of the fist century ( 40-70 AD) lends some weight to it being used already.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm curious where it's said that his use of the symbol came first and that it was then applied to Christianity. Genuinely interested in reading the source (not trying to be a d!ck).

The cross was a very interesting symbol for the Christians to use, it was, as Paul mentioned, a stumbling block for the Jews ( to be "hung on a tree" was a very bad death for a Jew) and to preach it was considered foolishness for the Gentiles ( Why preach that your lord and saviour died like a common criminal?), and yes, in Paul's own words he boasted in nothing but the Cross and Jesus cruscified on it.

Why?
The Gospel of john sheds some light on this:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it".
The cross is a symbol of God's eternal and undying love for Us, a love to strong that to show us this love, to prove to us that we are worthy of it, God ( God's essence) in the Flesh, died for Us.

[David Jamieson]

The cross was a very interesting symbol for the Christians to use, it was, as Paul mentioned, a stumbling block for the Jews ( to be "hung on a tree" was a very bad death for a Jew) and to preach it was considered foolishness for the Gentiles ( Why preach that your lord and saviour died like a common criminal?), and yes, in Paul's own words he boasted in nothing but the Cross and Jesus cruscified on it.

Why?
The Gospel of john sheds some light on this:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it".
The cross is a symbol of God's eternal and undying love for Us, a love to strong that to show us this love, to prove to us that we are worthy of it, God ( God's essence) in the Flesh, died for Us.

The Gospel of John is the Last Gospel added and is so wildly different from Matthew Mark and Luke it is...well suspect.

Look at the glaring differences. It is the only gospel where Jesus talks at length about himself. It is the only gospel that makes a deliberate link to the construct of Jesus and God being family proper etc. Nowhere in the other gospels is there such a brute force direct implication.

In short, it is quite possible that the gospel of John is a fabrication and plant of Bishop Iraeneus who's principle motivation was to stamp out the original Christianity which was gnosis in favour of an established ruling body of bishops who controlled the faith and the flow of wealth.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Gospel of John is the Last Gospel added and is so wildly different from Matthew Mark and Luke it is...well suspect.

Look at the glaring differences. It is the only gospel where Jesus talks at length about himself. It is the only gospel that makes a deliberate link to the construct of Jesus and God being family proper etc. Nowhere in the other gospels is there such a brute force direct implication.

In short, it is quite possible that the gospel of John is a fabrication and plant of Bishop Iraeneus who's principle motivation was to stamp out the original Christianity which was gnosis in favour of an established ruling body of bishops who controlled the faith and the flow of wealth.

I think you need to read up a bit more on it, no offense.
It may be more explicit on certian things, which makes sense considering it is going into detail about things the others didn't.
The synoptics show certain traits and charaterestics of Jesus and his disciples, the GOJ goes into more detail about Jesus, his full ministry and such.

[David Jamieson]

I think you need to read up a bit more on it, no offense.
It may be more explicit on certian things, which makes sense considering it is going into detail about things the others didn't.
The synoptics show certain traits and charaterestics of Jesus and his disciples, the GOJ goes into more detail about Jesus, his full ministry and such.

I have, do and still open my bible daily.

I'm gonna be straight here. I don't care much for organized religion and especially not for organized churches that use such things as a ways and means of collecting money and influencing or attempting to influence minds that are seeking.

The Gospel of John is so different from the others as to raise quite a bit of questions about it's actual validity. It has in it stuff that none of the others have that you may or may not be aware of, but which in essence put Jesus over the top by comparison.

Only in John does Jesus raise the dead! Amazing! Truly astounding miracles are found in John without mention of other things he was recorded to have done in the other gospels. It's (GOJ) incongruent.

Yes, old books have ...embellishments too. In my opinion, it is this gospel (John) that served the early Church the best in the agenda to destroy what I consider true Christianity.

Matthew Mark and Luke are beautiful and for me have some real meaning. But John is so much like an unbelievable fairy tale it actually taints the rest. I don't put much, if any stock in the Gospel of John I guess is the long and short of it.

While I appreciate the teachings of Christianity, I don't put it's church founders above or beyond any of the failings of the rest of us. I do not believe this particular gospel belongs. It really is a case of one of these things is not like the others for me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me the miracles play a very small part in my faith.
Jesus raised the dead in the synoptics too, a dead girl at least from what I remember.
I john he just raised Lazarus.
Some modern scholars have the view that GOJ is actually older than Luke's but that is really irrelevant.
The GOJ is no more full of Christology than Paul's Letters, it is just worded much better and more poetically.
Most scholars view the GOJ as the "concluding gosple", the one that is the closest to the real persona of Jesus, some because it was the "last" one and filled in ther blanks,others because it was written by the "beloved" disciple.
Views are views and we may never know for sure.
To me, Matt, Mark and Luke are the "biographies" and John's is an eulogy, know what I mean?
One can see why people died for their faith in the jesus of the GOJ and nowhere is the message of Love so well written than John and his letters to of course.
Though many think that there were at least 2 johns, the apostle and the elder.