god (if he exists) is not a buddha and so is bound by conception and misconception, suffering , death then rebirth
remember all sensation and feeling is created by the mind
Printable View
According to whom?
during sleep, you are unconscious. If I chop off your poking stick while you are sleep, will you not feel it, simply because your mind is unable to create the sensation of pain? Or will the nerve endings scream "Oh snap, your manhood got chopped off, so you'd better wake up?"Quote:
remember all sensation and feeling is created by the mind
The feeling of pain is not created by the mind. To an extent, you can program your mind to ignore the pain, but that does not kill the sensation.
this thread was interesting but the majority of it made me laugh as my mom is a christian, and she too asked questions like this when i mentioned taking up kung fu. i remember one day i checked out a book about wicca cause i had a wiccan friend. and i wanted to know what it was all bout. she went nuts when she saw it saying she doesn't want those kind of spirits in the house. this is a perfectly sane woman who has never said anything like that to me before she doesn't even go to church every sunday but the minute something that might challenge the norm for her she goes nuts.
basically what i'm saying is when it comes to religion common sense disappears as we all know the bible was written by men, men lie as we've seen time and again. I like to believe in a higher power and i go someplace after i die, i admit mostly because it comforts me, i don't like to think this is it, that type of thing freaks me out. but seriously if you feel you need to give up cma because of the eastern ideals they might teach you might as well stop celebrating christmas as well cause we all know its not really a christian holiday
as stormy told odd see you in service
according to me
and thats exactly my point u can change what happens not by changing the theing happening to u but by the way u react to it
plus the nerves link to your brain anyway hence the feeling of pain
personally i think god is 1 of the following
1 an expression of nature
2 a support system think about it the 10 commandments and weither u follow them dont affect god but only society and the way u live
so all this god based religion is a way of controlling ourselves and dealing with lifes questions
the only valid reason i can thing of for being a believer (note not christian because as i explained it it is a set of principles nothing more) is if u can feel gods presence around u and then u either need to get checked into a mental asylum or worship him in your own way
being a christian and living as a christian is different
No, the important question is who would win a fight between God and chuck norris.
Reply]
It would be a draw.
As for Batman, Chuck Norris would kick his ass right and propper.
Chuck Norris is at best a demi-urge and at worst, a higher level demon from the upper levels of hell...where they stil look a little human. :P
Batman would defeat Chuck Norris.
All that aside, i find a couple of things interesting.
People keep referring to "god" as "him". That's messed up because it is wholly dependent on a patriarchal view. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, then God cannot have gender ascribed. God is god, not man nor woman, just God.
No one seems to recognize that Jesus, if he actually existed, was by all accounts a rabbi and preserved the rabbinical teachings. His crime was that he went against the Talmudic jewish Laws with his hippy like teachings. He lived the life of a Jew, most of his disciples were Jews and yes, he was probably married seeing as within he bounds of jewish custom, he would have had zero street cred if he didn't have a wife at his age.
Jesus was "voted" into divinity and never made the claim himself. he taught in parrabels and the line about "i am the way, i am the light" is not unlike the sermon in deer park and the subsequent call to adherance to teh 8 fold path that we find in buddhism.
the buddha is considered divine by many, but still recognized as the same flesh as you or I.
jesus was said to have said when asked by Pontius Pilate: "Are you the son of god", his reply "We are all children of God".
most of the wisdom attributed to teh teachings of jesus preceeded him by a long time. There is something called the "Q" (not star trek q you freakin geeks) and the "Q" is essentially the collected wisdom of the ages compiled.
do unto others is in there. love each other is in there, consider the lillies of the field and perhaps most importantly in context to the teachings of jesus, the story of the mustard seed is in there.
By the way, the story of the mustard seed parralels the story of the mango seed in buddhism in many ways contextually.
Anyway, internet forums are the worst place to evangelize, but not bad places for discovering like mindedness.
Being into Jesus and the Martial arts is fine. In fact, any choice you make in your life as you carry on is fine so long as intention is correct as far as Im concerned.
No harm, no foul. Especially when you cannot expect taht everyone will hold to the same set of morals and ethics that you may hold to. As for what each of us "really and actually" believes. I'm willing to bet that for the most part, even ourselves as ourselves are not entirely certain.
Humans are very much in need of visceral experience to establish firm belief.
anyway, what did you think about before you were born?
there is a very reasonable body of evidence that suggest Jesus was influenced by the Buddhist teachings that had plenty of time to get from India to his area over 500 years or so (evidently Alexandria had its fair share of Buddhist scholars); that and his association with a group like the Essenses would make sense as well; when did this happen? well, if you recall, the gospels that made the cut describe his life up to a young teenager, and then, bango, noting until he reappears in his early 30's; whaddaya think he did during the intervening 25 years or so?
so he was basically a spiritual teacher with some new ideas that got misinterpreted by his disciples and subsequent followers who came up with the nifty idea that he was the one true son of god and this got further corrupted and dogmatized by guys like Augustine and Origen and others (I foget specifics - it's been a while since I've read anything like History of God by Karen Armstrong)
also, the whole idea of CMA being a gateway to the occult and demonic possession - I guess I must be living proof of that :rolleyes:
for a guy who said everyone should just love each other, there sure has been a world of pain generated by those who claim to follow him (funny, it's the opposite of Buddhism - how many wars started by / fought on behalf of Buddhists have there been?) - personally, I think that he started preaching too early - he wasn't quite "cooked" and so was not able to deliver his message with the same equanimity as the Buddha - he spoke out of his passion, which got transferred to his followers, etc. etc.; if he had waited another 20 or 30 years, it may have been much different...
and yeah, he prbably was married, most likely had a relationship with Mary Magdalene - certainly celibacy was not on his agenda...
oh, and he was a blonde white guy (at least according to the pictures in the books)
I thought he was a long, dark haired arab looking dude....
Lol, he was a white blonde guy because of the King James version of the bible. And it's already been proven that Dan Brown's theory is full of holes, almost as many holes as there were plot holes in the ****ty, horribly bad book "desception point."
Please, JKD. I'm practically BEGGING YOU here. Please, religion is a personal thing, it involves introspection, elaboration, even questioning it's validity. Once you make one assumption that isn't the word of Jesus, you're making inferences. Inferences are something to be shared with others only if you first make it clear that you're guessing.
I believe in Jesus and the New Testament, with the exception of the vengance, threats and superstition, which I have guessed myself was added into the New Testament later. You see, I don't need to choose to interpret the bible either literally or figuratively. I just take it into consideration when I act. Weren't you taught that the only way to truely see evil is with your concience? Don't try to look for symbols, patterns, etc in non-Christian religions to find evil. That isn't rooting out evil, it's superstition, paranoia and the desire to improperly equalize the universe. I embrace Daoism because I feel that it is incredibly true, just as I embrace the New Testament because I find it incredibly true, and aspects of the Qua'ran and the Eightfold path, and the Vedas.
You see, you're looking for a solid, never changing rule to live your life by. That's just being lazy and cowardly. You think that Jesus wanted you to not question or think on religion? I seriously doubt that.
How do I justify my use of the martial arts while still following the ideals of nonviolence laid out by these texts? I am merely preparing myself. To quote the Daodejing, "Keep weapons and armour, but do not employ them." I am simply gathering the means. If a situation arises where I have to fight, I will not be any more guilty for being trained in the art of fighting.
And just because you have a notion about Christianity doesn't mean that you have to tell other people. I think that people can mess with your Qi. I also think that evil isn't the worst force out there. There are forces which appose good, evil, and all of existence. There is no diety worship in the southern styles of spiritual meditation. They are just interpreted that way by the Catholic and Evangelical churches (among others, probably the LDS.) That would be like saying Buddhists worship buddha. It's just flat out idiotic to think that way.
"there is a very reasonable body of evidence that suggest...."
Sure. But still, nothing is definite. I saw a doc. that suggested that Jesus might have travelled to China for a time. It was very interesting but in the end they don't give you any definites. You still can't say for sure.
There is reasonable evidence, for example, to suggest that Marco Polo was not born in Venice (as every encyclopaedia states). The borders of Venice at the time of his birth were not the same as that of today. Anyway, you get my point. It's so long ago that different theories pop up based on what could have happened.
The gnostic gospels can be taken as frauds and forgeries (I'm guessing frauds existed back then too) or you can be some sort of conspiracy theorist and say that they were covered up for some religious political reason. Or, you can take the gnostics and tweak history to come up with the DaVinci code. There is fuel out there for any viewpoint. Depends on what you want to accept in order to suit your purpose. But, I don't see too much certainty or else there would be no discussion. Faith is a choice. And for those who believe (whatever their reason), I don't see a need to look any further than the Bible.
Was Jesus a cellibut, was he black or white?........It's all in the "whatever" category for me. I don't really care. It's about the message.
I am Roman Catholic, by the way and I don't see anything more worth believing in.
If people say "youre brainwashed" then fine. Anyone who's ever bought a Valentine's Day or Mother's Day card is also brainwashed. Your'e doing what society tells you to like some sheep. It's just one brainwashing vs. another I guess.
Ah, Karen Armstrong! Well, I think she outlined the history of God as:
El -> Baal -> Yawhaw (I am who I am) -> Trinity [not the hot chick in Matrix] :D
something to that effect. It was and in essence still is a tribal war god no matter how all the preachers try to spin it. If it isn't why would we still have war after war in not only middle east? How many major war in the world is not done in the name of this war god? BTW, Christian often use the fish as symbol which in Hindu tradition is associated with Vishnu the preserver. Is it really that farfetch to see that there is similarity in Baptism and Hindu's who purify themselves in the River Gange?
To All,
Buddhism doesn't equal atheism or pacificism for that matter. BTW, people equated the Buddha (human prince) with Vishnu in India as well. But non violent, self help and helping others are pretty much the core of Buddhism. Didn't Jesus claimed to be the son of God? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the Priest-King from the Davidic line? Are the Christian values that far away from that of Buddhism?
Mantis108
"and subsequent followers who came up with the nifty idea that he was the one true son of god..."
Not to harp on the whole "is religion for real" thing but I was always taught that Jesus did claim to be the son of God and claimed that he was God. Either way, the above statement seems to have a negative spin on it (which I understand if youre not religious). Like I said above, we believe what suits our purpose. Couldn't one just as easily say that they (his followers) were "convinced" that he was the son of God rather than they simply "came up" with the notion. I mean, they gave up their lives to follow him, at the very least they must have been convinced somehow to do this.
Again, this is all lost to time and rhetorical but it illustrates how things can be twisted.
As far as one teaching sounding like another it's not a news flash. Truth can be universal. Does anyone discredit Dr. King for sounding like Ghandi.
There's hardly anything pertaining to religion that can't be argued/counter-argued.
And this whole "is martial arts evil" thing. Can't we take a lesson from the movie "Footloose" in the book burning scene.........."The evil is not in these books, it's in your hearts...."
blond? according to the bible he had skin of bronze and hair like wool...considering the location of these events, I would say that he was arabic looking.
why do you think this?Quote:
I believe in Jesus and the New Testament, with the exception of the vengance, threats and superstition, which I have guessed myself was added into the New Testament later.
to quote the bible: "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."Quote:
How do I justify my use of the martial arts while still following the ideals of nonviolence laid out by these texts? I am merely preparing myself. To quote the Daodejing, "Keep weapons and armour, but do not employ them." I am simply gathering the means. If a situation arises where I have to fight, I will not be any more guilty for being trained in the art of fighting.
In a sense, yes it does.Quote:
And just because you have a notion about Christianity doesn't mean that you have to tell other people.
1. First: I was saying that he is depicted as white because of the king james version of the bible, not because he actually was. He was probably arabic. Please make an effort to read and understand posts before you relpy to them.
2. Why do I think vengance and threats were added later? Because they create a consequence if you don't believe in the faith, it's part of informational contagion theory. A being as all-knowing and belevolent as god wouldn't send everyone to hell just because they didn't believe in him. I believe that god wants this so that people can benifit, not out of the desire for worshippers. I believe that we exist for two reasons: To bear witness and to share god's image; I think that god's image refers to a concious being, because until we came along, with the exception of possible aliens, he was the only conciousness. Again, that is my NOTION, and I would never make anyone swallow my elaboration.
3. Exactly my point.
4. I said you shouldn't spread YOUR NOTION of Christianity. If you spread it at all, don't elaborate and give it in it's pure form. The reason that we have so many secs of christianity is because every smart guy who thinks on the bible comes with certain dissagreements with his church, and instead of just disagreeing and forming his own opinion and looking inward, his ego forces him to make others interpret it as he does. Please make an effort to read and understand posts before you relpy to them. The Bible doesn't say "Read the Bible, draw conclusions, and preach those conclusions instead of showing people the bible."
BTW, if you guys are Christian Fundamentalists, I won't argue about this anymore. Simply because there's no changing your opinion. If you think that the devil is going to take your soul because you did some movements or spoke some words, There really isn't anything I can do to change that. If the devil exists, he's not even close to what's out there.
In all the photos that my parents and grandparents had, they always had him as a tanned white guy. LOL
Seriously, who the heck cares what these people believe? As long as they aren't bombing us or shooting us because we don't believe. And if the bombing or shooting starts, then, we'll all be sure to go to Church on Sunday. LOL
well I like to believe that humans were genetically engineered by a race of aliens from sirius--just read chariots of the gods and you will see the light...
:D :rolleyes: :D
well I like to believe that humans were genetically engineered by a race of aliens from sirius--just read chariots of the gods and you will see the light...
Reply]
Agreed. Although, we may be an early colony of thiers, and not know it too. That would explain how early civilisations had such knowledge, and understanding of herbal medicine accupunture and accupressure.
I mean, how did a technically primitave society figure out accupunture anyway? It had to have been taught to them by a superior intelect, or a more advanced civalisation, someone with the advanced (even beyond our current) technology to plot and map the human nervious system, and also had the technical means to identify all the acupunture points and study their effects in a discaplined and scientific way to created a functional medicinal system.
Think about it. Back in ancient time, there was no mass comminucation, so the disvoveries of a point, and it's use could not be shared on a wide spread scale, yet somehow a really deep and inclusive system of accupuncture and herbal healing developed under those condititons?
Look what it takes to get a modern drug to the market, all the clinical testing and such, and the amount of science it takes to figure it all out. It's on a scale that is absolutly geometric compared to what the Chinese had 10,000 years ago.
or perhaps all our modern technology has caused us to forget all our "superhuman" abilities because we have machines and electronic devices to do everything for us. i do think that the planet has been visited before, and the australian aboriginal people have an oral history that spans about 40,000 years--their paintings of the dreamtime look like maps of planetary energy lines, and the shamans paint themselves with markings that look suspiciously like qi meridians. humans have probably been in contact with other beings in the universe for a long, long time
ok, my 2 cents of trollign this thread
hail satan!
or perhaps all our modern technology has caused us to forget all our "superhuman" abilities because we have machines and electronic devices to do everything for us
Reply]
I don't think so, we have not been technologically advanced for very long. It seems doubtfull we would lose that so quickly.
I'll read better when you read the bible properly. if you're referring to what I think you are, revelation mentions a white head and hair like wool. It then says that he had feet of brass. All of that is obviously symbolic. It's not saying that he was a white guy with blond hair and black feet.
I've actually thought about that myself and have asked several pastors about it. They have all told me the same thing - that he sends the defiant to hell, not the ignorant. For example, you have a buddhist who HAS heard the gospel, but refuses to convert. that person will go to hell. The buddhist who had never heard the gospel and was completely ignorant of it would not.Quote:
2. Why do I think vengance and threats were added later? Because they create a consequence if you don't believe in the faith, it's part of informational contagion theory. A being as all-knowing and belevolent as god wouldn't send everyone to hell just because they didn't believe in him. I believe that god wants this so that people can benifit, not out of the desire for worshippers. I believe that we exist for two reasons: To bear witness and to share god's image; I think that god's image refers to a concious being, because until we came along, with the exception of possible aliens, he was the only conciousness. Again, that is my NOTION, and I would never make anyone swallow my elaboration.
I know that was your point - I was supporting it. you gave the daodejing vpassage and I gave something similar form the bible.Quote:
3. Exactly my point.
elaboration is sometimes required for understanding. That is why jesus taught in parables. The bible says "go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, in the name of the father and of the sun and of the holy ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you..." christians are taught to spread the gospel and convert people to christianity. whether or not you use "your notion" to elaborate on it is irrelevant, as long as the result is the same - you are winning souls to christianity.Quote:
4. I said you shouldn't spread YOUR NOTION of Christianity. If you spread it at all, don't elaborate and give it in it's pure form. The reason that we have so many secs of christianity is because every smart guy who thinks on the bible comes with certain dissagreements with his church, and instead of just disagreeing and forming his own opinion and looking inward, his ego forces him to make others interpret it as he does. Please make an effort to read and understand posts before you relpy to them. The Bible doesn't say "Read the Bible, draw conclusions, and preach those conclusions instead of showing people the bible."
I'm one of the "spiritual, but not religious" guys. I spent my elementary years in a christian school, but enjoy reading and studying about all religions.Quote:
BTW, if you guys are Christian Fundamentalists, I won't argue about this anymore. Simply because there's no changing your opinion. If you think that the devil is going to take your soul because you did some movements or spoke some words, There really isn't anything I can do to change that. If the devil exists, he's not even close to what's out there.
As a side note.....a friend cajoled me into reading that book. I threw it down in boredom halfway through, b/c it was a carbon copy of a book written in the 80's called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."
Hell, Brown even named Sauniere after one of the author's sources from the Priory.....
yeah...
and they sued him
and failed
I prefer the Hiram Key and the Second Messiah myself
Interestingly enough, this was not consensus.....not until centuries later. The divinity of Christ was voted on at the Nicean councils. Many of the primary theologans of the era were not convinced of this. And even then, his divinity caused philsophical problems....hence the Nestorians, Arians....etc...and the only reason this was put to vote was that Constantine was sick and tired of the Christians fighting in his kingdom and stirring up **** left and right.
But even then, not all of the first generation "disciples" were convinced of the "divinity of Christ." This, in all likelihood, was the tradition of the Pauline line. If you read the book Acts, you will find that Paul and his followers were followed around and harrassed by students of the other disciples, who claimed that Paul was an outsider, a fanatic, and was teaching against what Jesus taught. There were theological squabbles in the first generation. I firmly believe this is why internal inconsistency is actually a part of Christian tradition......not some unexplainable phenomenon.
There were two traditions of the times. One tradition held Jesus to be a spiritual guide, a kind of rabinnical deconstructionist, who suggested a new, higher interpretation of scripture. This was the side upheld by Christ's "Jewish" followers, led by his "half-brother" James. The other side of the coin is Paul's. He taught that Jesus was god, in human form, and that you had to follow him or go to hell. And it is pretty well known that two of the gospels have been appended and revised--assuming that they were authentic in the first place. But most scholars surmise they were written generations after the first (original disciples). I mean, come on. We're talking about Jews being oppressed by the Romans, living under foreign rule, in an era when literacy was a mark of luxury. What's the likelihood that a bunch of fishermen and vagabonds had the ability to write down their experiences? I'm not being a ****. It's just veeeerrry unlikely. And, in all likelihood, Christ himself could not write......hence the fact we don't have the gospels according to Christ....just a little proof he's not a god.
It is interesting to note that we're all basing our opinions of the bible on a version organized by an English king approx. 400 years ago, when dogma was already part and parcel of Christian tradition. One gripe I have with common Christians is that they don't take their religion sincerely. Sincerity is everything. How many of us can read Hebrew or Greek and actually get the truth from the horse's mouth? Many scholars hold that the "Virgin Assumption" tradition is actually the product of a misinterpretation/translation for the Hebrew word for "maiden"....which in European tradition sometimes means "virgin"....but as for others, go fish...:o . Honestly, if a man or woman is going to devote their life to a particular worldview, I'd expect them to take the initiative to get a view of the world, before selecting that particular vantage from which to judge. Again, sincerity is everything. It's why I delved into hte history and wound up debunking it. Not everyone would reach my opinionated destination, but there's something in the search. Dogmatic, headstrong JDKism is rather foolish, in the short and long runs.
Now, I don't know what you guys think, but I'm of the opinion that Paul was a paranoid schizophrenic epileptic....hence the fanatical anti-Christian oppression, which turned into fanatcial pro-Christian dogma after a blinding flash of light caused him to fall off of his horse (an excellent painting by Caravaggio, by the way) and revealed God's plan. Well, that sounds like an hallucination and an epileptic seizure. I once knew a weird bipolar girl who, when not taking her anti-psychotics, would suffer the delusion that she was a druid preistess, and would then commence to write untold pages of nonsense in this persona, and basically lived a double life. She was kind of scary when not on her meds.....one side of her would completely disappear, and you had to deal with the priestess.
She was really quite religious when "sane." In a different era, she'd have been called "possessed." She acknowledged this quite often. But those darn meds worked some kind of med-fu on the demon and kept it suppressed. So, to JDK--maybe I shouldn't be so harsh, and maybe you shouldn't be so paranoid.
HAHA....I didn't know that. Interesting. I always wondered how Brown got away with so much plagiarism....if you want to call it that.
It's just that the book/movie had no plot....it was basically Holy Blood, Holy grail with a car chase in the middle, and a cute french chick.
Sure they were. While there were numerous Christological disputes throughout the first two-thirds of the first millenium, none of the representative movements denied Jesus' divinity outright. This is a relatively recent notion. (Please offer a reference for the contrary position if you maintain it's the case.)
No, it wasn't. The specific nature of Christ's divinity was debated at the council. The dispute was between the Arians and the ****ousians. The former believed in a divine hierarchy with Jesus immediately below the Father. The latter, who eventually won consensus, believed that Jesus and the Father were equivalent. Neither believed that Jesus was a man. (cf. First Council of Nicaea, Arianism).Quote:
The divinity of Christ was voted on at the Nicean councils.
You don't think an entrenched theological dispute would ever be broached by the Christianity community unless an emperor intervenes? This doesn't seem like a very likely position, and certainly seems at odd with the fact that the Christianity community was already in the middle of heated debates on the point before Constantine ever came around.Quote:
the only reason <the nature of Jesus' divinity> was put to vote was that Constantine was sick and tired of the Christians fighting
I've already pointed out that none of the representative groups denied the divinity of Jesus entirely. There was certainly contention surrounding Paul's teachings: it concerned the relation of Christianity to Judaism. Paul's group upheld the notion that Christianity was distinct; that Gentiles could become Christian and were not, by this virtue, Jewish (and hence not under Jewish law). The contrary position was initially upheld by Peter, although he was soon won over by Paul. He initially saw Christianity as a continuation of Judaism and he and others had complained about sharing eating and living space with Gentiles who were not following Mosaic law. Note that none of this has anything to do with whether or not Jesus is undertsood as divince. (cf. Acts 15)Quote:
<The notion of Jesus' divinity>, in all likelihood, was the tradition of the Pauline line. If you read the book Acts, you will find that Paul and his followers were followed around and harrassed by students of the other disciples, who claimed that Paul was an outsider, a fanatic, and was teaching against what Jesus taught. There were theological squabbles in the first generation.
There's disputes in the Christian tradition because Christians argue about what they believe? Well, yes.Quote:
I firmly believe this is why internal inconsistency is actually a part of Christian tradition.
This is wrong. There was a competing tradition of Christianity, typically associated in retrospect with the trend we have labelled Gnosticism, which saw James as Jesus' primary disciple. However (i) it wasn't contemporary with Paul's preaching, but is, rather, essentially a fifth century movement. And (ii) it did not deny Jesus' divinity. Like the Arians, the Gnostic Christians saw Jesus as the second figure in a divine hierarchy. Rather than seeing Jesus as more human, this school actually completely denied Jesus' humanity, maintaining that his body was only an appearance and that he was actually a purely spiritual being. (van den Broek and Hanegraff's (eds.) Gnosis and Hermeticism is a good introduction to these themes; see particularly van den Broek's chapter on Gnosticism and Hermeticism in Antiquity and Helderman's commentary on the The Gospel of Truth). You seem to be conflating this movement with the aforementioned movement first championed by Peter against the Gentiles. They're completely different -- the apocrypha concerning James are Hellenic (and, as I mentioned, four centuries later). Also, the allegorical method of interpretation predated Christianity in some Jewish circles and reached its height during the early Christian era in Alexandria, at the hands of orthodox Christians (cf. Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, Introduction and Ch 1. Byzantine Theology after Chalcedon).Quote:
There were two traditions of the times. One tradition held Jesus to be a spiritual guide, a kind of rabinnical deconstructionist, who suggested a new, higher interpretation of scripture. This was the side upheld by Christ's "Jewish" followers, led by his "half-brother" James.
Again, you seem to be conflating the dispute in Acts 15 between Paul and Peter, which had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity, and the 5th century Gnostic dispute, which had nothing to do with Paul. Neither of the prevailing theologies in these disputes endorsed an exclusivist soteriology (re: "that you had to follow him or go to hell") which would not be upheld by any mainstream church for a millenium still. (Again, please offer a reference of the contrary position if you think otherwise.)Quote:
The other side of the coin is Paul's. He taught that Jesus was god, in human form, and that you had to follow him or go to hell.
Where do you get this notion from?Quote:
And it is pretty well known that two of the gospels have been appended and revised...
Most scholars surmise the New Testament was written within the first century (1).Quote:
But most scholars surmise they were written generations after the first (original disciples).
No we're not. I'm certainly not, for example.Quote:
It is interesting to note that we're all basing our opinions of the bible on a version organized by an English king approx. 400 years ago...
I think you need to delve a bit deeper if this is something you're interested in understanding.Quote:
It's why I delved into hte history and wound up debunking it.
The only thing I don't get, is why somebody would read the Bible, and believe that Jesus is divine and the son of God and if they sin they will go to hell and all that.
In other words ... why does anyone believe this story without any sort of proof???
1. You still didn't understand my post. The person said the Jesus was depicted in the PICTURES of a bible that he had, as a white guy. I said that this IDEA probably came about because of the King James version of the bible, not that it was actually IN the King James version of the bible. We all know he wasn't white, so let's leave it at that.
2. I still don't understand why an all-knowing being would send all people to hell for not believing in him. Like I said, I don't think that a conciousness with the knowlege of several billion years of time, plus all of the knowlege of the universe and more, would act so wrathfully.
3. Well, I completely dissagree with the idea that you can use your conclusions as a conversion tool, but that's just my opinion.
4. Similar story with myself, actually.
In regards to the main point of this article, there is no secret demonic pentagram in the bagua, and evil spirits will only enter your martial arts practice if you ask for them, which is what you're doing by trying to organize some sort of spiritual barrier because you fear for your own ability to fight back.
Great question lunghushan.
The proof you seek must be experienced. Unless the Holy Spirit draws us...we have no desire to come to God on His Terms.
Secondly...the historical account of a real Jesus that really lived, did miracles, and then Rose from the Grave..and showed himself to hundreds for 40 days after his Resurrection...is pretty strong evidence. I say tis becaue USUALLY people can spot a phoney right away...and the legend dies right there.
In Christs case...when Paul and the others were writing the New Testament..there were many, many eye witness accounts of people who had actually seen with their own eyes the things Jesus did. Any small group of them could have at any time stepped forward and declared the stories were fraudulant
They didnt ...because they couldnt.
If the religious Leaders that hated Jesus of that day ( The Pharisees & Sadducee's )could have provided accurate , documented proof that it was all a Lie..they would have! They ( and ROME at first) tried EVERYTHING to get these people to stop following this dead Jesus, They were threatened, beaten, tortured, and many were burned alive...when all they had to was recant their belief that Jesus was the Christ..but instead....went to their graves speaking and singing His Name.:(
Im not talking about the Roman Catholic "Convert or Die Crusades" that would come later...I am talking about first Century eye witnesses that could have ended this new Christianity if they wanted or were able.
They were not.
Here we are 2000 years later. talking about it..and more importantly...turn on any News Channel and WHERE is the focus of the eyes of the World been for the last 15 years or more ????? Israel and the Middle East.
Coincidence?
JDK
"In other words ... why does anyone believe this story without any sort of proof???"
Good question with many answers.
I guess one point of view is that faith without proof is rewarded.
Some believe because the message is inspirational to them.
Some believe because they want to. I mean they want their existence to mean more.
Some may believe that the principles are a good way to live.
And, of course, some believe that there is proof.
Sorry if this doesn't help but there are so many reasons and combinations of reasons.
I guess I just don't really understand why people believe the Bible, heaven, hell, sin and that Jesus is their savior.
Maybe I read too much fiction when I was a kid, but when it came time to be confirmed, there is this part where you have to swear you believe Christ is your savior or something.
And I was kindof like, "What?" I mean, I've gone through all this Christian school, all this Sunday School, and there's so many holes. On the one hand they say take it literally, but then how can you think literally that Christ is a loaf of bread. And of course, the parables are you supposed to only take those literally?
And then the people in the church. They'd always talk about Sunday Christians, but then after church and going to church and coming from church, it was always gossipping, judging, talking, etc. Exactly the opposite of what they were preaching in the church.
So ... ??? I really, really wanted to believe it, but I guess I just didn't believe it. So I didn't get confirmed, and the parents flipped out, judging me just like they judged the other people, only confirming my suspicions that they were among the biggest hypocrites in the world.
So ... ??? I guess I still don't get why people believe this stuff without evidence. And I don't buy the historical account being evidence because there are so many holes in it. Oh, well.
No, I don't think it's coincidence. Honestly I think most people will take the most convenient explanation that suits them because they don't want to have to strain their brains.
Islam vs. Christianity, both of them are religions without any proof, both of them are usually followed by people who were brought up in that religion, so when you say is it a 'coincidence', no, I don't think it's 'coincidence'. It seems like you have two brainwashed groups of people who have been at war for millennia and for some reason can't stop.
The only reason we are having this conversation at all is because evidently not everybody is so brainwashed to follow those religions -- otherwise we would still have state run religion and there would be no dissent allowed.