NationStates Jolt Archive

Pfft!
I'm a liberal feminist atheist living in rural Oklahoma. And I have bumperstickers guaranteed to raise eyebrows around here. I hardly live in fear of my life, though I'm sure they hope I don't show up at the church picnic.

God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Born okay the first time.
Found Jesus? Why yes, he was in my trunk when I got back from Tiajuana.
Want to live in a country run by religion? Move to Iran.

I love my car, but I'm going to get a tired slashed one day. :D

Anyways, whenever someone asks her taht she just smiles and says "Of course! Honey, don't you know we Catholics INVENTED Jesus!"[/QUOTE]

It's funny that she says that because there are only two historic books that mention Christ besides the Bible, and one was found to be a fraud, and the other is under speculation. Don't you think someone that had such a dramatic effect on history would be mentioned a little more often? And second, Jesus existed before Catholicism did making it impossible for them to invent him.


Pfft!
I'm a liberal feminist atheist living in rural Oklahoma. And I have bumperstickers guaranteed to raise eyebrows around here. I hardly live in fear of my life, though I'm sure they hope I don't show up at the church picnic.

God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Born okay the first time.
Found Jesus? Why yes, he was in my trunk when I got back from Tiajuana.
Want to live in a country run by religion? Move to Iran.

I love my car, but I'm going to get a tired slashed one day.[/QUOTE]

You are my hero.

It's funny that she says that because there are only two historic books that mention Christ besides the Bible, and one was found to be a fraud, and the other is under speculation. Don't you think someone that had such a dramatic effect on history would be mentioned a little more often? And second, Jesus existed before Catholicism did making it impossible for them to invent him.

You didn't really take her seriously did you? She's just being a smart-ass. . .really its the only for for an intelligent non-Protestant to survive here with sanity intact.

It's funny that she says that because there are only two historic books that mention Christ besides the Bible, and one was found to be a fraud, and the other is under speculation. Don't you think someone that had such a dramatic effect on history would be mentioned a little more often? And second, Jesus existed before Catholicism did making it impossible for them to invent him.

You didn't really take her seriously did you? She's just being a smart-ass. . .really its the only for for an intelligent non-Protestant to survive here with sanity intact.[/QUOTE]

No, I was just pointing out the irony in the statement.

:mp5:Ok so i don't really care bout religion but i am agonistic in other words i don't believe in a god but i don't deny the presence of one either. i think tat it is stupid everyone gettin pissed of over religious differences. i should no i am from ireland 6 countys were takin away mainly due to religious differences. so yeah. :mp5:

"Hmm. The argument that "if the respective deity does indeed exist, those acts are entirely credible" is not terribly convincing. If Superman is real, then he can really bounce bullets off his chest. Should I then believe in Superman?"

I wasn't using it as an argument for religion, just debunking it as an argument against religion.

"A religion has no independent existence. It exists only as a series of notions in the minds of its adherents. Therefore, "religious people" and "religion" are synonymous. What gives you the right to tell people that they've "misinterpreted" their holy books? Since it's all a matter of interpretation -- or faith -- what makes your interpretation right and theirs wrong?"

I'm referring to the origins of said religion - the original purpose and meanings of the holy books, which over time has been distorted, guessed, retranslated, and tortured to suit the whims of those in power. Therefore, as opposed to basing their beliefs on ancient teachings (or whatever), they're basing it on their own ideas, which their insecurities and the influence of others have hacked holy works into images of. I'm fine with people believing what they want, but believing it because a book seems to agree when in fact it means something entirely different is misguided, IMHO.


"And atheism does not require any faith at all. I don't go around "not believing in god". "

I beg to differ. You make the argument that you shouldn't believe any religion is true, but you fail to argue that there's logic in believing, with no evidence, that there is no form of supreme being. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you're being sensible and rational about it, chances are you should be agnostic. The only respectable reason I can see people following any form of religion is some form of religious experience, hallucination, whatever. That's the closest thing you'll ever get to proof.


"As for the vaguer idea of "something beyond" -- it's unanswerable, untestable, unknowable, and I can't see any point in worrying about it."

I'm not saying worry about it. I'm saying that if you take this "don't care" attitude, it doesn't point to atheism - it points to passive agnosticism.

And that is what we call a baseless assumption and a poor analogy.
There is no evidence of design, there isn't really much evidence of purpose beyond observed functions...

And there's no evidence of millions random mutations creating a fully functional system like the eye, while at each step in the chain of mutations, there would be no functionality at all, because the complete system is needed.

There's a similar arguement regarding the evolution of protein strands and their chirality/funtionality. But in the interest of not hijacking this thread, I'll stop. :D


Actually, if you read the letters, the roman historians are talking about christians who claimed this man was crucified. There is no actual evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, hell, the story blatantly borrows from a number of pagan god-man myths.

Don't know about Roman historians, but one of the most famous Jewish historians, Josephus, explicitly mentions Jesus of Nazareth. And if you don't accept a Jewish historian due to bias, that's like not accepting an American textbook's reference to George Wahington's existence.

Wow, you don't know much about the history of your own religion, do you?
For one thing, there were so many gospels that weren't even put into the bible. For another, the "fact" of the divinity of Jesus was put to vote in 300CE at the council of Nicea. For another, all the rituals and festivals of christianity are based on the pagan ones.

There was also alot of false teachings in the days of the early chruch (as there is now.) Paul actually mentions these in some of his writings. The purpose of the council of Nicea was to review all these teachings and conclude which ones were consistent with what they already knew from the Torah, and the teachings of Jesus and his original disciples. Just because they "voted" that Jesus was divine 300 years after the fact, does not make it any less a "fact."

And there's no evidence of millions random mutations creating a fully functional system like the eye, while at each step in the chain of mutations, there would be no functionality at all, because the complete system is needed.

There's a similar arguement regarding the evolution of protein strands and their chirality/funtionality. But in the interest of not hijacking this thread, I'll stop. :D

These arguments are old, tired, and completely incorrect.


There was also alot of false teachings in the days of the early chruch (as there is now.) Paul actually mentions these in some of his writings. The purpose of the council of Nicea was to review all these teachings and conclude which ones were consistent with what they already knew from the Torah, and the teachings of Jesus and his original disciples. Just because they "voted" that Jesus was divine 300 years after the fact, does not make it any less a "fact."

Actually, most of the reasoning behind what was included in canon came from how many churches currently used the writings. Do you really think that lots of use=fact? *All* of the churches at the time could trace their way back to an apostle - it was the only way to be included in the council in the first place, but not *all* of the writings used by these churches were included.

Martin Luther argued that that was exactly why we -should- believe in God...


Martin Luther believed that we should believe in 'god' because there is no evidence?

It's an interesting theory... does that mean we should believe in purple people? Under-the-bed Elephants? Daiper Fairies?

"And atheism does not require any faith at all. I don't go around "not believing in god". "

I beg to differ. You make the argument that you shouldn't believe any religion is true, but you fail to argue that there's logic in believing, with no evidence, that there is no form of supreme being. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you're being sensible and rational about it, chances are you should be agnostic. The only respectable reason I can see people following any form of religion is some form of religious experience, hallucination, whatever. That's the closest thing you'll ever get to proof.


There is no logic in believing. Logic would require some form of evidence, or some form of reason - and neither are implicit in belief in 'god' or 'gods'.

I think you are confused as to what an Atheist 'is'... not all Atheists believe there is NO god (those are Explicit Atheists)... many merely do NOT believe in the god/gods that are 'available'.

Thus - for a large proportion of Atheists, there really IS no faith involved... quite the opposite, in fact.

Agnostics can be Atheistic or Theistic... it does not affect their 'Agnosticism'... which is the belief that it is impossible to ever truly KNOW whether there is a 'god'. Lack of certainty about whether you can be sure, does not equate to lack of belief.

There is no logic in believing. Logic would require some form of evidence, or some form of reason - and neither are implicit in belief in 'god' or 'gods'.

I think you are confused as to what an Atheist 'is'... not all Atheists believe there is NO god (those are Explicit Atheists)... many merely do NOT believe in the god/gods that are 'available'.

Thus - for a large proportion of Atheists, there really IS no faith involved... quite the opposite, in fact.

Agnostics can be Atheistic or Theistic... it does not affect their 'Agnosticism'... which is the belief that it is impossible to ever truly KNOW whether there is a 'god'. Lack of certainty about whether you can be sure, does not equate to lack of belief.
Yup I am an example of an atheistic agnostic

Yup I am an example of an atheistic agnostic

Among my wide circle of friends (very wide really, more than 4000 miles wide...) I count both Atheistic and Theistic Agnostics... and many other belief systems.

I am an Implicit Atheist, certainly... with slight Agnostic tendencies... I do not believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever know for sure... just really, really unlikely.

:)

Among my wide circle of friends (very wide really, more than 4000 miles wide...) I count both Atheistic and Theistic Agnostics... and many other belief systems.

I am an Implicit Atheist, certainly... with slight Agnostic tendencies... I do not believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever know for sure... just really, really unlikely.

:)
Yeah I should say I believe it is impossible to prove a god of the Christian persuasion (some of the descriptors lead to conditions being beyond the observable)
But there is no reason that all deities have to have all those descriptors and therefore could be provable (too ingrained even now with Christianities monotheistic viewpoint)

Yeah I should say I believe it is impossible to prove a god of the Christian persuasion (some of the descriptors lead to conditions being beyond the observable)
But there is no reason that all deities have to have all those descriptors and therefore could be provable (too ingrained even now with Christianities monotheistic viewpoint)

Afraid so... you were allowing your experience to colour your objectivity. :)

Curious thing... Christianity claims a force for goodness, and an opposite (but not equal) force for evil.

And yet, it still claims to be monotheistic....

Afraid so... you were allowing your experience to colour your objectivity. :)

Curious thing... Christianity claims a force for goodness, and an opposite (but not equal) force for evil.

And yet, it still claims to be monotheistic....
Exactly but when you bring it up they always bring up free choice (consequences are NOT a necessary part of the ABILITY to make a choice ... it may influence a decision but you can still have freedom of choice without consequence)

Also the logical Idea that GOD created everything that exists ... if he did so he also had to be the ultimate source for evil (the originating point) which they don’t like to admit

Then you have the issue that supposedly everything that god does is automatically good (which is confusing stacked up to him being the source of all evil)

Exactly but when you bring it up they always bring up free choice (consequences are NOT a necessary part of the ABILITY to make a choice ... it may influence a decision but you can still have freedom of choice without consequence)

Also the logical Idea that GOD created everything that exists ... if he did so he also had to be the ultimate source for evil (the originating point) which they don’t like to admit

Then you have the issue that supposedly everything that god does is automatically good (which is confusing stacked up to him being the source of all evil)

Especially hard to consider every god-ordained act as 'good', when the text directly implies the opposite...

e.g. Joshua 23:15 "...so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

or

I Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee".

Especially hard to consider every god-ordained act as 'good', when the text directly implies the opposite...

e.g. Joshua 23:15 "...so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

or

I Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee".
Defiantly … (the ambiguousity of the book amazes me sometimes even yet)There seem to be very few concrete statements that are not in some way contra indicated in a different part of the book. Amazing how that happens from the supposed word of god

Defiantly … (the ambiguousity of the book amazes me sometimes even yet)There seem to be very few concrete statements that are not in some way contra indicated in a different part of the book. Amazing how that happens from the supposed word of god

Indeed... why, it's almost like it was a text written by mere humans...

Don't know about Roman historians, but one of the most famous Jewish historians, Josephus, explicitly mentions Jesus of Nazareth. And if you don't accept a Jewish historian due to bias, that's like not accepting an American textbook's reference to George Wahington's existence.

Josephus, as a "Jewish" historian, leaves a lot to be desired. Admittedly, he was a Jew by birth, Joseph ben Mattathias. But he was adopted into a Roman family (hence the "-us" on the end of his name), and wrote with a decidedly Roman perspective. Considering his works Jewish would be akin to considering Benedict Arnold's works American.

And I'm curious as to which of Josephus' works mentioned Jesus Christ (honestly, I'm not trying to sound smug, I really don't know).

"Hmm. The argument that "if the respective deity does indeed exist, those acts are entirely credible" is not terribly convincing. If Superman is real, then he can really bounce bullets off his chest. Should I then believe in Superman?"

I wasn't using it as an argument for religion, just debunking it as an argument against religion.

Claiming that a fairy story is true because, if it's true, then the fairy story is true, doesn't even begin to cut it as logic. I admit, logic is not a concern for those arguing from a position of faith, and therefore they are, for themselves, not obliged to stick to it or even come anywhere near it -- but that's obvious. If irrational beliefs were susceptible to logical argument, then this thread wouldn't be here. So to that extent, I suppose, it isn't a good argument against religious belief.

"A religion has no independent existence. It exists only as a series of notions in the minds of its adherents. Therefore, "religious people" and "religion" are synonymous. What gives you the right to tell people that they've "misinterpreted" their holy books? Since it's all a matter of interpretation -- or faith -- what makes your interpretation right and theirs wrong?"

I'm referring to the origins of said religion - the original purpose and meanings of the holy books, which over time has been distorted, guessed, retranslated, and tortured to suit the whims of those in power. Therefore, as opposed to basing their beliefs on ancient teachings (or whatever), they're basing it on their own ideas, which their insecurities and the influence of others have hacked holy works into images of. I'm fine with people believing what they want, but believing it because a book seems to agree when in fact it means something entirely different is misguided, IMHO.

I agree that the original purpose and meanings of various holy books have been "distorted, guessed, retranslated, and tortured to suit the whims of those in power", although I would argue that a fair few of them were written to suit the whims of those in power at the time of their invention. But a religion is not a seperate, concrete entity. It changes through time and has different definitions within the heads of its various adherents. Today's Pope, for example, would be regarded as a heretic by his predecessors of only a few hundred years ago -- and yet he's as orthodox a Roman Catholic (pretty much by definition) as it's possible to be in the 21st century. There is no "core truth" which constitutes a religion, which is capable of being misinterpreted. It's nothing but interpretation.

Faith exists in the minds of the faithful. If that faith is based on a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the original authors' words, it doesn't matter to the faithful. A snake-handler isn't "wrong", just because he belongs to a sect that has taken a one-off, largely metaphorical statement literally; as far as they're concerned, it's other people who have misinterpreted the text.

Religion isn't susceptible to logic or evidence: some people will go on believing any old garbage without the slightest shred of supporting evidence, and indeed even in the teeth of huge mountains of evidence to the contrary -- e.g. flat-earthers, geocentricists, creationists, people who believe that Jesus came back from the dead, people who believe that Mahomet received the literal word of God, etc etc etc.

"And atheism does not require any faith at all. I don't go around "not believing in god". "

I beg to differ. You make the argument that you shouldn't believe any religion is true, but you fail to argue that there's logic in believing, with no evidence, that there is no form of supreme being. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you're being sensible and rational about it, chances are you should be agnostic. The only respectable reason I can see people following any form of religion is some form of religious experience, hallucination, whatever. That's the closest thing you'll ever get to proof.


"As for the vaguer idea of "something beyond" -- it's unanswerable, untestable, unknowable, and I can't see any point in worrying about it."

I'm not saying worry about it. I'm saying that if you take this "don't care" attitude, it doesn't point to atheism - it points to passive agnosticism.

This is semantics. I admit, there might be a god. But there might be fairies at the bottom of the garden; there might be a passageway to a world of wonder and enchantment at the back of a wardrobe somewhere. There is, in fact, an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence, and no way of obtaining any either for or against: why stop at the idea of "god"? Why not claim to be "passively agnostic" about this infinity of imaginary entities? Alternatively, just admit that, in the absence of any evidence, there's no reason to start giving any credence to any of them. If you think that makes me an agnostic instead of an atheist, fine by me. Personally, I prefer the term "not superstitious" over both of them.

Hey,

Peoples of all religions are welcome in Crushuallistan. We like Athiests, Christians, Buddhists, Alvisists... Your meat all tastes equally delicious!

What? Anthrophagy is Our Glorious Regime's National Cuisine! You haven't eaten a Big Mac until you've tried a Crushuallistan Long Pig Big Mac!!

Wirrrn,
Evil Overlord/Dictator For Life,
Crushuallistan

:sniper:

Religion isn't susceptible to logic or evidence: some people will go on believing any old garbage without the slightest shred of supporting evidence, and indeed even in the teeth of huge mountains of evidence to the contrary -- e.g. flat-earthers, geocentricists, creationists, people who believe that Jesus came back from the dead, people who believe that Mahomet received the literal word of God, etc etc etc.

Incorrect. Some people change their view of the world to fit their view of God. Others do it the other way around. One is not susceptible to logic or evidence, while the other is.

Incorrect. Some people change their view of the world to fit their view of God. Others do it the other way around. One is not susceptible to logic or evidence, while the other is.

True, a fair point. The Dalai Lama has said that, if scientific evidence showed that a fundamental aspect of his religion was false -- say, reincarnation -- he would modify he beliefs. Although he also pointed out that reincarnation would be very hard to disprove. Such people are, I admit, intellectually honest -- but in the terms of this thread, they don't represent the problem many people have with evangelicals of all religions.

I have every respect for intellectually honest faith. If I thought that my preferences counted for anything on the universal scale, I would prefer to live in a cosmos with a supreme being. But any such supreme being would, by definition, be utterly unlike the small-minded, petty, censorious bugaboos invented by, and entirely reflective of, the small-minded, petty and censorious ideologues who cook up and promulgate superstitions the world over.

taken from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64




The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:


At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

God's peace,
Michael

Here's my question: when did people start believing that the bible was faxed from heaven? This God person didn't write it and then shoot it down here with an e-mail saying, "Hey guys, have fun interpretating this one." The bible was written by man in order to explain somethings in the word, much like Gods and Goddesses were written about in ancient Greek to explain tidal waves and earthquakes. Believe what you want about religion or non-religion, but keep it to yourselves. No discussion about faith has ever had a good ending.

Let the Anvils ring!

taken from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64




The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:


At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

God's peace,
Michael

It has been suggested that - since the 'Jesus' references are way out of context, and written in different style... even in noticable different vocabulary - that the Jesus references were actually added to Josephus' text at a much later date... several hundreds of years after Josephus is supposed to have lived.

hes sucks ball and shoots blackies :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: and commits suicide :headbang: and shags michael jackson :fluffle:

I think that, if an individual is not hurting anyone, then he or she has a fundamental right to be left alone.

I think this applies just as well to religious beliefs as to anything else. My beliefs if any are my private business and I tend to hold these things close to the vest. Just as I wouldn't want some acquaintance telling me in detail what they were up to in bed, I wouldn't want them telling me about what's up with their spiritual life.

Some things are just *private*.

Now obviously someone who feels the way I do is going to feel that missionary work is a huge, fundamental invasion of the privacy of others, combined with an appalling exhibitionism.

*edited for equally apalling misspelling*

I think that, if an individual is not hurting anyone, then he or she has a fundamental right to be left alone.

I think this applies just as well to religious beliefs. My beliefs if any are my private business and I tend to hold these things close to the vest. Just as I wouldn't want some acquaintance telling me in detail what they were up to in bed, I wouldn't want them telling me about what's up with their spiritual life.

Some things are just *private*.


So do you apply that to something like politics as well as religion? Should we all not discuss our political views and try and persaude others to our point of view? It's the same sort of thing, and if you take a view that it is private, then you are advocating a loss of discussion about an important discussion. Discussing what you do in bed with someone is not going to accomplish anything, or be a very deep philisophical argument. It is very different to discussing religion.

Look, I understand that it seems very "intruding" and "personal" and whatnot, but there's a huge reason we do what we do. Oftentimes Christians go about it the wrong way, but the simple fact is that we truly believe in a Heaven and a Hell and a God who deserves our worship. Now, believing what I believe, don't you think it makes sense that I would go about trying to share this wonderful news that I've been told. Don't you think that I would strive with all my might to try to rescue people from the fate that I believe awaits them unless they turn to the one true God. I do what I do because I believe what I believe. I believe that God wants a personal, intimate relationship with me, and with others, and with you.

Think about it this way: if I believed what I do and didn't say anything to someone else, what does that say about my faith? What does that say about how much I truly love someone (or rather don't)? What does that say about my God, who I claim died for all and wants to adopt us all as children?

The simple fact of the matter is that
1) I don't want you to go to tell, 'cause it's a bad place.
2) I do want you to go to Heaven, 'cause it's a good place.
3) I do want to introduce you to Jesus, 'cause he's friggen' awesome, and
4) God deserves your worship, 'cause he's God, so what else would you expect?

So I tell people. I tell people that Christ died for our sins, that all we have to do is accept the gift that he's offering to us, and that's it. You get to know God as father, he gets to know you, you have an intimate relationship that is simply indescribable, and you get healed and made whole and a bunch of other benefits. Plus, on top of all that, you get to glorify God, which is what you were made to do. I don't really see any negatives here.

So sure, other people believe other things, and that doesn't stop me from loving and respecting them, but the fact of the matter is that my God says that he's the only God and Jesus said that he was the only way to God. So I respect other people, and I love them, but I can't accept that theirs is equally true or accurate and still believe what I believe. They're mutally exclusive.

I wasn't a Christian all my life. I did a lot of searching before I found the truth, and I did a lot of research. I checked out other religions; I checked the facts. I would expect readers would want to do the same. There's a book, two actually. The first is "More than a Carpenter", the second is "The New Evidence that Demands are Verdict". The first is sort of a starter course in all the historical evidence, not too many actual sources and whatnot. The second has about a hundred sources for every claim and a bibliography 40 pages long, 10 font, huge pages.

Be honest with yourself. If Christianity could be proven to you, would you believe it and follow Christ? I think the first book provides a start, and I believe the second truly does prove the case. I would invite you to read them; at least find out all you can about our claim so you can be sure one way or the other.

If you have any questions, my life is an open book to anyone who asks. I'll answer any question, especially about how I became a Christian and what he's done to change me and allure me since I made that decision. You can email me at mhvaughan@hotmail.com anytime.

I guess I'll leave this thread alone for a while, but honestly, ask me questions through email if you have any that you truly want answers to, whether you're not a Christian, or you're searching, or even if you are a Christian and want more info about some of this evidence or whatnot--I can provide you with a reading list.

God's peace,
Michael Vaughan
mhvaughan@hotmail.com

I follow science and technology, and I will never convert.

I follow science and technology, and I will never convert.

(a) If you "follow" science in the way that fundamentalists "follow" religion, you are no better than a fundamentalist in a religion.

(b) There is nothing to "convert" from if you are a proponent of science, as science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

(a) If you "follow" science in the way that fundamentalists "follow" religion, you are no better than a fundamentalist in a religion.

(b) There is nothing to "convert" from if you are a proponent of science, as science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Argh. It sounded good when I posted it. Cut me some slack man it's 12:26 at night were I am. What I guess I meant was that if it can't be proven scientifically or with factual evidence, I most likely won't believe it. I guess in the religion thingy I'd be an atheist.

Why is it annoying? Let me put it this way.

"The world is going to end!" I scream. "The Coming of the Great Handkerchief is nigh! Only be converting to my Lord shall your soul be spared when the sneeze that made the universe is cleaned off of the nose of the Lord! Repent! Repent!" I then run off, screaming to the next guy, telling him about the wonders of my religion and why he must be wrong.

Annoying? Yes. In the same way, evangelism/proselytizing is annoying.

I, for one, have never actually started an atheist 'conversion pitch' except in response to a religious one, excluding the times I had a question to ask, a (in my opinion) funny joke, or I was talking to friends who were also atheists.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

1. For christians, it isn't evil as much as it is VERY damned annoying as well as a lot of times done very inappropriately. Religion is a VERY divisive issue. A lot of people are coherced which is the biggest most widespread and common problem with concepts of heaven and hell that aren't exactly PROVEN and thus a form of cohersion. A lot of people "converted" can also *AT TIMES* be considered to have been brainwashed due to not all christians exactly respecting the actual religion's beliefs that actually appeal to people.

2. Atheists also have this problem of being annoying as you mention. A lot of them doing the attacks are younger or barely learned of arguments against religious organizations and are rebelling against what they do percieve to have been a bunch of damned lies. Hell I was raised catholic so I myself can tell you I am guilty of going though a period of "you ****ers have lied to people! For your damned pleasure/faith. And you lied to ME." phase. Basicly since I was RAISED on a religious organization such as the Catholic church, I was pretty hurt discovering how the institution worked. I don't know how to curtail it or put a fair standard of criticizing it since its source really comes out of a sort of feeling of betrayal that people DO tend to need to talk about or vent in some way. However I agree, you are VERY correct in telling people who do this that they are not in the right for dissing a person's system of beliefs. It is wrong and respect must be given.

The BEST advice I can give anybody is do NOT shove your faith on other people. I don't see WHY you need to convert anybody to your faith. Its yours alone. You shouldn't even NEED an organized religion to believe in its teachings and add to a congregation. I REALLY dislike any organized religion from personal experience. EVERYBODY has a damned belief system, but everybody believes in different things. People should be like the American founding fathers and simply RESPECT what people believe, leave them alone, and try not to talk about it unless your in a setting in which people want to discuss it. People can get along pretty well without getting into religion and politics in their daily lives.

Wow. You guys. It was a daunting task reading through ALMOST all of these 19 or so pages (I admit, I skipped from 16 to 19 in the interest of time, as it's 03.25), and if anything, I am.....confused as all hell.

Now, here's where I stand. I'm a fairly devout Catholic, who plans on entering the Convent and becoming a nun after college (the Sisters suggested I have education to fall back on, should anything happen later on in life). Not only do I NOT attend Church on a regular basis -- I feel that if you're a true Christian, you can network with God on a more personal level (though, admittedly, I do enjoy coffee and/or brunch with my priest at least once a week, but that's usually a social outing ;) ) -- but I also find it personally appalling when I hear that my friends were approached by Christians in terms of conversion. While I admit that my Catholic schooling was to the tune of the more friendly and cuddly Vatican II (if indeed Catholic schools can be called "cuddly"), I still believe that this is something that must've been cooked up in Protestant beliefs, because at the last retreat to the Convent (Spring Break 2005), we were specifically DISCOURAGED from active and/or offensive conversion techniques. What's being mostly encouraged these days, at least under our Cardinal, is more informing people on a basis of preference.

The most important things, at the core, are respect and tolerance. Christians, whether or not encouraged to more aggressive techniques to convert "believers", should take a step back and think how annoyed they might be in a similar situation. Athiests, antithiests, agnostics, anybody else....take it with a grain of salt. While they are doing it with your "best interests" in mind (a pitch I've heard many times when somewhat ill-informed Christian Protestants tried to convert me to Christianity), it's also not quite grounds to attack them with such vigor.

Sorry it's so long, but this has been kept up inside me for almost 20 pages. I had to get my piece out. :D

This is why nuns are so popular in pop culture. Unless you were taught by one, in which case they're infamous. :D

I figured I'd clarify real quick and then (ironically enough) get up and go to church (no sleep for me tonight...)

I apologize to Catholics for any Protestants who have tried to "convert" you. To me, Christians are Christians, so long as we've got salvation through Christ's death and resurrection.

Americai,
I get the point you're making, but you've got to look at it from my perspective. Did you read my post about why we do what we do? Now, granted, there are right and wrong ways to go about it, and I'm not for shoving it down someone's throat, but believing what I do, I've got to talk about it. Reread my post and you might understand better; it's only a page or two back.
You also say something like why should it be part of our daily lives (quite a paraphrase). Same reason as the first paragraph. Think about it: if I truly believe in God and in Christ's death and resurrection and the promise of Heaven, don't you think it would only make sense if I tried to share that beautiful promise with others?
Hope that helps, but I do understand your perspective.

Turkish Squirrel,
I was in the same boat as you (I'm a biology major, in fact), but after looking at the evidence I came to only one conclusion. Check out the books I mentioned a page ago; they're quite convincing and offer a TON of factual support, historical record, etc. The man who wrote them set out to prove Christianity wrong, and after 40 bibliography pages of research came to the conclusion that Jesus had to be God.

God's peace,
Michael

The problem is that Christianity won't accept anything. Not everyone who is not Christian is athiest and that is quite often the attitude. I have my beliefs, you have yours, why must we try to convince each other that Im right your wrong and btw, you have to be ____ to get into heaven. And fyi, i yell at your so called athiests about this too, no one needs to convert a million people to be good, just live your life the way you feel it should be lived.

Look, I understand that it seems very "intruding" and "personal" and whatnot, but there's a huge reason we do what we do. Oftentimes Christians go about it the wrong way, but the simple fact is that we truly believe in a Heaven and a Hell and a God who deserves our worship. Now, believing what I believe, don't you think it makes sense that I would go about trying to share this wonderful news that I've been told. Don't you think that I would strive with all my might to try to rescue people from the fate that I believe awaits them unless they turn to the one true God. I do what I do because I believe what I believe. I believe that God wants a personal, intimate relationship with me, and with others, and with you.

And that's your opinion. It's all very well believing what you believe, but when you try to 'convert' someone, without them first asking about your faith/religion/beliefs, it can seem quite arrogant and ignorant of their beliefs.


Think about it this way: if I believed what I do and didn't say anything to someone else, what does that say about my faith? What does that say about how much I truly love someone (or rather don't)? What does that say about my God, who I claim died for all and wants to adopt us all as children?

Why do you feel the need to tell/show everyone how much you love your god. And your actions don't say anything about your god. Your god gave you free will, so you telling everyone about your god and your beliefs has got nothing to do with god.

The simple fact of the matter is that
1) I don't want you to go to tell, 'cause it's a bad place.
2) I do want you to go to Heaven, 'cause it's a good place.
3) I do want to introduce you to Jesus, 'cause he's friggen' awesome, and
4) God deserves your worship, 'cause he's God, so what else would you expect?

So we should worship god, just because he is god? God gave us free will, yet he punishes anyone who does not choose to follow/worship him. I'm sorry, but that does not sound like someone who deserves worship.

So I tell people. I tell people that Christ died for our sins, that all we have to do is accept the gift that he's offering to us, and that's it. You get to know God as father, he gets to know you, you have an intimate relationship that is simply indescribable, and you get healed and made whole and a bunch of other benefits. Plus, on top of all that, you get to glorify God, which is what you were made to do. I don't really see any negatives here.

Could you just clarify the parts in bold please.

So sure, other people believe other things, and that doesn't stop me from loving and respecting them, but the fact of the matter is that my God says that he's the only God and Jesus said that he was the only way to God. So I respect other people, and I love them, but I can't accept that theirs is equally true or accurate and still believe what I believe. They're mutally exclusive.

That is not fact. A book says that your god is the only god. The Bible was written by humans, and no matter how mmuch they claim to have been inspired by god, it was not written by god himself.

I wasn't a Christian all my life. I did a lot of searching before I found the truth, and I did a lot of research. I checked out other religions; I checked the facts. I would expect readers would want to do the same. There's a book, two actually. The first is "More than a Carpenter", the second is "The New Evidence that Demands are Verdict". The first is sort of a starter course in all the historical evidence, not too many actual sources and whatnot. The second has about a hundred sources for every claim and a bibliography 40 pages long, 10 font, huge pages.

Just because you follow a religion which you believe to be true, does not make it true. It is simply your opinion that your religion is 'the truth'. The historical evidence may say that certain events happened, and certain people existed. But what it won't tell you is that god exists. Again, that is opinion. Not fact.

Be honest with yourself. If Christianity could be proven to you, would you believe it and follow Christ? I think the first book provides a start, and I believe the second truly does prove the case. I would invite you to read them; at least find out all you can about our claim so you can be sure one way or the other.

If it was proven I would consider following the religion, but I don't think that I would. If I have lived my life trying to be good, and helping others, then why should it matter if I worshipped a 'god' or not. Would my actions and intentions not be enough for such a 'supreme being'. Those books that you mention will not prove Christianity one way or the other. Books can worded in such a way, and evidence provided in a certain context, that things can seem to be true when they are in fact unproven.

Actually, Western Wild, it's widely believed, even by Christians, that the First Commandment is proof [edit: by "proof" I'm speaking in theological terms, that the Church would consider this enough to recognize that other religions (ie Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Jainism, etc) aren't just worshipping imaginaries to be contrary....so to speak] that God is not the only deity. What would be the point of a rule stating Thou shalt have no other gods before me if He were the only god?

This also goes against the Ethic of Reciprocity, which is essentially the Golden Rule, and supported by nearly ALL religious beliefs, including Judeo-Christian. Matthew 7:12 is the most commonly referenced of the Christian texts (Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets, King James Version), but further support can be found in the Gospels of Luke and Thomas (early Christians held strictly to the Gospel of Thomas, which was removed from Christian texts along with some 40 others; some Christians still follow those texts). This is the very rule taught to children from a young and developmental age: Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Furthermore, I don't believe that any belief system is "mutually exclusive", if you're open-minded enough. Stereotypically, as a Catholic, I shouldn't ever be heard saying that (apparently we're "crazier than the Baptists", according to one of the theology students up at the Abbey), but I can still accept certain taught "truths" of other cultures and religions. Along the same lines, just because you "...can't accept that theirs is equally true or accurate and still believe what [you] believe...", that does NOT excuse evangelical conversion techniques. Just because you can't accept their truths doesn't mean that they can accept yours.

When proselytizing and 'evangelism' turn from "believe in jesus and be saved" to "oppose abortion, deny science, oppose gay civil rights and go to heaven" there is a problem.

People, in my opinion, get a pass to believe whatever they want about the unknowables in life, things like the afterlife or the 'meaning of life.'

They do not, however, get a pass to deny the truths of science or impose their restrictive theology on other people.

People who deny evidently correct things have no regard for truth and therefore are of poor character and untrustworthy. This leads, in my opinion, to the barbaric opposition to gay rights &c.

You guys missed my premises about free will and evangelism; let me try again.

You complain that I evangelize, and I'm answering that complaint. Believing what I believe leads me to evangelize. I believe it's the truth, and I believe it's the only truth, therefore, I try to tell others.

If it's not the truth, then I'm wrong, but seeing as how I don't believe I'm wrong, I proceed in this manner. The point is not whether or not it's the Truth, the point is that because I believe everything that I've stated, I must.

Let me put it another way, if I see what I believe to be flames coming out of your house, and on further inspection I definitely think your house is on fire, what would you expect me to do? I'd call the fire department, or try to see if anyone needed assistance, or perhaps even try to enter the house if I thought there was a small child unattended or something like that. I'd be doing the best I could. Same here: to the best of my ability, I've been shown that God exists, that Christ was his son, and that Christ told his followers that he was the ONLY way to God. Therefore, I do everything in my power to show this to others. Yes, I see how it could be seen as arrogant, but if your house is on fire and I'm holding a fire hose (and therefore can do something about it) would you call me arrogant to believe that I need to start spraying?

The point I'm making about telling people about my God is that he has told us that the only way to come into a relationship with him is to be cleansed through the blood of his son. Because we have REBELLED against him, we deserve the just punishment of our actions. We have free will to choose for him or against him because that allows for true worship, but that's not the same as saying both choices are good. If we choose against him, we're being traitorous.

You asked clarification on the healing part. Here it is. Because we've fallen, we're slaves to sin. We're broken, in chains, beat down by Satan, kept in bondage through our own sins. So when Christ saves us, eternal life begins instantly because the Holy Spirit is given to us as a deposit. Because God lives in us and through us, he changes and molds us and makes us holy. We're not expected to live the Christian life ourselves; God lives it through us, we merely have to surrender to him. So when God becomes our Lord, he also becomes our Father, our Comfort, our Captain, our Lover, and a host of other adjectives (I could honestly go on for an hour). Those aren't just words! I have experienced God at work in my life, and he's changed me in so many ways since I became a Christian. It's incredibly easy to walk away from temptations that I would never have been able to walk away from before. I have a capacity for love, for patience, for thinking about others, for a million other things that I can only chalk up to God. God actually reveals himself to me, allures me, at times, and it's amazing. I also said we get to worship God, and when I say that I mean that we were created to worship him, to reflect his glory.

About the book I recommended, I will MAIL YOU A COPY if you will agree to read it. You've already judged it, but if you look at the evidence he provides, I think you might change your tune. But you've prejudged it because you think that it can't be proved. This guy tried to prove Christianity wrong, and he became a Christian. Multiple others have done the same thing. The arguments are so convincing that hard-core athiests have changed their tunes when they take a look at the evidence. His book contains probably the best arguments Christianity has to offer, so I would challenge you to read it and at least hear our best before you judge. My email is mhvaughan@hotmail.com, and I will personally buy a book for you online and have it shipped to your house if you'll read it (and I'm a college student!)
In this book, he examines the situations, histories, manuscripts, and testimonies of eyewitnesses on both sides of the issues. I've explained it more in some of my other posts (basically, if I've posted on NS, it's been about this issue. You can search them and read more about "New Evidence", but I just got out of an organic final and I can't think clearly enough to provide some of the insights right now). Read it before you judge it, then check the facts yourself and see if he's lying or misrepresenting the truth.

You said:
If it was proven I would consider following the religion, but I don't think that I would. If I have lived my life trying to be good, and helping others, then why should it matter if I worshipped a 'god' or not. Would my actions and intentions not be enough for such a 'supreme being'.

Do you realize what you've said? If Jesus were proved to be God and that the Bible was his word (which it does claim to be), you would continue to live the way you always have?
Think about it this way (assuming Christianity is true for a moment, which I realize you don't right now) Jesus said that it's not about what we DO, it's about what he has already DONE. And because of that, the offer of a relationship with God is offered. I'll illustrate. The law was put into place to show us that we can't be good enough. Picture a pure glass wall, 100 feet tall, and you on one side of it. On the other side is God and Heaven. You have nothing to climb it with, and all you can do is try to scramble up a few inches before you fall back down. Jesus suddenly opens up a door through the wall that you hadn't previously seen and says, "This is the way, come on through here. I've already made this door; all you have to do is enter." Now you have the choice: you can enter through the door, or continue to try to climb. Climbing won't get you over, entering through the door will. It's that simple.
If Jesus is truly God, good works won't get you into Heaven.

So now picture me, venturing out through the door and trying to bring people to the door. I say, you can't climb the wall; there's a door over here. You can follow me through the door, or you can continue to climb. Remember this, however,
If Jesus is truly God, good works won't get you into Heaven.

As to what you said Simonist,
I'm not sure what your point is regarding reciprocity.
As to your first point, there are certainly other gods (little "g"). These are seen as demons in the Bible, all of which are traitorous to the true God. There's Molech, Beelzebub, and a host of others. God created everything, so he's ultimate to these others. A statue of Dagon (I think, can't remember) fell before the ark of the covenant in the OT, and the point is that all of these are not the One True God. They are false, leading people astray. The point is CONSTANTLY made that the God of the Bible is the only true God, and that Christ is the only way to him. (You're becoming a nun? Not an insult, but I'm definitely a little confused).

I realize they may not accept what I believe to be true, but I say again, believing what I believe, I am forced to the conclusion that I should do everything in my power to share with others in order to offer this same wonderful God to them.



Does that clarify things a bit? Is there something further I can answer for you? Guys, please don't think I'm trying to hold a philosophical debate. The same offer I keep talking about is open to all of you. The Bible says that "All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." His name's Jesus, and you're included in "all". He's done so much for me in my life, and I (as a former hard-core athiest) have every reason to believe that he is real and that he has adopted me as a son. It's not a bad deal, and from my perspective it only makes sense.

Seriously too, if you want to continue this privately, just email me. Anytime. I mean, I'll still keep this up, but if you want to just talk one-on-one, I'm open to that too.

You guys missed my premises about free will and evangelism; let me try again.

You complain that I evangelize, and I'm answering that complaint. Believing what I believe leads me to evangelize. I believe it's the truth, and I believe it's the only truth, therefore, I try to tell others.

If it's not the truth, then I'm wrong, but seeing as how I don't believe I'm wrong, I proceed in this manner. The point is not whether or not it's the Truth, the point is that because I believe everything that I've stated, I must.

I doubt many people have a problem with you wishing to help them. I think it is the way that some go about it that it is the problem. If you wish to convince someone of your faith, you must demonstrate that you are open to criticism. This does not mean you will change your mind, it simply means that you are open to discussion. You must respect others' beliefs as you expect them to respect yours. In the end, all you can do is present your views (as your views, not as a hard and fast proven point) and hope that those you tell agree with you.

If you start telling someone your views and they tell you they don't want to hear it, the proper thing to do would be to stop. Otherwise, you will push them away from, rather than towards your point of view. Unfortunately, many evangelists do not do so, and thus all they accomplish is turning people away from their views.

Let me put it another way, if I see what I believe to be flames coming out of your house, and on further inspection I definitely think your house is on fire, what would you expect me to do? I'd call the fire department, or try to see if anyone needed assistance, or perhaps even try to enter the house if I thought there was a small child unattended or something like that. I'd be doing the best I could. Same here: to the best of my ability, I've been shown that God exists, that Christ was his son, and that Christ told his followers that he was the ONLY way to God. Therefore, I do everything in my power to show this to others. Yes, I see how it could be seen as arrogant, but if your house is on fire and I'm holding a fire hose (and therefore can do something about it) would you call me arrogant to believe that I need to start spraying?

Here is the question, though. Suppose I started burning leaves in my yard and you had what you thought was a better way to do it. My way is not harming you or anyone else (other than possibly me). You start to tell me your way and I tell you I've got it covered. Will you incessently bug me, or kindly tell me that you will be happy to tell me your way if I am interested?

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I totally agree with you.

I am a Christian so I'd like to say that your right. Chances are, we've all done it.

Not to point fingers however, I think that most arguements between Christians and Atheists, etc. are caused involentarily because of how society has developed. To me, it seems that people are sick of hearing things such as Creationist veiwpoints or Evolutionary viewpoints that they just decide to hammer the ideas. I've done that before. But it's mostly just the fact that there's sometimes so much propaganda or advertisement about some things or unfair advertisement. An example would be teaching Evolution in science class or the Big Bang theory but not even giving way to Creationism. That I think has been an example. Although, the deeds of past individuals or groups is also to blame for bad raps. "Christians" in the medieval times doing horrible things has given us a bad rap.

Quite honestly, most arguements aren't about converting the person, but rather "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of deals. But there is a right and wrong, who's rght or wrong though, can be figured out peacefully. Still, some of it is simply hatred started from years of exposure to it.

Actually, Western Wild, it's widely believed, even by Christians, that the First Commandment is proof [edit: by "proof" I'm speaking in theological terms, that the Church would consider this enough to recognize that other religions (ie Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Jainism, etc) aren't just worshipping imaginaries to be contrary....so to speak] that God is not the only deity. What would be the point of a rule stating Thou shalt have no other gods before me if He were the only god?

Its refering to other idols or things you treat as a God. If you treat something else in a Godly way, IE being obsessed with it or somehow worshiping it, devoting unreasonable ammounts of time to it etc, then you are treeting it as a God. Many people make the mistake that this is just refering to statues and pictures, but it can be a girl/boyfriend who you are placing in value over God, money, a possession etc. Just anything you are valuing above God.

Its refering to other idols or things you treat as a God. If you treat something else in a Godly way, IE being obsessed with it or somehow worshiping it, devoting unreasonable ammounts of time to it etc, then you are treeting it as a God. Many people make the mistake that this is just refering to statues and pictures, but it can be a girl/boyfriend who you are placing in value over God, money, a possession etc. Just anything you are valuing above God.


The compelling arguement could be made that you are completely wrong and it simply means what it says - I am the supreme god and you must believe it.

Its refering to other idols or things you treat as a God. If you treat something else in a Godly way, IE being obsessed with it or somehow worshiping it, devoting unreasonable ammounts of time to it etc, then you are treeting it as a God. Many people make the mistake that this is just refering to statues and pictures, but it can be a girl/boyfriend who you are placing in value over God, money, a possession etc. Just anything you are valuing above God.

So why does that commandment not say what you said, rather than saying what it does say? Seems you're not reading what it says, but rather you are interpreting it, or using someone else's interpretation to justify your own belief. Why should I believe your interpretation over someone else's or over a literal reading of what is written there?

So why does that commandment not say what you said, rather than saying what it does say? Seems you're not reading what it says, but rather you are interpreting it, or using someone else's interpretation to justify your own belief. Why should I believe your interpretation over someone else's or over a literal reading of what is written there?


Because when they crucified jesus he gave special license to new cannen to change what the bible says.

Because when they crucified jesus he gave special license to new cannen to change what the bible says.

Actually I think Martin Luther started the ball rolling with the Protestant reformation, but things just got out of control from there... ;)

Actually I think Martin Luther started the ball rolling with the Protestant reformation, but things just got out of control from there... ;)


I strongly believe that martin luther is one of the worst villains in human history.

He was germanic was he not?

Probably descended from the Vandals and the Goths.

I strongly believe that martin luther is one of the worst villains in human history.

Luther gets a bad rap because he was arrogant. However, if you actually read what he was saying, it makes sense. Even the Catholic church at this point has admitted the corruption that was rampant at the time.

Luther gets a bad rap because he was arrogant. However, if you actually read what he was saying, it makes sense. Even the Catholic church at this point has admitted the corruption that was rampant at the time.


You misunderstand, I think.

The problem is the protestantism that ML started.

You misunderstand, I think.

The problem is the protestantism that ML started.

(a) ML would not have started protestantism if the corrupt church had not kicked him out.

(b) What is so wrong with protestants?

I strongly believe that martin luther is one of the worst villains in human history.

He was germanic was he not?

Probably descended from the Vandals and the Goths.

Hm, that's a bit of a stretch. He was a man very outspoken against corruption in the Church...hardly the attitude of a villain. Granted, he thought people should follow his interpretation of the Bible exclusively, but nobody's perfect.

isn't a choice involved, though?
I tried for several years to keep my faith but couldn't for the life of me escape the fact that its all bullshit. BTW if you 'choose' to beleive something, you are just a moron who is really good at self deception.

I tried for several years to keep my faith but couldn't for the life of me escape the fact that its all bullshit. BTW if you 'choose' to beleive something, you are just a moron who is really good at self deception.

That's a bit of a generalization. People choose to believe things that they cannot know are true regularly and on a daily basis.

That's a bit of a generalization. People choose to believe things that they cannot know are true regularly and on a daily basis.
But in that case you are not "choosing" to believe you just do or you dont
its not a concious decision
because if you make that decision it is no longer soly a belief

I can't quite agree with UpwardThrust on this one. It's a simple, yet not entirely subconcious, action of the human mind to make a choice on belief systems. If you're presented for multiple explainations for a great mystery, whether or not you PUT thought into it before formulating a belief, there is a choice involved. Similarly, I believe it's this choice that does turn many non-Christians to God, rather than perhaps continuing on the life they're living.

Also, while I'm once again posting, I think there's some confusion I've started as to my beliefs. I'm Catholic. Of COURSE I believe in God and all that jazz. However, the only reasons I'm arguing to the contrary are that
(a) I can understand why non-Christians dislike being approached without request, and
(b) Since 6th grade, when I started going to school with a child raised as a polytheist, I've been studying a lot about world cultures and religions, as well as my own religion, and can understand how there may be sufficient proof for some to doubt Christianity.

It wasn't enough to make me doubt the entirety of the beliefs I'd been raised with, but it was enough to make me fully understand that modern Christianity is a religion based off of the word of MAN more than the word of GOD (such are the problems of the Papal Infallibility issue with the Protestant and liberal Catholic worlds).

Now then, if we could please stop treating me like one of these non-Christians who you so badly want to add to the ranks. (No offense intended to the non-Christians intended)

Alright, first off let me apologize. I am currently on page seven of 21, but felt compelled to answer the original question of the thread.

I have so many "problems" with Christian methods, I can barely even think of where to begin.

Let's start with a quote: "Worldly institutions fail because they require power and gold to operate. Power and gold attract wicked and greedy people. Wicked and greedy people are corrupters and betrayers. Therefore, worldly institutions become corrupt and betrayed <over time-me>. Churches, being in the world, are worldly institutions. Thus is it demonstrated."

An indscriminate look at the history of Christianity will find much bloodshed and greed done at the "behest" of either God or Jesus (or both, for those confused over the identities of the two). The various Crusades, as a general example. Or the treatment of the indigenous populace of the "West Indies" when us white folk decided to branch out in conquest. And, of course, the Inquisition. For more modern examples, how about the ongoing war in Ireland between Cathoilcs and Protestants? Or, hey, even the current situation between the U.S.A. and the Middle East could be brought into this. A "good, Christian leader" reacting to violence with violence?

Greed... well, gee. It's not like the Catholic Church ever hoarded the gold and gems of Europe, flaying the skin off of peasents who would dare touch the golden Cross in a small village church. Just a small example.
Or how about the 'ministry leaders" living the high life while their flocks send in all their earnings? That's not a sign of greed, is it?

When someone comes up to me speaking about how a religion with such a history is about love and love, I have to question it. Sure, there's the arguments that A) Such acts were in the past, and B) Such acts were started by the Catholic system, which is by no means the entirity of Christianity. A) I consider to be an illogical dismissal (I had to piss five minutes ago, so of course I'll never have to piss again!), and B) The Catholic Church was the ONLY (I'm fairly sure) Christian organization for centuries, from which every other subsequent sect has sprung from in one fashion or another.

On top of all this is the seemingly inherint hypocrisy which follows most Christians. I have yet to find a passage from the popular Bible ("Book") in which, for example, Jesus preaches that homosexuality is wrong, or that abortion is evil, or that hatred of any form is acceptable. And no, I do not consider letters written by Paul five to fifteen years after the death of Jesus to be the words of Jesus himself. Memory is far too fallible, and as I recall there has been strong evidence that Paul himself suffered hatred himself for various actions, thus implying his own ideas colored what he remembered.


As to what I have against evangilism/prolythising is something a bit different. People who perform such acts expect to be listened to without question, starting with the assumption that they themselves are right and any who believe differently are wrong. Such a belief causes one to express (not necessarily feel) a sense of superiority. This is not a good avenue to convince through love. Also, such a person will rarely, in my experience, seriously listen to someone else explain their own, unChristian beliefs, and will instead convey that such beliefs are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

This is not communication, this is saying "you're less than me because I'm better than you".

There are really just too many points for me to make in just one post, I think. Such as seperate houses of worship themselves being denounced by Jesus, his comments that prayer is best silent (God will always hear you, even in your closet), the tendancy of Christian sects to take passages out of context (Wouldn't the arrival of Christ fulfill the Covenant, thus ending the responsibility to uphold then Ten <+200 or so> Commandments?), or the similarities between brainwashing/thought reform and how most Christians become Christians.


phew
With all that said, I'm going to spend the next day reading through the rest of this discussion. Hopefully it doesn't grow too much before I get to the current state.

If it was proven I would consider following the religion, but I don't think that I would. If I have lived my life trying to be good, and helping others, then why should it matter if I worshipped a 'god' or not. Would my actions and intentions not be enough for such a 'supreme being'.

Do you realize what you've said? If Jesus were proved to be God and that the Bible was his word (which it does claim to be), you would continue to live the way you always have?

Yes, I would continue to try to live a good life and helping others. Why should my beliefs matter if my intentions/actions were good?

Think about it this way (assuming Christianity is true for a moment, which I realize you don't right now) Jesus said that it's not about what we DO, it's about what he has already DONE. And because of that, the offer of a relationship with God is offered. I'll illustrate. The law was put into place to show us that we can't be good enough. Picture a pure glass wall, 100 feet tall, and you on one side of it. On the other side is God and Heaven. You have nothing to climb it with, and all you can do is try to scramble up a few inches before you fall back down. Jesus suddenly opens up a door through the wall that you hadn't previously seen and says, "This is the way, come on through here. I've already made this door; all you have to do is enter." Now you have the choice: you can enter through the door, or continue to try to climb. Climbing won't get you over, entering through the door will. It's that simple.
If Jesus is truly God, good works won't get you into Heaven.

Assuming that I do want to reach God, and get to heaven. Your analogy, gives the impression of accepting the route given by Jesus is the easy way and that the journey, or struggle, to get there doesn't matter.

Now here is the part I don't understand. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying. It seems to me that you are saying that I could sin, and commit acts of 'evil', all I want. But if I accept jesus as being God, I get a non-stop, one-way ticket to heaven.

So now picture me, venturing out through the door and trying to bring people to the door. I say, you can't climb the wall; there's a door over here. You can follow me through the door, or you can continue to climb. Remember this, however, If Jesus is truly God, good works won't get you into Heaven.

I understand that you want to help people get in touch with God. But for some, the destination is worthless without the journey. Myself, for example. Not believing in God, heaven or hell, there is no destination. There is only the journey (life). It is my personal belief that while we are here, we should try to live the best life that we can, and if at the end of it I am proven wrong, then I would hope that this God wouldn't care whether or not I believed/worshipped him but would only judge me based on my actions.

The point I'm making about telling people about my God is that he has told us that the only way to come into a relationship with him is to be cleansed through the blood of his son. Because we have REBELLED against him, we deserve the just punishment of our actions. We have free will to choose for him or against him because that allows for true worship, but that's not the same as saying both choices are good. If we choose against him, we're being traitorous.

You asked clarification on the healing part. Here it is. Because we've fallen, we're slaves to sin. We're broken, in chains, beat down by Satan, kept in bondage through our own sins. So when Christ saves us, eternal life begins instantly because the Holy Spirit is given to us as a deposit. Because God lives in us and through us, he changes and molds us and makes us holy. We're not expected to live the Christian life ourselves; God lives it through us, we merely have to surrender to him. So when God becomes our Lord, he also becomes our Father, our Comfort, our Captain, our Lover, and a host of other adjectives (I could honestly go on for an hour). Those aren't just words! I have experienced God at work in my life, and he's changed me in so many ways since I became a Christian. It's incredibly easy to walk away from temptations that I would never have been able to walk away from before. I have a capacity for love, for patience, for thinking about others, for a million other things that I can only chalk up to God. God actually reveals himself to me, allures me, at times, and it's amazing. I also said we get to worship God, and when I say that I mean that we were created to worship him, to reflect his glory.

See, this is one part of this particular kind of Christianity that I really object to. I find your conception of God to be somewhat repellent. Even in I believed in your idea of a God, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to worship such a being, except perhaps out of nothing but selfish fear. Any so-called "supreme being" who creates a hell should be incarcerated within it. Something that creates intelligent beings and abandons them in a dangerous, disease- and pain-filled universe, just so it can have worshippers, needs psychiatric help. Such a creature isn't a God; it's a monster. Eva Moses Kor was subjected to medical experiments as a child in Auschwitz by Josef Mengele. She found it in herself to forgive her torturers. To me, she is better than your God, more worthy of worship than your God. And she's manifestly real.

I understand that you believe in this God deeply, sincerely and with conviction -- but lots of people believe lots of things deeply, sincerely and with conviction. People who think the earth is flat really, really care about that particular belief. They're flat wrong, if you'll pardon the pun, but they truly believe. A whole bunch of people believed so strongly and deeply in a flying saucer hiding behind a comet that they gave up their lives in order to hitch a ride. The depth and sincerity of someone else's conviction means nothing, except to them and them only.

In short, I appreciate that your convictions lead you to try to evangelise everyone around you. However, it's a behaviour I find to be annoying, not to say intellectually and morally insulting.

See, this is one part of this particular kind of Christianity that I really object to. I find your conception of God to be somewhat repellent. Even in I believed in your idea of a God, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to worship such a being, except perhaps out of nothing but selfish fear.

Worship isnt something we do to appease God. Its not something to do just because you want to be in God's good books. You do it as a response to what he has done. If someone just pulled you out of a burning building you would want to thank them immesurably, and if you were rich, maybe even give them some money. Thats what this is like, God saved us from sin via Jesus death. Hence worship is our way of responding to that.


Any so-called "supreme being" who creates a hell should be incarcerated within it. Something that creates intelligent beings and abandons them in a dangerous, disease- and pain-filled universe, just so it can have worshippers, needs psychiatric help. Such a creature isn't a God; it's a monster.


See this is the thing. Hell is not something specificly constructed and a seprate place. It will be everywhere that heaven isnt after the end days. God sustains this world to a level today and without him the world will become hell. Also its a comparison thing, given the amazing and wholely wonderfullness of heaven then anywhere that isnt heaven will seem like hell. As for God sending us there, he doesnt. Humans only go there if they choose not to accept his offer of help. He is holding out his hand to us, we have to grab it.

Assuming that I do want to reach God, and get to heaven. Your analogy, gives the impression of accepting the route given by Jesus is the easy way and that the journey, or struggle, to get there doesn't matter.

Now here is the part I don't understand. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying. It seems to me that you are saying that I could sin, and commit acts of 'evil', all I want. But if I accept jesus as being God, I get a non-stop, one-way ticket to heaven.


This is something that many people are confused about and I can understand the confusion. To get salvation you need to do 5 things

1) Accept that you have sinned
2) Accept that you yourself cannot deal with the ultimate spiritual consequences of that sin (seperation from God)
3) Believe that there is a God who is both willing and able to deal with the consequence of sin for you
4) Ask him to
5) Having asked him to, live a life which is as best you can according to the life Jesus explained (in the Bible) avoiding sin sincerely

The 5th point is key, if you do all the first 4 and then ignore the last, then your ignoring what Jesus had to do. Jesus had to remove sin via his death, so if you keep sinning your ignoring the problem of sin. Now I am not saying that there is a level of goodness you need to reach, salvation is not based on the quantity or quality of your good works or anything like that. But it is based on your sincerity. If you are sincerely trying to lead a Godly life then God will acknowledge that. God knows all and us the most deeply so he knows if we are sincere or not best.

Worship isnt something we do to appease God. Its not something to do just because you want to be in God's good books. You do it as a response to what he has done. If someone just pulled you out of a burning building you would want to thank them immesurably, and if you were rich, maybe even give them some money. Thats what this is like, God saved us from sin via Jesus death. Hence worship is our way of responding to that.

I appreciate that. However, I don't think that your conception of God deserves my worship. I wouldn't demean myself by grovelling before such an appalling creature, should it actually exist. Or rather, the only thing I can think of which would make me bow before it, if I actually believed in such a god as you imagine it, would be fear, not love.

See this is the thing. Hell is not something specificly constructed and a seprate place. It will be everywhere that heaven isnt after the end days. God sustains this world to a level today and without him the world will become hell. Also its a comparison thing, given the amazing and wholely wonderfullness of heaven then anywhere that isnt heaven will seem like hell. As for God sending us there, he doesnt. Humans only go there if they choose not to accept his offer of help. He is holding out his hand to us, we have to grab it.

Something which is prepared to allow living things, let alone conscious beings, to suffer -- either by actively doing it to them or merely by passively letting it happen -- does not meet my standards as a "supreme being". The only God I'll take is one who takes everybody and everything. If Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and every other evil, depraved monster that's ever lived aren't in heaven, then it's not good enough. I'm sorry, but I expect more from my supreme beings.

You, and the other evangelicals out there, seem stuck with this rather lame and pathetic notion of a Big Angry Daddy who Knows Best -- this is what your vision of "god" seems to be to me. It's just not very supreme, IMO; not what I'd call "that which surpasseth all understanding". An infinite and universal love -- with a real appreciation of what that actually means -- would meet my definition. There's no evidence for one, and I don't believe there is one, but hey: it's a nice idea.

"The Wrath of God is the reaction of his holy love against sin. It is not the opposite of life; it is a part or aspect of love"

-The 19th Century Encyclopaedia of Religion

While I understand (and appreciate) your view of the perfect god being nothing but all encompassing accepting love, I find your view of "love" distasteful. A love that chooses to accept me rather than discipline or even finally reject me if I refuse to be anything other than self-destructive, is a poor replacement for the love of YHWH.

Love isn't punishment. It is either all-accepting or it it isn't. Love is about turning the other cheek. Love is every time you've opened your heart to someone else and they've declined the invitation, but you move on and try to love again. That's why Jeldred and I can't believe in the Christian God.

Do you have any children? I'm guessing not. I have a son, and can't imagine ever denying him anything. Punishment isn't discipline, but love can be. A parent's love isn't conditional. It isn't "Do it, or you get spanked." That's what the Christian God does.

Jeldred, let me ask you a question:

Why do you think we deserve to get into Heaven?

I keep repeating that when God created us, he created in us the ability to follow him without sin (the whole, it is good, thing), and we sinned. That was rebellion. God would have been perfectly just to have just wiped all of us out right then and there.

But instead he took that sin upon himself and paid the price; then he offered us the life that he had just bought at his own expense. We can accept it or reject it. If we accept it, we are accepting an invitation into a relationship with him and an entrance into Heaven. If we reject it, he's not going to force it on us. Hell is just the exponential end to our decision. We don't want God, we don't get God. It's our choice.

And actually, regarding sinning after salvation. Paul and James make the point that we actually can do that, because it is all paid for. We could live like hell after being saved, BUT there are two issues with that. 1) Why would you want to? and 2) It brings the reality of your calling Jesus Lord into question. Were you really and truly saved? I don't know, but I would have to ask you to consider the question yourself and think hard. Because when we're saved, God lives in us and through us, so if we're constantly sinning, I have to ask why that's happening. But in reality, if you've truly been saved, no amount of sin will stop you from getting to Heaven, because as I keep repeating, it's not about what we do; it's about what Christ has already done!

Every good thing we can come up with, because we're already fallen, is considered a "dirty rag" in God's eyes until we come into a relationship with him and he starts to work through us. It's not about our "Journey", because his journey already finished the work.

You mention dying for a lie, and it brings up something I wanted to talk about (the books I mention do a better job, but I'll write anyway). Are you aware that 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths and yet did not renounce Jesus. This is significant, because a lot of people will die for a lie, but no one will die for a lie that they are aware is a lie. The ones with the comet deal all fully believed what they did and died for it. The difference is in the characters of the apostles. When Jesus was arrested, they all fled. They renounced him during the trials and only one came to his crucifixion. They were all hiding away after his death. Then all of a sudden a complete and utter change comes over them. They claim to have seen a risen Jesus. And then they are transformed, and they live such amazing lives and die with his name on their lips. And do you know what's so crazy about that? There aren't any good explanations for what happened except that Christ actually appeared to him.

Consider the following scenarios:

1) Jesus didn't really die, but somehow fainted on the cross and then came out of the tomb. The problem with this is that he was beaten and scourged beyond recognition. He had been crucified, stabbed, etc. (Plus, the fact that water came out with the blood indicate that his heart had literally melted, the sheath around the organ had disintegrated, a sure sign of death). So this guy somehow survives, gets laid up in a burial shroud that weighs a hundred pounds, and then crawls out to appear to his disciples going, "Hey guys, I'm God!" It doesn't seem like they would buy it.

2) So he's dead, so somehow his body must have been stolen. I ask you, who would steal it? The Pharisees or the Romans? Why would they steal the body they just crucified, and why didn't they cart it through the streets when the disciples started claiming he had risen? The same goes for the claim that they went to the wrong tomb--the authorities would have presented the bodies.

3) So I guess that means the disciples stole it? That doesn't make sense for a ton of reasons. First, remember the state that they are in. They've just witnessed their Messiah killed, they all fled, plus why would they do it, and then later die for it? They would be dying for what they know to be a lie!
Another problem with this theory is that the tomb is guarded by a contingent of Roman soldiers, the crack troops of their day. They could be executed for 17 (?) reasons, two of which are falling asleep on duty and leaving their post. These guys were not going to do that; it doesn't fit with what we know about them. As well, the stone in front of the tomb was approximately two tons in weight--quite a hefty load to move in the middle of the night with sleeping guards by a dozen frightened disciples... As well, it had a Roman seal placed on it, the breaking of which was an instant death sentence.

4) So it must have been an imposter! Jesus' twin brother, right? First off, that's rediculous, but even if there was someone, he would have to fool 11 apostles and a bunch of other followers who had all spent three years hanging out with this guy. If anyone could impersonate Christ that well, I would be VERY impressed. Remember also that the disciples didn't believe straight away. Thomas said he had to put his fingers in the holes in Christ's hands and side before he would believe. How do you impersonate that?

Do you have any other ideas? 'Cause I don't. All the disciples died individually after ALL of them (apparentl saw their risen savior, and if you have any explanations, I would be impressed.

Western Wild,

Who says the apostles died horrible deaths? The Bible offers limited insights into the past, as it may have been fictionalized. So perhaps the "Apostles" didn't exist, or didn't die horrible deaths. Maybe there was no Jesus? My answer is this: We don't know what happened, only a guess based on a book that was written, edited, and compiled over the course of centuries. Therefore, I make no assumptions as to what did or didn't happen. I just say "I don't know, and neither does anybody else."

Actually, we do (I should have been more clear).

We have confirmed historical accounts by many sources, including non-Christians, that 11 of the 12 Apostles were killed for their faith, martyred. John alone escape death in this fashion, but he was tortured and banished, and he never renounced his faith as well. Give me a few minutes and I'll find some links for you.

Actually, we do (I should have been more clear).

We have confirmed historical accounts by many sources, including non-Christians, that 11 of the 12 Apostles were killed for their faith, martyred. John alone escape death in this fashion, but he was tortured and banished, and he never renounced his faith as well. Give me a few minutes and I'll find some links for you.
And plenty of non christians died and were tourtured at the hands of christians for not renouncing their faith :rolleyes: you make it sound like it is a proof of the correctness of their faith

I missed the part about the edited, compiled part. We actually have texts dated I believe around 150 A.D. of all or most of the books of the N.T. (and some are far earlier). These match with the ones that we have been using. Therefore, no changes have been made since that date. Because that date is so close to the original writing, and within about a hundred years of Christ's death and within about 50 years of the writings of the manuscripts, we can be assured that little to no editing occured.

In fact, are you aware that this is far better than ANY manuscripts from the NeoClassical period. The Illiad is the best, at 643 copies around 500 years after the original writing, but everything else is far behind. Julius Ceasar's writings concerning the war are 1000 year after the original, and we only have about 10 of them that don't match up. That's pretty much standard, and we accept that these were his writings. The Smithsonian Institute has judged that the manuscripts of the Bible are the most historically reliable of anything that we have from that time period.

Back to the deaths of the Apostles:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html
http://www.imt.net/~gedison/apostle.html
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

Those are just the first few I got from Google by looking up "apostles death"

And plenty of non christians died and were tourtured at the hands of christians for not renouncing their faith :rolleyes: you make it sound like it is a proof of the correctness of their faith

Two issues here:

1) The apostles died firmly believing what they did, and they died because they didn't renounce their faith. My point is that they died firmly convinced. Did you read my post above that went into detail about why that's important?
Regarding the others, they were not eyewitnesses, the apostles were, so if they died for a lie, they knew it was a lie, again, read the post above, the response to Jeldred.

2) I realize that Christians have done things in the name of God that are absolutely despicable. I'm sorry. I wish they hadn't and I think it's horrible. Conversion through force isn't exactly my cup of tea. What do you want me to do about it? I would say those weren't true Christians, or at the very least that they were very misguided. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't tortured or killed anyone in trying to convert them, and I never will. I plan on becoming a missionary after college. I'll probably be imprisoned at some point; I may even be killed. I'm not going to defend myself and if someone tries to kill me for my faith, then I'm going to die. I'm not going to use force at any point, and I pray that God helps me keep that boast. Please don't judge Christianity on the basis of a few of its deranged, misguided, or even evil followers, most of whom I would not count as true followers of Christ, but rather a corrupted church and its officials.

All your links seem to be skewed horribly, and while I understand that this subject is hard not to skew, no sources were evident on any of the pages, and all were rather assuming about their reader.

Love isn't punishment. It is either all-accepting or it it isn't. Love is about turning the other cheek. Love is every time you've opened your heart to someone else and they've declined the invitation, but you move on and try to love again. That's why Jeldred and I can't believe in the Christian God.

Do you have any children? I'm guessing not. I have a son, and can't imagine ever denying him anything. Punishment isn't discipline, but love can be. A parent's love isn't conditional. It isn't "Do it, or you get spanked." That's what the Christian God does.

Then you guessed wrong. When my son wanted to play with electrical sockets, I said "No." When he persisted, I smacked his hand. I have denied him many things that were not good for him. I have denied him his wish to not take a nap, when he was tired. I have denied him his wish to eat candy for dinner. If you cannot deny your son the things that are not good for him, you do not love him.

Love is doing that which is in the best interest for someone else, no matter what the cost.

The Christian God does not say "Do it, or you get spanked." You are taking the Law (an Agreement between the Jews and YHWH on the conditions that they would live under to remain in the land) out of its proper context. YHWY is the source of all life, to turn away from Him is self destructive. Turning away from Him _is_ death.

What would you do to (yes, _to_) your son to prevent him from destroying himself?

Fine, give me a minute and I'll find some non-Christian sources. This may take a few minutes though.

Western Wild,

Who says the apostles died horrible deaths? The Bible offers limited insights into the past, as it may have been fictionalized. So perhaps the "Apostles" didn't exist, or didn't die horrible deaths. Maybe there was no Jesus? My answer is this: We don't know what happened, only a guess based on a book that was written, edited, and compiled over the course of centuries. Therefore, I make no assumptions as to what did or didn't happen. I just say "I don't know, and neither does anybody else."

It sounds like you are saying: "I don't know where I am going, but I definitly know the way!"

The New Testament is one of the most reliable historical documents from the ancient world. Take the chicken challenge:
http://www.tektonics.org/

I explain it to him as best I understand it?

I don't smack his hand and say "Bad boy!" I tell him that it could really hurt him, and that he should ask me whatever he wants to encourage his curiousity. I let him have small sweets prior to dinner, but not many.

Love is about letting the other person decide what's in their best interests, you go along for the ride and maybe impart some wisdom as to life-threatening situations.

What would I do to my son? The worst would be a hug, sorry. I couldn't harm him for my life, or his.

Here's my bit on this. I believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there is not . . . argument, and arrive at your decision. Leave the arrogance at the door, please.

Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I'm sure everyone will love me for not quoting the entire thing.

Though I don't believe everything you say is true, there is one thing I do back up 100% with you, and agree fullheartedness... no one's gonna force anyone, and the fact that, indeed, no one knows the correct answer, not to mention the whole thing about leave the arrogance at the door.

Seems everytime I see a post on the forums, it's just one side being an idiot to the other, and then it switches alot back and forth *sighs* Probably would be better if religious banter was banned, but then couldn't talk about anything realy (Aethiest, Christian, Muslum, evolution, news...) but that's not going to happen.

Prehaps we're better off just ignoring it?

PS Aethiest is as much a religion as Anarchy is a type of government. Having no religion/government, IS a type of government. All these people who say Aethisim isn't a religion is only fooling themselves (which I have seen in a couple of the posts here and a few other threads as well).

Here's one that includes secular sources.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christian_martyrs/TenPersIntro.html
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/index-mirror.htm
www.myfortress.org/historians.html

Two issues here:

1) The apostles died firmly believing what they did, and they died because they didn't renounce their faith. My point is that they died firmly convinced. Did you read my post above that went into detail about why that's important?
Regarding the others, they were not eyewitnesses, the apostles were, so if they died for a lie, they knew it was a lie, again, read the post above, the response to Jeldred.

2) I realize that Christians have done things in the name of God that are absolutely despicable. I'm sorry. I wish they hadn't and I think it's horrible. Conversion through force isn't exactly my cup of tea. What do you want me to do about it? I would say those weren't true Christians, or at the very least that they were very misguided. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't tortured or killed anyone in trying to convert them, and I never will. I plan on becoming a missionary after college. I'll probably be imprisoned at some point; I may even be killed. I'm not going to defend myself and if someone tries to kill me for my faith, then I'm going to die. I'm not going to use force at any point, and I pray that God helps me keep that boast. Please don't judge Christianity on the basis of a few of its deranged, misguided, or even evil followers, most of whom I would not count as true followers of Christ, but rather a corrupted church and its officials.

If the apostles were I whiteness they really did not need all that much “faith” they got proof that god has denied the rest of us for thousands of years

And you say others died for a like … they don’t see it that way. Others have died for not renouncing their faith for thousands of years perpetrated by almost every sect out there.

Their death in NO way proves the rightness of their views

Oh, and let me add, yes there was apostiles and all that crap. Don't believe me? Find some roman records, they support it. Maybe fictiononalized or not, the events that are recorded in the bible happen, as there are military records of the roman empire. Don't ask me where they are though, this is mostly second information from the all knowing father of the household. Seen the books, but being a guy and a teen, I don't give a rats ass to read them :P

Common... they're military RECORDS... who would want to sit down and read them?

Oh, and let me add, yes there was apostiles and all that crap. Don't believe me? Find some roman records, they support it. Maybe fictiononalized or not, the events that are recorded in the bible happen, as there are military records of the roman empire. Don't ask me where they are though, this is mostly second information from the all knowing father of the household. Seen the books, but being a guy and a teen, I don't give a rats ass to read them :P

Common... they're military RECORDS... who would want to sit down and read them?
So it boils down to “I know they are out there … I have no idea where or how you are going to find them but you can do the work”

Western wilds was at least spending the time to find sources
:rolleyes:

Upward, you're not listening.

The point I'm making is two-fold.

The people who have died from every faith have not been eye-witnesses. They thought they were dying for the truth, but there's no way to be sure. Therefore their death means little in this argument.

The apostles, on the other hand, were eyewitnesses because they lived in those times, they saw Christ, they witnessed his death, and they were the founders of the early church. The fact that they saw everything means that when they died, they knew what they were dying for, and they knew the truth of that belief. They either died for a lie that they knew to be false (something that distinguishes them from everyone else that has died for a lie) or they died for the truth. Why would they die for a lie that they knew to be a lie?

Or I should say I'm not being clear enough.

I explain it to him as best I understand it?

I don't smack his hand and say "Bad boy!" I tell him that it could really hurt him, and that he should ask me whatever he wants to encourage his curiousity.


Don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that I said (nor did I) "Bad boy!" You are projecting your preconceptions on me. Also, as I said, I did try the explanation the first time, but that did not work, so I taught him to associate touching that outlet with pain.


I let him have small sweets prior to dinner, but not many.


So, you _do_ deny him things. Why?


Love is about letting the other person decide what's in their best interests, you go along for the ride and maybe impart some wisdom as to life-threatening situations.


I would laugh if this foolishness were not so terrible. What does a child know about their own best interests? Ignoring God for a moment and looking at the situation from a Darwinian standpoint, it would seem that in the process of Survival of the Fittest, evolution has made it that we don't just hatch from eggs out in the middle of nowhere to "find our own way", it seems that we are born to parents who are supposed to protect us and teach us what is best to perpetuate the species. Your statement is even foolish from an evolutionary perspective.


What would I do to my son? The worst would be a hug, sorry. I couldn't harm him for my life, or his.

I love my son enough to do _anything_ to protect him, even if it means harming him.

Ok really everyone,
I was raised in a consevative (normally close-minded) protestant church. Now, that am a young adult, I have made choses for myself. The church feeds things to you and doesn't want you to question them. Well, I question everything. Basically it come down to this, I cannot prove God's existence, nor disprove it. So, I am agnostic. It is that simple. I hope God exist. I just cannot blindly follow Christianity. Really, it only makes sense to be agnostic, we all question God's existence and no one really knows the truth. What do you guys think?

It sounds like you are saying: "I don't know where I am going, but I definitly know the way!"

The New Testament is one of the most reliable historical documents from the ancient world. Take the chicken challenge:
http://www.tektonics.org/

Took it, wasn't impressed. Couldn't even give my answer for most of the questions, and so my score was rather skewed, but high. And as for the historical reliability of the New Testament, that's still up in the air.

I'm not saying I want non-Christian sources for the validity of the Bible, or the death of any of the apostles, or the existence of Christ. I'm just saying, I want the "other" sources for His existence, or a mentioning of the apostles in such a way so they can not be confused with another person.

Upward, you're not listening.

The point I'm making is two-fold.

The people who have died from every faith have not been eye-witnesses. They thought they were dying for the truth, but there's no way to be sure. Therefore their death means little in this argument.

The apostles, on the other hand, were eyewitnesses because they lived in those times, they saw Christ, they witnessed his death, and they were the founders of the early church. The fact that they saw everything means that when they died, they knew what they were dying for, and they knew the truth of that belief. They either died for a lie that they knew to be false (something that distinguishes them from everyone else that has died for a lie) or they died for the truth. Why would they die for a lie that they knew to be a lie?

Delusional? Conned maybe they were not given any real choice and they knew that give up the faith or not they were dead. (and they knew who he was but not nessisarily the validity of his promices so really they were still taking it on faith and even living during that time they did not really have any way to back up the "going to heaven" bit)

Ok really everyone,
I was raised in a consevative (normally close-minded) protestant church. Now, that am a young adult, I have made choses for myself. The church feeds things to you and doesn't want you to question them. Well, I question everything. Basically it come down to this, I cannot prove God's existence, nor disprove it. So, I am agnostic. It is that simple. I hope God exist. I just cannot blindly follow Christianity. Really, it only makes sense to be agnostic, we all question God's existence and no one really knows the truth. What do you guys think?


Let's see how well I can multitask (probably not very...)

Alright, here's the deal. Maybe my story will help some. I did not grow up in the church. I discovered Christ later on in life. When that happened, my mind rebelled for a while and I did a lot of questioning. I checked out other religions, other theories, science, evolution, the big bang--I would like to think of myself as a fairly smart guy. I made a 1600 on the SAT, I've got a 4.0 at UGA, I'm a biology major and I just made what I think is an A on my Organic Chemistry final, giving me a natural, uncurved A in the class. So when I first became a Christian my mind went, "Whoa now! What do you think you're doing?!"
So I had to find answers or else go crazy. After spending a long time searching, I was satisfied that there is enough evidence for Christ's deity and resurrection. I still search, I still find information to back up my argument. I mention this book all the time, but I'll do it again because I'm currently reading it and because the author is a genius. He was like me, except he set out to disprove Christianity as a hard-core athiest. After years of research, after 40 pages of 10 point font bibliography, he became a Christian and documented all the research he had done in a book called "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's a big read, and if you just want to take a baby step, you can read "More than a Carpenter" in about 2 hours. Both are written by Josh McDowell, and I would encourage you to read at least one of them. He addresses a lot of concepts like the knowability of truth, the pointlessness of agnosticism, and a lot of other concepts.

The reason that agnosticism is not good from a Christian standpoint is that you HAVE to choose a side. If you don't choose Christ, then you're choosing against him. It's that simple. It's not enough to just believe that there is "some god out there". You have to know his name, and you have to be in a relationship with him. A lot has been written about how agonisticism is self-defeating, and I haven't read enough to make the valid argument, but there is a chapter in the Evidence book dedicated solely to it that I would encourage you to read. I say again to anyone interested, I will buy you a copy and have it shipped to you if you don't want to pay the $30 sticker price (it's more a textbook than a novel!). If anyone will read it, the offer stands.

Now let's see how many more people have posted...

Don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that I said (nor did I) "Bad boy!" You are projecting your preconceptions on me. Also, as I said, I did try the explanation the first time, but that did not work, so I taught him to associate touching that outlet with pain.



So, you _do_ deny him things. Why?



I would laugh if this foolishness were not so terrible. What does a child know about their own best interests? Ignoring God for a moment and looking at the situation from a Darwinian standpoint, it would seem that in the process of Survival of the Fittest, evolution has made it that we don't just hatch from eggs out in the middle of nowhere to "find our own way", it seems that we are born to parents who are supposed to protect us and teach us what is best to perpetuate the species. Your statement is even foolish from an evolutionary perspective.



I love my son enough to do _anything_ to protect him, even if it means harming him.

That "Bad boy!" thing was an expression, not saying you did it, just the thing I've heard many, many parents say and isn't what I thought you did. So yes, it is my perception of how many parents act. I don't know you well enough to say how you act, and so I don't.

Mine is to impart wisdom, not to teach. Show, not to preach. Many things are instinctual, curiousity is one of them. If my son attempted to put a fork in an outlet, or course I would stop him! I wouldn't smack his hand away, I'd grab him, and tell him why it was dangerous. Besides, I've got covers on all my outlets. I've pre-emptively protected him.

And negative association isn't the only way of parenting.

Delusional? Conned maybe they were not given any real choice and they knew that give up the faith or not they were dead. (and they knew who he was but not nessisarily the validity of his promices so really they were still taking it on faith and even living during that time they did not really have any way to back up the "going to heaven" bit)

All of them were delusional? In different settings and in different times? That's a LOT of people to suddenly lose it.

And they were given the choice. Those that renouced their faith and/or worshipped Caesar were pardoned. Some people accepted the offer and turned away, but not the eyewitnesses.

About the validity of his promises, I don't care. I'm talking about how they were witnesses to the resurrection. The promises he made before his death aren't exactly the biggest thing going on when a dead guy appears to you. I'm saying they died saying he had risen, and if he didn't rise, then they were knowingly dying for a lie.

Disganistan,
The Bible is historically accurate, and it's so hard to try to list everything in a single post. I'm trying to study for my physics final in a couple of hours, so let me get back to you. If you want a good, documented categorical listing, let me mail you the book. Otherwise, it will take me a couple of days to try to type it all out. I'll try to IM you or post here when I can get it all done, but I just don't have all my resources on hand right now.

as a convert from xtianity to paganisim i do not enjoy having the same tripe i abandoned crammed down my thrroat by ovezealus fanatics who have never examined nor questioned their beliefs.

Jeldred, let me ask you a question:

Why do you think we deserve to get into Heaven?

I keep repeating that when God created us, he created in us the ability to follow him without sin (the whole, it is good, thing), and we sinned. That was rebellion. God would have been perfectly just to have just wiped all of us out right then and there.

But instead he took that sin upon himself and paid the price; then he offered us the life that he had just bought at his own expense. We can accept it or reject it. If we accept it, we are accepting an invitation into a relationship with him and an entrance into Heaven. If we reject it, he's not going to force it on us. Hell is just the exponential end to our decision. We don't want God, we don't get God. It's our choice.

Well, let me reiterate from the outset that I don't believe in God, heaven or hell, but to answer your first question: we deserve to get into heaven because we were made imperfect, suffered, made mistakes, loved, fought, struggled, hated and died, in ignorance and weakness. Moreover, if God is infinite love, there is no question of "deserve": we would get into heaven because God loves us. It is in his power to wipe away imperfection, to make good and pure. Why would he not? What's wrong with Him saying to St Francis, "Well done, my good creation. Come in and be welcome," and saying to Hitler, "Never mind, my imperfect creation, all is healed and made pure. Come in and be welcome." This whole wrath and punishment gig is just so... human. Bad human, at that. If a woman can forgive Dr Mengele for experimenting on her as a child, what, please tell me, is God's problem?

You mention dying for a lie, and it brings up something I wanted to talk about (the books I mention do a better job, but I'll write anyway). Are you aware that 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths and yet did not renounce Jesus. This is significant, because a lot of people will die for a lie, but no one will die for a lie that they are aware is a lie. The ones with the comet deal all fully believed what they did and died for it. The difference is in the characters of the apostles. When Jesus was arrested, they all fled. They renounced him during the trials and only one came to his crucifixion. They were all hiding away after his death. Then all of a sudden a complete and utter change comes over them. They claim to have seen a risen Jesus. And then they are transformed, and they live such amazing lives and die with his name on their lips. And do you know what's so crazy about that? There aren't any good explanations for what happened except that Christ actually appeared to him.

I do not deny the power of belief, although I do question the evidence for your claims. The Bible, and early Christian lore in general, are not reliable sources. The most likely explanation for the various miraculous occurrences they list is that they didn't actually happen. What's the difference between a 2nd-century AD account of the miraculous doings of, say, St Andrew, and a 7th-century account of St Columba thwarting the Loch Ness Monster? Why believe one and not the other? Please don't ask me to believe both.

And to be fair to the Heaven's Gate comet-hoppers, it's perfectly possible that they might have been prepared to suffer agonies to defend their beliefs, too -- that question is unanswered. Persecution tends to reinforce belief.

Consider the following scenarios:

1) Jesus didn't really die, but somehow fainted on the cross and then came out of the tomb. The problem with this is that he was beaten and scourged beyond recognition. He had been crucified, stabbed, etc. (Plus, the fact that water came out with the blood indicate that his heart had literally melted, the sheath around the organ had disintegrated, a sure sign of death). So this guy somehow survives, gets laid up in a burial shroud that weighs a hundred pounds, and then crawls out to appear to his disciples going, "Hey guys, I'm God!" It doesn't seem like they would buy it.

2) So he's dead, so somehow his body must have been stolen. I ask you, who would steal it? The Pharisees or the Romans? Why would they steal the body they just crucified, and why didn't they cart it through the streets when the disciples started claiming he had risen? The same goes for the claim that they went to the wrong tomb--the authorities would have presented the bodies.

3) So I guess that means the disciples stole it? That doesn't make sense for a ton of reasons. First, remember the state that they are in. They've just witnessed their Messiah killed, they all fled, plus why would they do it, and then later die for it? They would be dying for what they know to be a lie!
Another problem with this theory is that the tomb is guarded by a contingent of Roman soldiers, the crack troops of their day. They could be executed for 17 (?) reasons, two of which are falling asleep on duty and leaving their post. These guys were not going to do that; it doesn't fit with what we know about them. As well, the stone in front of the tomb was approximately two tons in weight--quite a hefty load to move in the middle of the night with sleeping guards by a dozen frightened disciples... As well, it had a Roman seal placed on it, the breaking of which was an instant death sentence.

4) So it must have been an imposter! Jesus' twin brother, right? First off, that's rediculous, but even if there was someone, he would have to fool 11 apostles and a bunch of other followers who had all spent three years hanging out with this guy. If anyone could impersonate Christ that well, I would be VERY impressed. Remember also that the disciples didn't believe straight away. Thomas said he had to put his fingers in the holes in Christ's hands and side before he would believe. How do you impersonate that?

Do you have any other ideas? 'Cause I don't. All the disciples died individually after ALL of them (apparentl saw their risen savior, and if you have any explanations, I would be impressed.

Here's one explanation for point 2): quite a lot of people would be prepared to steal the body of an alleged miracle-worker, for their own magical purposes. 33AD (or thereabouts) was a pretty credulous and superstitious time. However, the most likely explanation is: it's all made up, or at the very best based very loosely on some hazy accounts of hearsay and wish-fulfilment. None of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. They contradict each other. Two of them have versions of the birth of the Persian sun-god Mithras grafted on to them (midwinter, virgin birth, shepherds, three magicians, special star, etc.). One has its geography so horribly confused that it's obvious that the author hadn't ever even been in Palestine.

People make stuff up all the time. People see things that aren't there, all the time. People believe, deeply, sincerely, and with conviction, in a whole mass of stuff that didn't happen, can't happen and never will happen.

as a convert from xtianity to paganisim i do not enjoy having the same tripe i abandoned crammed down my thrroat by ovezealus fanatics who have never examined nor questioned their beliefs.

Ruadan, I'm not trying to cram it down your throat, but I will readily try to convince you if you'll allow me the opportunity. I have examined and questioned my beliefs, repeatedly. I'll say again that I wasn't raised Christian and I have looked at most other beliefs in this world. Every time I come to the conclusion that Christianity is the way, and my beliefs are only stronger than before. I tried to disprove Christianity; I tried to crack its foundations, and I ended up being disproved myself.

May I ask what made you leave? How you became a Christian in the first place and why you became a pagan later on? Is there something in particular that caused it?

All of them were delusional? In different settings and in different times? That's a LOT of people to suddenly lose it.

And they were given the choice. Those that renouced their faith and/or worshipped Caesar were pardoned. Some people accepted the offer and turned away, but not the eyewitnesses.

About the validity of his promises, I don't care. I'm talking about how they were witnesses to the resurrection. The promises he made before his death aren't exactly the biggest thing going on when a dead guy appears to you. I'm saying they died saying he had risen, and if he didn't rise, then they were knowingly dying for a lie.

Disganistan,
The Bible is historically accurate, and it's so hard to try to list everything in a single post. I'm trying to study for my physics final in a couple of hours, so let me get back to you. If you want a good, documented categorical listing, let me mail you the book. Otherwise, it will take me a couple of days to try to type it all out. I'll try to IM you or post here when I can get it all done, but I just don't have all my resources on hand right now.

Not really ... hardly the first group of people that thought they saw the same thing that are most probably delusional (look at the number of UFO spotters)

First of, again it's Christians and Atheists and again people are completely ignoring the fact that there are a "few" other religions.

Secondly, saying that something is a huge hoax is different than going around selling one's weird set of believes as the only true religion and trying to make other people follow it. And many so called Christians are doing this around here. Just read their posts, they're filled of religious fanatism which is only outmatched by those insane Moslems who blow themselves up in Iraq. Speaking IRL, if you'd try that I'd possibly either kick your ass or sick the cops on you, since it could come close to coercion and that is a felony around here.

Third, if the new testament is so accurate, why are all four evangelists tell the story of Jesus somewhat differently? Also, Roman historians made a nice, detailed collection of the history of these times as well, yet, nobody uses them for religious purposes. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is also historically accurate for the most parts.

Fourth, the bible is only historically accurate in the historic parts. That's about it. "Gone with the wind" is also historically accurate from the setting and the situation in it, the rest is fiction.

Summoning up 3rd and 4th, just because parts are historically accurate doesn't mean much. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" has historically correct parts in it, but that's about it. And I'm tempted to compare Mein Kampf with the bible, since both have been/are used to turn people into fanatics.

Fifth, well Western Wild, people have died for many things. People have died for Hitler, for example. So just because some so called "martyrs" have died for their religion doesn't mean anything. Any suicide bomber is claimed to be a martyr who has died for his or her religion and for Allah as well by their insane leaders. The only thing one has to do is turn people into fanatics and they do anything, including killing and dying for a religion. Btw, suicide bombers also have a choice, they can either blow themselves up or just not do it... Same thing as those so called christian "martyrs".

And finally, what makes people think that this Jesus guy and his fanatic followers came up with the only true religion? That's a load of bull. The "evidence book"? Yeah, right. Evidence of what? Western colonialism and superiority complex? Most likely. I'm glad not to be part of this weird thing and the more I read about it around here, the better I feel with not "having chosen Christ". He can kiss my ass.

"The Wrath of God is the reaction of his holy love against sin. It is not the opposite of life; it is a part or aspect of love"

-The 19th Century Encyclopaedia of Religion

While I understand (and appreciate) your view of the perfect god being nothing but all encompassing accepting love, I find your view of "love" distasteful. A love that chooses to accept me rather than discipline or even finally reject me if I refuse to be anything other than self-destructive, is a poor replacement for the love of YHWH.

That's OK, I find the idea of a judgemental, egocentric God distasteful. Tell you what: in honour of the original question this thread posed, I won't force my ideas about what would make an acceptable deity down your throat. I won't imply that you'll be tortured for all eternity for not agreeing with me, either. I won't even suggest that your failure to concur with my opinion means that you'll miss out on infinite post-mortem whoopee.

Well, let me reiterate from the outset that I don't believe in God, heaven or hell, but to answer your first question: we deserve to get into heaven because we were made imperfect, suffered, made mistakes, loved, fought, struggled, hated and died, in ignorance and weakness. Moreover, if God is infinite love, there is no question of "deserve": we would get into heaven because God loves us. It is in his power to wipe away imperfection, to make good and pure. Why would he not? What's wrong with Him saying to St Francis, "Well done, my good creation. Come in and be welcome," and saying to Hitler, "Never mind, my imperfect creation, all is healed and made pure. Come in and be welcome." This whole wrath and punishment gig is just so... human. Bad human, at that. If a woman can forgive Dr Mengele for experimenting on her as a child, what, please tell me, is God's problem?

Alright, a simple explanation is that God is Ultimately Just and Ultimately Loving. His perfect justice requires something for our sin. He can't just wink and say, that's okay, and yet remain just. It just doesn't work. So his perfect justice requires a payment for our failure. But he's perfectly loving, so in order to deal with us in love, he took that payment upon himself. Because of that, we can approach him, but if we don't approach him, we're right where we were before. As well, you're using extremes when it comes to Francis and Hitler because of their actions, but actions don't truly matter, because, as I've said a dozen times already, it's not about what we do, but rather about what Christ has done. We accept the gift, that seals the deal. If we don't accept the gift, then we don't have the gift.


I do not deny the power of belief, although I do question the evidence for your claims. The Bible, and early Christian lore in general, are not reliable sources. The most likely explanation for the various miraculous occurrences they list is that they didn't actually happen. What's the difference between a 2nd-century AD account of the miraculous doings of, say, St Andrew, and a 7th-century account of St Columba thwarting the Loch Ness Monster? Why believe one and not the other? Please don't ask me to believe both.


I'm not talking about their miracles, I'm talking about their fairly natural deaths. The point I'm making is that they believed so strongly that they had seen a risen savior they were willing to die for it.


And to be fair to the Heaven's Gate comet-hoppers, it's perfectly possible that they might have been prepared to suffer agonies to defend their beliefs, too -- that question is unanswered. Persecution tends to reinforce belief.


Again, the whole eyewitness thing. They didn't actually see anything, so the fact that they might have died for what they believed doesn't really play into this. The apostles claimed to have seen, touched, and talked to a risen savior.


Here's one explanation for point 2): quite a lot of people would be prepared to steal the body of an alleged miracle-worker, for their own magical purposes. 33AD (or thereabouts) was a pretty credulous and superstitious time. However, the most likely explanation is: it's all made up, or at the very best based very loosely on some hazy accounts of hearsay and wish-fulfilment. None of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. They contradict each other. Two of them have versions of the birth of the Persian sun-god Mithras grafted on to them (midwinter, virgin birth, shepherds, three magicians, special star, etc.). One has its geography so horribly confused that it's obvious that the author hadn't ever even been in Palestine.

How they managed to get past the Roman guards and roll away a two ton stone requires thought, though.


People make stuff up all the time. People see things that aren't there, all the time. People believe, deeply, sincerely, and with conviction, in a whole mass of stuff that didn't happen, can't happen and never will happen.

Yeah, they do, but we're talking about a dozen apostles and still more disciples that ALL had to have suffered from the exact same delusion beginning at the same moment and lasting throughout their entire lives, all with matching stories and the willingness to die for what they believed, with not a single one of them recanting. That I find hard to believe.

Greater Yubari
The gospels do tell the stories slightly differently, but I can challenge any supposed contradiction you will find. Test me on this and I'll see what I can do. They are written to different audiences from different perspectives, and they concentrate on different things, but they do not contradict each other.

You mention a lot about historically accurate. That's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm saying is that history records that a man named Jesus was crucified. It also records that twelve no-names from Jerusalem went on to have an impact on the entire world. No, I can't sit here and say that without a doubt, Jesus said such and such a line historically. What I can say is that we know that the texts that we have are reliably what was originally written, that the authors were eyewitnesses or disciples of those eyewitnesses, and that they all agree in their telling of one great story and that these people later died for their beliefs, which brings me to...

The martyrs. I keep repeating the same thing and apparently I'm not doing a good job of it. Let me try again, and please read the following two or three times and try to make some sense of it.

People that die for a cause: they are not eyewitnesses. Followers of Christ, Allah, etc, have not actually seen these things. They have been told of them, and some have grown up since childhood thinking these things. Therefore, when they are confronted with a situation, some believe so strongly that they will die for their beliefs. This is different from the cases of the direct followers of Christ. These followers claim to have personally seen Jesus Christ, alive, after his death, and they went on to die for this very same reason. This means that they were either deluded, insane, or had truly seen the Christ. I make the point that it would be very hard to delude that many people who had been that close to Christ for as long as they were. It would also be difficult to believe that all of them suddenly suffered from the very same insanity and continued to do so until the end, because NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM recanted, even when doing so meant they would live.

That is my point about the martyrs. Not that they were willing to die, but that these particular ones, having SEEN what they did, were willing to die.3

About the Western Superiority and colonialism, Christianity has NOTHING to do with that. They are two separate things, and Christianity came out of the middle east in the first place. Believe me, I'm not the Patriotic kind of Christian with a flag in one hand and a beer in the other, waving my American flag while sitting in a lawn chair. You're prejudging the book without even seeing it. Honestly, LET ME BUY YOU A BOOK. I will pay for it and have it shipped to your house. If you want to read a little of it, then I would encourage you to do so, but it truly is convincing evidence and I wish that you would at least consider it.

I've looked at most religions out there. I have Muslim, Bahai, athiest, agnostic, Buddhist, Confucian, Jewish, Mormon, and Jehovah's witness friends (and more). I've been to some of their churches/temples/etc. I've read their texts. I've considered their teachings. I'm left with the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the one true God. It's not like I'm trying to prove myself right. I wasn't always a Christian, and I wanted to know the truth. I believe that I have found it, and so I try to lead others to the truth. That's why I'm sharing all that I am--in the hopes that it might help one of you to see that God can be approached as a Perfect Father that loves you and wants to have a relationship with you.

That's OK, I find the idea of a judgemental, egocentric God distasteful. Tell you what: in honour of the original question this thread posed, I won't force my ideas about what would make an acceptable deity down your throat. I won't imply that you'll be tortured for all eternity for not agreeing with me, either. I won't even suggest that your failure to concur with my opinion means that you'll miss out on infinite post-mortem whoopee.

Jeldred, I would love to hear them. Honestly, tell me what you think would be the perfect God, and I'll think about your answer and get back to you.

Upward
Yes, many have claimed to see UFOs, but note that these are all separate incidents, copy cat incidents. UFO spotters are often alone, often have conflicting stories, often don't see them in large groups. The apostles were all together in one place, all claimed the exact same thing at the exact same time. Will you admit that there is a difference?

That "Bad boy!" thing was an expression, not saying you did it, just the thing I've heard many, many parents say and isn't what I thought you did. So yes, it is my perception of how many parents act. I don't know you well enough to say how you act, and so I don't.

Mine is to impart wisdom, not to teach. Show, not to preach. Many things are instinctual, curiousity is one of them. If my son attempted to put a fork in an outlet, or course I would stop him! I wouldn't smack his hand away, I'd grab him, and tell him why it was dangerous. Besides, I've got covers on all my outlets. I've pre-emptively protected him.

And negative association isn't the only way of parenting.

Again, I am not saying that it is the only way. Negative associations are how we learn when we are very young. Nature teaches us not to touch hot things via pain. Pain is how we learn to not sit on anthills. Now that my children are older (14,11), I teach them when I can and discipline when they persist in foolishness.

[QUOTE=Jeldred]That's OK, I find the idea of a judgemental, egocentric God distasteful.
If you knew the cure for a terminal disease and you wanted to help people, you would naturally tell them the cure. As a Christian, this is the problem that we face. We see the secular world as having a terminal disease and all we are trying to do is give them the cure. The problem arises in the way this cure is offered.

As to your finding the idea of a judgemental, egocentric God distasteful, is that simply because you don't like the idea of someone telling you that you are not behaving the way YOU want to?

Alright, a simple explanation is that God is Ultimately Just and Ultimately Loving. His perfect justice requires something for our sin. He can't just wink and say, that's okay, and yet remain just. It just doesn't work. So his perfect justice requires a payment for our failure. But he's perfectly loving, so in order to deal with us in love, he took that payment upon himself. Because of that, we can approach him, but if we don't approach him, we're right where we were before. As well, you're using extremes when it comes to Francis and Hitler because of their actions, but actions don't truly matter, because, as I've said a dozen times already, it's not about what we do, but rather about what Christ has done. We accept the gift, that seals the deal. If we don't accept the gift, then we don't have the gift.

Rubbish, I'm afraid. I do not suggest that a putative God "winks and says, that's OK". He can find Hitler guilty, steeped in blood, sin and error -- but infinite love means, perforce, that he forgives him, mends him, and loves him. What are Hitler's crimes, what is any human "sin", in the face of a real God's mercy? I ask again, if Eva Moses Kor can forgive Mengele, then what is wrong with your God that he can't forgive the creatures whom he made imperfect?

I'm not talking about their miracles, I'm talking about their fairly natural deaths. The point I'm making is that they believed so strongly that they had seen a risen savior they were willing to die for it.

Again, the whole eyewitness thing. They didn't actually see anything, so the fact that they might have died for what they believed doesn't really play into this. The apostles claimed to have seen, touched, and talked to a risen savior.

No, the unsubstantiated documents which record their unverified lives and deaths claim that the apostles claim to have seen, touched, and talked to a dead saviour. Adamnan's Life of St Columba claimed that St Columba confronted a monster in Loch Ness, and prevented it from attacking a man in the water. Do you believe this?

How they managed to get past the Roman guards and roll away a two ton stone requires thought, though.

...assuming that there was a Roman guard and a two-ton stone. How do you know it weighed two tons?

Yeah, they do, but we're talking about a dozen apostles and still more disciples that ALL had to have suffered from the exact same delusion beginning at the same moment and lasting throughout their entire lives, all with matching stories and the willingness to die for what they believed, with not a single one of them recanting. That I find hard to believe.

No. Again, we're talking about documents which claim to record what the apostles and disciples said and did, written many years after the events they purport to describe, and carefully edited for some hundreds of years after that. What I find hard to believe are stories of things that don't happen: walking on water, magical transformations, resurrections, Loch Ness Monsters, etc. The world is full of stories about things that don't happen. many of them are very good stories. None of them are true.

Rubbish, I'm afraid. I do not suggest that a putative God "winks and says, that's OK". He can find Hitler guilty, steeped in blood, sin and error -- but infinite love means, perforce, that he forgives him, mends him, and loves him. What are Hitler's crimes, what is any human "sin", in the face of a real God's mercy? I ask again, if Eva Moses Kor can forgive Mengele, then what is wrong with your God that he can't forgive the creatures whom he made imperfect?

I wish I knew more about Eva Moses Kor to make a proper statement here. He can forgive- don't you see. He's made that offer, but if we don't accept it it is not worth anything. Eva Moses Kor suffered, she paid a price for Mengele's actions. When she forgave him, it wasn't free. She had paid this price. If a child breaks a lamp, the father can forgive, but someone still has to pay for the lamp. God paid for our sins. Now, we can accept that payment or reject it, and if we reject it, then we have rejected it. Mengele had the option of rejecting or accepting Kor's forgiveness. She could have loved him and invited him to dinner, to her house. He could spit in her face or he could come to dinner, but if he spits in her face, he's not getting her food. God doesn't make us do anything we don't want to do. If we want to go to Heaven, we have that choice, but if we don't, then there's not much more in the way of options.

Comments?


No, the unsubstantiated documents which record their unverified lives and deaths claim that the apostles claim to have seen, touched, and talked to a dead saviour. Adamnan's Life of St Columba claimed that St Columba confronted a monster in Loch Ness, and prevented it from attacking a man in the water. Do you believe this?

We know that the Apostles claimed this for a couple of reasons. 1) They wrote the texts of the NT, so their beliefs are laid out for us there. These texts are substantiated to be written by them (mostly) by multiple sources, through documentation, through document analysis, and other reasons. I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but if you want more I'll try to find some. 2) They died as Christians for their faith. These are historical accounts (I left some links a few posts back). So we know that they died for their faith. 3) We also know this because it was them that founded the Christian faith. You can see the effects to this day (admittedly, good and bad).



...assuming that there was a Roman guard and a two-ton stone. How do you know it weighed two tons?

I honestly don't know where to find documentation right now. Remind me later and I'll get back to you about it. I believe that was standard at the time, but there's likely more to back it up.


No. Again, we're talking about documents which claim to record what the apostles and disciples said and did, written many years after the events they purport to describe, and carefully edited for some hundreds of years after that. What I find hard to believe are stories of things that don't happen: walking on water, magical transformations, resurrections, Loch Ness Monsters, etc. The world is full of stories about things that don't happen. many of them are very good stories. None of them are true.

We have extant manuscripts within 50-100 or fewer years of every text of the NT. That's not enough time for stories to build and be edited. As well, note the no-nonsense style and understatement--typically myths build over time with exagerations. The texts have not been edited since that time, because the extant manuscripts are the same, and there are roughly 25,000 of them (compared to hundreds or tens of other neo-classical literature). As well, how do you know they are not true? That's a presupposition that has to be taken on faith. If this truly was God, it would make sense that he would do these things. Calling them false on the basis of their supernaturalism is not a credible argument because it requires a presupposition that must be taken on faith.

When someone comes up to me speaking about how a religion with such a history is about love and love, I have to question it. Sure, there's the arguments that A) Such acts were in the past, and B) Such acts were started by the Catholic system, which is by no means the entirity of Christianity. A) I consider to be an illogical dismissal (I had to piss five minutes ago, so of course I'll never have to piss again!), and B) The Catholic Church was the ONLY (I'm fairly sure) Christian organization for centuries, from which every other subsequent sect has sprung from in one fashion or another.

(a) The Catholic church was never the only Christian organization, nor have all (most, admittedly, but not all) Christian beliefs sprung from it.

(b) Not all Christians are a member of any given sect. Many of us can figure out that no one has it all right.

(c) In theory, a representative democracy is a great system. The people at the top, however, tend to get greedy and corrupt and misuse the system. Does that make the underlying idea bad?

On top of all this is the seemingly inherint hypocrisy which follows most Christians. I have yet to find a passage from the popular Bible ("Book") in which, for example, Jesus preaches that homosexuality is wrong, or that abortion is evil, or that hatred of any form is acceptable.

...which is why those who truly follow Christ's teachings don't harp on these things or espouse any type of hatred as acceptable.

As to what I have against evangilism/prolythising is something a bit different. People who perform such acts expect to be listened to without question, starting with the assumption that they themselves are right and any who believe differently are wrong. Such a belief causes one to express (not necessarily feel) a sense of superiority. This is not a good avenue to convince through love. Also, such a person will rarely, in my experience, seriously listen to someone else explain their own, unChristian beliefs, and will instead convey that such beliefs are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

And this is exactly the wrong tactic to take, as far as I am concerned.

Jeldred, I would love to hear them. Honestly, tell me what you think would be the perfect God, and I'll think about your answer and get back to you.

Infinite love. Beginning, middle and end of it. And he better have a damn good explanation for all the suffering and his lack of intervention, and for why we all have to jump through the hoop of earthly existence in order to get into Paradise. Why didn't he just make us perfect, like him, in the first place? Was he incapable? or did he just not want the competition? Sorry, getting sidetracked there. A being of infinite love, infinite compassion.


As to your finding the idea of a judgemental, egocentric God distasteful, is that simply because you don't like the idea of someone telling you that you are not behaving the way YOU want to?

No. I object to the fundamental lack of imagination it implies. I object to the idea that we're living in a universe run by a half-witted monster, who isn't even capable of achieving the levels of goodness that quite a lot of humans seem to be able to manage on a fairly regular basis. This is a moral objection. I also object to the levels of stupidity implicit in such a universe: that -- despite everything our (supposedly God-given) reason tells us -- we are actually living in a cheap-ass magic show with fake dinosaur fossils and a literal Bible. This is an intellectual objection. Finally, I prefer to have at least one iota of evidence before committing myself to fundamental beliefs.

Alright guys, I've got to go do some real studying (physics is killing me and I have a final in three hours). I will be back within a couple of days, and I'll read through every post and try to make some response. If you have something very important, email me at mhvaughan@hotmail.com. Until then, I wish you all well.

God's peace,
Michael Vaughan

Edit: Jeldred, I will get back to you. I'll think about your response for a while.

we deserve to get into heaven because we were made imperfect, suffered, made mistakes, loved, fought, struggled, hated and died, in ignorance and weakness. Moreover, if God is infinite love, there is no question of "deserve": we would get into heaven because God loves us. It is in his power to wipe away imperfection, to make good and pure. Why would he not? What's wrong with Him saying to St Francis, "Well done, my good creation. Come in and be welcome," and saying to Hitler, "Never mind, my imperfect creation, all is healed and made pure. Come in and be welcome." This whole wrath and punishment gig is just so... human. Bad human, at that. If a woman can forgive Dr Mengele for experimenting on her as a child, what, please tell me, is God's problem?

A lot of this is dependent on your definition of heaven and hell. In Scripture, heaven is being in the constant presence of God. Hell is being separated from God. To those who love God, being separated from God forever would be like suffering fire and brimstone, etc. To those who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to, is it really a punishment? Or an acknowledgement of their choice?

None of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. They contradict each other.

This is true. None of the apostles themselves ever wrote down their accounts. They were much too busy traveling and spreading them. Much later, their followers wrote down what they remembered of the original apostle's accounts. Is every detail absolutely right? Of course not. Is the main point? I believe so.

I wish I knew more about Eva Moses Kor to make a proper statement here. He can forgive- don't you see. He's made that offer, but if we don't accept it it is not worth anything. Eva Moses Kor suffered, she paid a price for Mengele's actions. When she forgave him, it wasn't free. She had paid this price. If a child breaks a lamp, the father can forgive, but someone still has to pay for the lamp. God paid for our sins. Now, we can accept that payment or reject it, and if we reject it, then we have rejected it. Mengele had the option of rejecting or accepting Kor's forgiveness. She could have loved him and invited him to dinner, to her house. He could spit in her face or he could come to dinner, but if he spits in her face, he's not getting her food. God doesn't make us do anything we don't want to do. If we want to go to Heaven, we have that choice, but if we don't, then there's not much more in the way of options.

How about the line, "Forgive them, father, for they know not what they do"? Forgiveness does not depend on whether or not it is accepted or rejected, or even if the guilty parties realises that they need it at all. Your idea of infinite love does not seem, to me, to be very infinite. Think about the word "infinite". You're a physics student. You know what it means.

We know that the Apostles claimed this for a couple of reasons. 1) They wrote the texts of the NT, so their beliefs are laid out for us there. These texts are substantiated to be written by them (mostly) by multiple sources, through documentation, through document analysis, and other reasons. I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but if you want more I'll try to find some. 2) They died as Christians for their faith. These are historical accounts (I left some links a few posts back). So we know that they died for their faith. 3) We also know this because it was them that founded the Christian faith. You can see the effects to this day (admittedly, good and bad).

I'm afraid you're wrong. The authors of the Gospels were not eye-witnesses. No serious Biblical historian even tries to claim they were. The Acts of the Apostles were not written by the Apostles. They are hagiographies, in the same tradition as later works such as Adamnan's Life of St Columba.

We have extant manuscripts within 50-100 or fewer years of every text of the NT. That's not enough time for stories to build and be edited. As well, note the no-nonsense style and understatement--typically myths build over time with exagerations. The texts have not been edited since that time, because the extant manuscripts are the same, and there are roughly 25,000 of them (compared to hundreds or tens of other neo-classical literature). As well, how do you know they are not true? That's a presupposition that has to be taken on faith. If this truly was God, it would make sense that he would do these things. Calling them false on the basis of their supernaturalism is not a credible argument because it requires a presupposition that must be taken on faith.

The whole of the New Testament (and chunks of the Old) were continually fiddled with and edited. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) finally produced the official, orthodox version, removing some gospels (e.g. Thomas, Mary Magdalene) and promoting others (e.g. John). Characters were altered in the texts to reinforce this editorial process: Mary Magdalene was turned into a "fallen woman", to detract from the popularity of the copies of the gospel attributed to her that were in circulation at the time. Thomas became "doubting" Thomas to similarly downplay the more humanistic interpretations of Jesus's life in the gospel credited to him. Myths build up very quickly, particularly in a credulous and superstitious age, particularly in a religion that's primed and waiting for the End of the World. The Council of Nicaea put the lid on this process.

I dismiss the supernatural elements in these stories for the same reason that I dismiss the supernatural elements in stories of King Arthur, or of Beowulf, or of Big Man, or of Coyote. You don't need "faith" to dismiss explanations that depend on magic. You only need it to believe in them, without any reliable evidence.

A lot of this is dependent on your definition of heaven and hell. In Scripture, heaven is being in the constant presence of God. Hell is being separated from God. To those who love God, being separated from God forever would be like suffering fire and brimstone, etc. To those who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to, is it really a punishment? Or an acknowledgement of their choice?

An interesting point. But could such a choice be valid, if it was not properly informed? Why should people have to believe in certain, from my point of view unbelievable, things, in order to get special treatment after they die? What about all the people who died without ever having a chance to learn the "true faith"? What about all the people who only hear garbled versions of it, swamped in another, idolatrous, culture?

None of the apostles themselves ever wrote down their accounts. They were much too busy traveling and spreading them. Much later, their followers wrote down what they remembered of the original apostle's accounts. Is every detail absolutely right? Of course not. Is the main point? I believe so.

Fair enough. Intelligent faith. More power to your spiritual elbow!

I'm afraid you're wrong. The authors of the Gospels were not eye-witnesses. No serious Biblical historian even tries to claim they were.


Actually, there is still lots of discussion over whether or not John was written by Jonh on the grounds that he never refers to himself throught in the original language. Roughly translated, the parts that are described as being John in the other gospels are in Johns gospels refer to him as "the disciple who Jesus loved". There is a great deal of debate over other factors about it too, not all of which I can recal but I would advise you to look it up.

An interesting point. But could such a choice be valid, if it was not properly informed? Why should people have to believe in certain, from my point of view unbelievable, things, in order to get special treatment after they die? What about all the people who died without ever having a chance to learn the "true faith"? What about all the people who only hear garbled versions of it, swamped in another, idolatrous, culture?

My personal belief is that is revealed to us in many ways. If we accept God, we will find the spiritual path we should take.

WARNING: What I am about to say would be considered rather heretical by most churches.

As for a "true faith", while I believe there may be such a thing, I don't think that anyone has actually found it yet. There is truth in all faiths, although certainly more truth in some than others. I think there are many ways to worship, some perhaps better than others, but I do not claim to know for sure. I do not claim to know how much acceptance is necessary. I think if you love God, you will eventually end up in God's presence. Christ's message was important, and - I think - necessary for my own spiritual path. I do not feel that all who have not heard that message will be separated from God, however.

Actually, there is still lots of discussion over whether or not John was written by Jonh on the grounds that he never refers to himself throught in the original language. Roughly translated, the parts that are described as being John in the other gospels are in Johns gospels refer to him as "the disciple who Jesus loved". There is a great deal of debate over other factors about it too, not all of which I can recal but I would advise you to look it up.

One such item of contention is whether or not the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is indicative of a homosexual love affair. That's a can of worms I'm not going to open. Or rather, having opened it, I'm going to run away from. :) Frankly, it's far more likely that the sentence was inserted to promote the idea of John (assuming there was such an individual) as a "special" disciple, and to reinforce the more ecstatic, mystical ideas in the Gospel attributed to him. It was one (big) move in the whole "was Jesus divine/equal to God/actually literally God in person?" argument that plagued Christianity for much of the first millennium.

My personal belief is that is revealed to us in many ways. If we accept God, we will find the spiritual path we should take.

WARNING: What I am about to say would be considered rather heretical by most churches.

As for a "true faith", while I believe there may be such a thing, I don't think that anyone has actually found it yet. There is truth in all faiths, although certainly more truth in some than others. I think there are many ways to worship, some perhaps better than others, but I do not claim to know for sure. I do not claim to know how much acceptance is necessary. I think if you love God, you will eventually end up in God's presence. Christ's message was important, and - I think - necessary for my own spiritual path. I do not feel that all who have not heard that message will be separated from God, however.

Again, more power to you. Intelligent faith I can respect. I don't understand it, but I can respect it.

Again, more power to you. Intelligent faith I can respect. I don't understand it, but I can respect it.

Jeldred, I understand the desire to actually know. A lot of what you are saying is based on uninformed opinions (at best) or lies (at worst) that you have been told about the Bible and Christianity. I would suggest that if you _really_ _want_ _to_ _know_, are really intent on investigating this, to start here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html
But I warn you: you had better think and do the research before you challenge him.

One such item of contention is whether or not the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is indicative of a homosexual love affair.

I think there was also something about this in the Secret Gospel of Mark, which was quite a bit more blatant.

if you want more detail on what i believe, it can all be found within the front and back covers of the bible, I would suggest the living bible version, its easier to read then the king james version, written in old elizebethan english ;)

Interestingly enough I want to know what criteria was used when the New Testament was compiled from all of the writing of the time. I mean really, there was probably just as much floating around as there is now, just the church said all but what we put in the bible is horse crap and not of the lord. I also would like to know what "version" of the New Testament is closest to the original. I mean with the King James version being the ma in source for so many people and having so many poetic changes made to it by the dear King James. I mean how much of the words was kept intact?


The truth about God is He DOES love you and wants a personal relationship with you, thats what salvation is about, getting to know and love God, that is what God wants,

That is very true Freelance, you put it in the right words there, "a personal relationship". I'm am in no way attacking you or anything of the like, just using your words as a jumping board.

A personal relationship, I have heard it said like that in so many methodist churches (it's what I was raised). But this raises a very good arguement. A personal relationship is between you and god, no one else. No church, no priest/cleric/priestess/father/minister/whatever-you-call-them, no person on the street/door step/email/wherever. I have a personal relationship with the divine and through that relationship I have drastically changed my religious beliefs in such a manner that I do not follow the tenets of any 1 religion, but pieces ofmany if not all of them. I believe that the immensity of the divine can not be boxed up into a pretty package, but pieces of it can be and thus we have different religions. Many have something in common with each other, some aspect or tenet of faith, could that be the bit of truth of the divine that the whole of the religion is trying to explain?

Think about it for a minute. How many different relationships do people have with you? How about you with other people? I mean you don't have the same relationship with your mother as your father or even your grandfather does. Just like you don't have the same relationship with your boss as another co-worker or even a customer (either internal or external customer). I'm sure many of you with siblings didn't have the same relationship with your parents and your siblings.

Now a thought as to why Christians, or many, feel the need to convert others. Just from my experience of course so it is OBVIOUSLY tainted with my experiences and how I view the world. My fiancee is christian and when we have conversations on religion she gets quite defensive and sometimes won't talk religion at all, at least not as I view it. She gets scared because it causes her to think and call to question her beliefs as they have been given to her from the church. She does not have a personal relationship with god I believe for if she did then all the things that come up in question for her woudn't be an issue any more because she would either accept them whole heartedly or dismiss them as nonesense. A perfect example is she admires many people that have done alot of good in the world, and she asked me the other day if I thought they were in heaven. I said, "Well that depends. According to your beliefs from the church, no. They are burnig in hell right now because they did not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. While according to their beliefs they are."

look through the peep hole in your door and see what you see. Not the whole picture of what's outside your door. I think that's how it is with religion, no one can truly understand the divine because we do not have the senses or capacity to under stand it, so we take what we can and try to explain that. Everybody explains it differently.


Why can't we all just allow each other to have their "personal relationship with god"? Without having to push to them our relationship with the divine?

Interestingly enough I want to know what criteria was used when the New Testament was compiled from all of the writing of the time. I mean really, there was probably just as much floating around as there is now, just the church said all but what we put in the bible is horse crap and not of the lord.

At the time, every church had their own texts that they used. Those who came together to create an official canon looked for which writings were used by the most (or all) of the churches. There was also some political maneuvering, of course, so that the bishops with more power got more of their favorite books in.

I also would like to know what "version" of the New Testament is closest to the original.

The New Revised Standard Version (of both the New and Old) is often mentioned as the most accurate. The translators went back to the oldest available texts and translated directly to English from those. They also noted where words/meanings are disputed. There are, however, possibly still mistakes.

I mean with the King James version being the ma in source for so many people and having so many poetic changes made to it by the dear King James. I mean how much of the words was kept intact?

The King James version is junk. Not only is it a translation of a translation (of a translation, in the case of the OT) put together after many, many scribings, it was also purposely altered to ensure that nothing King James might object to was included.

But in that case you are not "choosing" to believe you just do or you dont
its not a concious decision
because if you make that decision it is no longer soly a belief

Wha? Elaborate, please.

(a) ML would not have started protestantism if the corrupt church had not kicked him out.

(b) What is so wrong with protestants?


If martin luther disagreed with christianity he had no business being in the church, and no excuse to start his own religion, especially one so vile.

Protestantism created the disastrous notion of "salvation through faith" rather than "works," it removed the necessity to do good and created a mindset where good people are damned. Nothing but pathology can come from such twisted notions, and this assaulted reason itself. It created the means for the most corrupt and mediocre and base to considerthemselves the judges of the good and just.

This led to the removal of intellectual rigor from protestantism and to the wasteland of american 'evangelical' christianity today. It was also directly responsible for wars between prots and catholics.

Furthermore, it derailed the proper and natural decline of christianity.

Speaking more to the pathology of protestant philosophy, it removed the structured foundation of the christian faith and cast its believers into anxiety and uncertainty and guilt. I firmly believe that at the heart of every 'evangelical' is the notion that god may not let them into heaven unless their faith is impeccable, and that regardless of the "salvation through faith" maxim, they need to demonstrate this by making everyone follow protestantism.

Christianity allows people to confess their sins and show contrition and be absolved, it removes the weight from their shoulders and gives structure to their life and an outlet to pent-up shame and guilt. This is why catholics are not driven to idiocy and absurdity by their religion, as are american protestants.

Also, i have suspicious that the unforgiving nature of american protestants stems from their own perpetual state of guilt that results from their inability to confess and be absolved.

Never forget that the church has stopped denying science but that the "evangelicals," in true barbaric fashion, continue to do so.

It is why they are untrustworthy, because they have no regard for truth.

It's merely annoying.
Christians, imagine an atheist leaving his literature on your door several times a week. Imagine him knocking on your door a couple of times a month trying to convince you of the error of your ways. Wouldn't you get annoyed?
Some Christians would be downright outraged.

It's merely annoying.
Christians, imagine an atheist leaving his literature on your door several times a week. Imagine him knocking on your door a couple of times a month trying to convince you of the error of your ways. Wouldn't you get annoyed?
Some Christians would be downright outraged.


Precisely, how often to atheists knock on the door and say "we've come to let you know that jesus didnt die for your sins and your relatives are not in heaven" or "when you pray you are just talking to yourself like a crazy person."

How would you feel if they left books to that effect?

What if your kids had to say, every morning "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, jesus was not the son of god, muhammad was crazy and abraham is as fake as mickey mouse."

The idea of christian persecution in america today is perverse and speaks to a more broad dishonesty among the science deniers and 'evangelicals'

If martin luther disagreed with christianity he had no business being in the church, and no excuse to start his own religion, especially one so vile.

Wow. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

How does pointing out corruption (corruption the church itself has since admitted to) amount to "disagreeing with Christianity"?

Protestantism created the disastrous notion of "salvation through faith" rather than "works," it removed the necessity to do good and created a mindset where good people are damned.

That's funny, considering that the Catholic church itself adopted the idea of salvation through faith alone. In fact, when Pelagius had the audacity to suggest that a person might have to take the first step towards God, he was immediately declared to be a heretic. This idea didn't come from Luther, it came from Augustine. If you disagree with Augustine, that is fine.

Meanwhile, the doctrine did not "remove the necessity to do good". In fact, it specifically stated that you will know those who truly have faith by their good works. In other words, if you have faith, you will do good. If you are not doing good, you do not have faith. See?

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

How would you feel if I went up to any of your children and convinced them to become Zoroastrians and accept the Avesta and Gathas? To worship only Ohrmazd and to accept the teachings of Zarathustra. Sounds offensive, doesn't it? Now ask yourself again, why is this wrong.

Meanwhile, the doctrine did not "remove the necessity to do good". In fact, it specifically stated that you will know those who truly have faith by their good works. In other words, if you have faith, you will do good. If you are not doing good, you do not have faith. See?


Completely incorrect.

Protestantism established the idea that the righteous pagan is damned to hell because he doesnt have faith in jesus, as actions are not the deciding factor but rather faith in jesus.

The suggestion is made that people who have faith will do good works, but the corrolation between the good works themself and salvation from hell is abolished.

Completely incorrect.

Protestantism established the idea that the righteous pagan is damned to hell because he doesnt have faith in jesus, as actions are not the deciding factor but rather faith in jesus.

The suggestion is made that people who have faith will do good works, but the corrolation between the good works themself and salvation from hell is abolished.

(a) The idea is that the pagan doing good works does not have faith, which is necessary for entry into heaven. This does not change the fact that both Catholic and many Protestant doctrines say you will know the faithful by their works.

(a) You ignore the fact that what you are stating - that good works come from faith but it is the faith that sends you to heaven comes directly from Catholic doctrine. This stuff is straight out of Augustine - and was adopted almost to a tee by the Catholic church (they balked a bit at his predestinationism - something Calivn later fully adopted).

Be honest with yourself. If Christianity could be proven to you, would you believe it and follow Christ? I think the first book provides a start, and I believe the second truly does prove the case. I would invite you to read them; at least find out all you can about our claim so you can be sure one way or the other.

Been a Christian. Read the bible, cover to cover, hundreds of times... and not just one translation... not even just one language.

There is no evidence for God... thus I am an Atheist (Implicit Atheist).

If there was evidence for a 'god'... I would believe in (that) 'god'.

But, unfortunately... it doesn't work like that.

Its refering to other idols or things you treat as a God. If you treat something else in a Godly way, IE being obsessed with it or somehow worshiping it, devoting unreasonable ammounts of time to it etc, then you are treeting it as a God. Many people make the mistake that this is just refering to statues and pictures, but it can be a girl/boyfriend who you are placing in value over God, money, a possession etc. Just anything you are valuing above God.

So, the word 'god' doesn't necessarily mean a god?

Curious... the whole bible is now a text that is about an entity that might just be someone's girlfriend/boyfriend/hobby/job...

At the time, every church had their own texts that they used. Those who came together to create an official canon looked for which writings were used by the most (or all) of the churches. There was also some political maneuvering, of course, so that the bishops with more power got more of their favorite books in.

That's my point precisely. The new testament isn't the way it is because they wanted it to be true, but instead the majority ruled. Politics and majority, what a way for a "truth" to be decided upon. I mean really would you stake your soul on what a bunch of politicians and the majority said? I wouldn't. I mean hell, Americans can't even agree on whether to trust our politicians on our government and we put them there!



The New Revised Standard Version (of both the New and Old) is often mentioned as the most accurate. The translators went back to the oldest available texts and translated directly to English from those. They also noted where words/meanings are disputed. There are, however, possibly still mistakes.

Thanks for that clear up. Though there are version that have the original text next to the translation, How come people don't quote these version or even refer to them? How come when people are running around saying believe everything in this book as truth it's the KJV or NIV? There is something seriously wrong with spouting version that are not the most accurate as sources of ultimate truth.


The King James version is junk. Not only is it a translation of a translation (of a translation, in the case of the OT) put together after many, many scribings, it was also purposely altered to ensure that nothing King James might object to was included.

That again is my point exactly. How long has that version been in use? It's nothing more than christianity seen through King James' perverted oulook of the world at large.

Also it was mentioned previously with the expulsion of other books from the new testament that mary was made out to be a whore and such. I mean the church has only recently (in the 60's I believe, could be wrong) apologized and said that that's not right. Makes you wonder what else they have been saying that's wrong and don't want to admit.

Yes, many have claimed to see UFOs, but note that these are all separate incidents, copy cat incidents. UFO spotters are often alone, often have conflicting stories, often don't see them in large groups. The apostles were all together in one place, all claimed the exact same thing at the exact same time. Will you admit that there is a difference?

The problem here is twofold.... ONE: The apostles didn't write the Gospels... and TWO: More witnesses watched a UFO crash in Tunguska, that allegedly saw Jesus die.

Thus - if your logic of the multiplicity of witnesses equating to truth is worth anything... UFO's are more 'true' than Jesus' crucifixion.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.
What? Converted may be a religious term, but it's the same principle. Yeah, Christians come to your door and try to convert you, but you can't turn on the television without hearing that atheism is right. Personally, i get atheism thrown in my face a lot more than Christianity. i mean, what's the difference between Christians saying I'm Right And You Need To Save Your Soul, and atheists saying I'm Right And You Are A Brainless, Narrow Minded Idiot? Nothing, except that Christians are try to save you from eternal damnation, and Atheists are trying to make you feel like an idiot. :confused:

the problem lies in that they come to you without you asking for it, without you wanting it. You can mute or just turn off the TV, the only way to shut the other up is to sew their mouths shut. I mean I've been walking down the street and come up upon and asked if I have found Jesus. What gets me is the assumption that I haven't, he didn't know me, didn't know anything about me. For all he knew I could have BEEN Jesus returned to send all none believers to hell. I mean really?! How stupid would he have felt If I was indeed Jesus come again and he asked me that. I could have said "Yes I have son, every time I look in the mirror. Now go home and be with your family for the end is near."

I mean really the whole obsession with Jesus really gets me for one. Jesus said that the number 1 commandment was to love God with all your mind body and spirit. Atleast the Jewish still love YHVH while the Christians seem to be more concerned with Jesus than God himself, and the saving of every last man woman and child's soul. What if someone is a die hard masochist and the idea of eternal torment sounds like a vacation filled with unequalled joy?

Wow, its amazing to see people actually comparing Christian bible thumping to Atheist, well Atheist anything. As a practicing Atheist I never try to convert anyone to believe what I believe or disbelieve anything I don't believe EXCEPT when THEY initiate the conversation. If you are going to sit there and explain to me what a sinner I am, and what sinners we all are, and how we are all going to hell if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior, then you better be prepared to hear what I have to say. When was the last time you turned on TV and saw a bunch of Atheists with microphones in their hands standing in front of a live audience begging for money to help "spread the word of Atheism"? When was the last time an Atheist group asked you to donate 10% of all your earnings to them? How about the last time you saw an Atheist try to "heal" someone simply by touching their forehead? Come on people, wake up and smell your ignorance.

I - I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.

II - You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

III - Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.

IV - Honor your father and mother.

V - You shall not kill.

VI - You shall not commit adultery.

VII - You shall not steal.

VIII - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

IX - You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife.

X - You shall not desire your neighbor’s goods.

I just wanted to ask WHERE is the commandement THOU SHALL CONVERT OTHERS UNTO OUR FAITH? Sheer bollocks! If you want to look at it from the christianity's side let me remind you the ONLY written word of god we poor bipeds ever recieved was on those clay tablets. And we only have the word of a bearded guy who claims he was talking to a burning bush.

Personally i think christians should back off of those of us who don't want your faith.You say you might meet a person who wants your faith, sure but why do you need al those churches then? Just put big ol' neon signs on em and advertise what your religion has to offer. Just don't get all huffy when the others decide it's a good idea and copy it.

And how can you trully follow a faith that has caused more death and persecution and suffering that any other religion has? THOU SHALL NOT KILL , does that ring a bell? Or is it THOU SHALL NOT KILL A CHRISTIAN BUT IT'S OK TO KILL AN INFIDEL? Sure let's rewrite the commadements we'll call em the X commandemets V 2,0 beta.

And I refuse to follow a religion that tries to conceal paedophiliacs in their ranks. How many of those pastors will trully serve their time for the horrible sins they commited. Will they go to heaven because they are priests anyway?

I don't know if god exists or not. But from what I hear from ministers, priests and other clerics, he/she/it must be heavily biased. And if we are his "children" he is one lousy parent. If I were god I'd try to reason with you, try talking to you and not cast your arse into the fiery pit because you skipped that one sunday morning.So much for parental LOVE.

The Catholic church "renounces" all material wealth....Yes indeed ever been to the Vatican?My uncle works there perhaps you saw him he's the Nuncius. It's very poor I asure you only a few hundred billion worth of stuff is stored in there from gold, to art, to rare texts and artifacts.

The list goes on from pogroms to holy wars, the catholic church has so much blood on it's hands that it will never loose it's dark renome. "Yes but Pope John II appologized"...Yeah like one short speech will undo the horrors ranging from the slaughter of Indians in southern America to the "Holy" Inquisition. All of these acts were never about faith at all just political and material gain. Not to mention that pretty much every governement in europe was a puppet dancing to the tune of the Vatican.

Christians have your faith absolutely!The 10 commandements are excelent rules to follow. But just how many of you trully follow them? Does the clergyman in your church trully follow them? Yes have god in your heart, and I restate YOUR heart not MINE. If I shall ever want your faith I WILL SEEK YOU OUT,I don't need you knocking at my door, bothering me at work, arsing me while I'm taking a walk through the park,If I'll look for you I will find you. You are very hard to miss,believe me. And the all interesting counter "How can you say thatQ? Jezus died for your sins!", first of all I didn't ask him to, secondly if he died for my sins aren't I aquited of them and admited to heaven free of charge?
And I trully think if Jezus came back today he would colapse into a fetal position and cry his eyes out. So to all "converters" out there try to make yourself the best christian you can afore you try to make another person take up your faith or preaching to them what they have done wrong.

I've never forced my views of my faith onto others because it IS MY FAITH and MINE ALONE(i believe in myself, that I must aid my friends and family and to honour my ancestors and nature) if you want to discuss religions fine, just don't get angry at me for being different. Also christians always arrive with an "hollier than thou" attitude that really pisses me off. You preach to me about being a better man when just yesterday I saw him driving around drunk. Sheer hypocrisy.

Also I failt to see why so many zealots are women. They preach a faith that has kept them in a submissive role for thousands of years. Where in the ten commandements does it say THY WOMAN MUST OBEY THEE BLINDLY? If Eve was made of Adam and she was submissive then I choose the daughters of Lilith any day!And also how can they insist on being zealots when they get blamed for bassicaly getting us kicked out of heaven to Delilah playing stylis, etc. etc.

Also where in the bible does it say THOU SHALL NOT BE GAY? How is it contradictory to be gay and a christian? Few people know this but this whole intolerance stemed from the time of the black plague when mortaility was so high that every man and woman were asked to produce as many children as possible.(hence came the big no no on masturbation too"Every sperm is saaaacred, every sperm is goooood...)And ever since they were persecuted. Let them be what they want to be. It's their choice! A profesor at the university of theology said. If you MUST love God and we always refer to God as HE, isn't that homosexual or even worse if he is our father a tad incestual(yes he put it that crudely!)???

Also christians really frown on marriages from mixed religions, in the bible it acctually says a christian MAY wed a non-believer if his/her spouse will permit the children to be brought up as christians.

Also this entire thread was started by a christian again trying to force his views and getting offended by others discussing it So if you must state who is supperior the person who tries discussing his views or the one getting angry and leaving without letting the opposition speak it's way?Why should I worship the same way/things you do!?!?

Ok this one is horrendously rude and I appologise for it before hand: Jezus is the son of God( or to some he IS God) so this little thing: IX - You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife. Khm eeem pardon me your holy grand hollyness thou art divine and perfect. But why did you take a married woman to be the mother of your son?Isn't that a tad of a violation of the rules? Or is god exempt from the rules? Kinda makes it unfair on us lowly humans that he made the rules but we have to follow them. Al Pacino said it interestingly in Devil's Advocate: "Cause he is a sadist, look but don't touch, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow! HE IS up there laughing his ass off"
And this one was classic too: " Yeah but the book says you loose in the end!" And the reply is killer "Yes it does BUT CONSIDER the source!"

For the last paragraph and for all I have written I appologise If I offended but these are my viewpoints, honour them if you are a good person or just get pissed off. Just remember respect your neighbour.

What if someone is a die hard masochist and the idea of eternal torment sounds like a vacation filled with unequalled joy? Interesting thought there! MY god Hell is filled math students, bdsm enthusiasts and flagelants! :p

No one is going to come to your house and force you to be Christian/Atheist. State your peice, read the other argument, and arrive at your decision. Leave the arrogance at the door, please.

Well actually these christians come door knocking all the time

Force you no, no one can force you to believe or think a certain a way, bug the crap out of you until you want to shoot them, yes. That's just it, people who are not interested in being christians and even people who are christians are bombarded with people trying to save them when they never asked to be saved. I mean really, it's like the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". Sunday mornings and all over the place are christian churchs and sermons, surely us non-believers have been led to the waters of christianity. Leave it at that. The protlythising feels as if you are trying to force us to drink. Besides as it was said before and I agreed with religion should be a very personal relationship with the divine. Why does my relationship have to be the same as yours before you leave me alone? You don't have the same relationship with my father as I do why should my relationship with the divine be any different?

Is it really any different than say if Canada came down to America and said you're not living right we're here to fix your government and change everything for you. We're just fine the way we are, sure we have problems but they are our problems and we deal with them in our own way. Really no different than someone coming over and saying you're living wrong and I'm gonna fix you for your own sake.

Interesting thought there! MY god Hell is filled math students, bdsm enthusiasts and flagelants! :p
Those are the happy ones, everyone else are just miserable heathens! :p :D

And I think if more christians replied in this way: http://www.truthpizza.org/post/nitardy2.htm
Other people might be far more interested in acctually debating with you. Learn from his example. If you won't you0ll just alienate yourselves even more and the world will get even more tense because of the greater and greater level of intolerance.

I'm not going to state my opinion either way on the reliability of the Gospels, but here are a few links from various standpoints that I think SHOULD BE READ before you guys continue just flat out denying (or supporting) anything. This is, by the way, based on the most easily organized I could find, so this first one has OT as well.

Here's one for the Christian dates:
http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

Here's a non-Christian source:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dating-the-bible

And here's one that gives both sides (I apologize if your firewall doesn't block the ads):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cs.htm

The second and third both have quite a bit of reading involved (I thought the third was actually rather stimulating). The third one also involves quite a bit of scrolling to actually get to the links, which I believe are about halfway down the page if the ads don't appear....perhaps three quarters down otherwise? For interested parties, there are also links on that page about translation errors and forgeries.

Unfortunately, the site I previously used for a paper has been shut down, but it had an extensive article that dealt with possible forgeries/errors in the Bible, and an especially long and interesting section on Mark's account of what happened while Jesus was, by all accounts, alone at Gethsemane. However, if I can find another site as extensive in information supporting both sides of the road, I'll be sure to post it.

One last thing, in case you decide to overlook the links and take my words in terms of "errors and forgeries" as any sort of reliable proof that the Bible is ficton or whatever.....at least go to the forgeries page on the third link and read the disclaimer. Calling it a "forgery" by today's standards does NOT mean it wasn't common practice back then to write something emulating the style, and under the name of, an admired philosopher/religious leader.

Thanks for your time, if indeed you take the time to read it. After all, I took time from my studying for finals to provide this possibly-valuable information....

Jeldred, I understand the desire to actually know. A lot of what you are saying is based on uninformed opinions (at best) or lies (at worst) that you have been told about the Bible and Christianity. I would suggest that if you _really_ _want_ _to_ _know_, are really intent on investigating this, to start here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html
But I warn you: you had better think and do the research before you challenge him.

Errr... eh? I'm sorry, I don't see how this website is supposed to change my opinion about the Bible, or about Christianity, or about religion in general. I agree with the basic sentiment of the page you referred me to, i.e. an argument between a skeptic and a believer gets nowhere -- but that's because the whole question of belief is not subject to rational debate. People either believe, for reasons which are obscure to me, or they do not. I'm afraid nothing on the above site deals with the propensity of human beings to make up fantastical stories out of thin air, and then insist that these are either literally true, or even just illustrative of some sort of "higher truth". For example, Adamnan's Life of St Columba. This was written less than 100 years after Columba's death, and to that extent is comparable with the Gospels. Like practically all hagiographies, it details numerous miraculous events, including a magical duel with a Pictish druid and Columba saving a man from the jaws of a kelpie in Loch Ness. If you believe in the various miracles of Christ as recounted in the Gospels, do you believe that Columba fought the Loch Ness Monster? If not, why not?

Protestantism established the idea that the righteous pagan is damned to hell because he doesnt have faith in jesus, as actions are not the deciding factor but rather faith in jesus.

No, it didn't. Look at Dante's Divine Comedy, for example -- as beautiful an illustration of late 13th/early 14th-century scholarly Catholic orthodoxy as it's possible to find. The very first circle of Hell is reserved for "virtuous pagans". It's where Dante meets Virgil. OK, it's a nice place; trees, grass, all very plush and arcadian, but they're still damned for all eternity and it's still in Hell. Or see if you can find the early Irish manuscript, detailing the fictional debate between St Patrick and Ossian: Ossian asks Patrick if his father, Finn, and the other heroes of the Fianna will be in this Christian heaven, and is disgusted when Patrick tells him "no"; Ossian feels that the Christian God's meanness in this regard contrasts unfavourably with his ideals of generosity and open hospitality.

No, it didn't. Look at Dante's Divine Comedy, for example -- as beautiful an illustration of late 13th/early 14th-century scholarly Catholic orthodoxy as it's possible to find. The very first circle of Hell is reserved for "virtuous pagans". It's where Dante meets Virgil. OK, it's a nice place; trees, grass, all very plush and arcadian, but they're still damned for all eternity and it's still in Hell. Or see if you can find the early Irish manuscript, detailing the fictional debate between St Patrick and Ossian: Ossian asks Patrick if his father, Finn, and the other heroes of the Fianna will be in this Christian heaven, and is disgusted when Patrick tells him "no"; Ossian feels that the Christian God's meanness in this regard contrasts unfavourably with his ideals of generosity and open hospitality.
Dante wrote that as a political strike against his opposition, that's not the Church definition of Hell. Hell is, as has been said thousands of times before, an absence of God. For true Christians, it's sure to be harsh. But the Church never officially endorsed Dante's literary definition, nor do they teach multiple "levels" of Hell in most modern congregations.

Just friendly corrections.....lots of people point to Dante as Church based evidence.

Simonist']Dante wrote that as a political strike against his opposition, that's not the Church definition of Hell. Hell is, as has been said thousands of times before, an absence of God. For true Christians, it's sure to be harsh. But the Church never officially endorsed Dante's literary definition, nor do they teach multiple "levels" of Hell in most modern congregations.

Just friendly corrections.....lots of people point to Dante as Church based evidence.

Fair enough, Dante's is a literary, and not scriptural, vision, although it conforms to the religious orthodoxy of his day and hence does demonstrate that medieval Catholicism believed that pagans, virtuous or not, were going to Hell. But even today it's tricky to claim that Hell is merely the "absence of God" and remain close to the (rather fuzzy) bounds of Christian orthodoxy. The Apostles' Creed states that Christ

"born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead."

Can God descend into the absence of God?

It is arguable that the "Hell" mentioned in the Apostles' Creed is due to a mistranslation of the first epistle of Peter, which was (probably) describing a more Hades-like "prison" for spirits. But it's still there in the Bible as a real place where spirits of the dead end up.

Fair enough, Dante's is a literary, and not scriptural, vision, although it conforms to the religious orthodoxy of his day and hence does demonstrate that medieval Catholicism believed that pagans, virtuous or not, were going to Hell. But even today it's tricky to claim that Hell is merely the "absence of God" and remain close to the (rather fuzzy) bounds of Christian orthodoxy. The Apostles' Creed states that Christ

"born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead."

Can God descend into the absence of God?

It is arguable that the "Hell" mentioned in the Apostles' Creed is due to a mistranslation of the first epistle of Peter, which was (probably) describing a more Hades-like "prison" for spirits. But it's still there in the Bible as a real place where spirits of the dead end up.
See, when we learned the Apostles' Creed, it was JESUS that descended into Hell. And at least in our classes, we differentiated that Jesus, though deified and definitely a Divinity, was NOT necessarily the same as God. Therefore.....I'm not quite seeing eye-to-eye with you on this one. Mine reads exactly (yeah, I still have the card they gave us....pinned up by the picture of the Virgin and my rosary on my wall in my dorm room):
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creater of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead...." et cetera, obviously you know the rest.

Wow, the past few hours I've been debating a lot with people on the same basic side as me......I'm nto good at making friends :(

Simonist']See, when we learned the Apostles' Creed, it was JESUS that descended into Hell. And at least in our classes, we differentiated that Jesus, though deified and definitely a Divinity, was NOT necessarily the same as God. Therefore.....I'm not quite seeing eye-to-eye with you on this one. Mine reads exactly (yeah, I still have the card they gave us....pinned up by the picture of the Virgin and my rosary on my wall in my dorm room):
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creater of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead...." et cetera, obviously you know the rest.

Wow, the past few hours I've been debating a lot with people on the same basic side as me......I'm nto good at making friends :(

:) No complaints here... I'm interested to learn that you were taught that Jesus wasn't necessarily the same as God. What version of Christianity was this? I ask because this was one huge big theological hoo-haa in the Middle Ages. The final, beaten-to-death orthodoxy of Western Christianity was expressed diagrammatically in the "shield of God": basically, a triangle with the words "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost" on the three corners, all linked by lines reading "is not" (the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father). In the middle of the triangle was the word "GOD", and all three corners had lines leading to this central point reading "is". In short the three Persons of the Trinity were regarded as distinct from each other, but all three were aspects of the one God. I'm just pleased that after all that effort, from the Council of Nicaea onwards, to enforce one version of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, there are still people being taught what sounds like a version of Arianism in the 21st century!

:) No complaints here... I'm interested to learn that you were taught that Jesus wasn't necessarily the same as God. What version of Christianity was this? I ask because this was one huge big theological hoo-haa in the Middle Ages. The final, beaten-to-death orthodoxy of Western Christianity was expressed diagrammatically in the "shield of God": basically, a triangle with the words "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost" on the three corners, all linked by lines reading "is not" (the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father). In the middle of the triangle was the word "GOD", and all three corners had lines leading to this central point reading "is". In short the three Persons of the Trinity were regarded as distinct from each other, but all three were aspects of the one God. I'm just pleased that after all that effort, from the Council of Nicaea onwards, to enforce one version of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, there are still people being taught what sounds like a version of Arianism in the 21st century!
Actually I learned this in a Catholic school. I think when it came to our classes (because though from a large area (basically the Kansas City area), we were small), the Sisters kind of taught us more based on what they thought we'd understand better. I just can't imagine that a small child will be able to grasp somebody trying to say "Well yes, it's the Holy Trinity, there are three distinct factors.....but it's all the same, it's all God". Furthermore, as you mentioned, the Vatican acknowledges at this point that Jesus was deified far later down the road (I used to know but it's kinda hazy....I've been up for over 24 hrs straight now), which is when they stopped teaching that he was a mortal as well as the Son of God. My priest has always encouraged me to study other religions and the background of my own, so I guess it's pretty "remarkable" by most accounts that I know so many "falsehoods" of modern Catholicism and still actively practice.

Anyway....I don't want to go any further, because I'm almost CERTAIN there are going to be Catholics that were taught differently, and the last thing I need right now is a huge argument with somebody that is technically on essentially the same faith system as myself. However, you can email me if you wish (actually anybody can), it's easiest to get me at painted.morning@gmail.com, but I'm gonna have to go for now. My sister's got a Music Performance Jury in a few hours and I probably need to get her the music and be there for moral support.

It's been a wonderful discussion....I'll probably be back this evening :D

I have no problem discussing Christianity with others as long as they are respectful to me when they do it. When you put up a post saying why others beliefs are wrong then I have a problem. There is a major difference between spreading the word & attacking the beliefs of others. Too many Christians do that.
This can give Christians a very bad name & most peoplke will then assume having a religous conversation will involve being told how wrong their core beliefs are.
How well do you take to being told Christanity is wrong by others?
I grew up Catholic but left the church because my heart & soul told me I belonged down a different path. I have my own beliefs about God, people, the universe & such. I don't expect anyone else to follow my beliefs because they are mine. I will talk to anyone who asks me about it & I will never tell anyone their beliefs are wrong as long as they are not harming others.
I will continue to support anyone who believes christianity is right because I believe above all else in being respectfull to other beliefs & find some validity in most religious principals

Simonist']Actually I learned this in a Catholic school. I think when it came to our classes (because though from a large area (basically the Kansas City area), we were small), the Sisters kind of taught us more based on what they thought we'd understand better. I just can't imagine that a small child will be able to grasp somebody trying to say "Well yes, it's the Holy Trinity, there are three distinct factors.....but it's all the same, it's all God". Furthermore, as you mentioned, the Vatican acknowledges at this point that Jesus was deified far later down the road (I used to know but it's kinda hazy....I've been up for over 24 hrs straight now), which is when they stopped teaching that he was a mortal as well as the Son of God. My priest has always encouraged me to study other religions and the background of my own, so I guess it's pretty "remarkable" by most accounts that I know so many "falsehoods" of modern Catholicism and still actively practice.

Anyway....I don't want to go any further, because I'm almost CERTAIN there are going to be Catholics that were taught differently, and the last thing I need right now is a huge argument with somebody that is technically on essentially the same faith system as myself. However, you can email me if you wish (actually anybody can), it's easiest to get me at painted.morning@gmail.com, but I'm gonna have to go for now. My sister's got a Music Performance Jury in a few hours and I probably need to get her the music and be there for moral support.

It's been a wonderful discussion....I'll probably be back this evening :D

Ah, I see. Still, I bet Pope Leo III would be pretty pised off to hear that, after all the grief he went through with the Filioque Controversy, there were still good Catholics picking up unorthodox beliefs regarding the Trinity in the 20th century. :)

I think most of the problems that Christianity and other scriptural religions suffer from are a result of, as you say, arguments over technicalities. These are inevitable when people try to make texts into objects of veneration -- in short, when people try to take them literally. There's a good quote from Gregory of Nyssa, who was obviously heartily sick of these sorts of debates in 4th-century Constantinople:

The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophises about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing.

Like I've said before, I don't have any problem with intelligent faith. What I object to are those people who, apparently, have a clear, direct and certain understanding of the mysteries of Creation, who know absolutely what God is, what he likes and (especially) what he doesn't, and can tell you in tedious detail just exactly what is going to happen to everyone, everywhere, without a shadow of a doubt. They chatter on about Infinite this and Universal that and yet somehow it all boils down to a petty, unimaginative and depressingly mundane conception of something that is supposed to surpass all understanding.

Hope your sister's Music Jury goes OK, and that she gets acquitted or whatever they do... :D

Errr... eh? I'm sorry, I don't see how this website is supposed to change my opinion about the Bible, or about Christianity, or about religion in general. I agree with the basic sentiment of the page you referred me to, i.e. an argument between a skeptic and a believer gets nowhere -- but that's because the whole question of belief is not subject to rational debate. People either believe, for reasons which are obscure to me, or they do not. I'm afraid nothing on the above site deals with the propensity of human beings to make up fantastical stories out of thin air, and then insist that these are either literally true, or even just illustrative of some sort of "higher truth". For example, Adamnan's Life of St Columba. This was written less than 100 years after Columba's death, and to that extent is comparable with the Gospels. Like practically all hagiographies, it details numerous miraculous events, including a magical duel with a Pictish druid and Columba saving a man from the jaws of a kelpie in Loch Ness. If you believe in the various miracles of Christ as recounted in the Gospels, do you believe that Columba fought the Loch Ness Monster? If not, why not?

Well, I guess I can conclude that you did not actually look at the various articles posted throughout the site. Here are some from this location:
http://www.tektonics.org/

The DaVinci Code Debunked -- a critique of the errors about Christianity in this best-selling work of fiction.

The Nutshell Series -- Simplified expositions on major issues, with links to more depth reading. Because sometimes, you feel like a nutshell; sometimes, you don't.

Bible and Culture

Biblical vs. Japanese Culture -- a comparison. The culture of the Bible was more like Japan's than ours, which affects how we read the Bible.

What is Faith? -- Once we contextualize certain important words, their meaning shifts dramatically. Also part of this series: What is hope? What is love? What is mercy? What is worship? What is humility? What is repentance?

The Bible and Oral Tradition -- the importance of this factor in the transmission of the Bible.

Biblical Cosmology -- Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

The Spanish Inquisition -- Lots of myths out there about this one; get the facts from our sources, real historians.

The Patriot Analogy -- How to answer the question, "Who's a real Christian, then?"
Satire Central

Fun stuff. Not for the humor-impaired or those who adhere to the wimpy-Jesus model.

Tekton's Screwballs of the Month -- have a look at some of the nuttiest fruitcakes I get sent each month.

Over Three Hundred Disproofs of God's Existence -- based on the list of the opposite name. And experience.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if... -- learn what most of my atheist opponents are up to.

Who Wants to be a Questionnaire? -- quiz for the Skeptics out there; see how you measure up to credentialed Biblical scholarship.

Why Critics of the Bible Do Not Deserve Benefit of the Doubt -- Why you should ignore hacks on major Skeptical sites or with sites with titles like 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions

Tutorial on Logical Errors -- An introduction to some of the most common.

The Impossible Faith -- Offers 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

Navigating the Information Jungle -- the librarian in me speaks. Can't decide who is reliable, Freke and Gandy, or Ulansey? This will help.

Is the Christian fish a pagan symbol? -- Yeah, right! Or go here for articles on alleged "copycat" saviors (Mithra, Dionysus, Attis, etc). Pick your "heresy of the week"!

Thomas Gospel Tizzy -- is the Gospel of Thomas a real McCoy?

And to answer your question: I am unfamiliar with the document/story in question. Who wrote it? Was the author an eyewitness or using eyewitness accounts like the Gospels? Are there other documents from the time to attest to any of the questionable events happening or being supposed to have happened like for Jesus Ressurection? How many versions of the document are there? Thousands like the New Testament? What kind of variation is there between them? Are they insignificant spelling differences or moved sentances like the New Testament?

If you want to actually investigate the historical basis for Christianity, then I have provided a person who can do it far better than me. If you think that the Gospels were written 200 years after the fact, think that the JEPD theory of the Old Testament is the last word, then there is a site where you can have your ideas smashed to bits.

Or not, New Eire Land.

I've visited the site, and as an agnostic, I was not impressed by the challenges proposed by the author. The tests, articles, and what-not targeting athiests and agnostics are reproachable psychological drivel. While it may be a good faith building site, it has a certain air of authoritarianism and supposes a lack of knowledge in it's religion-"impaired" readers.

Mind you, I've not seen a site with the things I would require to believe in a God, so I'm really not sure there is one, but one that supports questioning and doesn't suppose to have the only sort of truth available would be readily welcome.

[edit]
And as for having my ideas smashed, well, I seem to be still intact.

Well, I guess I can conclude that you did not actually look at the various articles posted throughout the site...

Why? Because I didn't flip around and suddenly agree with you? I did look through the site. As Disganistan says, it's really not that impressive. And frankly, I don't need to have someone debunk The Da Vinci Code for me. I have a Master's degree in medieval history; over and above that, I have a brain and I'm not about to start thinking that a hack airport novel contains anything but poorly-written fiction. Neither do I need a website to explain to me the "truth" about the Spanish Inquisition. And I'm quite aware that the whole question of "proof" regarding the existence or non-existence of God is a non-starter, as St Augustine of Hippo would happily tell you in exhaustive detail. To be blunt, I don't need bimbo internet cod philosophy. Maybe I haven't explained my position terribly well, but I had hoped that I was operating on a level slightly above the contents of this site you are so fond of. There is not one single piece of solid evidence there which would lead me to believe that the Gospels are solid, reliable, factual accounts of real events. Basically, you've found a website which supports your point of view. Well done. So what?

And to answer your question: I am unfamiliar with the document/story in question. Who wrote it? Was the author an eyewitness or using eyewitness accounts like the Gospels? Are there other documents from the time to attest to any of the questionable events happening or being supposed to have happened like for Jesus Ressurection? How many versions of the document are there? Thousands like the New Testament? What kind of variation is there between them? Are they insignificant spelling differences or moved sentances like the New Testament?

The Life of St Columba was written in the 7th century by St Adamnan. Here's a quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01135c.htm), which is the very first link that comes up when you type "adamnan" into Google (http://www.google.com):

'From a literary point of view, St. Adamnan takes the very highest place as the biographer of St. Columba (Columcille), and as the author of a treatise "De Locis Sanctis". Pinkerton describes his "Vita Columbae" as "the most complete piece of biography that all Europe can boast of, not only at so early a period but even through the whole Middle Ages".'

(Pinkerton, if you're interested, was an immensely erudite if somewhat partial Scottish historian and antiquarian of the 18th and 19th centuries. He was, however, a little too fond of early Celtic Christianity and is, in my opinion, a bit OTT in his regard for Adamnan's biographical skills. Nevertheless, the Life of St Columba is a massively important work of early medieval hagiography.)

To answer your questions: Adamnan was not an eyewitness. In this he is like the authors of the Gospels -- cf. the first lines of the Gospel of Luke:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

This, I hope, makes it quite clear that the author of the Gospel of Luke is stating that he heard his account from "those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word", and that he himself was not an eyewitness, although he states that he has "carefully investigated" everything he writes. St Adamnan was educated by Columban monks, and studied at the monastery on Iona, founded by Columba. He would almost certainly have spoken to, indeed have been educated by, contemporaries of Columba and eyewitnesses to Columba's missions to the Picts.

There are numerous manuscript copies of Adamnan's Life of St Columba. Not nearly as many manuscript copies as there are of the Gospels, but this is a measure of quantity, not quality. The variations between them are minor: the usual copying errors and editorial emendations. It was never edited into one single authorised version, as the various Gospels were. Again, though, the fact that four of the Gospels were selected and drawn into one single authorised book in Nicaea in 325 does not mean that they are "more true": it just means that they were forced to conform to a single, politically motivated, version of events, and that most of the contradictions between the earliest versions were edited out.

Does St Adamnan meet your rigourous evidential standards? Or do you think he made it up, or was too credulous in writing down things that obviously didn't happen?

I went to that site and started to read one of the articles there, specifically this one:http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html. Why is it that christians are so quick to say that these things are aspects of god and all other gods are nothing but demons. I mean wicca has gods and godess' that are aspects of the Lord and Lady. How can they be so agreeing to different aspects of their god, has anyone ever thought that maybe ALL the gods and goddess' are merely different aspects of the divine that makes it easier for us mere mortals? Each aspect relating to the people of the area and THEIR culture? I mean really, if God made us all then why would he only speak to a small band of Isrealites? Wouldn't he also speak to the rest of us? The American Indians, the Celts, the Chinese, the Aztecs I mean the list could go on and on, but no, Christians claim that God spoke to only the Israelites and the gods of other cultures are false. How small minded indeed, atleast IMHO.

Or not, New Eire Land.

I've visited the site, and as an agnostic, I was not impressed by the challenges proposed by the author. The tests, articles, and what-not targeting athiests and agnostics are reproachable psychological drivel. While it may be a good faith building site, it has a certain air of authoritarianism and supposes a lack of knowledge in it's religion-"impaired" readers.

Mind you, I've not seen a site with the things I would require to believe in a God, so I'm really not sure there is one, but one that supports questioning and doesn't suppose to have the only sort of truth available would be readily welcome.

[edit]
And as for having my ideas smashed, well, I seem to be still intact.

"reproachable psychological drivel"? I thought you were looking someplace where you could find information on history. I thought that you were interested in seeing if there was any real basis to the Christian claim that their god appeared in human form.

Mind you, I've not seen a site with the things I would require to believe in a God,
What things? The site covers the historical reliability of the New Testament, and evidence to consider the Christian claims. What do you need?

so I'm really not sure there is one, but one that supports questioning and doesn't suppose to have the only sort of truth available would be readily welcome.

So, there can be more than one truth? As a scientist, I find this very amusing. When light was discovered to have the properties of particles in some experiments and the properties of waves in others, the conclusion was _not_ that light was both a wave and a particle, but that it was something else that could exhibit the properties of both. Not two truths, but one. Either there is a god or there isn't. Either Christianity is true or it isn't. Your effort to hide under your bed will ultimately not be successful.

So, there can be more than one truth? As a scientist, I find this very amusing. When light was discovered to have the properties of particles in some experiments and the properties of waves in others, the conclusion was _not_ that light was both a wave and a particle, but that it was something else that could exhibit the properties of both. Not two truths, but one.

And that is a discussion of the physical world, in which such black and white distinctions may exist.

Either there is a god or there isn't.

Or there are many, or the god is there, but not with the characteristics you think, or, or, or.

We are now talking about things outside of measurement. There are no definites.

Either Christianity is true or it isn't.

Or it is partially true and partially not. Or it is true in a metaphorical sense but not in a literal sense. Or parts of it are true in a metaphorical sense and parts are true in a literal sense and parts aren't true at all.

Of course, whose personal version of Christianity are we talking about here?

Your effort to hide under your bed will ultimately not be successful.

Keeping an open mind != hiding under a bed. As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should be well aware of the difference.

Either Christianity is true or it isn't.

Or it is partially true and partially not. Or it is true in a metaphorical sense but not in a literal sense. Or parts of it are true in a metaphorical sense and parts are true in a literal sense and parts aren't true at all.

Of course, whose personal version of Christianity are we talking about here?

Bravo! This, surely, is what "faith" is all about. Insisting that the events of the Gospels and the Bible in general are literally true is as stupid as saying that the parables of Jesus were literally true, that there was a real Good Samaritan, that there was a real Prodigal Son. It's supposed to be about the message, is it not?

Why? Because I didn't flip around and suddenly agree with you? I did look through the site. As Disganistan says, it's really not that impressive.
Neither is your critique of the site. Exactly _how_ does it fail from a historian's perspective?

And frankly, I don't need to have someone debunk The Da Vinci Code for me.

Never said that you did; I listed out various topics because not everyone has a degree in history of any sort.
I have a Master's degree in medieval history; over and above that, I have a brain and I'm not about to start thinking that a hack airport novel contains anything but poorly-written fiction.

Good for you; unfortunatly, (as I previously stated) not everyone would be able to figure that out.
Neither do I need a website to explain to me the "truth" about the Spanish Inquisition.

Can anyone say "straw-man argument"? All that you have complained about so far has been off the topic.
And I'm quite aware that the whole question of "proof" regarding the existence or non-existence of God is a non-starter, as St Augustine of Hippo would happily tell you in exhaustive detail. To be blunt, I don't need bimbo internet cod philosophy.
As a historian, this would have been a good point to let us know that scientific "proof" and historical "proof" are two very different things, but hey that's not your job here, right?

Maybe I haven't explained my position terribly well, but I had hoped that I was operating on a level slightly above the contents of this site you are so fond of.
So far, your efforts to communicate what is wrong is below the level of "not terribly well". Besides, are you going to complain that this site that I picked was not dedicated to only well educated historians when people like yourself will rely on information spread by Mathematicians masquerading as historians? That is not to say that you have argued for the Christ-Myth horse hockey, but you certainly haven't shown historical understanding of the documents or their composition.
There is not one single piece of solid evidence there which would lead me to believe that the Gospels are solid, reliable, factual accounts of real events.

I can accept this, since I understand that each historian must make his own judgment on how much to rely on each document, but at the same time, you then have to admit that using your same requirements on comperable documents from the period or earlier makes it so that most of history is unknown.
Basically, you've found a website which supports your point of view. Well done. So what?

Sorry, I have found a website that documents judgments from historians who have far more education, and experience than you. It is the judgment of even non-christian historians that the Gospels are reliable historical documents. Luke (the author, not the book) is called the "historian's historian" by experts in the period both historians and archeologists.


The Life of St Columba was written in the 7th century by St Adamnan. Here's a quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01135c.htm), which is the very first link that comes up when you type "adamnan" into Google (http://www.google.com):

'From a literary point of view, St. Adamnan takes the very highest place as the biographer of St. Columba (Columcille), and as the author of a treatise "De Locis Sanctis". Pinkerton describes his "Vita Columbae" as "the most complete piece of biography that all Europe can boast of, not only at so early a period but even through the whole Middle Ages".'

(Pinkerton, if you're interested, was an immensely erudite if somewhat partial Scottish historian and antiquarian of the 18th and 19th centuries. He was, however, a little too fond of early Celtic Christianity and is, in my opinion, a bit OTT in his regard for Adamnan's biographical skills. Nevertheless, the Life of St Columba is a massively important work of early medieval hagiography.)

To answer your questions: Adamnan was not an eyewitness. In this he is like the authors of the Gospels -- cf. the first lines of the Gospel of Luke:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

This, I hope, makes it quite clear that the author of the Gospel of Luke is stating that he heard his account from "those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word", and that he himself was not an eyewitness, although he states that he has "carefully investigated" everything he writes. St Adamnan was educated by Columban monks, and studied at the monastery on Iona, founded by Columba. He would almost certainly have spoken to, indeed have been educated by, contemporaries of Columba and eyewitnesses to Columba's missions to the Picts.

There are numerous manuscript copies of Adamnan's Life of St Columba. Not nearly as many manuscript copies as there are of the Gospels, but this is a measure of quantity, not quality.

This is not true and you (should) know this. The number of documents is needed to show the quality of what we have. The more copies of a document we have allow historians to see the changes that have occurred in copying (since we don't have the originals). These variations tell us how careful the copyists were, if any additions or clarifications were made; in short it allows us to make a judgement on the question of "do we have what the writer intended to transmit to us?"
The variations between them are minor: the usual copying errors and editorial emendations. It was never edited into one single authorised version, as the various Gospels were.

Neither were the Gospels edited into one "single authorized version". There are in fact, three major "documents". The Majority or Byzantine Text, the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus (held by some to be essentially the Majority Text) are the three general devisions, although there are textual differences among the texts within these categories.
Again, though, the fact that four of the Gospels were selected and drawn into one single authorised book in Nicaea in 325 does not mean that they are "more true": it just means that they were forced to conform to a single, politically motivated, version of events, and that most of the contradictions between the earliest versions were edited out.

As a historian, you _must_ realize that you need evidence, textual evidence to make such claims. And that there is NONE. I could go on about this, but
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html does a good job of showing how the church fathers "forced [the Gospels] to conform to a single, politically motivated, version of events,". As for the garbage about things being "edited out" show me where copies of these "alternate versions" of ANY book of the New Testament are.

Does St Adamnan meet your rigourous evidential standards? Or do you think he made it up, or was too credulous in writing down things that obviously didn't happen?

Unlike you, I cannot take a few moments, look at a website and just toss it out one way or the other. I will certainly look into it. Neither will I let some bias towards or against the miraculous to bend me one way or the other.

And that is a discussion of the physical world, in which such black and white distinctions may exist.


Can you proove or give any evidence that this is not also true of the non-physical world? If there is a god and he created both the physical and non-physical universe, how could one have hard distinctions and the other not? This is wishful thinking.


Or there are many, or the god is there, but not with the characteristics you think, or, or, or.

We are now talking about things outside of measurement. There are no definites.

Sorry, either there is a[re] god[s] or not. Black and white. Just because there would be two gods and not one does not turn white into grey.




Or it is partially true and partially not. Or it is true in a metaphorical sense but not in a literal sense. Or parts of it are true in a metaphorical sense and parts are true in a literal sense and parts aren't true at all.


That sort of nonsence may fly with other religions, but (to answer the next part) in Biblical Christianity, either Jesus _physically_ rose from the dead or he did not. Metaphorically just doesn't do it.


Of course, whose personal version of Christianity are we talking about here?



Keeping an open mind != hiding under a bed. As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should be well aware of the difference.

Yes, I do.

I went to that site and started to read one of the articles there, specifically this one:http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html. Why is it that christians are so quick to say that these things are aspects of god and all other gods are nothing but demons. I mean wicca has gods and godess' that are aspects of the Lord and Lady. How can they be so agreeing to different aspects of their god, has anyone ever thought that maybe ALL the gods and goddess' are merely different aspects of the divine that makes it easier for us mere mortals? Each aspect relating to the people of the area and THEIR culture? I mean really, if God made us all then why would he only speak to a small band of Isrealites? Wouldn't he also speak to the rest of us? The American Indians, the Celts, the Chinese, the Aztecs I mean the list could go on and on, but no, Christians claim that God spoke to only the Israelites and the gods of other cultures are false. How small minded indeed, atleast IMHO.

I just want to say, first of all, that your question (unlike some others) is legitimate. Ok, let's take a look at this, and assume that you are right. Let us assume that there is this one god who has chosen to reveal himself, not to one tribe, but to each and every tribe. We would then reasonably expect to find then some facts about this god that agree, along with "facts" that don't, but are from human error. Let us focus in on one (important) aspect of "truth" that has been revealed: how are we saved (from whatever we need to be saved from)? Well, all world religions can be put in one of two categories: Teacher Religions and Savior Religions. Teacher Religions are called so because they usually have a teacher as their founder and the salvation message is: "walk as I walk, do as I do and you will be saved." Savior Religions are called so because their founder says "you cannot do it; I must do it for you; I must save you."

If we have only one god giving the info to all the tribes of the Earth, either he is confused or there are two gods involved. Christianity states that there is one God and Savior, and that His Adversary is acting as a Deceiver. Although He initially chose to teach only one family about Himself, now it is open to all.

Alright ladies and gentlemen,
I unfortunately do NOT have the time to wade through all the messages and come up with a reply, but I have done something else that may be of some service. I've taken the book I keep recommending and I've scanned some of it.

For all of you who want to know how the books of the Bible were decided upon and whatnot, I have scanned the entire chapter from the book. I also scanned the introduction and the author's story, as well as the table of contents.

As soon as I can figure out how to set the book up in order to properly scan the chapters devoted to the Resurrection and to the Historical Reliability of the Bible, I will do that and update the page, but until then, here is the link:

http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85


Enjoy!

Can you proove or give any evidence that this is not also true of the non-physical world? If there is a god and he created both the physical and non-physical universe, how could one have hard distinctions and the other not? This is wishful thinking.


Because one would be limited by the laws of the physical universe... and the other would be outside of those laws.. not being physical?


Sorry, either there is a[re] god[s] or not. Black and white. Just because there would be two gods and not one does not turn white into grey.


Not true. There could be different definitions of what a 'god' was. Thus - a statement about one particular specification of 'god' MIGHT be a 'black and white' issue... but commentary about 'gods' could be a very different thing.


That sort of nonsence may fly with other religions, but (to answer the next part) in Biblical Christianity, either Jesus _physically_ rose from the dead or he did not. Metaphorically just doesn't do it.


Not at all. You don't actually need to believe that Jesus PHYSICALLY rose from the dead to believe in his saving grace. You don't have to believe that Jesus was PHSICALLY 'born of a virgin' to believe him to be a special messenger of 'god'.

Neither is your critique of the site. Exactly _how_ does it fail from a historian's perspective?

By asking slanted questions, and providing slanted answers from carefully selected sources. By failing to grasp the fact that documents can be historically valuable without being completely true -- indeed, they can be historicaly valuable and wholly fictitious at the same time. What people believed to be true, how they presented what they thought was true, and how they altered actual events to create what they thought other people should believe, has as much historical merit, although a different historical purpose, as a set of accounts rolls. History is NOT a record of what actually happened; it's an amalgam of what people wrote down, for a whole variety of reasons.

As a historian, this would have been a good point to let us know that scientific "proof" and historical "proof" are two very different things, but hey that's not your job here, right?

I try not to state the blindingly obvious too often. I prefer to assume a basic level of intelligence.

I can accept this, since I understand that each historian must make his own judgment on how much to rely on each document, but at the same time, you then have to admit that using your same requirements on comperable documents from the period or earlier makes it so that most of history is unknown.

See above, for my comment on what "history" actually is.

Sorry, I have found a website that documents judgments from historians who have far more education, and experience than you. It is the judgment of even non-christian historians that the Gospels are reliable historical documents. Luke (the author, not the book) is called the "historian's historian" by experts in the period both historians and archeologists.

Find for me, please, one non-Christian historian who regards the Biblical accounts of Jesus's miracles as "historically reliable", in the sense that they are sound evidence of real events which actually took place.

As a historian, you _must_ realize that you need evidence, textual evidence to make such claims. And that there is NONE. I could go on about this, but
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html does a good job of showing how the church fathers "forced [the Gospels] to conform to a single, politically motivated, version of events,". As for the garbage about things being "edited out" show me where copies of these "alternate versions" of ANY book of the New Testament are.

You are quite right, in some respects. The Council of Nicaea did not produce an authorised edition of the Bible. My apologies. The first large-scale attempt to produce a fixed text didn't happen until (probably) the Synod of Laodicea around 363AD. Further Synods, such as Hippo Regia and Carthage in the 390s, made further emendations. The editorial process continued on a large scale for some time. As late as the 16th century, Luther wanted to make extensive cuts. The Mormons have added new material. It's arguable (like so much in religion) that the whole issue is still continuing.

Numerous other Gospels exist, although -- lacking the editorial support of, and indeed attracting outright suppression by, the early church -- most are fragmentary. There are both Greek and Coptic fragments of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, for example. For more information on this and numerous other texts, see The Complete Gospels, edited by Robert J. Miller, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Juniata College in Pennsylvania.

"Alternate versions" of books of the (canonical) New Testament also suffered from suppression, but one example would be the version cobbled together by Marcion of Sinope in the 2nd century AD. He rejected Matthew, Mark and John in their entirety, and accepted only some portions of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. He also heavily edited those bits he did take to remove much of the resemblance of Christianity to Judaism. Marcion's ideas were eventually suppressed, but they hung around long enough to (probably) influence the Cathars and Waldensians, and other similar movements, over 1000 years later.

(Edit: confused author of paper with editor of book!)

Find for me, please, one non-Christian historian who regards the Biblical accounts of Jesus's miracles as "historically reliable", in the sense that they are sound evidence of real events which actually took place.

Because they listen to their own skewed agenda rather than look at facts objectively, most non-Christians do not accept the reliability of the Bible.

Because they listen to their own skewed agenda rather than look at facts objectively...

We have a disagreement here about what constitutes a "fact".

...most non-Christians do not accept the reliability of the Bible.

That kind of goes without saying. If you believe that Jesus really did perform miracles, rose from the dead, etc etc, it's likely that you are a Christian. Although it's possible, as other people have pointed out above, to be a Christian without taking the stories literally. It depends on how you define "Christian".

Personally for me the reason why I hate Christians preahing there for lack of a better term bullshit religion.
1) There's no room to accept the everyones views, homosexuals, pro-choice, people who enjoy a life for sex, cigarettes, loud music, and alcohol. Pretty much people who are different then thay are.
2) They will preach there damn bullshit and expect you to listen to them and HAVE AN OPEN MIND,a but when you can find all the loopholes in that fariytale they call the bible (and yes there are qiute a few loopholes in the bible "God" has contradicted himself numerous times but if I went in to it this post would never end), or show proof through science that God can not exist they ALL refuse to show the same mutual respect and listen to you and have an open mind. So I just tell them to go f*** themselfs cause I dont waits my percious time or breath on a hipocrite.
Thank You All And Have A Good Life (cause your not gaureenteed anything but the present)

New Eire Land,

Perhaps after this post you will see my reasoning behind despising the tektonics site, or maybe you won't. I'll explain it to you.

It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

Refuting the position that our "historical" documents may be skewed simply because of the political atmosphere of the past is an affront to my nature. History has been written, and rewritten on the wims of kings, and will continue to be rewritten until the world is destroyed, Jesus returns, or both. There are many similarities between the story told in the New Testament and ancient religions that cannot be ignored. Have you ever heard of Horus?

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

Just because we have a large number of volumes which mention either Jesus Christ and/or Early Christians does not mean Jesus existed. The New Testament, and some of the Talmud, make mention of him as a god. Jesus' story was well known as the Bible was the single most printed book for centuries. This is not because it was true, or correct, but simply because the Catholic Church had a hold on the minds and lives of all the citizens of Europe. I also find it interesting that the author here suggests a unanimous scholarly consensus, when this has never been the case on any subject at all.

http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

This link was posted a few pages back by Western Wild (Thanks, buddy! ;)) and is actually very useful in proving my point here.

Considering Josephus, historian of the Jews, born 4 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Which is enough to point out that he is not a direct source for anything, let alone an eyewitness to anything but the persecution of early Christians (which I'm not refuting)

Tacitus, Historian of Ancient Rome, born 22 years after Jesus' death, was most definitely not an eyewitness, and his report of the death of Christ could be based on early Christian influence on the Roman Empire. This is simply my interpretation, and not fact, but is a supposition.

All of these supposed sources don't provide evidence at all as to the divinity of Jesus, or even that he actually existed. In my personal opinion, there was a Jesus, but not a god, and an itinerant preacher. Not a liar, thief and wretch, but a man whose friends remembered him after his death and told stories of him, which became exaggerated over time, and he gained godly aspects. Sometimes considered evidence for Christ, Christianity itself cannot be considered a source simply because Christ may or may not have existed, and Christianity could've been named something else entirely, and based on more Jewish traditions, like Islam. It could've happened. Who knows what really happened? We have recorded histories written after the death of Christ that Christ lived and was crucified. This is understandable, as he was a poor jew (supposing he existed), and wouldn't have written an autobiography.

I'm sick of reading the tektonics site, so this is my last post on that matter. The discussion can continue on the subject of something else.

Hah! I believe that there once was a god, but he/she died after the supreme effort of making a tiny spark of light out of nothing! (And making it go KA-BOOM!!)
But...
You didn't hear me say any of that! I swear, I am a communist leader. Religion must die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally for me the reason why I hate Christians preahing there for lack of a better term bullshit religion.
1) There's no room to accept the everyones views, homosexuals, pro-choice, people who enjoy a life for sex, cigarettes, loud music, and alcohol. Pretty much people who are different then thay are.
2) They will preach there damn bullshit and expect you to listen to them and HAVE AN OPEN MIND,a but when you can find all the loopholes in that fariytale they call the bible (and yes there are qiute a few loopholes in the bible "God" has contradicted himself numerous times but if I went in to it this post would never end), or show proof through science that God can not exist they ALL refuse to show the same mutual respect and listen to you and have an open mind. So I just tell them to go f*** themselfs cause I dont waits my percious time or breath on a hipocrite.
Thank You All And Have A Good Life (cause your not gaureenteed anything but the present)

As a Christian, I would like to apologize for all of the pain and hurt other "christians" have caused you. It upsets me that Christianity has come off as nothing but bullshit to you. That means that a lot of well-meaning, but very imperfect people have taken a beautiful and mysterious religion and turned it into something cheap and, frankly, bullshit. I would challenge you to show me these "contradictions" but arguments over religion never lead anywhere but to more hatred and misunderstanding. You obviously seem to have been hurt or somehow slighted by many christians along the way, and I would relish talking to you about it. Just know that I am truly sorry for it - there is no excuse, other than to say that humans are imperfect and flawed, and it is therefore difficult for many of them to present a perfect gospel. Jesus is cool. I promise.

Find for me, please, one non-Christian historian who regards the Biblical accounts of Jesus's miracles as "historically reliable", in the sense that they are sound evidence of real events which actually took place.

Rudolf Bultmann, a renowned skeptic, once said this: "The Christian fellowship was convinced that Jesus had done miracles ... there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries' understanding, miracles; that is to say, events that were the result of supernatural divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons."

What people seem to be forgetting (or perhaps never knew to begin with) is that messiahs were very common in Jesus' day. The man we refer to as Jesus had at least half a dozen contemporaries that also performed miracles, and the records of these other amazing fellows are every bit as historically "real" as the tales of Jesus' activities. Moreover, these other magic men have the bonus of not having their entire life stories ripped off from Egyptian myth...pretty much the whole Jesus story, birth to death, is the myth of Horus retold. If you believe the stories of Jesus, why do you discount the written records of those same events taking place centuries earlier?

The man we refer to as Jesus had at least half a dozen contemporaries that also performed miracles, and the records of these other amazing fellows are every bit as historically "real" as the tales of Jesus' activities.
Where do we have records of these "half a dozen contemporaries"?

Where do we have records of these "half a dozen contemporaries"?

Many false prophets lived around Jesus' time. Many claimed to be the messiah, the chosen of God come to fulfill the prophecy that a king would again rise up from the people of Israel.

Rudolf Bultmann, a renowned skeptic, once said this: "The Christian fellowship was convinced that Jesus had done miracles ... there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries' understanding, miracles; that is to say, events that were the result of supernatural divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons."


Skeptic of *what* !??

Many false prophets lived around Jesus' time. Many claimed to be the messiah, the chosen of God come to fulfill the prophecy that a king would again rise up from the people of Israel.
I would like some actual specifics, not just empty (and potentially fabricated) generalizations. Quotes from ancient writings? Names? Specific dates? Anything?

Skeptic of *what* !??
Why, Christianity of course.

Where do we have records of these "half a dozen contemporaries"?
Um, this is not news. Historians who are familiar with the time period have been aware of this for a long time. A tour guide at the British Museum first introduced me to the fact that miracle workers were not uncommon in Jesus' day. The History Channel also had an entire series thingy about the historical perspective on Jesus, which noted many of these messiah contemporaries, and if it's on the History Channel you KNOW it's old material.

You have to remember the historical context; people weren't nearly as suspicious of miracles then as we are now. Miracle workers were so damn common that most of them faded into obscurity. There are completely secular political reasons why the story of Jesus became so uniquely enshrined in our history; the Bible became a very effective tool in the hands of a ruler who saw an openning to consolidate his power, and he did such a good job of it that it stuck around. He was probably helped by the fact that the "Jesus" myth had been around for centuries before "Jesus" ever walked the Earth, so it was a well-established and familiar fable to many people.

What people seem to be forgetting (or perhaps never knew to begin with) is that messiahs were very common in Jesus' day. The man we refer to as Jesus had at least half a dozen contemporaries that also performed miracles, and the records of these other amazing fellows are every bit as historically "real" as the tales of Jesus' activities. Moreover, these other magic men have the bonus of not having their entire life stories ripped off from Egyptian myth...pretty much the whole Jesus story, birth to death, is the myth of Horus retold. If you believe the stories of Jesus, why do you discount the written records of those same events taking place centuries earlier?
Had not heard that before ... intresting

I would like some actual specifics, not just empty (and potentially fabricated) generalizations. Quotes from ancient writings? Names? Specific dates? Anything?
Go to the library. There's plenty of material just waiting for you. You're the one who believes in this stuff...why haven't you done your homework? If you're going to worship a fellow as the son of God, maybe you should check out his back story.

Had not heard that before ... intresting
Here, I've posted this on threads around here before, but it bears repeating...

THE MYTH OF HORUS/JESUS

Horus was the only son of God (Osiris), begotten through immaculate conception with a virgin (Meri/Isis), born to her and her husband Seb (tr. Jo-Seph) who was of royal descent. Horus' coming was announced to his mother by an angel. His birth was heralded by a brilliant star in the east. Shepards witnessed his birth, and three Kings (or possibly solar dieties) came to visit him shortly after his birth (something referred to as "the Adoration").

Herut (Herod) tried to have Horus murdered while he was still an infant. An angel appeared to Horus' mother and told her, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." (An angel told Jesus' father to "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.")

Horus came of age at 12, and there is a break in his life history between the ages of 12 and 30. At 30 he was baptized in the river by Anup the Baptiser (who was subsequently beheaded). His baptism transformed Horus into the beloved and only begotten Son of the Father, the Holy Spirit, represented by a bird.

Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut (a.k.a. Set), who was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan. There Horus was tempted, but he resisted the temptation.

Horus had 12 followers, or "disciples," who followed him for much of his time on Earth. Horus performed miracles, including walking on water, casting out demons, healing the sick, and restoring sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power." (Jesus ordered the sea with a "Peace, be still" command.)

Horus even raised the dead. Asar was an alternate name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

This miracle resurrectionin occured in a city called Anu; Hebrews added their prefix for house ("beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany" (the location mentioned in John 11).

Horus was trasfigured on a mountain. He delivered a key address referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. Horus was executed by crucifixion, was accompanied by two thieves, and was buried in a tomb. He then descended into Hell and resurrected after three days. Several women discovered he had risen.

Images often depict the Virgin Isis holding infant Horus. His common title is KRST, the anointed one ("Christ" is Greek for "annointed one"). He is also known as the good shepard, the bread of life, the lamb of God, the son of man, and the Word.

Why, Christianity of course.


So this clown is a "skeptic of christianity" who believes in magical powers and 'demons' ??

Here, I've posted this on threads around here before, but it bears repeating...

THE MYTH OF HORUS/JESUS

Horus was the only son of God (Osiris), begotten through immaculate conception with a virgin (Meri/Isis), born to her and her husband Seb (tr. Jo-Seph) who was of royal descent. Horus' coming was announced to his mother by an angel. His birth was heralded by a brilliant star in the east. Shepards witnessed his birth, and three Kings (or possibly solar dieties) came to visit him shortly after his birth (something referred to as "the Adoration").

Herut (Herod) tried to have Horus murdered while he was still an infant. An angel appeared to Horus' mother and told her, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." (An angel told Jesus' father to "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.")

Horus came of age at 12, and there is a break in his life history between the ages of 12 and 30. At 30 he was baptized in the river by Anup the Baptiser (who was subsequently beheaded). His baptism transformed Horus into the beloved and only begotten Son of the Father, the Holy Spirit, represented by a bird.

Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut (a.k.a. Set), who was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan. There Horus was tempted, but he resisted the temptation.

Horus had 12 followers, or "disciples," who followed him for much of his time on Earth. Horus performed miracles, including walking on water, casting out demons, healing the sick, and restoring sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power." (Jesus ordered the sea with a "Peace, be still" command.)

Horus even raised the dead. Asar was an alternate name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

This miracle resurrectionin occured in a city called Anu; Hebrews added their prefix for house ("beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany" (the location mentioned in John 11).

Horus was trasfigured on a mountain. He delivered a key address referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. Horus was executed by crucifixion, was accompanied by two thieves, and was buried in a tomb. He then descended into Hell and resurrected after three days. Several women discovered he had risen.

Images often depict the Virgin Isis holding infant Horus. His common title is KRST, the anointed one ("Christ" is Greek for "annointed one"). He is also known as the good shepard, the bread of life, the lamb of God, the son of man, and the Word.

Wow so christianity is plagerizing lol

Um, this is not news. Historians who are familiar with the time period have been aware of this for a long time. A tour guide at the British Museum first introduced me to the fact that miracle workers were not uncommon in Jesus' day. The History Channel also had an entire series thingy about the historical perspective on Jesus, which noted many of these messiah contemporaries, and if it's on the History Channel you KNOW it's old material.

You have to remember the historical context; people weren't nearly as suspicious of miracles then as we are now. Miracle workers were so damn common that most of them faded into obscurity. There are completely secular political reasons why the story of Jesus became so uniquely enshrined in our history; the Bible became a very effective tool in the hands of a ruler who saw an openning to consolidate his power, and he did such a good job of it that it stuck around. He was probably helped by the fact that the "Jesus" myth had been around for centuries before "Jesus" ever walked the Earth, so it was a well-established and familiar fable to many people.
If these other miracle workers existed, (which I am not denying, though I would like a few names or quotes from credible ancient writings) I seriously doubt that any of them had claims to divinity like Jesus. And sadly, yes, Christianity has been closely tied to politics during the past, but that is by no stretch of imagination the only reason for its continued existence.

I would still like to hear more about this "skeptic of christianity" who believes in magical demons and whatnot.

Is his contention that jesus was magical but not really the son of god?

Perhaps the real son of god lives on mars, according to this guy?

So this clown is a "skeptic of christianity" who believes in magical powers and 'demons' ??
I didn't post the entire thing, but basically his point was that Jesus did do these things (and his contemporaries were convinced they were miracles), although science can now explain them away.

I didn't post the entire thing, but basically his point was that Jesus did do these things (and his contemporaries were convinced they were miracles), although science can now explain them away.


Ah, well, what you posted said "Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons."

Which implies that the writer considers "healing the sick [with magic]" and "casting out demons" to be real.

Go to the library. There's plenty of material just waiting for you. You're the one who believes in this stuff...why haven't you done your homework? If you're going to worship a fellow as the son of God, maybe you should check out his back story.
I have, in fact done research on the reliability of the Gospels, but that is not my point. I was, in fact, hoping someone could point me in the direction of resources backing these other miracle workers who were aparrently so plentiful in Jesus' day.

If these other miracle workers existed, (which I am not denying, though I would like a few names or quotes from credible ancient writings) I seriously doubt that any of them had claims to divinity like Jesus. And sadly, yes, Christianity has been closely tied to politics during the past, but that is by no stretch of imagination the only reason for its continued existence.
Dude, EVERYBODY claimed to be the Messiah back then. Jesus doesn't even fit the supposed prophesies that are claimed to be his writ of divinity, for crying out loud! Why do you think the JEWS DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS THE MESSIAH?! Because they read the Hebrew and say, "Hmm, that fellow really didn't come any closer to our prophesies than those other dead-raising yahoos, so even though Jesus may have been a nice fellow we really can't agree that he was the son of God."

And I never claimed that people currently believe in Christianity for solely political reasons. I simply stated the truth, that Christianity exists because a secular ruler used early Christian faith to further his political career. Without that TOTALLY SECULAR influence, nobody alive today would have heard of Christianity. It would have died out like all the other messianic cults of its day.

Now, you can say that's the hand of God at work...He works in mysterious ways, right? So maybe He likes irony, and liked the thought of the True Faith being perpetuated through the actions of an unknowingly-manipulated nonbeliever. And it would be impossible for anybody to prove you wrong, just as it would be impossible for you to prove me wrong if I asserted that Christianity is a figment of your imagination that is projected into your brain by an invisible leprechaun who likes messing with humans.

I have, in fact done research on the reliability of the Gospels, but that is not my point. I was, in fact, hoping someone could point me in the direction of resources backing these other miracle workers who were aparrently so plentiful in Jesus' day.
If you really have done research on the Gospels, and you haven't already come across such well-known historical facts, then I have to question the type of sources you have been selecting. Perhaps if you choose items not on the Church's reading list...?

Edit: And have you really not come across the striking similarities between your Gospels and written material from centuries earlier? Does it not bother you that entire portions of your myths are lifted, practically verbatim, from older myths and different Gods? Doesn't that slightly undermine the credibility of your Gospels? I know I wouldn't trust a particular reference very much if I found out that most of it had been plagerized...

Ah, well, what you posted said "Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons."

Which implies that the writer considers "healing the sick [with magic]" and "casting out demons" to be real.
Sorry for that interpretation. I wouldn't want to misquote anyone ;) (one of my biggest pet peeves with amateur debaters).

Maybe he chose items that were in the non-fiction section instead of the fiction section...

Sorry for that interpretation. I wouldn't want to misquote anyone ;) (one of my biggest pet peeves with amateur debaters).


It is worth noting that if this guy's arguement is "jesus did things that his contemporaries thought were magical acts" then jesus is essentially being accused of being a parlor trickster or swindler illusionist.

It isnt by accident that one convinces his contemporaries that he can do magical deeds, look at david blaine & al.

If you really have done research on the Gospels, and you haven't already come across such well-known historical facts, then I have to question the type of sources you have been selecting.

My research was done according to the Gospels themselves, the forgiving nature of ancient Greek, corroborative evidence by Josephus and Tacitus, and the writers of the Gospels. I was not looking for other miracle workers' accounts, as they do not directly influence the reliability of the Gospels.

Perhaps if you choose items not on the Church's reading list...?
*straining to respond calmly*
I am perfectly capable of looking up resources by myself, thank you.

Maybe he chose items that were in the non-fiction section instead of the fiction section...
You wanna go, Beaky? I'll take you down at school tomorrow! Oh, wait. You're on my side. ;)

My research was done according to the Gospels themselves, the forgiving nature of ancient Greek, corroborative evidence by Josephus and Tacitus, and the writers of the Gospels. I was not looking for other miracle workers' accounts, as they do not directly influence the reliability of the Gospels.

You're joking, right?

So, if it turned out that the "miracles" of Jesus were actually pretty damn mundane, and that many other people were up to the same sort of tricks, that wouldn't impact the reliability of the Gospels at all? If it turns out that the only historical (non-Biblical) evidence that the man called Jesus really existed is his criminal record, you don't think that impacts the reliability of depictions of the man as Son of God?


*straining to respond calmly*
I am perfectly capable of looking up resources by myself, thank you.
Apparently not. I'm not trying to be a bitch here, but you either haven't put much time and thought into this or you have been deliberately overlooking important material.

(Or you are stupid, or being misled by a conspiracy within the Church who are bent on preventing anyone from learning The Truth, or any of a number of other alternatives that I don't think are at all likely.)

Hey, i was defending you fool...

just incase you forgot... non-fiction is real and fiction is not real

:)

You're joking, right?

(Or you are stupid, or being misled by a conspiracy within the Church who are bent on preventing anyone from learning The Truth, or any of a number of other alternatives that I don't think are at all likely.)

You know... I think you're the stupid liberal that thinks everything is a conspiracy. You probably think we didn't land on the moon!

You're joking, right?

So, if it turned out that the "miracles" of Jesus were actually pretty damn mundane, and that many other people were up to the same sort of tricks, that wouldn't impact the reliability of the Gospels at all?
Not at all. It's poor logic to claim that the Gospels are false because other sources of miracles exist. Affecting Jesus' claim to divinity? Yes. Affecting the Gospels? No.


Apparently not. I'm not trying to be a bitch here, but you either haven't put much time and thought into this or you have been deliberately overlooking important material.

(Or you are stupid, or being misled by a conspiracy within the Church who are bent on preventing anyone from learning The Truth, or any of a number of other alternatives that I don't think are at all likely.)
I do dearly hope that this dosen't turn into a round of insults. If I insult you in any way, please let me know because that is in no way my intent.

You know... I think you're the stupid liberal that thinks everything is a conspiracy. You probably think we didn't land on the moon!
Now, now Beak. Let's be civil. Good Dog. *Throws him a doggy treat*

Ok, sorry... I was only insulting him so that you didn't have to.

How long have you two been going on about this stuff?

Religion is dull, pointless and sometimes a bit creepy. Jesus was a man, just as I am, sure we do different things, and believe differently, etc, but Jesus was a human male, a prophet, he is not God. There may not even be a God. Who knows?

How long have you two been going on about this stuff?
Oh, only for a little while. ;) *Gets a sip of coffee to stay awake*

Religion is dull, pointless and sometimes a bit creepy.
Well, seeing that religion deals with the ultimate meaning of life and the whole life after death thing... I don't see your point.

Jesus was obviously more than a man becuase he was able to bring about the largest religion in the world. Keep in mind that this religion was sparked secretly because it was against the law.

Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?

Well, seeing that religion deals with the ultimate meaning of life and the whole life after death thing... I don't see your point.
Meh I find it a bit dull. I don't want to sit around from 7 or 8 till lunch reading books and listening to a rabbi/priest/<insert other religious leader here> goin on and on.

Jesus was obviously more than a man becuase he was able to bring about the largest religion in the world. Keep in mind that this religion was sparked secretly because it was against the law.

Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?
Popularity does not prove anything but the fact that people like to believe it ... it does not prove its correctness

Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?
<devilsadvocate>Nah.</devilsadvocate>

Jesus was obviously more than a man becuase he was able to bring about the largest religion in the world. Keep in mind that this religion was sparked secretly because it was against the law.

Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?
You can have people believe anything. Trust me. I can do an Italian accent, I had people thinking I was Italian for a few days. It was fun. Three days after what? I can sit around for three days, writing about how I'm going to stand up after three days have passed, I'm prophesising about me raising up my body after three days.

Meh I find it a bit dull. I don't want to sit around from 7 or 8 till lunch reading books and listening to a rabbi/priest/<insert other religious leader here> goin on and on.

Well, maybe you don't understand Christianity fully. The bible is actually a really exciting book.... The son of God comes down to Earth to offer everlasting life to his followers and allows himself to be killed so that man may be saved... and as he dies the world shakes! I don't know about you... but that sounds pretty cool to me...

Meh I find it a bit dull. I don't want to sit around from 7 or 8 till lunch reading books and listening to a rabbi/priest/<insert other religious leader here> goin on and on.
I'll agree with you there. Aside from the great hymns (no I am not being sarcastic), church can sometimes be boring. Yet, it is a necessary part of my spiritual life, and that is why I go.

I'll agree with you there. Aside from the great hymns (no I am not being sarcastic), church can sometimes be boring. Yet, it is a necessary part of my spiritual life, and that is why I go.


WHAT!?... BORING!?... well, maybe all the parts about who gets what land and stuff like that... BUT, the Saint Mathew Passion is very cool to read

You can have people believe anything. Trust me. I can do an Italian accent, I had people thinking I was Italian for a few days. It was fun.
Sounds like it. ;)

Well, maybe you don't understand Christianity fully. The bible is actually a really exciting book.... The son of God comes down to Earth to offer everlasting life to his followers and allows himself to be killed so that man may be saved... and as he dies the world shakes! I don't know about you... but that sounds pretty cool to me...
Sounds like a fiction novel. But I'm 14, I dunno what you people find interesting. Anyways, I needa go do other stuff. Cya.

WHAT!?... BORING!?... well, maybe all the parts about who gets what land and stuff like that... BUT, the Saint Mathew Passion is very cool to read
We had five baptisms the other day. Man! I was ready to fall asleep. Don't get me wrong, the sermons are interesting more often than not. That doesn't stop me from sympathizing with Squirrel Dude, though.

Well, since we're the only ones left, Beaky, I might as well go. See you in APH tomorrow. And thanks for your time, TurkishSquirrel.

We had five baptisms the other day. Man! I was ready to fall asleep. Don't get me wrong, the sermons are interesting more often than not. That doesn't stop me from sympathizing with Squirrel Dude, though.

Well, sure... stuff like that is pretty boring... but i was going for more of the actual TOPIC of religion being interesting...

Its funny to watch ppl just go against something. With what as backup?? Evolution?? But while others believe that its eather heaven or hell, what else is there?? Limbo?? Evil against Good?? What if there're no life principles or gods, than evil is as right and so is Good.. Where are we going, Lets all be bored and uninterested.. Its only the rest of eternity. right.. *shrug*
No one can be forced to believe because than its only acknowlaging what someone else says is right... The choice to believe is to each and every person. wherther you take it for real or a joke is your problem. So what can I say??? Have fun in hell? lets hope not....

Well, personally, I think that we ateists enjoy picking on christians because they generally piss us off. And, it's kind of pay back for christians sending people like us to terrible ends in the past(don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about).
Anyway, as much as I know I should apologize for saying such rude things about peoples faith, I honestly don't care because christianity isn't the only religion around, it's just the one I have to deal with the most. Sorry(except not). ;)

Its funny to watch ppl just go against something. With what as backup?? Evolution?? But while others believe that its eather heaven or hell, what else is there?? Limbo?? Evil against Good?? What if there're no life principles or gods, than evil is as right and so is Good.. Where are we going, Lets all be bored and uninterested.. Its only the rest of eternity. right.. *shrug*
No one can be forced to believe because than its only acknowlaging what someone else says is right... The choice to believe is to each and every person. wherther you take it for real or a joke is your problem. So what can I say??? Have fun in hell? lets hope not....

Man, you don't get it. Some people don't see the difference between nagging someone into a religon and converting someone and you can't preach freedom of speech if you don't listen what the other side has to say. But it's something you gotta keep balanced you have to learn from each other see other people views let us speak instead of shutting people out. there's a difference between marals and religon. That's why it sounds like falling apart with no answers when you can't just accept that there could be something isn't out there, make a choice and stick with it.

Its funny to watch ppl just go against something. With what as backup?? Evolution?? But while others believe that its eather heaven or hell, what else is there?? Limbo?? Evil against Good?? What if there're no life principles or gods, than evil is as right and so is Good.. Where are we going, Lets all be bored and uninterested.. Its only the rest of eternity. right.. *shrug*
No one can be forced to believe because than its only acknowlaging what someone else says is right... The choice to believe is to each and every person. wherther you take it for real or a joke is your problem. So what can I say??? Have fun in hell? lets hope not....

I will have fun in hell! Oh wait, it's not real. Damn! I must be almost as depressed as you are. :mad:

Well, maybe you don't understand Christianity fully. The bible is actually a really exciting book.... The son of God comes down to Earth to offer everlasting life to his followers and allows himself to be killed so that man may be saved... and as he dies the world shakes! I don't know about you... but that sounds pretty cool to me...

Wow, you must not get out much.

Looking at the responses.. "Wow, you must not get out much," seems to apply to a lot of people...

...On topic, The internet is not the proper place to 'convert' someone. If it is your true desire to do so, then you shouldn't have a problem seeking those around you, rather than virtual personas. It is also prudent to know when you can say something, and when you cannot. Posting on a public board just gets a lot of clout.

Good gosh, you guys are really going at it...

Any thoughts yet to the book? Here's the link again in case you missed it:

New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85

I hope to rejoin y'all soon.

God's peace,
Michael Vaughan


Interesting article I just found (no, I have no idea how reliable this source is, but figured I'd throw it into the mix for fun):

Comment: Was Christ's life based on pagan myths?

By W. Ward Gasque

WHEN I first met Tom Harpur just over 30 years ago, he was teaching New Testament studies at Toronto's Wycliffe College. Shortly thereafter, he left the ivory tower to become, in due course, Canada's best-known religious journalist. Since then, he has written 17 books, and several thousand articles and columns; he has also achieved high visibility as a radio and television commentator.

To say that his religious views have changed over the years would be a gross understatement. In 1970, he was an evangelically committed Anglican priest, preparing students to faithfully preach and teach the doctrines of Christianity as understood by the classic creeds of the church. Today, his understanding of God, the world, and salvation seems to be that of a theosophist or a neo-gnostic -- though he continues to consider himself a Christian.

The Pagan Christ (Thomas Allen, 2004) is Harpur's story of his discovery of the writings of Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963), Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834) and Gerald Massey (1828-1907) -- who argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion. Their thesis was that, toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible.

Prior to this time, Kuhn and company maintained, no one had ever understood the Bible to be literally true, and the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible had been interpreted as symbol or myth; first among these myths was the concept of the incarnation -- i.e. that God resided within every "fully realized spiritual human being." According to this theory, the leaders of what became Christian orthodoxy made a tragic mistake by identifying this religious experience with a historical event: namely, the birth, life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

According to Harpur, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. Drawing especially on the writings of Kuhn, he claims that virtually all of the details of the life and teachings of Jesus have their counterpart in Egyptian religious ideas; he also maintains that there are strong parallels between Christ's life and Greek, Hindu and Buddhist myths.

Harper does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn, who he describes as "the most erudite, most eloquent, and most convincing . . . of any modern writer on religion I have encountered in a lifetime dedicated to such matters."

Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He, along with Higgins and Massey, is given the title 'Egyptologist,' and is regarded by Harpur as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century . . . [towering] above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religious." Kuhn, he writes, "has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong . . . C.S. Lewis . . . Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox. I remain stunned at the silence with which his writings have been greeted by scholars."

As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who earned a PhD from Columbia University by writing a dissertation on Theosophy. A prodigious author and lecturer, he had difficulty finding a publisher for his works; most of them were self-published. His only link with an institution of higher learning was a short stint as the secretary to the president of a small college.

I sent an email to 20 of the world's leading Egyptologists, outlining the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):

* That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian "Iusa," which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves".

* That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ.... He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."

* That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.'"

* That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and . . . this word, when the vowels are filled in, is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."

* That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE."

Only one of the 10 experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey! Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (1995), nor are any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942). Since he died in 1834, Kitchen noted, "nothing by Higgins could be of any value whatsoever, because decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was still being finalized, very few texts were translated, and certainly not the vast mass of first-hand religious data."

Another distinguished Egyptologist wrote: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." He goes on to refer to Kuhn's "fringe nonsense."

The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. Professor Peter F. Dorman, of the University of Chicago, commented: "It is often tempting to suggest simplistic etymologies between Egyptian and Greek (or other languages), but similar sequences of consonants and/or vowels are insufficient to demonstrate any convincing connection."

Ron Leprohan, of the University of Toronto, pointed out that, while "sa" means "son" in ancient Egyptian and "iu" means 'to come," Kuhn/Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name 'Iusa' simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name 'Jesus' is a Greek derivation of a Semitic name ("Jeshu'a") borne by many people in the first century.

While the image of the baby Horus with Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. The image of Mary and Jesus is not one of the earliest Christian images, and, at any rate, there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. And the New Testament Mary was certainly not a goddess (like Isis).

There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was 'a fisher of men' -- or that his followers, the King's officials, were ever 12 in number. KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or the Hebrew "Mashiah".

There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC; so Harpur's reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. Elsewhere, Harpur refers to "Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE"; and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that "the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age." In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.

Kuhn/Harper's redefinition of "incarnation," and their attempt to root this in Egyptian religion, is regarded as bogus by all the Egyptologists I consulted. According to one: "Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even 'a little bit of the divine'."

Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources. The notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey or some other long-out-of-date work. Very occasionally, there is a reference to a more contemporary work of scholarship, but this often has little or nothing to do with the point made.

Very few of the books listed in the bibliography are recent. Works that are a century or more old are listed by the date of the most recent edition. The notes abound with errors and omissions. If you look for supporting evidence for a particular point made by the author, it is not there. Many quotations are taken out of context and interpreted in a very different sense from what their author originally meant (especially the early church fathers).

Harpur's book is chock full of questionable claims, such as:

* That prior to the fourth century "it was believed that the coming of the Messiah, or Christ, was taking place in the life of every person at all times."

* That "Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations in the first century."

* That nearly all of the most creative leaders of the earliest church were pronounced heretics and reviled by "those who had swept in and grabbed control of [church] policies."

* That "the mystical/allegorical method of interpreting the sacred Scripture . . . was replaced by a wholly literal/historical approach" (presumably, in the fourth century).

* That "apart from the four Gospels . . . and the Epistles, there is no hard, historical evidence for Jesus' existence coming out of the first century at all."

* That Albert Schweitzer "concluded that there was no traditional Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person."

* That "Paul's Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul's understanding, he was not a human person at all."

According to Harpur, Christian scholars have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that there was an actual Jesus who lived in history. First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.

This perspective misses the fact that, for several generations, there have been professors of religious and biblical studies who are Jewish, Unitarian, members of every Christian denomination -- and many of no professed religious persuasion. And there are no religious tests for chairs in Egyptology. Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and many very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religion.

If one were able to identify all of the non-Christian members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be unlikely that you could find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ on the work of self-appointed 'scholars' who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words.

W. Ward Gasque is a co-founder of Regent College in Vancouver, and a historian of early Christianity.

Rudolf Bultmann, a renowned skeptic, once said this: "The Christian fellowship was convinced that Jesus had done miracles ... there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries' understanding, miracles; that is to say, events that were the result of supernatural divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons."

Rudolf Bultmann was a very devout, intelligent and erudite Christian theologian. See this entry (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_760_bultmann.htm) about him on the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology. Here's the introduction to the article, for those that can't be bothered:

Rudolf Bultmann is one of the most influential theologians and biblical scholars of the twentieth century. Known for his erudite contributions to both disciplines, he synthesized his wide-ranging efforts into a unified and provocative theological vision. He is perhaps best remembered for his call to demythologize the New Testament so that the Christian Gospel might be separated from its mythological trappings. Yet, a thumbnail sketch of demythologization often fails to appreciate Bultmann’s positive intent. Bultmann’s project is best seen as plotting out a middle course between nineteenth-century German theological liberalism and Karl Barth’s subsequent critique of that movement. Bultmann wanted, with Barth, to proclaim the saving act of God in Christ, yet without providing unnecessary stumbling blocks to the modern listener.
(my emphasis)

The more I read about Bultmann, the more I find I admire his deep and intelligent Christian faith. Some people might regard Bultmann as a "skeptic". Some no doubt view him as a heretic. Some, indeed, would have been happy to have burned him at the stake for the good of his immortal soul. Other more useful criticisms could be made of his theologies. But I'm afraid that -- unless you're going to insist on your own, highly selective and exclusive, definition -- there is no way that Bultmann could be described as "non-Christian".

Because they listen to their own skewed agenda rather than look at facts objectively, most non-Christians do not accept the reliability of the Bible.

Or, alternatively:

Because they listen to their own skewed agenda rather than look at facts objectively, most Christians do not accept the fallibility of the Bible.

I was a Christian... I accepted the book as reliable... but it was nothing to do with objectivity...

The more objective I became, the less reliable I found it.

What I've found on Horus, appears to be strikingly similar. Not the same, don't know about the 12 fishermen followers, but here's what I know:

-Son of a resurrected Osiris and the goddess Isis.

-Osiris granted Horus power over the underworld, becoming a god of the dead.

-Was known as a healer of snake and scorpion bites and was represented pictorially as a naked child holding snakes, scorpions and lions.

-The name Horus was associated with divine authority and power.

Jesus was obviously more than a man becuase he was able to bring about the largest religion in the world. Keep in mind that this religion was sparked secretly because it was against the law.

Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?

Aside from biblical texts, there isn't any reliable corroboration that Jesus even EXISTED... much less that he did any miracles, or was 'more than a man'.

Also, I'm afraid, prophecy isn't really worth anything. I could prophesise that I will become a god tomorrow... which is worth NOTHING, unless I really DO become a god tomorrow.

There were prophecies of Messiah, and New Testament stories CLAIM that Jesus fulfilled many of them. But, there is no independent evidence to support such claims.

In fact, the simple fact that the people who were waiting for the prophecies to be fulfilled, are STILL waiting (the Jews), implies that perhaps Jesus DID NOT fulfill them.

Because one would be limited by the laws of the physical universe... and the other would be outside of those laws.. not being physical?


The argument is not about which laws there are, but the nature of the lawmaker. He would be author of them all and there is no indication that one set of laws would be qualitiativly different than the other.


Not true. There could be different definitions of what a 'god' was. Thus - a statement about one particular specification of 'god' MIGHT be a 'black and white' issue... but commentary about 'gods' could be a very different thing.


So, it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is? Buy a dictionary. I am not going to waste my time with this foolishness.



Not at all. You don't actually need to believe that Jesus PHYSICALLY rose from the dead to believe in his saving grace. You don't have to believe that Jesus was PHSICALLY 'born of a virgin' to believe him to be a special messenger of 'god'.

Paul disagrees with you:

1 Corinthians 15:17 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

17And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

@topic:

It is wrong to tell someone something is right although you do not know whether it is right (commonly reffered to as lying).

The argument is not about which laws there are, but the nature of the lawmaker. He would be author of them all and there is no indication that one set of laws would be qualitiativly different than the other.

There is also no indication that they wouldn't. Thank you for making that point.

So, it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is? Buy a dictionary. I am not going to waste my time with this foolishness.

No, it all depends on what an individual's definition of God is. Someone might think that God is an evil being intent on wiping out all human life. Someone else might think that God is omnibenevolent, but disinterested. There are all sorts of definitions of "God".

Paul disagrees with you:

Is Paul Jesus Christ?

If not, Paul is just another human being. He may have been right; he may have been wrong. In my opinion, he was right about many things and wrong about others. He was human. That happens.

By asking slanted questions, and providing slanted answers from carefully selected sources. By failing to grasp the fact that documents can be historically valuable without being completely true -- indeed, they can be historicaly valuable and wholly fictitious at the same time. What people believed to be true, how they presented what they thought was true, and how they altered actual events to create what they thought other people should believe, has as much historical merit, although a different historical purpose, as a set of accounts rolls. History is NOT a record of what actually happened; it's an amalgam of what people wrote down, for a whole variety of reasons.


I will not argue with this, but to say that I would differentiate between historical events and the cultural attitudes of that time and place. You seem to want to meld them; I understand why, but prefer to separate the issues.


I try not to state the blindingly obvious too often. I prefer to assume a basic level of intelligence.


I have not run into very many who understand the difference. A clear indication of this is the number of times people talk about "proof" when discussing history.


See above, for my comment on what "history" actually is.

ditto



Find for me, please, one non-Christian historian who regards the Biblical accounts of Jesus's miracles as "historically reliable", in the sense that they are sound evidence of real events which actually took place.


That is not what I said. I would be shocked if a non-christian historian said that the healings recorded in Acts actually occurred. In fact, many miracles are _assumed_, not recorded. There is no verse where Jesus turns water into wine. There is no verse where Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish. There is no verse recording the Ressurection. So, while I cannot and do not say (from a historical perspective) that the New Testament testifies to the Ressurection (a conclusion based on trusting Jesus) I can state that it testifies to the Empty Tomb. What you conclude after that is up to you.


You are quite right, in some respects. The Council of Nicaea did not produce an authorised edition of the Bible. My apologies. The first large-scale attempt to produce a fixed text didn't happen until (probably) the Synod of Laodicea around 363AD. Further Synods, such as Hippo Regia and Carthage in the 390s, made further emendations. The editorial process continued on a large scale for some time. As late as the 16th century, Luther wanted to make extensive cuts. The Mormons have added new material. It's arguable (like so much in religion) that the whole issue is still continuing.


The Mormans are not monotheistic, and therefore are not under the umbrella of Christianity


Numerous other Gospels exist, although -- lacking the editorial support of, and indeed attracting outright suppression by, the early church -- most are fragmentary. There are both Greek and Coptic fragments of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, for example. For more information on this and numerous other texts, see The Complete Gospels, edited by Robert J. Miller, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Juniata College in Pennsylvania.


You forgot to mention that the Apoc. Gospels are not even in the same and were never supported by the church fathers. In fact, one could take the letters of the early church fathers and reconstruct almost the entire New Testament (I believe you would be missing one or two verses).


"Alternate versions" of books of the (canonical) New Testament also suffered from suppression, but one example would be the version cobbled together by Marcion of Sinope in the 2nd century AD. He rejected Matthew, Mark and John in their entirety, and accepted only some portions of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. He also heavily edited those bits he did take to remove much of the resemblance of Christianity to Judaism. Marcion's ideas were eventually suppressed, but they hung around long enough to (probably) influence the Cathars and Waldensians, and other similar movements, over 1000 years later.

(Edit: confused author of paper with editor of book!)
Marcion, if memory serves, did not include anything that is not in the present canon, just excluded a lot. Again, that is not the issue. Martin Luthor wanted to exclude the book of James. Now, if a book that was accepted into the cannon over 1000 years previous to him could be considered questionable, then it is quite possible that Christians could reconsider the so-called repressed Gospels. And I am sure some do. They get rejected for the same reasons that they did then.

Personally for me the reason why I hate Christians preahing there for lack of a better term bullshit religion.
1) There's no room to accept the everyones views, homosexuals, pro-choice, people who enjoy a life for sex, cigarettes, loud music, and alcohol. Pretty much people who are different then thay are.
2) They will preach there damn bullshit and expect you to listen to them and HAVE AN OPEN MIND,a but when you can find all the loopholes in that fariytale they call the bible (and yes there are qiute a few loopholes in the bible "God" has contradicted himself numerous times but if I went in to it this post would never end), or show proof through science that God can not exist they ALL refuse to show the same mutual respect and listen to you and have an open mind. So I just tell them to go f*** themselfs cause I dont waits my percious time or breath on a hipocrite.
Thank You All And Have A Good Life (cause your not gaureenteed anything but the present)

1) There's no room to accept the everyones views....
Wow, like these people believe in a sovereign God AND right and wrong?! Astonishing.

2) They will preach there damn bullshit and expect you to listen to them and HAVE AN OPEN MIND,a but when you can find all the loopholes in that fariytale they call the bible (and yes there are qiute a few loopholes...
I am glad that a well-read scholor like yourself, who has (of course) read through the Bible, and has studied this issue deeply, has come to such an enlightened conclusion. I mean, it's not like you just heard this stuff about contradictions from people as irate as yourself...

I will not argue with this, but to say that I would differentiate between historical events and the cultural attitudes of that time and place. You seem to want to meld them; I understand why, but prefer to separate the issues.

You cannot view them as separate issues without going back in time. The accounts we have of historical events are always a product of the cultural attitudes of the time.

The Mormans are not monotheistic, and therefore are not under the umbrella of Christianity

I'm sure they would be shocked to hear that. Maybe you should tell them.

(I just love it when people purport to know what others believe better than they know themselves.)

You forgot to mention that the Apoc. Gospels are not even in the same and were never supported by the church fathers.

That is completely incorrect. All of the Gospels were, at one time, accepted by some of the churches. Before the Canon was finalized, many of the texts eventually included were not used in numerous churches. Many of the texts they did use were not included in the Canon. All of them, however, were used in churches at some point - and all of the churches considered had apostolic succession.

Now, if a book that was accepted into the cannon over 1000 years previous to him could be considered questionable, then it is quite possible that Christians could reconsider the so-called repressed Gospels. And I am sure some do. They get rejected for the same reasons that they did then.

And some don't reject them.

Wow, like these people believe in a sovereign God AND right and wrong?! Astonishing.

Good to know that you are personally the arbiter on what is right and wrong.

New Eire Land,

Perhaps after this post you will see my reasoning behind despising the tektonics site, or maybe you won't. I'll explain it to you.



Refuting the position that our "historical" documents may be skewed simply because of the political atmosphere of the past is an affront to my nature. History has been written, and rewritten on the wims of kings, and will continue to be rewritten until the world is destroyed, Jesus returns, or both. There are many similarities between the story told in the New Testament and ancient religions that cannot be ignored. Have you ever heard of Horus?


Yes, and Heracles, and Odin, and and and.....

There is a world of difference between historical slanting (let's say, the reasons for the end of the Cold War) and the actual facts that get recorded. Yes, not all the "facts" are true (looking at modern history), but a researcher from the 30th Century would hope to find a variety of sources to come of with the answer to the question: "Did Ronald Reagan really exist?" Sure, there are going to be people who will say that he was a mythical person created from various other real persons (like Sen. McCarthy), but most historians will accept that the easiest explanations for all the references to him is that he did exist.




Just because we have a large number of volumes which mention either Jesus Christ and/or Early Christians does not mean Jesus existed. The New Testament, and some of the Talmud, make mention of him as a god. Jesus' story was well known as the Bible was the single most printed book for centuries. This is not because it was true, or correct, but simply because the Catholic Church had a hold on the minds and lives of all the citizens of Europe. I also find it interesting that the author here suggests a unanimous scholarly consensus, when this has never been the case on any subject at all.

http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

This link was posted a few pages back by Western Wild (Thanks, buddy! ;)) and is actually very useful in proving my point here.

Considering Josephus, historian of the Jews, born 4 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Which is enough to point out that he is not a direct source for anything, let alone an eyewitness to anything but the persecution of early Christians (which I'm not refuting)

Tacitus, Historian of Ancient Rome, born 22 years after Jesus' death, was most definitely not an eyewitness, and his report of the death of Christ could be based on early Christian influence on the Roman Empire. This is simply my interpretation, and not fact, but is a supposition.

All of these supposed sources don't provide evidence at all as to the divinity of Jesus, or even that he actually existed. In my personal opinion, there was a Jesus, but not a god, and an itinerant preacher. Not a liar, thief and wretch, but a man whose friends remembered him after his death and told stories of him, which became exaggerated over time, and he gained godly aspects. Sometimes considered evidence for Christ, Christianity itself cannot be considered a source simply because Christ may or may not have existed, and Christianity could've been named something else entirely, and based on more Jewish traditions, like Islam. It could've happened. Who knows what really happened? We have recorded histories written after the death of Christ that Christ lived and was crucified. This is understandable, as he was a poor jew (supposing he existed), and wouldn't have written an autobiography.

I'm sick of reading the tektonics site, so this is my last post on that matter. The discussion can continue on the subject of something else.

By this line of reasoning, we can't use any of the work of Roman scholors as evidence that any of the caesars actually existed. I believe that none of these emperors actually existed, the Senate created these characters, and minted the coins to support this illusion.

In short, you are happy in your delusions, and don't want anyone to pop them.

Good to know that you are personally the arbiter on what is right and wrong.

Did I say that? Where?

Two reasons.

1 Nobody likes a sales pitch. Especially when they're happy with their own version of the product, or when they're convinced the product sucks.

2 Some people (like me) think the world is better off without religion, and think you're actually making the world a worse place by spreading your religion around.

You have found a soulmate.

Did I say that? Where?

Well, from what you said, not accepting that others are homosexuals, pro-choice, or like booze, etc. demonstrates a knowledge of what is right and wrong - suggesting that you personally are aware of objective right and wrong.

I will not argue with this, but to say that I would differentiate between historical events and the cultural attitudes of that time and place. You seem to want to meld them; I understand why, but prefer to separate the issues.

You can't separate the issues, I'm afraid. Maybe I didn't make myself very clear. History is not "what happened in the past". History is "how the people living in the past interpreted and recorded events" -- in other words, it is the (unreachable and unknowable in the objective sense) events of the past as filtered through the cultural attitudes, prejudices and personal agendas of that time and place. (Of course, you also have to add in "how those accounts are filtered and interpreted by modern readers, with our own cultural attitudes, etc.").

Just because an event is recorded is no guarantee that it ever happened as described (or at all, for that matter). The more sources you have, the more confident you can start to become. However, the more unlikely the event, and the more the personal agendas and prejudices of the authors of those sources enter into it, the less confident you have to become. Is it likely that there was an Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire? Yes; there are numerous documents, coins, statues, medals, letters, contemporary accounts, etc. Is it likely that he was converted by a vision of a glowing crucifix in the sky, with the words "IN HOC SIGNO VINCIT" around it, given that numerous sources mention it? No, it's not. A far more likely explanation is that this is a story made up many years after the event, and faithfully copied and indeed embellished by people who may or may not have literally believed it themselves.

That is not what I said. I would be shocked if a non-christian historian said that the healings recorded in Acts actually occurred. In fact, many miracles are _assumed_, not recorded. There is no verse where Jesus turns water into wine. There is no verse where Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish. There is no verse recording the Ressurection. So, while I cannot and do not say (from a historical perspective) that the New Testament testifies to the Ressurection (a conclusion based on trusting Jesus) I can state that it testifies to the Empty Tomb. What you conclude after that is up to you.

Probably, given that none of the Gospels are eyewitness acounts, either a) it's entirely made up, like Constantine's vision, or b) the body was removed. Both are far, far more likely than actual physical resurrection combined with superhuman strength/supernatural aid in getting the tomb open from the inside. And despite what St Paul says, I honestly don't see that it matters -- any more than it matters whether or not the Parable of the Good Samaritan was actually a real story about real events.

The Mormans are not monotheistic, and therefore are not under the umbrella of Christianity.

According to you. I'm sure the Mormons would disagree. Or maybe they wouldn't -- I've never met a Mormon, so I couldn't really say. In any case, with the greatest of respect, I don't think you get to decide whether or not someone is a Christian.

You forgot to mention that the Apoc. Gospels are not even in the same and were never supported by the church fathers. In fact, one could take the letters of the early church fathers and reconstruct almost the entire New Testament (I believe you would be missing one or two verses).

If you define "church fathers" as "the people who got to decide what was included in the Bible and what wasn't", then you are correct. If you define "church fathers" as "early Christians", then you're wrong. It all depends on how you define "Christian".

Marcion, if memory serves, did not include anything that is not in the present canon, just excluded a lot. Again, that is not the issue. Martin Luthor wanted to exclude the book of James. Now, if a book that was accepted into the cannon over 1000 years previous to him could be considered questionable, then it is quite possible that Christians could reconsider the so-called repressed Gospels. And I am sure some do. They get rejected for the same reasons that they did then.

Rejected by whom? Some will accept them, some will not -- just as some Christians insist on a literal interpretation of both Old and New Testaments, where as others are more relaxed. Or how some Christians (most Christians, in fact) accept modern cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc., whereas others see these as tools of a literal Satan. There is no objective, exterior, definition of "Christian". This is your opinion only -- untestable, unverifiable. Rudolf Bultmann regarded himself as a Christian. What makes you think your opinion outweighs his?

You cannot view them as separate issues without going back in time. The accounts we have of historical events are always a product of the cultural attitudes of the time.


As I said, I understand, but prefer not to blur them, if at all possible. It is a difficult concept to explain, especially when talking about Old Testament "contradictions" where this very much comes into play.




I'm sure they would be shocked to hear that. Maybe you should tell them.

(I just love it when people purport to know what others believe better than they know themselves.)


When you are done laughing, go and do some research into Mormonism (like me!). The Mormon "God the Father" was actually a created human at one point. He was created by a previous god who also had been a human at one point, and all good Mormon men go on to be gods at some point with their own world. I'm not making this stuff up.



That is completely incorrect. All of the Gospels were, at one time, accepted by some of the churches. Before the Canon was finalized, many of the texts eventually included were not used in numerous churches. Many of the texts they did use were not included in the Canon. All of them, however, were used in churches at some point - and all of the churches considered had apostolic succession.



Sorry, you are wrong. Not all the gospels were accepted. That is why we don't have much record of them. Not because they were burned, but because not very many people were interested in copying them so that they would not be lost. They had no value.



And some don't reject them.

I don't know, it really shakes my faith when a non-christian accepts the Gospel of Thomas as legit....

Well, it has been fun, but I find this forum to be a waste of my time.

When you are done laughing, go and do some research into Mormonism (like me!). The Mormon "God the Father" was actually a created human at one point. He was created by a previous god who also had been a human at one point, and all good Mormon men go on to be gods at some point with their own world. I'm not making this stuff up.

No, but you most likely got them, not from a Mormon, but someone else. Have you ever spoken to a Mormon?

Sorry, you are wrong. Not all the gospels were accepted. That is why we don't have much record of them. Not because they were burned, but because not very many people were interested in copying them so that they would not be lost. They had no value.

Incorrect. Not all gospels were widely accepted. If they weren't accepted in some circles, we wouldn't have them at all. No one wrote down a gospel account unless that is what they had been taught. Obviously, after the canon was set, they had even less value. Of course, some churches still used some of them as extra materials.

Try studying a little church history. There has never been a single, united church with a single, united dogma.

I don't know, it really shakes my faith when a non-christian accepts the Gospel of Thomas as legit....

Why? Does their belief somehow change yours? Are you that weak of faith?

I think religion is over rated. I mean the Christians Bible states that if you don't do what the Christains beileve than you are going to hell, and other relgions state that if you don't do what they believe this will also happen. So there is no for sure proof of anything. If we just follow one relgion whos there to say that we aren't right or wrong. I feel that something created us but we don't know who and obviously we arent ment to either.

who is to say who is right and who is wrong
do any of you have an omnisiant knowlege that the rest of us are lacking?
if so, let us know
if not then keep your beliefs to your self
no one wants to hear them
i am an ex-catholic turn agnostic (look it up if you don't know what it means)
its not a religion, its a way of thinking, like atheism
its beliving that there is no way in this life to prove or disprove that there is a god or heaven or anything else, so just live life as it is
christianity just didnt do it for me so i droped the religion
some ppl however need a system of beliefs to attach to, so let them
if its what they belive, kudos to them
your never going to change their minds, and no book is going to do it either
quoting something that someone wrote 2000 years ago is not going to change ppl's minds

Christ was a good man, my god was he a good guy. I love your Christ but I hate your Christians (you'll get a cookie if you tell me who's quote that is). Christians, especially those who go to Church, disgust me. Why would you EVER need to go to church? Church is nothing more than a business that doesn't get taxed. You don't need church to find God, all you need is the Bible.

I don't care if Christians practice their faith in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start pressing this faith on me, it ticks me off.
Why go to church? Because the Bible says "forsake not the assembly" (I'm paraphrasing). Also, if you don't go to church, where will you receive the Lord's Supper, as Christ commanded? Where will you be baptized, and by whose authority? There is no "universal church" that you become a member of when you are saved/converted/whatever, and I think the Bible bears this out. Even other Christians will disagree with me on this point, but that's my two cents.

You're right that most churches amount to tax-free businesses. However, the Bible foretold that when it said something like, "They will have an appearance of godliness, but will be denied the power thereof." Not all buildings calling themselves churches are true churches of the living God. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of them are "denied the power thereof." Satan makes a good counterfeit, and most Christians that we're bashing here and that you are probably familiar with fall into that category.

If people are pressing you, stand for what you believe. There's no harm in that. The only way you could be upset by it is if you have nothing to stand on.

Don't you think people have it out for Christianity most because of the Evangelical conversion-spamming? Recently in Glasgow there've been lots of "Gouranga" people around trying to get random passers by to donate cash, and that's provoked quite a lot of ridicule against them. People just get annoyed by being bullied into things.
News flash, people. Nobody can force you to do anything unless you let them. If you don't like proselytizing, say no thanks and go on your way. You can even ignore them or interrupt them for all I care. You don't even have to be nice. Christians will turn the other cheek.

News flash, people. Nobody can force you to do anything unless you let them. If you don't like proselytizing, say no thanks and go on your way. You can even ignore them or interrupt them for all I care. You don't even have to be nice. Christians will turn the other cheek.

That depends on your definition of "Christian".

I find it disgusting because although these people go offering me "salvation" or happiness, they usually don't seem to actually care about ME. They often don't really even listen what I say to them. It seems that they just want to feel good themselves. Many actually have rules like "try to convert at least seven people per week and then you yourself are a good person". Then, when they have done that, they can destroy rainforests, waste resources and buy products of child labour without feeling bad, or at least so it seems.

One Jehovah's witness actually drove the long way to our home with a car and began his preach by talking global fresh water shortage caused by our consuming lifestyles. Apparently he himself couldn't have cared less about having a consuming lifestyle, else he would have used a bicycle.

You don't even have to be nice. Christians will turn the other cheek.

Most overused and least understood thing Christ ever said. "Turn the other cheek" does not and never did mean "Grin and bear it," like so many seem to think. With a little insight into the culture of the time, it is extremely evident that it is a call to passive resistance.

The argument is not about which laws there are, but the nature of the lawmaker. He would be author of them all and there is no indication that one set of laws would be qualitiativly different than the other.


On the contrary, given the fact that the lawmaker himself (herself) is not bound by the constraints of the physical universe, the rules of the physical universe MUST differ from those of the non-physical universe.

Ohterwise, 'god' would be constrained by the same rules, just in different scenery... no?


So, it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is? Buy a dictionary. I am not going to waste my time with this foolishness.


I have several dictionaries... that is not the point.

I wasn't debating what 'is' means... but what an individual means by 'god'...

For example - my definition of 'god' might differ from yours.... and I do not doubt that a 'god' would have a different interpretation to EITHER of ours.


Paul disagrees with you:

1 Corinthians 15:17 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

17And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

Are you a Christian our a Paulian?

For me - if you are going to accept the New Testament, the thing you HAVE to do is accept Jesus' words.

Paul is a commentator... he does not have the right to speak for the Messiah.

Sorry, you are wrong. Not all the gospels were accepted. That is why we don't have much record of them. Not because they were burned, but because not very many people were interested in copying them so that they would not be lost. They had no value.


On the contrary - all were accepted by SOME elements of the church.

There has never been an agreement that has held UNIVERSALLY for which texts are 'accepted'. One has only to note that Catholic bibles have a different number of books from Protestant bibles, to see this.

Well, it has been fun, but I find this forum to be a waste of my time.

I thought maybe it would be because you have been getting hammered in this thread.

But, hey... your story sounds better, right?