Consider this... What if Jesus [Archive]

Valdania

15-05-2006, 11:02

was Gay? Before all the bible thumpers get out their flame throwers lets think about this for a minute.

In "the Last Supper" there has been much debate about the figure purported to be John, the figure is effeminate and some say it's not John but Mary Magdeline, they were lovers...yadda yadda.... by now you'd have to live in a cave not to know the whole "DaVinci Code" debate. The church insists that it's John and Jesus was never married, had no children, etc.

Then consider the "holy Babies" painting purported to be by Leonardo that shows the infants John and Jesus in an embrace, one seeming anout to kiss the other.

What if the effeminate figure in the place of honor to Jesus' right was his lover. But not Mary, but John as the church insists is depicted there? It certainly would explain why he had no family as the church insists.

First, let's assume Jesus actually existed.

It's possible that if he was gay, then he would have had to repress it (given he would have been stoned to death if he came out?)

By the time he was thirty, this had obviously driven him mad so he went a bit mental and started making ludicrous claims and pronouncements? :D

Assis

15-05-2006, 11:58

The figure is most likely to be Mary Magdalene and not because of the DaVinci Code but because there is more than enough historical evidence to substantiate that Mary was indeed one of the apostles and, most likely, the closest one.

One of the best sources of evidence is the apostle Thomas, since he was believed to be a very curious and sceptical chap (don't they always make good eye witnesses?). There is a Gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in the Bible but became public when an ancient manuscript was found in Egypt in the 20th century. In the Gospel of Thomas, Mary is mentioned by name in a private conversation between the apostles and Jesus.

Some historians now believe Mary was a leader of the early church. Now this is where the story turns a twist. There is also a Gospel of Mary and there is now a theory that she is in fact the "Beloved Disciple", the author's identification that remains in the Gospel of John. We have been made to believe that this was written by John the Apostle, maybe because it's titled Gospel of John, but the Gospel starts with the story of John the Baptist, so we could be looking into the Gospel of John (the Baptist) written by Mary.

Another fact to support the theory is that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus, by the disciple that exiled there with Mary (mother of Jesus). Now, the Orthodox church defends Mary Magdalene arrived in Ephesus with Mother Mary. Mary Magdalene's remains are there.

So it's possible that she signed the Gospel of John as the beloved disciple. It's also possible that the text was edited to conceal her name. Why would anyone do this? The Church, as we now it today, was founded by Peter and some argue he didn't have much regard for women and may have been jealous of Mary. If this was true, then it is possible that there were moments of friction between Peter and Mary. Try reading the end of the Gospel of John in this perspective and you'll see how it makes sense...

"Most assuredly I [Jesus] tell you [Peter], when you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you, and carry you where you don't want to go." Now he said this, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. When he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me." Then Peter, turning around, saw a disciple following. This was the disciple whom Jesus sincerely loved, the one who had also leaned on Jesus' breast at the supper and asked, "Lord, who is going to betray You?" Peter seeing him, said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me." This saying therefore went out among the brothers, that this disciple wouldn't die. Yet Jesus didn't say to him that he wouldn't die, but, "If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true. There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.

Kzord

15-05-2006, 12:14

I'd say there's no guarantee that anything said about Jesus actually happened, or if it did, whether it all happened to the same guy.

Sniper Country

15-05-2006, 12:30

What if Jesus was gay? Then the entire premise of the Bible is wrong, and it was all written by a bunch of skitzophrenic buddies who turned out the greatest hoax of all time. Is pondering over it going to change my mind about Christianity? No, not really. I believe in Christianity, and if I'm wrong, then hey, no loss. However, I doubt I'm wrong.

People can continue to churn out all they want about "What if..." on the Bible. However, it's all full of what-ifs. There's always going to be the what-if part to it. What if Jesus was gay? What if Jesus is Buddha? What if the Ark of the Covenant is really the first edition of Cosmo Magazine? What if Christianity was actually right? It's all very interesting, I'm sure. But there's just something about Christianity, that to an unbeliever, or more notably a person who refuses to believe, will never understand. There's something about Christianity that even I as a Christian can't understand. However, as long as there's those that continue to refuse to believe, there's always going to be questions like this. (Don't get me wrong, if you choose not to believe, it's your choice. You're not going to see me jumping in your face about it.) And why will there always be these questions? Because people will never understand.

Similization

15-05-2006, 12:39

Then consider the "holy Babies" painting purported to be by Leonardo that shows the infants John and Jesus in an embrace, one seeming anout to kiss the other.Conside the possibility the painter was gay. Consider the possibility that back in Jesus land (No, not the US), men kissing, embracing & holding hands was perfectly ordinary hetero behaviour.

What if the effeminate figure in the place of honor to Jesus' right was his lover. But not Mary, but John as the church insists is depicted there? It certainly would explain why he had no family as the church insists.Maybe Jesus just didn't have a knob?

Then again, maybe Jesus' just phantasmagoria.

Keruvalia

15-05-2006, 13:10

was Gay?

He'd have been a lot more fabulous.

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 13:19

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 13:27

was Gay? Before all the bible thumpers get out their flame throwers lets think about this for a minute.

In "the Last Supper" there has been much debate about the figure purported to be John, the figure is effeminate and some say it's not John but Mary Magdeline, they were lovers...yadda yadda.... by now you'd have to live in a cave not to know the whole "DaVinci Code" debate. The church insists that it's John and Jesus was never married, had no children, etc.

Then consider the "holy Babies" painting purported to be by Leonardo that shows the infants John and Jesus in an embrace, one seeming anout to kiss the other.

What if the effeminate figure in the place of honor to Jesus' right was his lover. But not Mary, but John as the church insists is depicted there? It certainly would explain why he had no family as the church insists.

There is a small problem. That painiting is an artists impression. Done several hundrud years after Jesus's death, resurection and asscention. He got several things wrong, most importanly the race. Jesus was not white, he was Jewish. Also if you had watched the program that Tony Robinson did on channel 4 a while back basicly which tore the facts of the DaVinchi code apart, you would know that the reason that John looks efiminate in that picture is because DaVinchi liked effiminate young men. If anything, DaVinchi may have been gay.

Liberated New Ireland

15-05-2006, 13:29

Jesus was not white, he was Jewish.
A lot of Jews are white. Judaism was his religion, but Jesus was Arabic.

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 13:35

Snip

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgospel.html

Some things for you on the Thomas Gospel and the DaVinchi code

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 13:36

A lot of Jews are white. Judaism was his religion, but Jesus was Arabic.

The word Jew is decriptive of a race as well as a religion. Yes there are white Jews now, but there wouldnt have been then.

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 13:51

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgospel.html

Some things for you on the Thomas Gospel and the DaVinchi code
Regardless of the validity of the Gospel of Thomas, is there anything actually wrong about the possibility of Mary as a disciple of Jesus or a gospel writer? The tale already makes use of women as witnesses to the empty tomb; why can't they be witnesses beyond that?

Assis

15-05-2006, 13:51

I'd say there's no guarantee that anything said about Jesus actually happened, or if it did, whether it all happened to the same guy.

There is as much guarantee as there is historical evidence pointing towards his existence. The question is; what's harder to believe?

1. That a man called Jesus existed.
2. That so many different ancient manuscripts, with different writing styles and written by different authors, could all be so consistent in the way they portray the man Jesus and his beliefs and preachings. That a religious organisation, as powerful as the church, could have risen without the real existence of a prophet or leader; the catalyst of change. That someone would have managed, from obscurity, to convince the first Christians to rebel against the Jewish temple's authority, only to end up in roman arenas, based on someone that no one had seen or heard.

Doubting that the man Jesus was son of God is one thing, doubting that he existed doesn't make much sense. It's like doubting Julius Caesar existed; after all, we only know he existed through ancient writings; just like Jesus.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 14:46

There is as much guarantee as there is historical evidence pointing towards his existence. The question is; what's harder to believe?

1. That a man called Jesus existed.
2. That so many different ancient manuscripts, with different writing styles and written by different authors, could all be so consistent in the way they portray the man Jesus and his beliefs and preachings. That a religious organisation, as powerful as the church, could have risen without the real existence of a prophet or leader; the catalyst of change. That someone would have managed, from obscurity, to convince the first Christians to rebel against the Jewish temple's authority, only to end up in roman arenas, based on someone that no one had seen or heard.

Doubting that the man Jesus was son of God is one thing, doubting that he existed doesn't make much sense. It's like doubting Julius Caesar existed; after all, we only know he existed through ancient writings; just like Jesus.

Actually, that's a blatant mis-representation of the situation.

Contrary to oft-repeated claims, doubting the existence of Jesus is nothing like doubting the existence of Julius Caeser. There is a wealth of independent, contemporary evidence for the latter (there are coins with his head on for f*ck's sake), there is none for the former.

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 15:02

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 15:07

Regardless of the validity of the Gospel of Thomas, is there anything actually wrong about the possibility of Mary as a disciple of Jesus or a gospel writer? The tale already makes use of women as witnesses to the empty tomb; why can't they be witnesses beyond that?

There isnt anything wrong with either of those things as far as I can tell. I think the problem comes if it tries to discredit the other gospels.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 15:14

No it isnt. He has a major point, which is that the Church is evidence for itself. How do you suppose the Early Church began without Jesus. Also consider this. We know for a fact that at least 3 of the gospels were written within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus and were there at such events as healings and the feeding of the 5000. So when they heard the Gospel being preached they knew it was true because they had seen it with their own eyes. This is how the early church began.

Well, I was only addressing the old 'Jesus/Caeser evidence' claim; but you seem to have conveniently ignored that.

Your point is wishful-thinking at best. "The church is evidence for itself" is meaningless when we're considering whether a specific figure related to its foundation actually existed. What justification can you have for dismissing even the possibility than myth could have been a very real foundation in the right circumstances?

And your comments about the gospels are inaccurate. None were written within the lifespan of anyone who may have met 'Jesus' - there are no first-hand accounts of him and you are well aware of this. Don't make stuff up just because the truth is inconvenient.

Weneedsit

15-05-2006, 15:15

I'd say there's no guarantee that anything said about Jesus actually happened, or if it did, whether it all happened to the same guy.

There is, conceptually, no way to really prove anything.;)

But seriously, history is twisted by those who write it. The Gnostic Gospels were left out of the Bible cause the peoples WANTED Jesus to seem more godly (see DaVinci Code for further explanation). The Russians wrote the Mongols out of their history books. Even the Holy Grail came out of fiction, or so they say (the CUP, not the bodily one.).;)

I say stop worrying so much about history and focus on the present/future.

History rating::headbang:

:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Kazus

15-05-2006, 15:16

Well Jesus was either gay or married to Mary so, take your pick.

BogMarsh

15-05-2006, 15:16

Well Jesus was either gay or married to Mary so, take your pick.

How so?

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 15:18

And your comments about the gospels are inaccurate. None were written within the lifespan of anyone who may have met 'Jesus' - there are no first-hand accounts of him and you are well aware of this. Don't make stuff up just because the truth is inconvenient.

I'm not making stuff up. Matthew was written between 70 and 50 AD, Mark simmilar, between 55 and 70 AD. Luke must have been written before 64 AD and John was definitely an eye witness to Jesus's life.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

BogMarsh

15-05-2006, 15:24

There is, conceptually, no way to really prove anything.;)

But seriously, history is twisted by those who write it. The Gnostic Gospels were left out of the Bible cause the peoples WANTED Jesus to seem more godly (see DaVinci Code for further explanation). The Russians wrote the Mongols out of their history books. Even the Holy Grail came out of fiction, or so they say (the CUP, not the bodily one.).;)

I say stop worrying so much about history and focus on the present/future.

History rating::headbang:

:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

No one who refers to the davinci code without contempt can be taken seriously. Just a bunch of badly-researched rehashes from Chretien de Troyes et al.

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 15:26

I say stop worrying so much about history and focus on the present/future.

History rating::headbang:

:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 15:29

Assis

15-05-2006, 15:31

Actually, that's a blatant mis-representation of the situation.

Contrary to oft-repeated claims, doubting the existence of Jesus is nothing like doubting the existence of Julius Caeser. There is a wealth of independent, contemporary evidence for the latter (there are coins with his head on for f*ck's sake), there is none for the former.

You are right about the coins, but since when coins are the only way to prove someone's existence? To say there isn't independent evidence, based on Christian writings, is only half-correct. How do you explain the sudden appearance, in the 1st century, of reports that were clearly written by different - often conflicting - individuals, about the same person? How do you justify that despite the different, sometimes conflicting, perspectives written about this man, whenever they let Jesus "talk" (quotes) we hear a perfectly sound and consistent personality?

If the different "sects" of early Christianity were so fundamentally different, to the point that some persecuted others, isn't it a bit strange that their prophet was always consistently the same, in action and in speech?

Even if you don't want to believe in what is logic and clear, your claim that there is no independent evidence for Jesus is a either a lie or a product of your ignorance on the subject. Romans and Jews wrote about him and if they are not independent accounts then I don't know what they are.

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

If you want to know more:
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

I am sure there are plenty of other sources...

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 15:40

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome

Who oddly didn't know the rank of prefect Pilate in this paragraph... but did know the *title* Christos.
It is quite possible that Tacitus wrote down what the Christians believed to true, rather than something that actually happened. It wouldn't be the first time.
For reference btw: this piece was written in 112 AD.

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 15:41

The first paragraph of your source...

"If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself"

...tells me all I need to know about how impartial it is.

Ive already crused this argument. Did you actually read any of the rest of the source.

Bias itself is not an arguement. You have to prove that the bias has affected the source itself. You have not done that. My source stands untill you can show evidence which disproves it. You have only shown a posibility of bias, not actual bias. Actual bias would mean misrepreasntation of facts etc. So you would have to show that the facts in the source had been misrepresented to support the argument

And what the source says is true. If before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. Why wouldnt we? Your going to have to show that this sentence somehow is itself evidence of bias and then you have to show that bias exists in the source by demonstrating factual misrepresnetation.

In any case, the gospels are neither independent nor contemporary sources relating to the events they describe

If thats true then there are very few independent sources around the place

BogMarsh

15-05-2006, 15:42

Who oddly didn't know the rank of prefect Pilate in this paragraph... but did know the *title* Christos.
It is quite possible that tacitus wrte down what the Christians believed to true, rather than something that actually happened. It wouldn't be the first time.

Who may have had several ranks throughout his carreer?
*raised eyebrow*

Mooseica

15-05-2006, 15:44

There is, conceptually, no way to really prove anything.;)

But seriously, history is twisted by those who write it. The Gnostic Gospels were left out of the Bible cause the peoples WANTED Jesus to seem more godly (see DaVinci Code for further explanation). The Russians wrote the Mongols out of their history books. Even the Holy Grail came out of fiction, or so they say (the CUP, not the bodily one.).;)

I say stop worrying so much about history and focus on the present/future.

History rating::headbang:

:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Gun smilies! First post! Unholy Alliance! Evil! Drive it from us!

Sorry - it is spooky though. And come on, like Bogmarsh said - using the Da Vinci Code as backup for a historical argument... well. Need I actually say it?

And as to the rest of the topic, Da Vinci Code included, how the hell would Da Vinci know that Mary was at the Last Supper? And why is everyone assuming that he did?

Assis

15-05-2006, 15:45

Who oddly didn't know the rank of prefect Pilate in this paragraph... but did know the *title* Christos. It is quite possible that Tacitus wrote down what the Christians believed to true, rather than something that actually happened. It wouldn't be the first time.
For reference btw: this piece was written in 112 AD.

Please... If you don't take it from a Roman historian from the time, take it from Pontius himself:

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 15:49

Who may have had several ranks throughout his carreer?
*raised eyebrow*

Nope - his misnaming of the rank is generally agreed to be due to the history and conventions of Judea which Tacitus probably did not research well enough.

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 15:50

Please... If you don't take it from a Roman historian from the time, take it from Pontius himself:

Eeehm... where is the text by Pontius himself ?

Valdania

15-05-2006, 15:51

Please... If you don't take it from a Roman historian from the time, take it from Pontius himself:

Only, that isn't from 'Pontius himself' is it?

Assis

15-05-2006, 15:54

Eeehm... where is the text by Pontius himself ?

'They pierced my hands and my feet,'

It's a quote, from his report.

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:02

If that isn't enough...

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

in Jewish Antiquities
(http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/)

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:05

'They pierced my hands and my feet,'

It's a quote, from his report.

Which proves what exactly?

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:07

If the man Jesus didn't existed, why would the Jews and the Romans waste so much ink writing about him, while never challenging the fact that he existed in the first place???

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:08

If that isn't enough...

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared. "

in Jewish Antiquities
(http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/)

That's just Josephus.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:09

If the man Jesus didn't existed, why would the Jews and the Romans waste so much ink writing about him, while never challenging the fact that he existed in the first place???

They hardly wrote about him extensively did they? I would guess the amount of 'ink wasted' was minimal.

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:10

Which proves what exactly?

If you don't want to believe this one, I've provided you with plenty of other "independent sources". Want to comment on them and have you got a single piece of evidence to prove he DIDN'T exist?

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:11

They hardly wrote about him extensively did they? I would guess the amount of 'ink wasted' was minimal.

Your avoiding the question... reason being?

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:12

If you don't want to believe this one, I've provided you with plenty of other "independent sources". Want to comment on them and have you got a single piece of evidence to prove he DIDN'T exist?

Please be aware that the burden of proof is on you, not me.

You haven't provided any reliable evidence yet, just dusted off Tacticus and
Josephus again.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:14

Your avoiding the question... reason being?

I was addressing the falsehood in your original statement. I have answered the question; do I really need to spell it out?

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:18

Please be aware that the burden of proof is on you, not me.

You haven't provided any reliable evidence yet, just dusted off Tacticus and
Josephus again.

When you consistently bring down every single piece of evidence put in front of you, whether the sources are Christian, Roman or Jewish, you are just showing that you are not listening; just playing deaf years.

It's called pride, my friend, and pride cannot hide ignorance forever.

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 16:19

If you don't want to believe this one, I've provided you with plenty of other "independent sources". Want to comment on them and have you got a single piece of evidence to prove he DIDN'T exist?
How exactly do you prove a negitive?

Prove there is no pink chevy floating through the solar system.

(Hint you cant ... you can show that it is not likly, but you cant prove a negitive)

Mariehamn

15-05-2006, 16:20

I was addressing the falsehood in your original statement. I have answered the question; do I really need to spell it out?
Roman Catholic Church. :rolleyes:

Lunatic Goofballs

15-05-2006, 16:20

He'd have been a lot more fabulous.

YAY! :D

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:21

When you consistently bring down every single piece of evidence put in front of you, whether the sources are Christian, Roman or Jewish, you are just showing that you are not listening; just playing deaf years.

It's called pride, my friend, and pride cannot hide ignorance forever.

There are serious, well-documented question marks over all the sources you have so far provided. Try reading a non-christian resource for a change.

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:22

Roman Catholic Church. :rolleyes:

?

BogMarsh

15-05-2006, 16:22

How exactly do you prove a negitive?

Prove there is no pink chevy floating through the solar system.

(Hint you cant ... you can show that it is not likly, but you cant prove a negitive)

Ah - my favourite argument in favour of agnosticism. Some notions are beyond proof or disproof.

Atheism is irrational. :p

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 16:24

Ah - my favourite argument in favour of agnosticism. Some notions are beyond proof or disproof.

Atheism is irrational. :p
Depends explicit Atheism is irrational as is theism (to me)

implicit Athiesm seems to be rather rational to me

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:31

I was addressing the falsehood in your original statement. I have answered the question; do I really need to spell it out?

Let me rephrase the question then:

If the man Jesus didn't exist, why would the Jews and the Romans waste ANY ink writing about him, while never challenging the fact that he existed in the first place?

Assis

15-05-2006, 16:36

How exactly do you prove a negitive?
Prove there is no pink chevy floating through the solar system.
(Hint you cant ... you can show that it is not likly, but you cant prove a negitive)

Yes you could, if there were conflicting reports from the same period saying that Jesus never existed. But there are none. Every time he's mentioned in a Christian/Jewish/Roman text from that period, it acknowledges he existed. Funny isn't it?

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 16:38

Yes you could, if there were conflicting reports from the same period saying that Jesus never existed. But there are none. Every time he's mentioned in a Christian/Jewish/Roman text from that period, it acknowledges he existed. Funny isn't it?
But that is not proving a negitive that is shoing it is more unlikly yes but not proving anything

You can show something exists but you can never definitivly show something did not exist, you can just make it unlikly

Mariehamn

15-05-2006, 16:44

If the man Jesus didn't existed, why would the Jews and the Romans waste so much ink writing about him, while never challenging the fact that he existed in the first place?
They hardly wrote about him extensively did they? I would guess the amount of 'ink wasted' was minimal.
Roman Catholic Church.
Who were the first follow Jesus? Jews.

The Early Chruch threw around the idea of making converters become Jewish - as in the religon - before allowing them to become Christians. That was later decided to be a bad idea. The average Jew aknowledges Jesus' existence. Eye witness accounts are the biggest basis of Jesus' existence. It is no different that Attila the Hun and other characters that have popped up under the course of history.

As far as the Roman Catholic Chruch and the connection with the Romans, after the year 313 CE the Roman Empire changed the state religion to Christianity. Nowadays, we still got the Pope who lives inside Rome in a little nest we call the Vatian. The Chruch and the state merged in the Eastern Roman Empire, thanks to Constantine I himself. For example, the Council of Nicea was an important addition to Christianity that still effects the world today. Lots of ink was certainly wasted on Bibles and whatnot, written by Romans and Jews.

That is all I got off the top of my head.
Yes you could, if there were conflicting reports from the same period saying that Jesus never existed. ... Funny isn't it?
I find it interesting that you use the word "if" as an arguement. I do not find any humor in this particular case.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 16:47

Skaladora

15-05-2006, 16:49

Ah - my favourite argument in favour of agnosticism. Some notions are beyond proof or disproof.

Atheism is irrational. :p
Go agnostics! Go! :D

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 16:51

Ive already crused this argument. Did you actually read any of the rest of the source.

Bias itself is not an arguement. You have to prove that the bias has affected the source itself. You have not done that. My source stands untill you can show evidence which disproves it. You have only shown a posibility of bias, not actual bias. Actual bias would mean misrepreasntation of facts etc. So you would have to show that the facts in the source had been misrepresented to support the argument

And what the source says is true. If before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. Why wouldnt we? Your going to have to show that this sentence somehow is itself evidence of bias and then you have to show that bias exists in the source by demonstrating factual misrepresnetation.

If thats true then there are very few independent sources around the place

You're not really serious, are you?

You are claiming that the four gospels were written by disciples of Jesus?

Valdania

15-05-2006, 16:53

Let me rephrase the question then:

If the man Jesus didn't exist, why would the Jews and the Romans waste ANY ink writing about him, while never challenging the fact that he existed in the first place?

So your argument for the existence of Jesus basically boils down to...

1. A handful of independent early historians mentioned him in a quite minimal way; although there is no proof that they were all talking about the same person or indeed that they were writing from a first-hand perspective. There are even problems concerning the reliability of these sources themselves.

2. There is no contemporary evidence that he didn't exist.

I'm not really worried about my position (which for the record is not that Jesus never existed, just that there is legitimate doubt over whether or not he did)

You should be worried about yours, if indeed it is as uncompromising as it appears to be (i.e. there is no possibility that Jesus did not exist)

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 17:02

Yes you could, if there were conflicting reports from the same period saying that Jesus never existed. But there are none. Every time he's mentioned in a Christian/Jewish/Roman text from that period, it acknowledges he existed. Funny isn't it?

But, the sources you claim - Josephus (which has largely been conceded as partly forged, by the way), Tacitus, etc.. are not written by witnesses... or even likely to have been written by people who even MET witnesses... and are written by people that were not even BORN when the 'events' they document are alleged to have taken place.

Which means - as sources go, Josephus and Tacitus are both 'secondary' at best... and likely based ENTIRELY on 'hearsay'.

Mariehamn

15-05-2006, 17:12

I'm not really worried about my position (which for the record is not that Jesus never existed, just that there is legitimate doubt over whether or not he did)
Well, duh!

Valdania

15-05-2006, 17:15

Well, duh!

And what's your problem?

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 17:18

You're not really serious, are you?

You are claiming that the four gospels were written by disciples of Jesus?

I didnt say that. I said they were written before 70AD. Read the source and you will see what I am talking about

Mariehamn

15-05-2006, 17:20

And what's your problem?
Nothing really. The only way we would be able to confirm any corpse is Jesus would be by - uh - wild guess. We do not have DNA or dental records and since the corpse is claimed to be resting in Heaven chances are low that anything would be accepted. As far as sources go, I await the discovery of a Gospel of the Jesus Christ told in a first person format, debunking the controversial - and critical - myth that Jesus was not literate ... or could dictate. The Internet is a terrible medium for expressing emotion. :p

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 17:24

I didnt say that. I said they were written before 70AD. Read the source and you will see what I am talking about

You didn't say that?

What did you mean by: "If before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself"... then?

Knuk Knuk and Knuk

15-05-2006, 17:26

Based on what I learned from my NT class at Virginia Tech (scholarly based), Josephus and that other guy are indeed, not particularly great sources. However, the Bible, as an ancient document, is far more reliable in text then possobly all other ancient texts. Condider Homers Iliad whose earliest copy we have is dated 1000 years or so after the original.

As for previous questions about dates of composition of the Gospels...

Matthew is slated between 70-80 AD, mostly because scholars assume Jesus could never have predicted the Temple's destruction. The scholar goes on to say "composition by a disciple is unlikely, but possible.

Scholars date Mark during the late 60s.

They have no idea when luke was written, saying, "last third of the century."

John, 80s or 90s.

One thing to note is that James and John were apprenticing with their father as fishermen and were probobly in their teens when they were called. They could have lasted quite a while.

Knuk Knuk and Knuk

15-05-2006, 17:32

As for Jesus being gay or being married to Mary... you could really "what if" a lot of things. I don't believe any of it myself.

Mariehamn

15-05-2006, 17:37

Well Jesus was either gay or married to Mary so, take your pick.
One does not have to pick. Jesus could have been homosexual and married to Mary Magdalin at the same time.

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 17:41

One does not have to pick. Jesus could have been homosexual and married to Mary Magdalin at the same time.
And not have been acting contrary to his sexual preference in doing so.

Ooh, the heresy. Love it. :D

Adriatica II

15-05-2006, 17:41

You didn't say that?

What did you mean by: "If before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself"... then?

I said we would have good reason to believe that. I didnt say it was certian.

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 17:42

I said we would have good reason to believe that. I didnt say it was certian.
Luke certainly wasn't.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 17:43

I said we would have good reason to believe that. I didnt say it was certian.

So - who do you believe wrote the four gospels, then?

And, how were they 'disciples of Jesus'?

Assis

15-05-2006, 17:48

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 17:55

There is a small problem. That painiting is an artists impression. Done several hundrud years after Jesus's death, resurection and asscention. He got several things wrong, most importanly the race. Jesus was not white, he was Jewish. Also if you had watched the program that Tony Robinson did on channel 4 a while back basicly which tore the facts of the DaVinchi code apart, you would know that the reason that John looks efiminate in that picture is because DaVinchi liked effiminate young men. If anything, DaVinchi may have been gay.

damn you. you beat me to it.

really though why do people look at these painting as if they were photographs or exactly what really happened. what if davinci painted jesus controlling a mech warrior, would people think jesus was from the future and brought a mech warrior back?

Ruloah

15-05-2006, 17:59

Speaking of wasting ink, why do so many who disbelieve the Bible spend so much time trying to disprove and discredit it?

If they really believed that there is no God, and that his name is not Jesus Christ, they wouldn't waste their time.

The fact is, He is, and somewhere inside, they know it. That is why they will say anything they can think of, no matter what arguments or evidence you present to the contrary, so that they can continue to live their lives without feeling accountable to the Lord.

If you had a time machine and took them back to the crucifixion, they would still deny.

But never give up. Someone, somewhere, may hear the truth and respond and be saved.

There is a reason that John 3:16 is the most famous verse in the NT, if not the Bible:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It addresses what is the most important question in everyone's life: Eternity, and where it will be spent.

So never give up.;)

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:02

So your argument for the non-existence of Jesus basically boils down to...

1. A handful of mostly illiterate, often conflicting, apostles who somehow managed to invent such a wise and consistent character, convince the opposing Jewish priests that this man existed and convinced a contemporary Roman historian that they had performed a crucifixion that didn't happen.

2. That this conspiracy was so cleverly orchestrated that they managed to convince the Jewish priests and the Roman Empire, without either opposing powers producing one single contemporary text challenging his existence. Call that submission or what?

Also, I challenge you to find one statement of mine saying "I'm certain he existed" or "all doubts are unfounded". I can't be certain, but I argue there is a stronger case to substantiate that a man called Jesus existed, because there is no evidence to say that he didn't. Given that this man is supposed to have caused such a stir, along with a huge power struggle in the region, it's amazing no one ever questioned his existence at the time.

You realise how ridiculous this is, surely?

1a. No one had to convince Jewish priests of anything. There were fairly regular claims of 'messiah' around that time, and the Jewish priesthood contempoary with the alleged life of 'Jesus' fails to mention him.

1b. There are NO 'contemporary' Roman records - execution or otherwise.

1c. The fact that later 'Roman' histories do not single out the 'execution' of Jesus to credit or discredit, is not that unlikely. They did carry out many thousands of executions, it would be a thankless task (if records even remained at that point) to single out ONE case. It's not so much that someone needed 'convincing' it happened... more the fact that 100 years later, who would know?

2. Why would Rome OR the Jews go out of their way to produce 'evidence' that disproved YET ANOTHER messiah claimant? To the Jews, it would be OBVIOUS that Jesus could not be Messiah... to the Romans it would be irrelevent.

What sort of evidence would that BE, anyway? It would be like YOU trying to prove the existence of MY father. Show me evidence!

3. People HAVE been questioning his existence all this time. Just because you appear not to know that, doesn't make it less so.

Knuk Knuk and Knuk

15-05-2006, 18:02

So - who do you believe wrote the four gospels, then?

And, how were they 'disciples of Jesus'?

Good point. The gospels are anonymous with the exception of John having "by the beloved disciple" which while most easily taken to mean a disciple, is still anonymous. What I learned in my NT class is that the names of the gospels were given later obviously. A possilbe scenario is that someone wrote them according the gospel tradition of one of the disciples. That is, disciples of the disciples of Jesus who heard how these disciples presented the gospel put in writing this oral tradition, or the gospel "according to Matthew" or something like that. There was a hypothesis that Mark was written at Peter's request as the need for a written standard was increased. Just a hypothesis though.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:03

damn you. you beat me to it.

really though why do people look at these painting as if they were photographs or exactly what really happened. what if davinci painted jesus controlling a mech warrior, would people think jesus was from the future and brought a mech warrior back?

Why do people reading a collection of books written most of a century after the events they CLAIM happened, look at those books as an unquestionably true account?

Happy Cloud Land

15-05-2006, 18:04

Conside the possibility the painter was gay. Consider the possibility that back in Jesus land (No, not the US), men kissing, embracing & holding hands was perfectly ordinary hetero behaviour.

It is in many contries still. My dad works for a company that has him all over the world and I've been with him a few times. It's weird at first becasue it's so different to the states becasue the men all hold hands and kiss each other. But then again here many of my straight female friends hold hands and kiss and such as well.

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 18:06

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 18:08

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 18:14

It addresses what is the most important question in everyone's life: Eternity, and where it will be spent.

If that truly is the most important question in your life, I pity you...
How about asking instead how to make your own life and that of others - things that definately exist - as pleasant as possible instead of focussing on a potential afterlife ?

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 18:15

That or some of us are rather tired of people using that fairytale to justify fucking with our lives.

yes because being told not to murder just destroys your life style completely

damn you stupid chrisitans

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 18:17

yes because being told not to murder just destroys your life style completely

damn you stupid chrisitans
No but the stupid fuckers messing with my ability to marry the love of my life and be treated equaly in the eyes in the law does destroy my lifestyle

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:18

Good point. The gospels are anonymous with the exception of John having "by the beloved disciple" which while most easily taken to mean a disciple, is still anonymous. What I learned in my NT class is that the names of the gospels were given later obviously. A possilbe scenario is that someone wrote them according the gospel tradition of one of the disciples. That is, disciples of the disciples of Jesus who heard how these disciples presented the gospel put in writing this oral tradition, or the gospel "according to Matthew" or something like that. There was a hypothesis that Mark was written at Peter's request as the need for a written standard was increased. Just a hypothesis though.

Mary is also called 'beloved', in non-canonical sources. Since the author of 'John' is not named - 'John' is just a guess.

Mark was a disiple of Peter (not Jesus), Luke was a disciple of Paul, John could have been any of three 'Johns', or could have been Mary of Magdala.

It is common theory that Matthew and Mark are BOTH actually derived from any earlier (thus far, anonymous) gospel - which is usually just referred to as "Q".

It wasn't until about 180 AD, that four Gospels were actually collectively named - by Ireneaus, and even THAT text admitted that two of the 'authors' were definitely NOT apostles...

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 18:18

yes because being told not to murder just destroys your life style completely

Being told to do things without explanation and to obey without question definately does, yes. I prefer to do the right thing because I know it to be the right thing; not because someone else tells me to.

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 18:19

No but the stupid fuckers messing with my ability to marry the love of my life and be treated equaly in the eyes in the law does destroy my lifestyle

because you need a piece of document to prove you love each other?

as for the law, lets pretend everyone is treated equally under it. oh the poor gay people, they are so opressed no one is is as opressed as they are

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 18:21

Being told to do things without explanation and to obey without question definately does, yes. I prefer to do the right thing because I know it to be the right thing; not because someone else tells me to.

if you were never taught what the right thing was, how would you know what the right thing is?

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 18:23

because you need a piece of document to prove you love each other?

as for the law, lets pretend everyone is treated equally under it. oh the poor gay people, they are so opressed no one is is as opressed as they are
Hey you asked if it impacted me … the things Christians do based off of their fairytale does.

That piece of paper is tied to over a thousand different rights and benefits provided by the law. From child custody to patient visitation rights are all tied up in that “piece of document”

Oh the silly things that Christians do just because some book told them too…

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:23

they try to discredit the bible as to make it appear that so many people are following nothing and have wasted their lifes following rules and laws that they didnt really have to obey.

some may not stand to see someone following what in their opinion is a fairy tale.

It's not all about 'discrediting' the Bible.

It's about the Bible being a historical 'source' that, for some reason, is not considered subject to the usual 'rules' applied to historical sources.

Like the need for independent, contemporary (local, even) confirmation.

It is considered holy book, but so are a lot of OTHER texts - so why should THIS one be considered any different?

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 18:26

if you were never taught what the right thing was, how would you know what the right thing is?

Apologies - my phrasing was inaccurate. It should have been:

Being told to do things without explanation and to obey without question definately does, yes. I prefer to do the right thing because I have chosen to consider it to be the right thing; not because someone else tells me to.

I have no objections to people (or God(s) for that matter) telling me what *they* think is right. In fact, I welcome those opinions, since I am far from perfect and cannot possibly think of everything. But I do expect them to explain their opinions, and back them up with reasons. Not just to tell me and expect me to believe without question.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:27

because you need a piece of document to prove you love each other?

Don't be silly - no one 'needs' their marriage license as 'evidence' of love.

We use that 'contract' form, because our societies tie a lot of law to that institution. Law from which a large number of people are are being exempted, because their 'love' is not ALLOWED that piece of paper.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 18:28

if you were never taught what the right thing was, how would you know what the right thing is?

What makes you think that your 'religion' is the only route to knowing what is 'right'?

The 'do not kill' rule has been present in a surprisingly large number of otherwise-unconnected cultures...

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 18:31

What makes you think that your 'religion' is the only route to knowing what is 'right'?

your right

i may be a christian but i think i will follow muslim law

how silly of me to follow the rules of my own religion.

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 18:34

What makes you think that your 'religion' is the only route to knowing what is 'right'?

The 'do not kill' rule has been present in a surprisingly large number of otherwise-unconnected cultures...
Mind you, the idea of an innate sense of ethical correctness has an awkward footing too. While generally, "do not kill other people" is enshrined in all forms of social contract, there is a wide range of opinion even within societies as to what else can be killed and even a range of opinion as to possible exceptions to the rule.

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 18:36

Don't be silly - no one 'needs' their marriage license as 'evidence' of love.

We use that 'contract' form, because our societies tie a lot of law to that institution. Law from which a large number of people are are being exempted, because their 'love' is not ALLOWED that piece of paper.
Exactly … one would have to be blind to not see how this fairytale affects us.

Go figure we would want to make sure that the things that effect us are you know … reasonable from our point of view and such. (at least to the extent of our ability and right to do such)

Christians by all means live your life by your fairytale, just expect a fight when you try to use it as justification to mess with our lives

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 18:43

Exactly … one would have to be blind to not see how this fairytale affects us.

Go figure we would want to make sure that the things that effect us are you know … reasonable from our point of view and such. (at least to the extent of our ability and right to do such)

Christians by all means live your life by your fairytale, just expect a fight when you try to use it as justification to mess with our lives
In general, though, there's not much wrong with the fairytale itself as a bit of mythology. It might not be terribly well written, but that's understandable given its age and degree of translation, and some of the concepts outlined in it are quite neat as thinking points.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 19:17

your right

i may be a christian but i think i will follow muslim law

how silly of me to follow the rules of my own religion.

That doesn't make any sense.

You basically implied that the Christian scripture was NEEDED to 'teach the difference between right and wrong'.

I'm simply pointing out that there seems to be a WORLD of alternative routes to 'right and wrong' that do NOT depend on the Bible.

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 19:19

Mind you, the idea of an innate sense of ethical correctness has an awkward footing too. While generally, "do not kill other people" is enshrined in all forms of social contract, there is a wide range of opinion even within societies as to what else can be killed and even a range of opinion as to possible exceptions to the rule.

Actually - I wasn't arguing an 'innate senses of ethical correctness'... I'd argue that the bulk of 'moral' laws can be derived from purely 'pragmatic' reasoning.

e.g. I don't want to be murdered, therefore, we shouldn't murder...

Grave_n_idle

15-05-2006, 19:21

Exactly … one would have to be blind to not see how this fairytale affects us.

Go figure we would want to make sure that the things that effect us are you know … reasonable from our point of view and such. (at least to the extent of our ability and right to do such)

Christians by all means live your life by your fairytale, just expect a fight when you try to use it as justification to mess with our lives

Like the example I always come back to - the fact that I can't buy alcohol on Sunday.

I'm not a big drinker, by any means - I maybe drink a half dozen bottles of wine, socially, throughout a year. But - if I decide I want wine with my sunday lunch, and I don't have any in the house... tough buns, because I can't buy any.

Not MY sabbath, not my religion - but it affects me.

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 20:39

That doesn't make any sense.

You basically implied that the Christian scripture was NEEDED to 'teach the difference between right and wrong'.

I'm simply pointing out that there seems to be a WORLD of alternative routes to 'right and wrong' that do NOT depend on the Bible.

but what is it that makes those rights right and those wrongs wrong

right and wrong is nothing but opinion and the way you were brought up. surely someone that has lived on a farm their whole life and has killed animals for food would not think that is wrong, but a member of peta would think that is very wrong

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 20:42

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 20:44

Great you have found out moral relativism and subjective morality …

Now you should realize how stupid it is to just randomly pick morals out of a hat. Go with something concrete such as social improvement.

what you consider social improvement, i may see as social destruction

it is all opinion. and so is life

life is just an opinion

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 20:48

what you consider social improvement, i may see as social destruction

it is all opinion. and so is life

life is just an opinion
Exactly sense it is all an opinion why do you try to force your opinion on others more then absolutely necessary to function as a society?

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 20:50

Exactly sense it is all an opinion why do you try to force your opinion on others more then absolutely necessary to function as a society?

i dont beleive i have forced my opinion on anyone. i have not told you my opinion and you can never understand my opinions

and what is it that is absolutely necesarry to function as a society?

anarchy? or set laws?

and what laws?

again it all goes down to opinion

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 20:54

i dont beleive i have forced my opinion on anyone. i have not told you my opinion and you can never understand my opinions

and what is it that is absolutely necesarry to function as a society?

anarchy? or set laws?

and what laws?

again it all goes down to opinion
Yes it does thats why there are many different societies ... and you may not have forced your opinion on others

But polliticians making laws based on their private religion is an example of forcing an action from me based on their opinion

(If you can not tell I am libertarian ... the governments only function should be to protect the rights of the individual)

Slaughterhouse five

15-05-2006, 21:00

(If you can not tell I am libertarian ... the governments only function should be to protect the rights of the individual)

i love talking to libertarians, many of the ones i have talked to have a comical outlook on life. and they make great people to listen to.

how ever i am for the federal government to be for protecting rights and for the state governments to be authority and make laws. i believe this is necesarry especially with a giant country such as the united states where lifestyles from one side are completely different then the other side

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 21:03

i love talking to libertarians, many of the ones i have talked to have a comical outlook on life. and they make great people to listen to.

how ever i am for the federal government to be for protecting rights and for the state governments to be authority and make laws. i believe this is necesarry especially with a giant country such as the united states where lifestyles from one side are completely different then the other side
That I can understand with the caveat that the federal gov had the right and responsibility to dictate what laws are acceptable or not.
My only real problems with current setup of states rights is their apparent need to use it to make silly laws and strip rights slowly from their citizens. If applied correctly it’s a good idea, it has just been used for a lot of BS in the past.

Mensia

15-05-2006, 21:17

I keep on getting this idea from a lot of what I assume to be are christian posters that without christian religion we would not have morals, no moral code which to live by.

Any group of animals with a reasonable amount of intelligence will, if they are a pack or a group obey certain rules and regulations, if one extrapolates to humans living in very large groups, it is not impossible to see why a certain set of rules and regulations should not grow and expand as the group becomes larger and larger. In order for societies to function, and a social order to be maintained rules are necessary. Now this might be the road to an explanation from a very practical/evolutionary standpoint, but it does not have to be the only one.

There are many reasons why human beings such as ourselves adhere to a certain morality. Some might think it is only out of our self-interest (the wish to not be murdered creates rules against wanton killing, for instance as someone pointed out earlier), others may believe that we need a certain supreme being and a set of religious rules to tell us what is right and wrong, but also as someone pointed out, even though groups of human beings living together need not have a strictly religious (be it mono, polytheistic or otherwise) to come to a point where the group itself and the people in it don't agree on rules generally set for the benefit of most. Some may think purely pragmatic in a broader sense.

But the point I am trying to make (through sidetracking a bit) is that an atheist does not by the negative way he views religion become an instant a-moralist. We do not have to have an ancient religion to be considerate to each other, we do not necessarily need an omnipotent father figure (existing as a threat or warning) to keep us in check. We do not need per se religious leaders to point out that maybe it is not such a good thing to kill one another or rape the baker's daughter.

Morals are not solely the religious person's private property...

Dude111

15-05-2006, 21:19

It's something I've always suspected, assuming he really had no children. can you imagine how many women must have wanted to get it on with him? He was like a rock star back in them days.

The Alma Mater

15-05-2006, 21:23

It's something I've always suspected, assuming he really had no children. can you imagine how many women must have wanted to get it on with him? He was like a rock star back in them days.

Nah, he would have just been some silly carpenters son making ridiculous claims according to most people. His status came later.

Dude111

15-05-2006, 21:37

Nah, he would have just been some silly carpenters son making ridiculous claims according to most people. His status came later.
Oh, are you sure about this? Didn't he have a lot of followers and stuff?

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 21:40

Oh, are you sure about this? Didn't he have a lot of followers and stuff?
Few creepy guys following him around

I knew people who were dungon masters with more following then that

Dude111

15-05-2006, 21:41

Few creepy guys following him around

I knew people who were dungon masters with more following then that
Well, if you say so...

Barbaric Tribes

15-05-2006, 21:52

Everyone is gay, all the time, always.:eek:

Mensia

15-05-2006, 22:01

yes, we are all shiny happy people

Kamsaki

15-05-2006, 22:01

Few creepy guys following him around

I knew people who were dungon masters with more following then that
... Popular Dungeon masters, those. I mean, 12. Wow.

DesignatedMarksman

15-05-2006, 23:02

was Gay? Before all the bible thumpers get out their flame throwers lets think about this for a minute.

In "the Last Supper" there has been much debate about the figure purported to be John, the figure is effeminate and some say it's not John but Mary Magdeline, they were lovers...yadda yadda.... by now you'd have to live in a cave not to know the whole "DaVinci Code" debate. The church insists that it's John and Jesus was never married, had no children, etc.

Then consider the "holy Babies" painting purported to be by Leonardo that shows the infants John and Jesus in an embrace, one seeming anout to kiss the other.

What if the effeminate figure in the place of honor to Jesus' right was his lover. But not Mary, but John as the church insists is depicted there? It certainly would explain why he had no family as the church insists.

No, Christ was incredibly familiar with the oldtestament and would have undoubtedly known that "thou shalt not thy with mankind as thou do with womankind" (Exodus I beleive). C'mon, he's the son of GOD! (Technically God himself, in both literally and in Jewish eyes)

UpwardThrust

15-05-2006, 23:03

No, Christ was incredibly familiar with the oldtestament and would have undoubtedly known that "thou shalt not thy with mankind as thou do with womankind" (Exodus I beleive). C'mon, he's the son of GOD! (Technically God himself, in both literally and in Jewish eyes)
Levidicus not Exodus

And you assume that the OT is gods word

Maybe jesus realized the crock some parts of it were

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 02:06

Why does this thread remind me of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN1dPtEph2U

CthulhuFhtagn

16-05-2006, 02:23

No, Christ was incredibly familiar with the oldtestament and would have undoubtedly known that "thou shalt not thy with mankind as thou do with womankind" (Exodus I beleive). C'mon, he's the son of GOD! (Technically God himself, in both literally and in Jewish eyes)
1. Leviticus.
2. That passage is widely known to be horribly mistranslated. It actually prohibits men from sleeping on the same bed as a mentsruating woman.

Assis

16-05-2006, 12:34

I keep on getting this idea from a lot of what I assume to be are christian posters that without christian religion we would not have morals, no moral code which to live by.

Don't assume too much. I am not a religious Christian, yet I live by Jesus' moral code which is essentially; don't judge others. If everybody did that, you wouldn't be saying what you just said.

But there are obviously many other good references, like Buddha and Gandhi...

Assis

16-05-2006, 12:41

Oh the silly things that Christians do just because some book told them too…

Like loving, forgiving, not killing, not judging... yep, all silly things.

Kamsaki

16-05-2006, 15:02

Like loving, forgiving, not killing, not judging... yep, all silly things.
You're assuming that the people who proclaim God's destruction on America for its support of homosexuality, glorify the end of the world while trying to bring it about, encourage the repression of woman in society in the name of "family" and would have anyone not of a particular religion kicked out of the country are actually not the Christians they say they are. That is debatable. Where, anywhere, does it say that a Christian is someone who does not do those things? Sure, Jesus condemns it all of the time, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of what a given Christian stands for or, by association, what Christianity could be represented by.

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 15:04

Like loving, forgiving, not killing, not judging... yep, all silly things.
I did not say all things they did were silly ... I was lamenting about how many silly things they do.

There are quite a few.

Lol and if you need a book to not kill someone then maybe we aught to check you into some sort of institution

Grave_n_idle

16-05-2006, 15:56

but what is it that makes those rights right and those wrongs wrong

right and wrong is nothing but opinion and the way you were brought up. surely someone that has lived on a farm their whole life and has killed animals for food would not think that is wrong, but a member of peta would think that is very wrong

I was born in a city (THE city, in fact) but I was raised on a farm, so I have killed animals for food. Animals that I raised from the delivery to the table.

I certainly do not think it is wrong, and I have known people that were PETA supporters that eat meat - so, I assume THEY didn't think it was 'wrong' either.

PETA is about ETHICAL treatment of animals. The animals I raised were well cared for, had free space to move around in and a healthy diet. They had a good quality of life. They were raised 'ethically'. Then they were slaughtered humanely (if you've not done it, you use a kind of spring-loaded 'gun' that hits them in the back of the skull and renders them unconscious, then you slit the throat while they are unaware and unable to feel pain).

See - to ME, it was important to do all that, if I was going to eat meat. I like eating meat, and I refuse to be squeamish, and I refuse to be hypocritical - so I raised animals humanely, and I slaughtered them humanely - so I could feel good about eating them.

But - this isn't what you were discussing. You were talking about NEEDING scripture to TELL US what is right and wrong. And it just isn't a provable assumption.

GoodThoughts

16-05-2006, 16:15

was Gay? Before all the bible thumpers get out their flame throwers lets think about this for a minute.

In "the Last Supper" there has been much debate about the figure purported to be John, the figure is effeminate and some say it's not John but Mary Magdeline, they were lovers...yadda yadda.... by now you'd have to live in a cave not to know the whole "DaVinci Code" debate. The church insists that it's John and Jesus was never married, had no children, etc.

Then consider the "holy Babies" painting purported to be by Leonardo that shows the infants John and Jesus in an embrace, one seeming anout to kiss the other.

What if the effeminate figure in the place of honor to Jesus' right was his lover. But not Mary, but John as the church insists is depicted there? It certainly would explain why he had no family as the church insists.

Was this a painting done at the time of the Last Supper like ah, ah, photograph maybe? Was the painter right there at the Last Supper?

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 16:18

Was this a painting done at the time of the Last Supper like ah, ah, photograph maybe? Was the painter right there at the Last Supper?
Nope

But neither were the people that wrote the new testament

Assis

16-05-2006, 16:22

You're assuming that the people who proclaim God's destruction on America for its support of homosexuality, glorify the end of the world while trying to bring it about, encourage the repression of woman in society in the name of "family" and would have anyone not of a particular religion kicked out of the country are actually not the Christians they say they are. That is debatable.

I am not aware of Jesus defending the oppression or destruction of people. Also, these people you talk about can say whatever they want. Does that mean Jesus would like them, just because they say they are Christian? I think you are confusing Christianity with fundamentalist Catholicism; they are very different things.

Sure, Jesus condemns it all of the time, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of what a given Christian stands for or, by association, what Christianity could be represented by.

First, don't fall in the mistake of thinking Catholics own Christianity. In fact, don't fall in the mistake of thinking that ANYONE owns Christianity. Second, you cannot say that Jesus represents something that he didn't say or do, just because SOME of his followers acted differently. Those are the faults of men, not the ONE man you accuse. You mention homosexuality, but Protestants ordain gays and they call themselves Christian. You see, not all Christians condemn homosexuality...

Assis

16-05-2006, 16:32

I did not say all things they did were silly ... I was lamenting about how many silly things they do. There are quite a few.

Who's they? Christians or people who claim to be Christians?

Lol and if you need a book to not kill someone then maybe we aught to check you into some sort of institution

I agree. I didn't need to read Jesus to learn about how wrong is to kill someone for WHATEVER reason. Yet, I am learning from him that I shouldn't judge people for not being perfect, because I cannot be perfect myself. I say I am learning, because it is not easy to do it 365 days a year. I believe that there are very few people that can say they do. Wouldn't you agree?

Kamsaki

16-05-2006, 19:47

I am not aware of Jesus defending the oppression or destruction of people. Also, these people you talk about can say whatever they want. Does that mean Jesus would like them, just because they say they are Christian? I think you are confusing Christianity with fundamentalist Catholicism; they are very different things.

First, don't fall in the mistake of thinking Catholics own Christianity. In fact, don't fall in the mistake of thinking that ANYONE owns Christianity. Second, you cannot say that Jesus represents something that he didn't say or do, just because SOME of his followers acted differently. Those are the faults of men, not the ONE man you accuse. You mention homosexuality, but Protestants ordain gays and they call themselves Christian. You see, not all Christians condemn homosexuality...
Catholics? Baptists mostly, from my experience. The catholics are quite a nice bunch in general. I find that age in a spiritual group tends to result in a reasoning that has developed with the times, while all you young upstarts tend to be the ones causing trouble. I tells ya, it weren't like this back in my day. Back then, you'd have gotten a slap with the authoritarian ruler for backtalk like the kid faiths these days.

Anyway. Yes. People do own Christianity; the very name and nature of it bears origin entirely in human decision. Jesus was Jesus, his teachings were his teachings. They had nothing, and I repeat once more for emphasis, nothing to do with the formation of an Organised religion called Christianity. Since when did Jesus ever say "Go ye forth and be Christian"? When did Jesus say "This is what a Christian is"? The answer to who is and is not called a Christian is not found in the philosophy of Jesus; its origins lie entirely within the organisation that created the notion, and anyone who is accepted into the organisation is a Christian by the very definition of the name.

Jesus represents Jesus; regardless of whatever else he may represent allegorically. But nobody else does. The Church represents the Church, Christians represent Christianity, and neither of these is or can rightly claim to be any sort of representation of him. They are the result of people and are entirely representative of that fact. And as the result of its people, it can be and is bent and twisted by the actions of its people.

You make the assumption that I somehow dislike Jesus. That's not fair. I would love to have met him and had conversations with him (assuming, of course, that he would know how to speak either modern English or French). What I dislike is when people think that Christianity is some divinely blessed heraldry designed specifically by God to be his sole representative to the world. The name of Christianity stands for a human organisation that implicitly thinks it is God's will incarnate, for in its eyes to be Christian must be to be associated with Jesus. In doing so, it has successfully coerced the millions the world over who cannot see through this charade into despising God with a passion, which I feel personally to be doing Jesus' ideas a great disservice.

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 19:56

Who's they? Christians or people who claim to be Christians?

I agree. I didn't need to read Jesus to learn about how wrong is to kill someone for WHATEVER reason. Yet, I am learning from him that I shouldn't judge people for not being perfect, because I cannot be perfect myself. I say I am learning, because it is not easy to do it 365 days a year. I believe that there are very few people that can say they do. Wouldn't you agree?
Christianity is made up of Christians … Simply claiming that anyone does not follow your exact faith is not “Christian” will in the end will lead to Christianity as being defined as being only you as you are the only one that follows the exact faith you do.

The simple fact is that if a massive subset of Christians do said silly act because of said (to me ) silly faith I will question that silly faith.

I have no problem you doing with your personal life whatever you wish to do as long as it does not effect the rights of others. But right now “Christianity” is doing some pretty stupid things by my book and I choose to work to make sure I can live my life how I please as long as it does not take away anyone else’s rights.

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 20:00

Catholics? Baptists mostly, from my experience. The catholics are quite a nice bunch in general. I find that age in a spiritual group tends to result in a reasoning that has developed with the times, while all you young upstarts tend to be the ones causing trouble. I tells ya, it weren't like this back in my day. Back then, you'd have gotten a slap with the authoritarian ruler for backtalk like the kid faiths these days.

Anyway. Yes. People do own Christianity; the very name and nature of it bears origin entirely in human decision. Jesus was Jesus, his teachings were his teachings. They had nothing, and I repeat once more for emphasis, nothing to do with the formation of an Organised religion called Christianity. Since when did Jesus ever say "Go ye forth and be Christian"? When did Jesus say "This is what a Christian is"? The answer to who is and is not called a Christian is not found in the philosophy of Jesus; its origins lie entirely within the organisation that created the notion, and anyone who is accepted into the organisation is a Christian by the very definition of the name.

Jesus represents Jesus; regardless of whatever else he may represent allegorically. But nobody else does. The Church represents the Church, Christians represent Christianity, and neither of these is or can rightly claim to be any sort of representation of him. They are the result of people and are entirely representative of that fact. And as the result of its people, it can be and is bent and twisted by the actions of its people.

You make the assumption that I somehow dislike Jesus. That's not fair. I would love to have met him and had conversations with him (assuming, of course, that he would know how to speak either modern English or French). What I dislike is when people think that Christianity is some divinely blessed heraldry designed specifically by God to be his sole representative to the world. The name of Christianity stands for a human organisation that implicitly thinks it is God's will incarnate, for in its eyes to be Christian must be to be associated with Jesus. In doing so, it has successfully coerced the millions the world over who cannot see through this charade into despising God with a passion, which I feel personally to be doing Jesus' ideas a great disservice.

I agree … while it was not in my heart to believe in god … my dislike for the Christian god arose out of a dislike for the religion and all that it has done to me.

I may debate about Christianity but I know in my heart what I really dislike is the organization and the blindness that SOMETIMES come with it. Not that people have faith but more about how humans use that faith.

Assis

16-05-2006, 20:26

Christianity is made up of Christians … Simply claiming that anyone does not follow your exact faith is not “Christian” will in the end will lead to Christianity as being defined as being only you as you are the only one that follows the exact faith you do.
My point is that no one is a TRUE Christian just because they claim to be and that, of course, includes myself. Let's imagine for a second that this Father-Type-Of-God does exist (and - mind - I'm really not a great believer in that). Who is going to ultimately judge who was a good Christian and who was not, after they died? God right? Certainly not all that claimed to be Christians in life would enter Heaven (ex. Priests who abuse children). Now I don't believe in Heaven and Hell (only inside our heads and around us in our world), but what this means is that God would not look at me as a good Christian just because I say I was. He would look at my actions. So if I wasn't a good Christian and went to Hell, I could hardly be called a Christian at all. I would be a failed Christian at best or, worse, a false Christian.
I have no problem you doing with your personal life whatever you wish to do as long as it does not effect the rights of others. But right now “Christianity” is doing some pretty stupid things by my book and I choose to work to make sure I can live my life how I please as long as it does not take away anyone else’s rights.
It's not Christianity that's doing those things. It's real people, with real problems; maybe self-called Christians, but not necessarily good Christians and, therefore, not necessarily true Christians at all. Christians aim at replicating Jesus as a role model in their lives, but I doubt that Jesus would fall into one of your categories. i.e. interfering with your life or individual rights without you doing it to others (if you did he might knock on your door) or doing "stupid" things, whatever you have in mind.

THE LOST PLANET

16-05-2006, 20:33

Was this a painting done at the time of the Last Supper like ah, ah, photograph maybe? Was the painter right there at the Last Supper?No but the painting was done at a time much nearer to the time of christ than we are now. Coincidentaly somewhat near the time that the various texts were edited into what we now know as the bible. It is no secret that the 'Bible' is mearly a collection of works that the church decided out of the multitude available to them to be the 'official' dogma of christianity. Politics definitly played a part in their choices. It is not far fetched to speculate that a scholar like Leonardo had access to texts that didn't make the cut. Likewise that he may have hinted at his knowledge in his work, ambiguously enough to keep him from being denounced a heretic.

UpwardThrust

16-05-2006, 20:44

My point is that no one is a TRUE Christian just because they claim to be and that, of course, includes myself. Let's imagine for a second that this Father-Type-Of-God does exist (and - mind - I'm really not a great believer in that). Who is going to ultimately judge who was a good Christian and who was not, after they died? God right? Certainly not all that claimed to be Christians in life would enter Heaven (ex. Priests who abuse children). Now I don't believe in Heaven and Hell (only inside our heads and around us in our world), but what this means is that God would not look at me as a good Christian just because I say I was. He would look at my actions. So if I wasn't a good Christian and went to Hell, I could hardly be called a Christian at all. I would be a failed Christian at best or, worse, a false Christian.

It's not Christianity that's doing those things. It's real people, with real problems; maybe self-called Christians, but not necessarily good Christians and, therefore, not necessarily true Christians at all. Christians aim at replicating Jesus as a role model in their lives, but I doubt that Jesus would fall into one of your categories. i.e. interfering with your life or individual rights without you doing it to others (if you did he might knock on your door) or doing "stupid" things, whatever you have in mind.

But you have to understand that those without faith interact with the people and the organization

Christianity is a religion only defined by a belief in Christ (and the associated god). You may not feel they are following the true faith but they are still Christians. (you sort of explained this themselves by calling them “bad Christians” rather then non Christians (actually I applauded you for knowing this distinction between bad Christian and what makes them not a Christian)

Christianity the religion IS made up of people … you may think it exists objectively but there is no proof of that whatsoever.

If you rather me be more explicit I will

“Many people who believe in Christ” (Christians) “Do Silly things based on a book that has no objective proof that the contents are accurate, furthermore they use this book (the bible) to justify doing all sorts of silly things”

I’m sorry but in the end Christianity is what the people make it, and the face the people and the organization in my personal life has shown me has instilled the despise of following anything blindly, much less a non verifiable deity that people claim says certain things.

Assis

16-05-2006, 22:05

Catholics? Baptists mostly, from my experience. The catholics are quite a nice bunch in general.
I said "fundamentalist Catholics" as I could have "fundamentalist Baptists" or "fundamentalist Evangelists". Maybe I should have used the word "extremist" instead of "fundamentalist". I am talking of people who think their religion entitles them to force it upon others' throats, whether they like it or not. In my opinion, no person like that is on a good start to be a good Christian. I believe a good Christian will never try to impose anything on anybody, not even his faith. If anything, a good Christian will give an example which could inspire another person to join him.
I find that age in a spiritual group tends to result in a reasoning that has developed with the times, while all you young upstarts tend to be the ones causing trouble. I tells ya, it weren't like this back in my day. Back then, you'd have gotten a slap with the authoritarian ruler for backtalk like the kid faiths these days.
I don't know when "back in your day" is, but I say thank "God" we don't have to take slaps from authoritarian rulers anymore (or should I say for the moment?). Also, I actually think that all problems that Christianity is going through today is because men, claiming to be Christians, have used and abused of the authority they created around them.
The answer to who is and is not called a Christian is not found in the philosophy of Jesus; its origins lie entirely within the organisation that created the notion, and anyone who is accepted into the organisation is a Christian by the very definition of the name.
Personally, I have to disagree. My view on being a Christian is following Jesus' philosophy and teachings, not belonging to any organisation.
Jesus represents Jesus; regardless of whatever else he may represent allegorically. But nobody else does. The Church represents the Church, Christians represent Christianity, and neither of these is or can rightly claim to be any sort of representation of him. They are the result of people and are entirely representative of that fact. And as the result of its people, it can be and is bent and twisted by the actions of its people.
Which seems to have been my point all along (?), though I've lost you when you said "They are the result of people and are entirely representative of that fact." No one can claim to represent Jesus, therefore Christianity is nothing but each and every individual's attempt to conform to a way of life, not the authoritarian rule of an organisation.
You make the assumption that I somehow dislike Jesus. That's not fair. I would love to have met him and had conversations with him (assuming, of course, that he would know how to speak either modern English or French).
I've certainly never made those assumptions. I think your problem is with people claiming to be Christian, not Jesus himself. It's only sad when people don't make the distinction between bad people and good people and, instead, chose to talk of "bad Christians". You see, this is a paradox; there are no "bad Christians", just bad people claiming to be Christians.
What I dislike is when people think that Christianity is some divinely blessed heraldry designed specifically by God to be his sole representative to the world (...) In doing so, it has successfully coerced the millions the world over who cannot see through this charade into despising God with a passion, which I feel personally to be doing Jesus' ideas a great disservice.
Maybe what you dislike is what I dislike. That mankind has taken possession of a symbol of peace, love, tolerance and compassion and used it to gain power over others, to violently oppress them and to abuse their trust. Do you believe that Jesus would have condemned Buddha to the stake? Want another example of this? The swastika.

Assis

16-05-2006, 22:42

If you rather me be more explicit I will
“Many people who believe in Christ” (Christians) “Do Silly things based on a book that has no objective proof that the contents are accurate, furthermore they use this book (the bible) to justify doing all sorts of silly things”

I agree. But you can also say this:
“Many people who believe in Christ (Christians) DON'T do silly things based on what they've learned from a book.”

Or you can say:
“Many people who don't believe in Christ (non-Christians) do silly things based on selfishness/intolerance/you choose.”

I personally prefer this one:
"Many people do silly things based on whatever reason they find suitable."

I agree that the Bible is FAR from perfect. It couldn't be. First it was written by men, who may have made honest or dishonest mistakes when writing about their own views on religion, rather than simply trying to record and pass-on Jesus' sayings and teachings with more accuracy and more extensively. This is my personal opinion, hence why I only follow Jesus' sayings from the Bible and, even then, I always leave a margin to some biased editing adding some discriminatory words. If you really want to find Jesus in the Bible, you have to sift through a lot of straw and think what is most consistent with Jesus. How would he act upon a situation? Unfortunately, the Bible has been used, abused and edited by oppressive and violent men. Thing is, if it wasn't the Bible, it could have been something else; Communism, Socialism, Islam...

I’m sorry but in the end Christianity is what the people make it, and the face the people and the organization in my personal life has shown me has instilled the despise of following anything blindly, much less a non verifiable deity that people claim says certain things.

The sad thing is that, in the end, Christianity IS NOT what people make it, but what the Vatican makes it, because that is ultimately the world's reference on Christianity, particularly for non-Christians. When we see popes, cardinals and bishops living in opulence, while people starve in Africa, we smell hypocrisy. The unfortunate truth is that millions of Christians are judged on the actions of the Vatican. There's a good share of Christians that don't like the Vatican's luxury or the Pope's kingly reign...

Kamsaki

16-05-2006, 23:44

Personally, I have to disagree. My view on being a Christian is following Jesus' philosophy and teachings, not belonging to any organisation.
Then why call yourself a Christian? Why try to give yourself such an identity? Jesus never told you to or even said it might be a good idea.

I don't see how it is possible for Christianity to be anything other than a social identity we assign ourselves based on the ideas we have. Not only are no two sets of ideas that a given Christian might have the same but at the same time we see that people can have entirely "Christian" perspectives, ethics and spiritual philosophies while they do not refer to themselves as such.

Even if your faith and thoughts are not a choice, the actual act of taking on a name is a conscious decision we make. And if that is the case, then what purpose does the name serve? What meaning can it have beyond that which those who use it give it? Surely, it is only a way of classifying ourselves to others?

Incidentally, the whole "Back in my day" thing was a bit of fun-poking. :)

Maybe what you dislike is what I dislike. That mankind has taken possession of a symbol of peace, love, tolerance and compassion and used it to gain power over others, to violently oppress them and to abuse their trust. Do you believe that Jesus would have condemned Buddha to the stake? Want another example of this? The swastika.
Well, in a sense, I agree.

Essentially, I have phenomenal difficulties in the way Jesus has been used as an icon and symbol at all in modern thinking rather than as a person in his own right. Christ has been symbolised, dehumanised and depersonalised in the eyes of the faith, and is instead a representation of something else that directly appeals to our innermost sense of desire and greed. That in itself worries me; that God comes to the world of men in a unique earthly incarnation in the interest of a little engagement with us and we make him into little more than an emotional posterboy. Rather typical of our attitude to the world around us, really.

As I have said before, I don't doubt that Jesus and Buddha could be best mates, although I do reckon Jesus would have taken a more traditionalist approach to the Hinduism of their time. I think Luke's Gospel in particular indicates a great deal of similarity between the two (intentional? The result of crossed wires? Possibly, but that's another discussion).

Yet, to some, the notion is an absurd one. Not so much because of the identity of Buddha but more that, astonishingly, the idea of Jesus having specific friends makes them feel a little weird. The idea of Jesus having his own colour of eyes, skin and hair makes them shuffle uncomfortably in their seats. The prospect of Jesus having the odd glass of wine and sitting down to a casual discussion about the weather, how well trade for the other guy is going, new forms of music they may have heard and the state of the local political situation even gets them on edge, if suggested at the wrong point in conversation. They can say they acknowledge God becoming human; yet they will never have given a thought about what that entails because they never need to actually see Jesus as a human being.

Instead, what they are taught about is the Jesus who brings us Heaven's commands and tells us how to get there. Jesus in the church is no man; he is reduced to the symbol of the action of God in giving us the price to attain what we want. This is not merely the individual interpretation of one Christian. This is an inherent systematic flaw with the very notion of Christianity itself, and one with powerful social ramifications - almost all of the problems raised by people in this thread are a direct result of it.

This is what I see in modern Christianity; a systematic ignoring of the universal spirit in pseudo-materialistic favour of his own impersonal shadow in history. If you're telling me that Christians develop this sense of self-oriented spirituality without any sort of social pressures I will have a very hard time believing you.

Assis

17-05-2006, 15:48

Then why call yourself a Christian? Why try to give yourself such an identity? Jesus never told you to or even said it might be a good idea.
I don't know if you've ever readed it but, according to the Gospel of Thomas at least, he did. I have chosen to trust this Gospel, since it reads like a recorded dialogue which sounds very consistent with how I personally believe Jesus would have talked.

"If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.
After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

According to the same Gospel he also said:

"Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return."[/I]

This is how I read these teachings: If a solitary person and/or one that doesn't pray can "find the kingdom", they don't need to conform to a religious organisation. I think his point is "practice as I do".
I don't see how it is possible for Christianity to be anything other than a social identity we assign ourselves based on the ideas we have. Not only are no two sets of ideas that a given Christian might have the same but at the same time we see that people can have entirely "Christian" perspectives, ethics and spiritual philosophies while they do not refer to themselves as such. Even if your faith and thoughts are not a choice, the actual act of taking on a name is a conscious decision we make. And if that is the case, then what purpose does the name serve? What meaning can it have beyond that which those who use it give it? Surely, it is only a way of classifying ourselves to others?
I think that is a matter of how you choose to interpret the word "Christian". I've chosen to interpret as a practical way-of-life, based on the "probable" words of Jesus, instead of as a "social identity" or "organised religion" which I regard as "stereotyping" (even if they are not meant to be) and not necessarily the as the most accurate representation of Jesus' way-of-life. In my perspective, being a Christian is fundamentally (if not only) different from being a Buddhist because you have learned that way-of-life through Jesus, instead of Buddha.
Incidentally, the whole "Back in my day" thing was a bit of fun-poking. :)
Thank "God" for that... :D
As I have said before, I don't doubt that Jesus and Buddha could be best mates, although I do reckon Jesus would have taken a more traditionalist approach to the Hinduism of their time.
Maybe, but I personally don't believe that, ultimately, he would judge anybody purely on their beliefs but their actions.
Yet, to some, the notion is an absurd one. Not so much because of the identity of Buddha but more that, astonishingly, the idea of Jesus having specific friends makes them feel a little weird.
Oh yes... Can you imagine Jesus preferring the company of Buddha to the company of a Pope living in opulence? Wouldn't that cause a stir...
The prospect of Jesus having the odd glass of wine and sitting down to a casual discussion about the weather, how well trade for the other guy is going, new forms of music they may have heard and the state of the local political situation even gets them on edge, if suggested at the wrong point in conversation. They can say they acknowledge God becoming human; yet they will never have given a thought about what that entails because they never need to actually see Jesus as a human being.
They [the apostles] said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."
[Gospel of Thomas] yet again
This is what I see in modern Christianity; a systematic ignoring of the universal spirit in pseudo-materialistic favour of his own impersonal shadow in history. If you're telling me that Christians develop this sense of self-oriented spirituality without any sort of social pressures I will have a very hard time believing you.
Actually, that's more old-fashioned Christianity. Believe me, they do. I am one (though I am Agnostic) but there are many others. Brazil in particular is full of them (they mix Christianity with local "pagan" traditions). Most of the very few times I've been to church were a consequence of attending to weddings. In one of those occasions, there was a young catholic priest who caught my attention for saying things which many old-school Catholics would classify as heresy; like there is no such thing as Heaven or Hell, that these are ilustrations for messages. Not only it is possible to "develop this sense of self-oriented spirituality without any sort of social pressures but is also possible to do it with tremendous social pressures.
Go modern Christians go...

UpwardThrust

17-05-2006, 16:08

I agree. But you can also say this:
“Many people who believe in Christ (Christians) DON'T do silly things based on what they've learned from a book.”

Or you can say:
“Many people who don't believe in Christ (non-Christians) do silly things based on selfishness/intolerance/you choose.”

I personally prefer this one:
"Many people do silly things based on whatever reason they find suitable."

I agree that the Bible is FAR from perfect. It couldn't be. First it was written by men, who may have made honest or dishonest mistakes when writing about their own views on religion, rather than simply trying to record and pass-on Jesus' sayings and teachings with more accuracy and more extensively. This is my personal opinion, hence why I only follow Jesus' sayings from the Bible and, even then, I always leave a margin to some biased editing adding some discriminatory words. If you really want to find Jesus in the Bible, you have to sift through a lot of straw and think what is most consistent with Jesus. How would he act upon a situation? Unfortunately, the Bible has been used, abused and edited by oppressive and violent men. Thing is, if it wasn't the Bible, it could have been something else; Communism, Socialism, Islam...

The sad thing is that, in the end, Christianity IS NOT what people make it, but what the Vatican makes it, because that is ultimately the world's reference on Christianity, particularly for non-Christians. When we see popes, cardinals and bishops living in opulence, while people starve in Africa, we smell hypocrisy. The unfortunate truth is that millions of Christians are judged on the actions of the Vatican. There's a good share of Christians that don't like the Vatican's luxury or the Pope's kingly reign...

I can understand your point of view …personally I like Christians like you and I don’t mean to deride your faith

You just have to understand that not only have I had a horrid experience with the catholic church in my past (probably has more effect one me then I know), but with many many many many Christians in my personal life

I don’t mean to stereotype on those that are doing what I think is a noble thing, having a personal faith. But for every one of you there is another one that wishes to make un wanted changes on my life, and it gets tiresome to hear them use what I feel is silly justification for messing with me

NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider this... What if Jesus