NationStates Jolt Archive

You have enough playmates in that game already, I'll pass thanks.
I don't know what you're talking about.


Paul mentioning it does not make it 'fundamental'.
Paul saying it is pretty much does, as he says it is a fundamental part! If the resurrection didn't happen, then it's all in vain. No conquering of death. No eternal life. Therefore, the resurrection must have happened and belief in jesus as the son and only way is fundamental.

Now then, I think I've established my case quite well.

Paul saying it is pretty much does, as he says it is a fundamental part! If the resurrection didn't happen, then it's all in vain. No conquering of death. No eternal life. Therefore, the resurrection must have happened and belief in jesus as the son and only way is fundamental.

Now then, I think I've established my case quite well.


Are you familiar with the fact that in Paul's time, the question of any ressurrection was being bandied about?

There were religious teachers claiming that this life is all we have, there is no ressurrection at all. The Sadduccees are the best known in scripture that come from this ideology and there were those in Corinth proclaiming this teaching.

Paul is demonstrating that there must be a resurrection for the sacrifice Jesus makes as the unblemished lamb to cover our sins and also that there are multiple reports that confirm the ressurrection of Jesus after his crucifiction.

It is PART of the Christian belief, but again, it is not the foundation that you want it to be. Of far greater importance than tucking your fire insurance away for a non-rainy day is how we go about bringing the kingdom of God into being among us.

Read through the words of Jesus and the teachings in the epistles, the question of where one spends eternity is there, but it is overwhelmed with teachings, parables, instruction, exhortation and encouragement on how to LIVE, not how to DIE.

Are you familiar with the fact that in Paul's time, the question of any ressurrection was being bandied about?
Yes, and his teachings were quite instrumental in making it a fundamental belief.


Paul is demonstrating that there must be a resurrection for the sacrifice Jesus makes as the unblemished lamb to cover our sins and also that there are multiple reports that confirm the ressurrection of Jesus after his crucifiction.
Thus, that without the sacrifice, there is no eternal life. Fundamental belief.

The teachings may be in part how to live, but it's how to live so that you will end up in the Good Place.

Yes, and his teachings were quite instrumental in making it a fundamental belief.


Paul was clarifying, not making it a fundamental anything.


Thus, that without the sacrifice, there is no eternal life. Fundamental belief.

The teachings may be in part how to live, but it's how to live so that you will end up in the Good Place.


More important than the eternal life, without the sacrifice, there is no regeneration of mankind here and now.
The teachings are not "in part" how to live, that is what they are fully.
It's not about ending up in the Good Place. It's about creating a Good Place here.

A century or two of hellfire and brimstone preaching changes what people may perceive the gospel is about, but it doesn't actually change the teachings of Jesus.

You are tilting at windmills.

There are so many threads about "disproving" christianity. Why does everyone try so hard to "disprove" or "discredit it?
Well, first of all, it doesn't take much work to "discredit" most of the fundamentalist BS that people tend to focus on in threads like this. Even Christians tend to recognize that BS for the BS that it is.

But, more to the point, most of the people on this forum are from countries where Christians dominate national discourse. Most of the people on this forum are non-Christians. Can you see why a whole bunch of non-Christians, living in nations where Christians are the most controlling and vocal religious group, might vent a bit?

Gay and bisexual individuals are also more heavily represented on this forum than in most of our home countries. Considering that virtually every single anti-gay group in our home nations is run by Christians, and considering that Christian religious doctrine is one of the most common ways of propping up anti-gay bigotry, can you understand why a lot of posters around here might be a tad annoyed at Christian doctrine?

The fact is that a whole lot of Christians in the world are currently spending a great deal of energy on forcing their belief systems into other people's lives. That has consequences, and one of the consequences is increased scrutiny of Christianity and the people who practice it.

Now, there are also a lot of Christians who would just as soon not force their religion onto anybody else. There are a lot of Christians who don't think that "Christian values" include hating homos, devaluing women, and spitting on people who fail to worship the right Jeebus. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most Christians fall into this category, since most Christians are just like all the other people in the world: they're way too busy living their own lives to give a flying fuck. Sadly, those Christians are given a lousy reputation by their fellow Christians.

Paul was clarifying, not making it a fundamental anything.
In his clarification, he made it fundamental.



More important than the eternal life, without the sacrifice, there is no regeneration of mankind here and now.
But it's the regeneration for the afterlife.


The teachings are not "in part" how to live, that is what they are fully.
It's not about ending up in the Good Place. It's about creating a Good Place here.
No, it's about ending up in the Good Place.

What a wonderful tantrum. I can just see you stomping your feet.

I really have to wonder what you think is gained by this.... the consensus seems to be that you drop arguments, or simply choose to ignore them... somehow assuming that the mere presence of your stated opinion is enough to negate any argument.

Here, you appear to be trying to tell Christians what THEY believe, and why... and I really don't see how your accusations of tantrums and diapers are helping in any way.

Indeed - in the light of this comment; " can just see you stomping your feet" - it appears that you are putting quite a lot of work into the 'mental image' of your opponent.

Thus - I am forced to assume that your continued reference to Dempublicents in diapers, is part of some image you are feeling a need for. Hell, Dem in diapers... who can blame you?

I'd think that something so necessary that Paul talks about (since much of xerdom is from Paul) is quite fundamental.


On the contrary... opinion is very much divided over the importance of Paul's contributions to scripture. His whole canon has been excised from some scripture, and some have gone as far as to call him 'antichrist'.

Most Christians seem to place most faith in the three non-Johannine Gospels, especially... and the four Gospels generally. The Gospels are the 'historical' texts, while Paul is a commentator and theological theoretician.

In his clarification, he made it fundamental.

But it's the regeneration for the afterlife.

No, it's about ending up in the Good Place.

Enjoy your thread.

Enjoy your thread.
Enjoy your ignorance.

Kind of like the invisible pink unicorn.

I still mantain that the unicorn can not be BOTH pink AND invisible. That violates the definition of both words.

I still mantain that the unicorn can not be BOTH pink AND invisible. That violates the definition of both words.

Oh, ye of little faith...

I still mantain that the unicorn can not be BOTH pink AND invisible. That violates the definition of both words.
The unicorn can not be bound by human logic!

Enjoy your ignorance.

Just talking statistically - if everyone thinks your argument is flawed, even those theoretically on the same 'side' as you... it might be worth questioning your own argument.

Just talking statistically - if everyone thinks your argument is flawed, even those theoretically on the same 'side' as you... it might be worth questioning your own argument.
Yeah bottle me and you are atheists and while I have kept out of the thread for a few pages … a re-evaluation may be in order

I still mantain that the unicorn can not be BOTH pink AND invisible. That violates the definition of both words.

Not necessarily. Was it specified that the unicorn was perenially invisable, or merely capable of invisibility:D

Not necessarily. Was it specified that the unicorn was perenially invisable, or merely capable of invisibility:D

The way the statment is phrased strongly sugests that it is an asertion of perenialy invisable unicorns . . .

Which by definition of the words invisable and pink can not be both.

The way the statment is phrased strongly sugests that it is an asertion of perenialy invisable unicorns . . .

Which by definition of the words invisable and pink can not be both.

Why? Invisible is not translucent or transparent. If a pink unicorn hides behind something it is pink AND invisible. Visibility only describes the relation between a beholder and anything he/she beholds, not more, it says nothing about the properties of the beheld subject.

The way the statment is phrased strongly sugests that it is an asertion of perenialy invisable unicorns . . .

Which by definition of the words invisable and pink can not be both.

Hmm... I'd assume that if to call the unicorn both "pink" and "invisible" is to make any kind of sense, "invisible" would have to mean "not capable of being seen by any means available to us". Presumably, other invisible unicorns would be able to see each other, and therefore be able to ascertain that they were pink.

It's "invisible pink", sorta like "invisible ink". She's not "invisible" and "pink", but a pink that is invisible.

Get it now, O Minions of the Purple Oyster of Doom?

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.

Firstly the Bible is a load of crap. It is a bookk supposedly written by god but obiviously written by men that contradicts itself. It also endorses slavery and the beating of women and slaves. You ever notice how when you point out how full of it the bible is that some Cristian pipes in with "well you have to learn how to read it and understand it". Funny, and I supposed you are in possession of this enlightenment

This brings me to my second point, Religion always ends up with someone on top, economically, socially, or politically. Is it any surprise that many hate groups in America have a religious bent? Is it any surprise that Cristians pour millions of dollars each year into groups that seek to impose thier values on others politically and culturally.

Thirdly Christian seek to dominate our society and the world should they get the chance. Not only is this the expressed goal of many religious leaders, but institutions like missions (a nice way of saying imperialism) are also evidence of this.

The next time that loser asks you to go to that youth group politely tell him that you think he and his imaginary god can go fuck themselves. Also try the following site:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Firstly the Bible is a load of crap. It is a bookk supposedly written by god but obiviously written by men that contradicts itself. It also endorses slavery and the beating of women and slaves. You ever notice how when you point out how full of it the bible is that some Cristian pipes in with "well you have to learn how to read it and understand it". Funny, and I supposed you are in possession of this enlightenment
interesting. I don't think I have ever heard a Christian claim that the Bible was written by God, inspired by God, yes, but written by men.

This brings me to my second point, Religion always ends up with someone on top, economically, socially, or politically.

when you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.

Thirdly Christian seek to dominate our society and the world should they get the chance.
not all of us.

Not only is this the expressed goal of many religious leaders, but institutions like missions (a nice way of saying imperialism) are also evidence of this.
missions /=/ imperialism

The next time that loser asks you to go to that youth group politely tell him that you think he and his imaginary god can go fuck themselves. Also try the following site:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
nice. :rolleyes:

Just talking statistically - if everyone thinks your argument is flawed, even those theoretically on the same 'side' as you... it might be worth questioning your own argument.
I can't believe how much time I wasted arguing with a totally unreasonable and unreasoning atheist. It's one thing if there's a superstitious bloke who can't get their head out of their own superstitions, but when it's one of my fellow Godless Ones...that just makes Bottle feel bummed.

interesting. I don't think I have ever heard a Christian claim that the Bible was written by God, inspired by God, yes, but written by men.

I have, Smunkee. In fact, I've been slapped across the mouth by a Christian who was totally offended when I pointed out that the physical writing of the physical Bible was performed by human beings. There are Christians who believe that the Bible was physically written by God Himself, and that it is only later editions which were transcribed by humans.

But, more to the point, I think that Pulpo's point wasn't so much about the physical writing of the Bible, as much as it was about the origin of the Bible. Pulpo was (I think) saying that the Bible wasn't inspired by God, but was composed by human beings who were inspired by human motives.


when you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.

Tee hee.


missions /=/ imperialism

Depends on which side you're on, I suppose.

I can't believe how much time I wasted arguing with a totally unreasonable and unreasoning atheist. It's one thing if there's a superstitious bloke who can't get their head out of their own superstitions, but when it's one of my fellow Godless Ones...that just makes Bottle feel bummed.
I'd say it was a good thing. It's nice to know that we are not so roped in by our labels as to have them blind us to the failings of others with those labels.

I have, Smunkee. In fact, I've been slapped across the mouth by a Christian who was totally offended when I pointed out that the physical writing of the physical Bible was performed by human beings. There are Christians who believe that the Bible was physically written by God Himself, and that it is only later editions which were transcribed by humans.

But, more to the point, I think that Pulpo's point wasn't so much about the physical writing of the Bible, as much as it was about the origin of the Bible. Pulpo was (I think) saying that the Bible wasn't inspired by God, but was composed by human beings who were inspired by human motives.
wow, if you weren't an atheist because of your own non-belief maybe these poor Christians you have been around pushed you in that direction.......:eek:


Tee hee.
to date, you, Grave_n_Idle, and my kid are the only ones who get that.


Depends on which side you're on, I suppose.
I have always been on the missionary side, been out to help the poor, no pressure, no trying to conquer, just out there to help them because that's what Christians should do. (however this has been within the last 10 years, I don't know like 200 years ago how bad it was.........but I hear the catholic church had some bad times with boundries)

I'd say it was a good thing. It's nice to know that we are not so roped in by our labels as to have them blind us to the failings of others with those labels.
Hmm. You're right, that does help me feel a bit better.

I am glad I had the chance to establish that I'm not some knee-jerk anti-Christian who will automatically support anyone and anything as long as it bashes Jeebus. I'm also glad for an opportunity to prove that I'm not going to agree with somebody just because we share a lack of belief in God.

I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: the PROCESS is what matters to me. If somebody decides they don't believe in God because their magical talking donut told them not to, then I don't feel much ground has been gained. If somebody decides to hate Christianity because there are some mean Christian kids at their school, I don't feel like this represents a significant break through.

For me, it's not about "converting" people to agree with me. I'd far rather have somebody disagree with me via sound thinking (Demi, I'm looking in your general direction :)) than have somebody agree with me for all the wrong reasons.

wow, if you weren't an atheist because of your own non-belief maybe these poor Christians you have been around pushed you in that direction.......:eek:

Heh.

Honestly, though, I don't think my godlessness has much to do with the various religious jerks I've encountered (and I have encountered a few). One of the best lessons my parents taught me is that religion doesn't create assholes or angels, it just answers the needs of human beings who may be assholes, angels, or anything in between.

I'm not going to reject Christianity simply because there are some assholes who happen to be Christian, any more than I'm going to reject rollerblading because there are some assholes who rollerblade. Instead, I'm going to reject assholery, whether it wears a cross or a set of skates. :D


to date, you, Grave_n_Idle, and my kid are the only ones who get that.

I am in good company, in that case. :)

Heh.

Honestly, though, I don't think my godlessness has much to do with the various religious jerks I've encountered (and I have encountered a few). One of the best lessons my parents taught me is that religion doesn't create assholes or angels, it just answers the needs of human beings who may be assholes, angels, or anything in between.
true, true, true.

I always get annoyed with the "I grew up in the church and everyone was a hypocrite so that's why I am an atheist" ones, but the "I just can't wrap my brain in a way as to believe that" ones really don't bother me so much......is that weird?

I'm not going to reject Christianity simply because there are some assholes who happen to be Christian, any more than I'm going to reject rollerblading because there are some assholes who rollerblade. Instead, I'm going to reject assholery, whether it wears a cross or a set of skates. :D
I also reject assholes on rollerskates :p


I am in good company, in that case. :)
well, I get it too, or I wouldn't say it.......but yeah, smart people unite!

I can't believe how much time I wasted arguing with a totally unreasonable and unreasoning atheist. It's one thing if there's a superstitious bloke who can't get their head out of their own superstitions, but when it's one of my fellow Godless Ones...that just makes Bottle feel bummed.

Oh, I know... it is tres frustrating. I can't quite get my head around the idea of atheism 'taken on faith'... which is what it must be, sans reason.... no?

interesting. I don't think I have ever heard a Christian claim that the Bible was written by God, inspired by God, yes, but written by men.


Siding with Bottle, here. I have encountered a whole lot of people around here that argue scripture was 'dictated' verbatim... and, more confusingly, that the only correct version is, therefore, the KJV.

:)?

I am in good company, in that case. :)

Yes. We are 'the cool kids'.

(Well, a decade and a half AFTER school.... better late than never).

Siding with Bottle, here. I have encountered a whole lot of people around here that argue scripture was 'dictated' verbatim... and, more confusingly, that the only correct version is, therefore, the KJV.

:)?
oh, yeah, I forgot about the KJV nutjobs.......

I grew up in a church full of them, I bought a NKJV when I was like 10 and it was a big conspiracy

On the contrary... opinion is very much divided over the importance of Paul's contributions to scripture.
On the contrary: we can almost call it Paulianity. He has that much of an influence.

I really have to wonder what you think is gained by this.... the consensus seems to be that you drop arguments, or simply choose to ignore them...
The consensus is wrong.


Here, you appear to be trying to tell Christians what THEY believe,
I didn't appear to be doing that at all. I merely referenced what the book says and mentioned some basic concepts that all xers must adhere to. Certainly, you wouldn't say that someone who doesn't believe in god is an xer, would you? No. Therefore, I can say that all xers believe in a god. Now is that telling an xer what s/he believes? NO! It's part of the definition.

Yes. We are 'the cool kids'.

I insist we build a clubhouse, immediately.

I insist we build a clubhouse, immediately.
can I come play too? you are going to tell me the supersecretpassword right????

I insist we build a clubhouse, immediately.
http://www.whittlepainters.com/images/tables/kids clubhouse w flowers.jpg

Why? Invisible is not translucent or transparent. If a pink unicorn hides behind something it is pink AND invisible. Visibility only describes the relation between a beholder and anything he/she beholds, not more, it says nothing about the properties of the beheld subject.

My understading is that the question postulates not a HIDING unicorn but one that CAN NOT BE SEEN due to some effect like the One Ring, but permenant.

I have always been on the missionary side, been out to help the poor, no pressure,

Does the help come with a sermon and/or religious pamplet? I have yet to see help from a Christian organization that comes with out at least one of the two. If you can help the poor with out trying IN THE SLIGHTEST to convert them (and if you're not trying to convert them why the tract in with the grocerys?) THEN I will respect your postion as a missionary. Untill then I will suspect the motive of any missionary I meet.

Siding with Bottle, here. I have encountered a whole lot of people around here that argue scripture was 'dictated' verbatim... and, more confusingly, that the only correct version is, therefore, the KJV.

:)?

Funny that, it seems to be the one with the MOST mistranslations.

Does the help come with a sermon and/or religious pamplet? I have yet to see help from a Christian organization that comes with out at least one of the two. If you can help the poor with out trying IN THE SLIGHTEST to convert them (and if you're not trying to convert them why the tract in with the grocerys?) THEN I will respect your postion as a missionary. Untill then I will suspect the motive of any missionary I meet.
We just help, it's known (or it was when I went) that we were a Christian organization, but other than that, we just helped. I have mostly been on mission trips in the states, but I have friends overseas most of them in countries where they aren't allowed to evangelize, in fact a few of my friends are returning from Cambodia today, they are not out there with tracts and brochures, they are out there to help, if people ask about God it's not like we aren't going to tell them though.

Siding with Bottle, here. I have encountered a whole lot of people around here that argue scripture was 'dictated' verbatim... and, more confusingly, that the only correct version is, therefore, the KJV.

:)?


But, God obviously speaks English - old-timey English. Didn't you know?


Does the help come with a sermon and/or religious pamplet? I have yet to see help from a Christian organization that comes with out at least one of the two. If you can help the poor with out trying IN THE SLIGHTEST to convert them (and if you're not trying to convert them why the tract in with the grocerys?) THEN I will respect your postion as a missionary. Untill then I will suspect the motive of any missionary I meet.

I didn't get to go on the one missionary trip I signed up for. However, there was no sermonizing or pamphlet-passing-out involved. In fact, we weren't supposed to bring up our religion at all. Religion was to be discussed if and only if one of the people who lived in the town asked.

The same people who were running that program did quite a bit of work in Malaysia after the tsunami. It was the same way. They were there helping to clean out homes, provide medical attention, provide clean water, provide comfort, etc. Only if they were asked about their faith did they bring it up. It apparently surprised quite a few people to learn that they were, in fact, Christians.

On the contrary: we can almost call it Paulianity. He has that much of an influence.

Again, you generalise wildly. I know Christians that consider Paul to be an important commentator, but ONLY a commentator... because he never met the living Jesus, during his earthly ministry.

As I said - there have actually been versions of scripture pressed that entirely omit Paul - that is how controversial he is considered.

The consensus is wrong.


Well, of course you would say that. :)


I didn't appear to be doing that at all. I merely referenced what the book says and mentioned some basic concepts that all xers must adhere to. Certainly, you wouldn't say that someone who doesn't believe in god is an xer, would you? No. Therefore, I can say that all xers believe in a god. Now is that telling an xer what s/he believes? NO! It's part of the definition.

Personally, I believe one could be 'christian' without any kind of faith... by living a Christlike life. But, as an Atheist... maybe my opinion is not worth much, don't you think?

As I said - there have actually been versions of scripture pressed that entirely omit Paul - that is how controversial he is considered.
If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson specifically and conspicuously removed Paul from what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible."

Ironic, isn't it? Christians are against homosexuals yet they think its okay for male Christiand to love God and Jesus, who are both men. I hate religion so much because it causes so many problems. The Crusades, witch burnings, homophobia, all came from Christianity. Personally, the world would be a better place without religion because people would all be the same and Muslim Terrorist groups wouldn't be able to use it to preach their hateful message.

Again, you generalise wildly.
No, I state correctly. Paul's writings are the other foundation. Without Paul, we don't have xerdom as we know it, period. We certainly don't have oft-quoted verses like "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god" and "What right does the pot have to ask of the potter".

And I'd love to see the canon without Paul. Coptic, Protestant, and Catholic all include Paul. In fact, of the major rivals to Pauline xerdom, it seems that they've all either disappeared or are so small as to be insignificant in terms of influence. Gnostics, Ebionites, and the Nazarenes seem to be in short supply. Marcionites, too, seem nowhere to be found (among other of the competing views).

Komyunizumu']Ironic, isn't it?

Wossat?

Christians are against homosexuals

We are!?!?!?! :confused:

yet they think its okay for male Christiand to love God and Jesus, who are both men.

God isn't a man, that's kind of the whole point. Not to mention that, even if I was "against homosexuals", there are certainly nonsexual forms of love.

Personally, the world would be a better place without religion because people would all be the same and Muslim Terrorist groups wouldn't be able to use it to preach their hateful message.

You really think people would stop being hateful if they didn't have religion as a possible excuse?

If memory serves, the Thomas Jefferson specifically and conspicuously removed Paul from what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible."
Paul's influence in Christian scripture extends beyond his immediate writings and presence in the Acts. John's Gospel and Revelation in particular seem very much in line with the ideas and interpretations of Paul, and his overt and irrational antisemitism may have had some part to play in the widespread distribution of the Torah.

Personally, I believe one could be 'christian' without any kind of faith...
That runs contra to the definition of christian. A christian is one who follows the religion of christianity. Christianity, of course, is this:

http://www.ismbook.com/christianity.html

(religion) Christianity is the name given to the religion and (later) theology that arose among those who considered Jesus of Nazareth (c. 3 BCE - 26 CE) to be the "Lord's Anointed" (messiah) of ancient Jewish prophecy. Its signature ideas include the redemptive power of belief in Jesus as the Christ, original sin caused by human knowledge of good and evil, the intrinsic worth of all individuals, and altruistic love (agape). In its early centuries, Christianity experienced its share of doctrinal disputes but started out mainly as a religious community with its own set of practices and beliefs, although without an explicitly philosophical theology. The development of early Christian theology owes much to the neo-Platonism of Augustine (354-430), including powerful strains of transcendentalism, metaphysical dualism, and a kind of tempered mysticism. In the late Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274 CE) turned Christian theology more towards Aristotelianism, even though the secularism, rationalism, and holism of the Aristotelian world-view are fundamentally at odds with Christianity (although attempts to combine the two persist until today and are often called neo-Aristotelianism).

You really think people would stop being hateful if they didn't have religion as a possible excuse?

Yes. Why do you think Terrorists receive so many new recruits? Because they twist the Qu'ran's script into making it sound like Allah would want them to give up their lives to destroy evil. Thats why practically everyone in those terrorist groups are Muslim. Look at the recent bomb scare in Britain. One of the people had converted to Islam a year earlier.

Paul's influence in Christian scripture extends beyond his immediate writings and presence in the Acts. John's Gospel and Revelation in particular seem very much in line with the ideas and interpretations of Paul, and his overt and irrational antisemitism may have had some part to play in the widespread distribution of the Torah.
but Paul was Jewish:confused:

Komyunizumu']Yes. Why do you think Terrorists receive so many new recruits? Because they twist the Qu'ran's script into making it sound like Allah would want them to give up their lives to destroy evil. Thats why practically everyone in those terrorist groups are Muslim. Look at the recent bomb scare in Britain. One of the people had converted to Islam a year earlier.

And if they didn't have the Qu'ran, they'd use something else. People who wish to wield power over others find ways to do it - whether it is religion or something else. That isn't a property of religion, but a property of people - and what some of them will do to gain power over others.

can I come play too? you are going to tell me the supersecretpassword right????

Don't need a password, silly - that's what the rings are for.

Don't need a password, silly - that's what the rings are for.
ohh, the letter was unclear.......is it okay that I signed for it with my alias?

If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson specifically and conspicuously removed Paul from what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible."

That would be one of them... and he's a mild critic, next to some... criticism of Paul has a thousands-of-years tradition, and ranges from simply calling him antichrist, to implying that god - as Paul describes god - would not BE god.

That runs contra to the definition of christian. A christian is one who follows the religion of christianity. Christianity, of course, is this:

http://www.ismbook.com/christianity.html

(religion) Christianity is the name given to the religion and (later) theology that arose among those who considered Jesus of Nazareth (c. 3 BCE - 26 CE) to be the "Lord's Anointed" (messiah) of ancient Jewish prophecy. Its signature ideas include the redemptive power of belief in Jesus as the Christ, original sin caused by human knowledge of good and evil, the intrinsic worth of all individuals, and altruistic love (agape). In its early centuries, Christianity experienced its share of doctrinal disputes but started out mainly as a religious community with its own set of practices and beliefs, although without an explicitly philosophical theology. The development of early Christian theology owes much to the neo-Platonism of Augustine (354-430), including powerful strains of transcendentalism, metaphysical dualism, and a kind of tempered mysticism. In the late Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274 CE) turned Christian theology more towards Aristotelianism, even though the secularism, rationalism, and holism of the Aristotelian world-view are fundamentally at odds with Christianity (although attempts to combine the two persist until today and are often called neo-Aristotelianism).

That is one possible definition.

Problem is - not everyone who follows Christ DOES believe he was 'messiah'.

You are presenting one 'collective' response... something that is trying to cover a lot of bases... and somehow ignoring the fact that it is neither specific enough to describe any single denomination, nor generic enough to describe all.

ohh, the letter was unclear.......is it okay that I signed for it with my alias?

You were supposed to sign it with the name "Mickey Mouse", scrawled illegibly. We'll let it pass this time, but only because we think you rock. :)

You were supposed to sign it with the name "Mickey Mouse", scrawled illegibly. We'll let it pass this time, but only because we think you rock. :)
awesome!

:D

I'm in the cool club, nyah-nyah........hahaha

That is one possible definition.
That is the standard one in philosophy, and a slightly less verbose one will come from nearly any xer.

Now then, I'd love to find an xer who doesn't believe jesus was the messiah. Again: just one of those things from the definition.

but Paul was Jewish:confused:
Rarely does one fear and despise others as much as when he resembles them. Paul's "conversion" was one of political allegience rather than of personal faith or a renewal of character, and the attitudes of his former self remained strong under his new persona.

That is the standard one in philosophy, and a slightly less verbose one will come from nearly any xer.

Now then, I'd love to find an xer who doesn't believe jesus was the messiah. Again: just one of those things from the definition.

Missed, or failed to understand, the point.

Rarely does one fear and despise others as much as when he resembles them. Paul's "conversion" was one of political allegience rather than of personal faith or a renewal of character, and the attitudes of his former self remained strong under his new persona.
interesting.....very interesting indeed. I will keep that in mind when reading, see if I can see that.....

Missed, or failed to understand, the point.
You had a point?

You had a point?

Way to bump postcount, my friend.

Way to bump postcount, my friend.
I do not know what you're talking about. If you have a point (which, so far, I haven't seen from you), would you be so kind as to get to it?

Rarely does one fear and despise others as much as when he resembles them. Paul's "conversion" was one of political allegience rather than of personal faith or a renewal of character, and the attitudes of his former self remained strong under his new persona.

"Pre-vision" Paul - helped Temple enforcers hunt down and imprison relatively harmless heretics (christians).

"Post-vision" Paul - um... not so much? with the hunting down and imprisoning?

And is there any evidence that would suggest it was a politically good move to challenge the status quo and join a movement presecuted by every major power in the region? To go from hunter to hunted?

interesting.....very interesting indeed. I will keep that in mind when reading, see if I can see that.....
It'll be quite difficult. We don't see a lot of his pre-Christian days in biblical testimony save that he believed the Christians were delusional, that he was fiercely sectarian, that he had a strongly authoritarian view of God and that he thought he was doing the right thing by antagonising himself to anyone who thought otherwise.

"Pre-vision" Paul - helped Temple enforcers hunt down and imprison relatively harmless heretics (christians).

"Post-vision" Paul - um... not so much? with the hunting down and imprisoning?

And is there any evidence that would suggest it was a politically good move to challenge the status quo and join a movement presecuted by every major power in the region? To go from hunter to hunted?
Pre Vision Paul - Faught passive-aggressively against the Christian body, seeing them as those who have deliberately turned away from the path of righteousness provided for them, and set out to become a hero in the eyes of the temples in his supposed righteous indignation. Believed in an authoritarian God who gave a specific set of strict commands who would one day come to the rescue of the Jewish people. Defended the Temple as an organised body and attacked those (like Jesus) who wished to criticise it.

Post Vision Paul - Faught passive-aggressively against the Temples, seeing them as those who deliberately turned away from the new path of righteousness provided for them, and set out to become a hero in the eyes of the Disciples in his supposed righteous indignation. Believed in an authoritarian God who gave (the same) specific set of strict commands who would one day come to the rescue of the Christian people. Developed the Church as an organised body and attacked those who wished to criticise it.

Ultimately, however, the crucial link lies in his approach to his own role. Where the Jewish people threw stones, Paul was their overseer. Where the temples displayed their hour of despair, he rose up to become their champion. Then, when he switched sides, he immediately set out to establish himself as a key player in the Christian movement. From the very start, he deliberately antagonised his former allies, placing himself as an outspoken mouthpiece for the group. He told a dramatic tale of conversion to gain the trust of the early Church, then split its structure and took up a leadership role.

The common thread of a man seeking to establish his own authority through the use of divine justification leaps out from the pages of biblical account and little other than his political allegience seems to change. Presumably he felt his chances of success were far greater under one banner than the other.

Pre Vision Paul - Faught passive-aggressively against the Christian body, seeing them as those who have deliberately turned away from the path of righteousness provided for them, and set out to become a hero in the eyes of the temples in his supposed righteous indignation. Believed in an authoritarian God who gave a specific set of strict commands who would one day come to the rescue of the Jewish people. Defended the Temple as an organised body and attacked those (like Jesus) who wished to criticise it.

Post Vision Paul - Faught passive-aggressively against the Temples, seeing them as those who deliberately turned away from the new path of righteousness provided for them, and set out to become a hero in the eyes of the Disciples in his supposed righteous indignation. Believed in an authoritarian God who gave (the same) specific set of strict commands who would one day come to the rescue of the Christian people. Developed the Church as an organised body and attacked those who wished to criticise it.

Ultimately, however, the crucial link lies in his approach to his own role. Where the Jewish people threw stones, Paul was their overseer. Where the temples displayed their hour of despair, he rose up to become their champion. Then, when he switched sides, he immediately set out to establish himself as a key player in the Christian movement. From the very start, he deliberately antagonised his former allies, placing himself as an outspoken mouthpiece for the group. He told a dramatic tale of conversion to gain the trust of the early Church, then split its structure and took up a leadership role.

The common thread of a man seeking to establish his own authority through the use of divine justification leaps out from the pages of biblical account and little other than his political allegience seems to change. Presumably he felt his chances of success were far greater under one banner than the other.


I'll concede that Paul's personality seems to have remained intact, in that he was a zealous and outspoken proponent of "his" side. The big difference is in his action: you may choose to gloss over the difference between watching those you've endicted be stoned to death and a passive agressive letter writing campaign, but I won't. I also don't see why we should expect Paul to have dramatically changed upon conversion - Christianity was (according to its members at the time) the fullfilment of the Jewish prophecies, not some abhorrent new cult that popped out of nowhere. Many "messiahs" cropped up at the time; Paul thought he had found the real one. He wasn't departing from his former religion, he was embracing what he felt to be its next chapter. Many of his "old" or "pre-vision" beliefs would have been intact. So we would expect him to retain his ideas of an authoritive God, strict rules (though arguably much less so if he fought against requiring circumcision), and an imminent return. They are hardly grounds for dismissing his conversion.

As for his power plays, can anyone argue vehemently with authority and not be accused of making a power play? If you think you're right, and try to convince others to think the same, is it inherently a godless, self-serving power ploy?

I'll concede that Paul's personality seems to have remained intact, in that he was a zealous and outspoken proponent of "his" side. The big difference is in his action: you may choose to gloss over the difference between watching those you've endicted be stoned to death and a passive agressive letter writing campaign, but I won't. I also don't see why we should expect Paul to have dramatically changed upon conversion - Christianity was (according to its members at the time) the fullfilment of the Jewish prophecies, not some abhorrent new cult that popped out of nowhere. Many "messiahs" cropped up at the time; Paul thought he had found the real one. He wasn't departing from his former religion, he was embracing what he felt to be its next chapter. Many of his "old" or "pre-vision" beliefs would have been intact. So we would expect him to retain his ideas of an authoritive God, strict rules (though arguably much less so if he fought against requiring circumcision), and an imminent return. They are hardly grounds for dismissing his conversion.
It all boils down to what we think Jesus was trying to do. It is my understanding that Jesus' life, claims and ideals were supposed to challenge, not reinforce, the theology, methods, rules, doctrines and structure of the Judaism of his time. The messages were multiple, and all borderline condemnatory of the people he came to address;

God can become Man and still be God. He is not up there, watching us and manipulating reality as a third party to reality, nor is he a single consciousness.
Charity, prayer and worship are not ceremonial; they are personal. Respect for God should not prevent you from providing aid to your fellow man.
Love your enemies and Pray for those who persecute you. Do not seek their blood when they wrong you. People are to be revered, not reviled as Leviticus would say.
Political interference on religious basis is doomed to failure. Give onto Caesar what is Caesar's. The Kingdom of God is Within you, not some location or government.
Organised religion is corrupt. Faith is about a relationship with God on a personal level rather than something you do once a week.

If Paul, in seizing the position of head Christian, is blatant antithesis of this challenge in his retention of his existing ideas under a new name, then we cannot help but dismiss this conversion as purely political. Not only that, it is an astonishing devastation of the historical Jesus, turning the very ideas he came to challenge into that which carries on his name.

We just help, it's known (or it was when I went) that we were a Christian organization, but other than that, we just helped. I have mostly been on mission trips in the states, but I have friends overseas most of them in countries where they aren't allowed to evangelize, in fact a few of my friends are returning from Cambodia today, they are not out there with tracts and brochures, they are out there to help, if people ask about God it's not like we aren't going to tell them though.

Finaly missionarys I can respect. If more people would wait for others to ASK about their god instead of attaching their help to a sermon or a tract I would have no problem.

Finaly missionarys I can respect. If more people would wait for others to ASK about their god instead of attaching their help to a sermon or a tract I would have no problem.
all of the missionaries from my church are the exact same way. I haven't met any who were otherwise.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.


Your problem is you have been running into Neo-Pharisees. And just like the Jewish Pharisees of old they quote religion but don't live it. They follow such people as Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and GW Bush who pick at flies while feeding the people camels. These are the people that Jesus criticized the most because they burdened the people while they themselves used religion for power and prestige. Nearly everything they say is as Satan quoted the scripture, for their own advantage, not too show the people the love of God.

It is unfortunate that two of the great sister religions, Muslim and Christianity are lead by such people. Both the "Conservative" Christians and "Conservative" Muslims are teaching evil that is totally opposed the teaching of their founders.

I was in your shoes when I was in school. I understand your hate of religion as it is taught by the Neo-Pharisees. I hope that someday you will find a group that does have the love taught in the scriptures. Those groups are rare and becoming endangered---as they were when the "Religious" Conservatives killed Jesus---as they still kill his teachings every day.

Your problem is you have been running into Neo-Pharisees. And just like the Jewish Pharisees of old they quote religion but don't live it. They follow such people as Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and GW Bush who pick at flies while feeding the people camels. These are the people that Jesus criticized the most because they burdened the people while they themselves used religion for power and prestige. Nearly everything they say is as Satan quoted the scripture, for their own advantage, not too show the people the love of God.

It is unfortunate that two of the great sister religions, Muslim and Christianity are lead by such people. Both the "Conservative" Christians and "Conservative" Muslims are teaching evil that is totally opposed the teaching of their founders.

I was in your shoes when I was in school. I understand your hate of religion as it is taught by the Neo-Pharisees. I hope that someday you will find a group that does have the love taught in the scriptures. Those groups are rare and becoming endangered---as they were when the "Religious" Conservatives killed Jesus---as they still kill his teachings every day.
May I interject?

The search for a "group" may be in part the problem. We humans have always trivialised spirituality, turning it into a form of political segregation. Religion, as a catchment term, refers not to what you believe but to whom you declare allegiance. It is this as a notion that results in the deadly overlap between social authoritianism and the vocal declaration of beliefs among those who thirst enough for power to use them.

Perhaps if humanity focused less on trying to identify ourselves with some movement or another and actively sought our own paths, encouraging others to think for themselves rather than accepting their labels as their identities, we might yet be a force that could stand up to the radicalisation of Religion.

May I interject?

The search for a "group" may be in part the problem. We humans have always trivialised spirituality, turning it into a form of political segregation. Religion, as a catchment term, refers not to what you believe but to whom you declare allegiance. It is this as a notion that results in the deadly overlap between social authoritianism and the vocal declaration of beliefs among those who thirst enough for power to use them.

Perhaps if humanity focused less on trying to identify ourselves with some movement or another and actively sought our own paths, encouraging others to think for themselves rather than accepting their labels as their identities, we might yet be a force that could stand up to the radicalisation of Religion.
I would encourage everyone to study and find a path they can follow, but humans are natural pack animals similiar to wolves. The number one description of a person that does something totally insane is "he was a loner". A path by definition is a route others have walked down. If you're not on a path you are forging new ground. Very difficult to do on the long haul.

At the same time I have not found a group that believes 100% what I believe. I cringe at nearly every meeting at someone's expression of belief. And I'm sure that they cringe at some of my ideas. Yet, we love each other and help each other and try to do our best to do acts of kindness at every oportunity with no recognition. Unlike the neo-pharisees we don't force ourselves on others, we hope we live a life where others will recognize us by our lives not our words.

Although I have run for political office, I never made religion a part of that because it is clear that religion and government should be separate. Jesus clearly showed that belief should not be the way to get the best seat at the party.