NationStates Jolt Archive

its footnotes to the catholic online bible. i dont usually provide a link because the one i have is in frames so it doesnt link to the right spot. http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

it has nothing whatsoever to do with catholic theology. the point that the comment makes is that the passage from luke has jesus talking about how he fulfilled the OT prophesies but that there ARE NO OT prophesies that foretell of a messiah who has to suffer. luke has jesus refer to prophesies that dont exist.

so either jesus didnt know the scripture or luke didnt remember correctly what jesus said way back when. (probably because the author of luke didnt know jesus personally)

As to Catholic Bible online, Luke 24:44
Then he told them, 'This is what I meant when I said, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, was destined to be fulfilled.'

And, in addition to Psalm 22 that Jesus was repeating the words of while on the cross, the quote Hot Rodia posted, there is also Isaiah 53:

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

So you are clearly mistaken when you say that there were no scriptures he could have been teaching about, no scriptures that said the messiah had to suffer. If you want to interpret those verses and passages differently, then by all means I know I can't stop you. But Jesus taught that there were scriptures that said he had to suffer and that he came to fulfill them, and we can read them for ourselves.

If sin didn't exist, there would be nothing to choose from and freewill would be a meaningless phrase. We would be worse than animals, who would do nothing but instinct, or like playing a bad game where there are no bad moves and nothing to be learned from mistakes...

Ultimately, though I admit that I don't know the answer to that question, can we know? Can a human fully understand? We, as finite human beings, probably can't understand an infinite God

Romans 11:33-34
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"

What a load of rubbish.

I make choices every day that have nothing to do with 'sin'. Freewill doesn't demand 'sin', it doesn't demand anything other than that will be free.

The flaw would be setting up a system where some of the things available WOULD be 'sins', building an experimental entity with a deliberate tendency towards those 'sins'... and then punishing that entity for engaging in those 'sins'.

It's either a poor design, or a sick design. Incompetent, or asshole.

the catholic bible online offers this comment on that passage from luke:

so when jesus "opened their minds to the scripture" there WAS NO SUCH SCRIPTURE.

Excellent point. QFT

I don't get why "explicitly" makes a difference. Can you elaborate?



Heh, and you shouldn't have to. Apparently the people writing the commentary for the Catholic Online Bible don't either, which I think is a problem. Because they should know about it if they're doing Biblical commentary.

I'd be reluctant to rely on them as a source.

i looked online to see what the jews/OT have to say about the messiah.

i see that my problem is that there IS no real discussion of the messiah in the OT and that what there is does not fit well with the life and times of jesus.

there are only hints and cryptic prophesies that arent easily understood and that mostly dont fit the new testament at all.

i dont see how that isaiah passage can refer to the messiah (or jesus as the messiah perhaps) since it ends with "If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him. "

jesus didnt have descendants.

That wasn't the end of the passage, but it doesn't really matter.

Actually, Jesus has quite a few descendants if you take a common Christian perspective that Jesus is God and Christians are all Children of God.

explictly means, i assume, that any passage that refers to the messiah doesnt refer to the messiah suffering. the suffering stuff occurs in cryptic passages like the one you posted where it is unclear who is being talked about.

Um, that one's pretty clearly a depiction of a messianic figure, as are the other songs of the servant. It doesn't include enough detail that we would have "proof" that it's referring to Jesus, so maybe it's cryptic in that sense.

Whenever i see these kind of questions it appears to me, although it may not be true, that the person is trying to justify in there own minds that God doesn't exist. If you just want to bash poor answers to your question to justify for yourself you are right i dont know what that is accomplishing.

Also alot of the reasoning for how God did things is the fact that the first Man, Adam, screwed it up. God gave Him perfection and he chose to do an action that is against god. God is also infinitly just and because of Adams fall all men deserve death. Focusing on one aspect of God misses out on the other aspects. He is merciful, but he is also just. I dont pretend to have all the answers though. Hope i didnt step on any toes.

Ah... one post. Is it worth addressing the points, or is it wasting time...

Suffice it to say - if you read the Genesis account as literal - there is absolutely no way that the 'first man' could NOT fail. The deck was entirely stacked in such a way that the 'fall' was unavoidable.

Irrelevent AND a strawman.

The enjoyability of this world has no bearing on whether or not god is an asshole.
It has everything to do with it. God gave you the life you have so that you can complain to him about it. Your very ability to conceive of self is a gift from him, you ability to imagine even better is a gift from him too.

The argument that god was either incompetent or an asshole, stems from the conflict between alleged omnibenevolence and omnipotence - and the creation of a system of 'rules' that requires that one, or the other, (or both) those claims must be false.

It doesn't impact whether or not it is possible to enjoy this flawed design.

Since we cannot ascertain the purpose of creation itself, one cannot determine that it fails or accomplishes that objective can one? If enjoyment was the objective, and the creation achieves enjoyment, the design succeeds. Without knowing God's objectives the clay cannot effectively complain about the shape it is formed into.

The overwhelming majority of decisions have good or bad outcomes. Creating the possibility of good or bad outcomes creates the possibility then for the choice to sin.

Not even vaguely. A 'good or bad' outcome has no implicit connection to 'sin'.

Fail. Hard.

I left the door open for peole who want to commit suicide. Or they hate life so much they wish they were never born. They can take that up with God. I only said that IF a person doesn't feel that way, they can't really complain because they themselves can enjoy this life.

Not at all. If the design is crappy, it doesn't matter if the little insects crawling around on it are having a blast, it was still a shonky knock-off job in the first place.

If this is the best an omnipotent god can do - omnipotent must mean something different down his way.

Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods - the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.

...I know what they are, ...something is like when he uses metaphors and says, I am when it’s not a metaphor...

You apparently do not know what a metaphor is, or how it differs from a simile.

I hope at least Jesus knows. Let's all take a step back to primary/elementary school now:
A similie is a comparison using "like" or "as."
A metaphor is a comparison that does not use "like" or "as."

Besides, I don't see how metaphors and truth are mutually exclusive.

Thank God that someone else was patient enough to explain.

However, when the Holy Bible says that God is the ONLY way to Heaven, by golly, He IS. I'm not denying that you can go to Heaven if you are perfect like Jesus, oh no. It's just that it's impossible to go to Heaven without Jesus Christ. John 3:18 says: "Whoever believes in him [Jesus Christ] is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son."

I don't actually care what your interpretation of that particular passage is. For me it suffices that you interpret it to mean something other than Jesus being some kind of operable door that can be physically accessed to get to God.

In other words you MUST believe in Jesus Christ. Simply acting like Him is not the criteria given for eternal life, it is believing in him.Ephesians 2:8-10 "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

And there we are. Do you think I would be ignorant of God's gift? I have actually experienced God's grace. It required no faith on my part. None at all. When the faithful speak of these things (i.e. that you require faith to receive God's grace), I take them with a grain of salt. You have only read about what I experience.

His 'body' is stretched out through his blood. It can cover everyone, and everyone can enter through him.

So, you believe that Jesus is literally a door made of stretchy blood. Now, since doors are ususally installed in walls, could you tell me where Jesus is installed? Did he install himself, as he was a carpenter? Or will you simply admit that at some level, you are interpreting that passage non-literally?

That commentary is bollocks. The suffering servant is a common theme in Isaiah.

For example:

Fourth song of the servant

As many people were aghast at him
-he was so inhumanly disfigured
that he no longer looked like a man-
so many nations will be astonished
and kings will stay tight-lipped before him,
seeing what had never been told them,
learning what they had not heard before.

Who has given credence to what we have heard?
And who has seen in it a revelation of Yahweh's arm?

Like a sapling he grew up before him,
like a root in arid ground.
He had no form or charm to attract us,
no beauty to win our hearts;
he was despised, the lowest of men,
a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering,
one from whom, as it were,
we averted our gaze, despised,
for whom we had no regard.

(Isaiah 52:14 - 53:3)


Which is relevent, how?

If this is the best an omnipotent god can do - omnipotent must mean something different down his way.

Word.

One of the main reasons I wouldn't worship the Christian God even if I believed He existed is that I am 100% certain I could do a better job with His powers than He has done. And I'm not terribly brilliant or creative, either, so if He can't out-do me then He's really slacking off.

Oh dear, I'm in an apologetical frame of mind today.

As I understand it, current Church teaching is that other religions can lead one to salvation, and that the desire for Baptism (Baptism being essentially a holistic cleansing and renewal of a person) brings about the fruits of Baptism without requiring any official sacrament.

A reasonable assumption, given the interchangable qualities of 'water' and 'spirit' in the scripture, and especially in Christ's ministry.

Baptism in the spirit is the essence of baptism. Baptism in water is symbolic, and may be an important ritual for it's value to the individual, but Jesus' own story clearly decribes a second 'baptism' accompanying his own first baptism, and that appears to be the baptism he goes on to preach - reborn in the spirit.

It's so funny, all this discussion over a myth. Would there ever be this much debate over the myth of Zeus banishing the Titans? I think not! Now I will sit back and watch some more.

Disingenuous?
Jesus (assuming you are talking about your debunked 'marriage' answer)
It's almost amusing the way some people like to try and claim past victories where there were none...


...didn't quote scripture to answer a question - he quoted scripture to support a position on divorce. It was bullshit last time you tried to push it, it's no less bullshit just because you repeat it in a different context.

And what - apart from wishful thinking - supports your argument that "Jesus quoting psalms on the cross was to fulfill it"? Based on his Gethsemene experience, it is at least as likely Jesus was speaking in earnest, rather than quoting anything. You can't even prove that he WAS quoting.
If it wasn't in earnest then he wasn't fulfilling scripture. Of course it was in earnest. Who ever said it wasn't in earnest? Jesus said he was fulfilling scripture, I have no reason to doubt it.

I'm bored with arguing with the bible as you wish it was. I'm all for entertaining different ideas - but you have to be able to support them, or you can't expect others to take them seriously.
I argue about what it says, you like to try and change the meaning of what it says. I don't expect you to take it seriously, but I post because I'm afraid other people might take post likes yours seriously and come away with a seriously misguided understanding of what the scripture really says. I’m sure I’m not perfect, won't likely become perfect anytime soon either, but I help where I can.

i looked online to see what the jews/OT have to say about the messiah.

i see that my problem is that there IS no real discussion of the messiah in the OT and that what there is does not fit well with the life and times of jesus.

there are only hints and cryptic prophesies that arent easily understood and that mostly dont fit the new testament at all.

You're basically just saying that you don't think the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion that Christians do.

Which is not something I was interested in disputing in the first place.

I just pointed out that the source you cited was incorrect in one of their claims.

...
So, you believe that Jesus is literally a door made of stretchy blood. Now, since doors are ususally installed in walls, could you tell me where Jesus is installed? Did he install himself, as he was a carpenter? Or will you simply admit that at some level, you are interpreting that passage non-literally?

Jesus is in the wall of death that seperates us from God and eternal life.

Jesus is in the wall of death that seperates us from God and eternal life.
So he's a door-wall?

I hereby found the New Reformed Church Of Jesus Christ, Shoji!

You're basically just saying that you don't think the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion that Christians do.

Which is not something I was interested in disputing in the first place.

I just pointed out that the source you cited was incorrect in one of their claims.There's NO evidence, other than the Bible, but that was written 300 years after Jesus was claimed to have lived.

Jesus is in the wall of death that seperates us from God and eternal life.

Right. Where is this wall? If it physicaly exists, it must have a physical location. Please tell me where it is.

Jesus is in the wall of death that seperates us from God and eternal life.

Any idea what the dimensions of that door are? Because seriously, a thick door of congealed blood is probably not THAT easy to pass through.

Not at all. If the design is crappy, it doesn't matter if the little insects crawling around on it are having a blast, it was still a shonky knock-off job in the first place.

If this is the best an omnipotent god can do - omnipotent must mean something different down his way.

Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods - the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.

That argument sounds like a child in class... The teacher hands out apples to everyone.

One student says: I don't want an apple, I want a banana.

Teacher: I don't have any bananas, if you don't want the apple, give it back I'll give it to someone else.

Student: No, I'll keep the apple, the apple is just fine, but you suck because you didn't bring any bananas, bananas would have been better...

As to Catholic Bible online, Luke 24:44
Then he told them, 'This is what I meant when I said, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, was destined to be fulfilled.'

And, in addition to Psalm 22 that Jesus was repeating the words of while on the cross, the quote Hot Rodia posted, there is also Isaiah 53:

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

So you are clearly mistaken when you say that there were no scriptures he could have been teaching about, no scriptures that said the messiah had to suffer. If you want to interpret those verses and passages differently, then by all means I know I can't stop you. But Jesus taught that there were scriptures that said he had to suffer and that he came to fulfill them, and we can read them for ourselves.

The 'servant' in the servant cycle, is Israel. It is not a prophecy of Messiah, at all.

There are only actually 6 explicit requirements for a person to be considered Messiah: Be descended from David and Solomon (note: this can not be through Jeconiah), be anointed as mortal king of Israel (this is the actual 'messiah' part), return the Jews to Israel, rebuild the Temple, bring peace to the world and end war, bring knowledge of God to the world.

Jesus actually fails to qualify as 'Messiah' on any of the actual requirements. That's probably why people keep claiming other texts are prophecies of messiah, when they clearly detail something else.

Right. Where is this wall? If it physicaly exists, it must have a physical location. Please tell me where it is.

When we die we see it quickly enough.

Um, that one's pretty clearly a depiction of a messianic figure, as are the other songs of the servant. It doesn't include enough detail that we would have "proof" that it's referring to Jesus, so maybe it's cryptic in that sense.

No - it's clearly a description of Israel, as are the other songs of the servant.

The 'servant' in the servant cycle, is Israel. It is not a prophecy of Messiah, at all.

There are only actually 6 explicit requirements for a person to be considered Messiah: Be descended from David and Solomon (note: this can not be through Jeconiah), be anointed as mortal king of Israel (this is the actual 'messiah' part), return the Jews to Israel, rebuild the Temple, bring peace to the world and end war, bring knowledge of God to the world.

Jesus actually fails to qualify as 'Messiah' on any of the actual requirements. That's probably why people keep claiming other texts are prophecies of messiah, when they clearly detail something else.

This analyses of yours explains why you don't believe it, it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't teach it. Nor does it prove that your interpretation is correct. The Christian theology interpretations says this IS a messianic prophesy that was fulfilled through the Passion of Jesus.

It's almost amusing the way some people like to try and claim past victories where there were none...


Not at all. Your argument was debunked. It's not claiming victory, it's justa simple statement of fact. I don't think I was 'victorious' in that thread, because I would measure 'victory' by something other than merely showing your argument to be rubbish. For me, 'victory' would have been the knowledge that I helped someone better their understanding where they were wrong. You clearly still adhere to your flawed understanding, so - by my measure - I failed you.


If it wasn't in earnest then he wasn't fulfilling scripture. Of course it was in earnest. Who ever said it wasn't in earnest? Jesus said he was fulfilling scripture, I have no reason to doubt it.


Jesus didn't say he was fulfilling scripture. He said 'fuck this hurts', just in Aramaic.


I argue about what it says, you like to try and change the meaning of what it says. I don't expect you to take it seriously, but I post because I'm afraid other people might take post likes yours seriously and come away with a seriously misguided understanding of what the scripture really says. I’m sure I’m not perfect, won't likely become perfect anytime soon either, but I help where I can.

Ironically, you claim exactly the same mission statement as me. You pervert the scripture, and I am trying to set it right. People have a hard enough time competing against the modern day pharisee followers of Paul, and their churches filled with 'tradition' rather than the spirit. I see you continuing that grand tradition of claiming that your 'letter of the law' is more important than a discerned 'spirit of the law'. Jesus would have told you "get thee behind me, satan".

...
Ironically, you claim exactly the same mission statement as me. You pervert the scripture, and I am trying to set it right. People have a hard enough time competing against the modern day pharisee followers of Paul, and their churches filled with 'tradition' rather than the spirit. I see you continuing that grand tradition of claiming that your 'letter of the law' is more important than a discerned 'spirit of the law'. Jesus would have told you "get thee behind me, satan".

Nice strawman.

Jesus didn't say he was fulfilling scripture. He said 'fuck this hurts', just in Aramaic.

Sigworthy.

<3

Nice strawman.
Oy, look, I've seen you misuse "strawman" more compulsively than any other individual on this forum.

Please, for the love of Dawg, please listen this time:

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a misrepresentation of an opponent's position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

If somebody correctly describes or summarizes your position and then refutes it, that does not constitute the use of a "straw man" fallacy on their part. Even if it turns out that your position really is easy to refute.

That argument sounds like a child in class... The teacher hands out apples to everyone.

One student says: I don't want an apple, I want a banana.

Teacher: I don't have any bananas, if you don't want the apple, give it back I'll give it to someone else.

Student: No, I'll keep the apple, the apple is just fine, but you suck because you didn't bring any bananas, bananas would have been better...

That is nothing even vaguely like the instance at hand.

Closer would have been something like a teacher setting a test that is possibly enjoyable, but ultimately unfair, and leaning towards causing harm to the students.

When we die we see it quickly enough.

Right, so let's sum up our little conversation so far.

I claimed (post 46) that the passage must be interpreted on some level other than the literal. Because Jesus isn't actually a door or tunnel or other physical artifact such as an opening or conveyance system.

You claimed that Jesus actually is something like that. Made of stretchy blood, no less. And that every Christian believes this.

When I asked you to prove that such a literal interpretation is logical, and that every Christian believes this, you were unable to.

Jesus may metaphorically function as a door (or elevator or bridge) in the sense that he is the sole method of approaching god, but that is different than Jesus actually being a 36" x 84" chunk of congealed blood fastened to a wall with three hinges. I would argue that most Christians believe the former, and very few believe the latter.

Jesus may metaphorically function as a door (or elevator or bridge) in the sense that he is the sole method of approaching god, but that is different than Jesus actually being a 36" x 84" chunk of congealed blood fastened to a wall with three hinges. I would argue that most Christians believe the former, and very few believe the latter.


I hereby found the New Reformed Church Of Jesus Christ, Shoji!

G-o-g = BLASPHEMER.

You're basically just saying that you don't think the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion that Christians do.

Which is not something I was interested in disputing in the first place.

I just pointed out that the source you cited was incorrect in one of their claims.

which is fine with me. im not qualified to debate old testament prophesy.

i was quite surprised to find how little there is in the OT about the messiah. given its importance in jewish theology i thought there would be more.

When we die we see it quickly enough.You will live your life hoping that it exists? If it doesn't what will you do?

This analyses of yours explains why you don't believe it,


Not at all. I don't believe it anyway. This analysis is just 'evidence against', which my skepticism thrives well enough in the absence of.

Jesus' failure to meet the requirements is just the nail in the coffin.

...it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't teach it.


And there is no 'proof' that he did.

Nor does it prove that your interpretation is correct.


It isn't 'my interpretation'. Jews still accept the songs of the servant as referring to Israel. There is no good reason to believe them to be otherwise.

The Christian theology interpretations says this IS a messianic prophesy that was fulfilled through the Passion of Jesus.

Christian theology interprets a lot of non-messianic text as messianic prophecy. That doesn't mean it was.

But, given the fact that Jesus' failed to meet any of the real qualifications, one can assume they have something of a vested interest in claiming to fulfill all the 'prophecy' they can find - even if it wasn't prophecy.

You will live your life hoping that it exists? If it doesn't what will you do?

Either cease to exist, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not being Hindu, burn in whatever hell Islam holds to be true, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not following Buddhism, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not being Jain, whatever afterlife Judaism believes in, etc.

Nice strawman.

How is that a strawman? Do you even know what one is?

I'll admit to being off-topic - since it was a direct response to your own off-topic aside.

G-o-g = BLASPHEMER.

Not to split hairs or anything, but I think I'm more of a heretic.

blaspheme
/blasfeem/

• verb speak irreverently about God or sacred things.

heresy
/herrisi/

• noun (pl. heresies) 1 belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine. 2 opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.

According to the OED, I'm both. Learn something new everyday. It all boils down to my belief that God is such a supremely magnificent being that She couldn't care less what we think or say of Her.

You will live your life hoping that it exists? If it doesn't what will you do?

Decompose.

He hopes.

That is nothing even vaguely like the instance at hand.

Closer would have been something like a teacher setting a test that is possibly enjoyable, but ultimately unfair, and leaning towards causing harm to the students.

It's exactly like it, because someone could choke on the apple and die, or someone could throw it hard and hit another kid in the head and kill them with it. It's just an apple, what you do with it is up to you, whether or not you appreciate it is up to you. And it's not fair, some apples are bigger than others.

I'm always curious as to why people bring this stuff up on forums. anonymity factor plays a huge role in it I'm sure because people won't ask these questions to people in real life. If you want a sincere answer from a devout believer go ask a priest/paster/minister/etc. who will sit down and talk with you. Forums like this won't find you a good answer. You're going to get people with different views turning this into a Jerry Springer session on religion. . . makes no sense:headbang:

It's exactly like it, because someone could choke on the apple and die, or someone could throw it hard and hit another kid in the head and kill them with it. It's just an apple, what you do with it is up to you, whether or not you appreciate it is up to you. And it's not fair, some apples are bigger than others.

No. I showed you an example that is a parallel. Your little motif is not a parallel. Nowhere does your teacher set the parameters for an apple, create the apple especially for the students, or arbitrarily corrupt the choices of fruit such that the students can almost not help but choose the wrong one. Neither does your little motif create a dichotomy between the disigned entity, the designed environment... and the punishment for functioning in logical terms between the two.

Indeed, about all your little show discusses, is the 'enjoyment' aspect - which was your own little off-topic in the first place, and has no bearing on the innate bias or functionality of the 'test'.

How is that a strawman? Do you even know what one is?

I'll admit to being off-topic - since it was a direct response to your own off-topic aside.

Create a postion and assign it to another, then attack that position = Strawman.

You said:
People have a hard enough time competing against the modern day pharisee followers of Paul, and their churches filled with 'tradition' rather than the spirit. I see you continuing that grand tradition of claiming that your 'letter of the law' is more important than a discerned 'spirit of the law'. Jesus would have told you "get
thee behind me, satan".

Create Position to attack Assign it to me then attack it.

No. I showed you an example that is a parallel. Your little motif is not a parallel. Nowhere does your teacher set the parameters for an apple, create the apple especially for the students, or arbitrarily corrupt the choices of fruit such that the students can almost not help but choose the wrong one. Neither does your little motif create a dichotomy between the disigned entity, the designed environment... and the punishment for functioning in logical terms between the two.

Indeed, about all your little show discusses, is the 'enjoyment' aspect - which was your own little off-topic in the first place, and has no bearing on the innate bias or functionality of the 'test'.


This helps clarify the thread disagreement as well. The Real point is that life is a gift, you see it as a test. Life, like the apple can be misused.

I'm always curious as to why people bring this stuff up on forums. anonymity factor plays a huge role in it I'm sure because people won't ask these questions to people in real life.


I ask the same questions in 'real life'.


If you want a sincere answer from a devout believer go ask a priest/paster/minister/etc. who will sit down and talk with you.

I don't want 'their answers'... I want the truth. I have no reason to believe those two values overlap.

Create a postion and assign it to another, then attack that position = Strawman.

You said:
People have a hard enough time competing against the modern day pharisee followers of Paul, and their churches filled with 'tradition' rather than the spirit. I see you continuing that grand tradition of claiming that your 'letter of the law' is more important than a discerned 'spirit of the law'. Jesus would have told you "get
thee behind me, satan".

Create Position to attack Assign it to me then attack it.

Re-read your own post, since it appears you fail to recall the origins of this little sidetrack.

Also - the purpose of a strawman is to invalidate the actual argument. My belief that you serve the dark ones is no reflection on your argument, only on it's origin.

A reasonable assumption, given the interchangable qualities of 'water' and 'spirit' in the scripture, and especially in Christ's ministry.

Baptism in the spirit is the essence of baptism. Baptism in water is symbolic, and may be an important ritual for it's value to the individual, but Jesus' own story clearly decribes a second 'baptism' accompanying his own first baptism, and that appears to be the baptism he goes on to preach - reborn in the spirit.

See, you're stealing my thunder when you make my arguments before I have a chance to make them myself. :p

There's NO evidence, other than the Bible, but that was written 300 years after Jesus was claimed to have lived.

Um, what? Most of what's in the Bible was written prior to claims of Jesus' existence. Only the New Testament was written afterwards, and it's highly doubtful that they were all written 300 years after Jesus was claimed to have lived. The times of authorship varied from book to book, as I recall, some being earlier, some being later.

Maybe you're referencing the fact that we have no historical works verifying Jesus' existence that were written within just a few years of when Jesus was claimed to have lived?

No - it's clearly a description of Israel, as are the other songs of the servant.

Firstly, given the context of the larger work and the specific reference to Israel in the second song of the servant, I can certainly see why that interpretation would be made.

I just don't see any reason for a Christian to preclude there being both a literal sense referring to the people of Israel and a spiritual sense referring to a messianic figure in those same passages. I see both when I read them, though that's partially because both the literal and the spiritual are a part of my interpretive approach in general when it comes to biblical passages.

This helps clarify the thread disagreement as well. The Real point is that life is a gift, you see it as a test. Life, like the apple can be misused.

You and I, my friend, were initially contesting over whether the setup of the system made god incompetent or an asshole because of the creation of a system of punishment designed specifically for a design incompatibility between alleged 'sin', environment, and designed characteristics of the participant entities.

That, I would say, is also roughly the thrust of the OP.

It turns out that our 'disagreement' over the thread, is that you aren't in it.

Either cease to exist, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not being Hindu, burn in whatever hell Islam holds to be true, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not following Buddhism, get reincarnated as a lesser being for not being Jain, whatever afterlife Judaism believes in, etc.

does "being born in new jersey" qualify as being reincarnated as a lesser being?

Firstly, given the context of the larger work and the specific reference to Israel in the second song of the servant, I can certainly see why that interpretation would be made.

I just don't see any reason for a Christian to preclude there being both a literal sense referring to the people of Israel and a spiritual sense referring to a messianic figure in those same passages. I see both when I read them, though that's partially because both the literal and the spiritual are a part of my interpretive approach in general when it comes to biblical passages.

A Christian probably wouldn't preclude both interpretations, except in as much as many seem unaware of the 'Israel' angle, at all. On the other hand, from the Jewish (or independent) perspective, applying the argument of Christian 'messianic prophecy' to the songs of the servant just looks like revisionism.

It's easy to see the parallels. Only... that doesn't actually mean they are 'real' or prophetic.

which is fine with me. im not qualified to debate old testament prophesy.

i was quite surprised to find how little there is in the OT about the messiah. given its importance in jewish theology i thought there would be more.

I was a bit surprised too.

But maybe it's more of a cultural and psychological issue than a textual one. A large part of their cultural history, at least what we have of it in written form, centers around key individuals that did great things for the population as a whole. Perhaps as a culture the Jews are looking for a great leader because that's what seems to have always been the positive force in their cultural memory.

Also, the essence of Christian teaching (love God and love thy neighbor) isn't really mentioned explicitly in the New Testament very often, but it's ostensibly the most important part of Christian belief. So maybe the frequency of something being mentioned isn't really a good indicator of how important it should be.

The Bible might represent God's words but man has written them down. Same goes for the Quran and any other holy scripture out there.

But maybe it's more of a cultural and psychological issue than a textual one. A large part of their cultural history, at least what we have of it in written form, centers around key individuals that did great things for the population as a whole. Perhaps as a culture the Jews are looking for a great leader because that's what seems to have always been the positive force in their cultural memory.


Basically, yes. The 'heroes' of their 'literature' are their anointed ones... kings, prophets, priests. Their prophecy of 'Messiah' is the promise of another of these 'anointed'. They aren't waiting for 'god as a man', a sinless martyr or a fulfillment (or change) of the law - they are waiting for another ordained (mortal) king that will fulfill the promise of the covenant (as they see it), and fulfill the promise of Israel.

It isn't hard to see why Jews reject Jesus.

does "being born in new jersey" qualify as being reincarnated as a lesser being?

No, that's being reincarnated in a lesser region. I realize it's a big difference, but you'd be surprised how similar it sounds when spoken by a priest with a bad Guju accent.

A Christian probably wouldn't preclude both interpretations, except in as much as many seem unaware of the 'Israel' angle, at all. On the other hand, from the Jewish (or independent) perspective, applying the argument of Christian 'messianic prophecy' to the songs of the servant just looks like revisionism.

It's easy to see the parallels. Only... that doesn't actually mean they are 'real' or prophetic.

Well, Christianity does have what could be called a revisionist approach. It's a reform religion that takes an established religious tradition and finds new meaning in it, then says that the meaning was there all along and we just couldn't see it at the time.

Well, Christianity does have what could be called a revisionist approach. It's a reform religion that takes an established religious tradition and finds new meaning in it, then says that the meaning was there all along and we just couldn't see it at the time.

Agreed.

The problem is, the revisionism is too good. If you undercut the prophecy of messiah so completely, if you get to the point where the Jewish version has to be 'wrong' in comparison to your revised version - then claiming to be the promised 'messiah' of the Jews becomes meaningless.

Why would it be important to fulfill a prophecy that was wrong?

Well, Christianity does have what could be called a revisionist approach. It's a reform religion that takes an established religious tradition and finds new meaning in it, then says that the meaning was there all along and we just couldn't see it at the time.What about a religion where you belive what you think is true, not what other people tell you is true.

What about a religion where you belive what you think is true, not what other people tell you is true.

Let me know when you've found someone who formed their belief system without ever relying on the testimony of others or adopting the ideas previously held by others after hearing about them. I'd be interested to converse with such a person.

Agreed.

The problem is, the revisionism is too good. If you undercut the prophecy of messiah so completely, if you get to the point where the Jewish version has to be 'wrong' in comparison to your revised version - then claiming to be the promised 'messiah' of the Jews becomes meaningless.

Why would it be important to fulfill a prophecy that was wrong?

I don't recall suggesting that the prophecy was wrong, just that it had more meaning than the literal.

Where's this coming from?

Let me know when you've found someone who formed their belief system without ever relying on the testimony of others or adopting the ideas previously held by others after hearing about them. I'd be interested to converse with such a person.



Tat's not what I meant. I meant not following blindly and working out decision on your own according to not only the people who are religious leaders, but to yourself. I have a small belief in Hinduism, and in Hinduism God is within you, and any one can find their God.

No, that's being reincarnated in a lesser region. I realize it's a big difference, but you'd be surprised how similar it sounds when spoken by a priest with a bad Guju accent.

ahhh

but it IS a step down on the reincarnation ladder to be born outside the whole hindu culture, isnt it? to be surrounded by non-hindus who dont know what is and is not religiously unclean?

Tat's not what I meant. I meant not following blindly and working out decision on your own according to not only the people who are religious leaders, but to yourself. I have a small belief in Hinduism, and in Hinduism God is within you, and any one can find their God.

You mean like all the major Catholic scholars? Go read St. Augustine sometime - he works it out based on his own beliefs, and on what the Church tells him to be true.

Tat's not what I meant. I meant not following blindly and working out decision on your own according to not only the people who are religious leaders, but to yourself. I have a small belief in Hinduism, and in Hinduism God is within you, and any one can find their God.

I have a similar belief, and great respect for various Hindu traditions.

But I chose my religion, if that's what you're talking about. I made the decision to convert to Catholicism. I sometimes disagree with the Church hierarchy, as many Catholics do.

That hardly makes me a blind follower.

ahhh

but it IS a step down on the reincarnation ladder to be born outside the whole hindu culture, isnt it? to be surrounded by non-hindus who dont know what is and is not religiously unclean?

I'm not actually sure, to be honest. The lack of a unified church, and the fact that priests in Hinduism act more as spiritual advisors than preachers, coupled with the fact that Hinduism is broken apart into many (peacefully) coexistent traditions and interpretations means that you can make the scripture (itself seldom used as more than a general guide on how to behave) say whatever you want it to say. I've never actually read the parts about reincarnation, assuming they're actually written somewhere, nor spoken with anyone about it, so all I have to go on is that technically, anyone outside of the Hindu community is free to practice the Hindu lifestyle, and all of us will be reincarnated etc, but will never fully be Hindus in this life. Or something like that.

I don't recall suggesting that the prophecy was wrong, just that it had more meaning than the literal.

Where's this coming from?

I wasn't saying that you, specifically, were saying that prophecy was wrong, etc.

There are several reasons why Jesus couldn't be messiah - not least being that he is descended from Jeconiah, and thus forbidden from ever being able to sit on the Throne of David. Christians choose to change what the Hebrew scripture 'meant'... to add more value to some areas, and less value to others - example - Jesus can never now be mortal king of Israel, which gets ameliorated or ignored... versus the song of the servant (for example) which is a description of Israel, but is claimed as being a messianic prophecy.

If Christianity (collectively) is going to ignore the requirements failed to be met, and add other 'requirements' that they thing are better fitted... why even claim the title of the Hebrew scripture's 'messiah'?

That's where I was going with the 'revisionism' reference. If the text is so thoroughly redacted, the 'real' prophecies become meaningless (the other 'prophecies' already are meaningless, since they weren't prophetic writings). There is no significance to such a claim, if you don't accept the reliability of the original prophecy.

...
There are several reasons why Jesus couldn't be messiah - not least being that he is descended from Jeconiah, and thus forbidden from ever being able to sit on the Throne of David. Christians choose to change what the Hebrew scripture 'meant'... to add more value to some areas, and less value to others - example - Jesus can never now be mortal king of Israel, which gets ameliorated or ignored... versus the song of the servant (for example) which is a description of Israel, but is claimed as being a messianic prophecy.

If Christianity (collectively) is going to ignore the requirements failed to be met, and add other 'requirements' that they thing are better fitted... why even claim the title of the Hebrew scripture's 'messiah'?

Red herring. The Curse of Jeconiah argument fails when scrutinized. Here is the primary rebuttal, Counter argument (http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm)

The rest of your discussion is directly with HotRodia and I will stay out of it.

If so, then he is equally responsible for all the good we are capable of doing, all the blessings we can receive and give to others, all the beauty and the wonder and the greatness of merely existing in this time and place, and he should be thanked for that. I would argue that we are capable of more good (through him) then we are of anything else. Jesus said the light conquers the darkness, and I believe it.

The question remains, however. Why subject his creation to arbitrary rules (only binding for his creation, mind, not for himself. God in the bible is above morals of any kind, any depravity can be excused with divine instructions), and punish them when they fail to live up to those rules, as god would clearly have known right from the start, as he made them in a way that won't ever allow them to live up to said rules?

That argument sounds like a child in class... The teacher hands out apples to everyone.

One student says: I don't want an apple, I want a banana.

Teacher: I don't have any bananas, if you don't want the apple, give it back I'll give it to someone else.

Student: No, I'll keep the apple, the apple is just fine, but you suck because you didn't bring any bananas, bananas would have been better...

So god is not omnipotent after all, then? Or just not capable of bringing bananas?

The question remains, however. Why subject his creation to arbitrary rules (only binding for his creation, mind, not for himself. God in the bible is above morals of any kind, any depravity can be excused with divine instructions), and punish them when they fail to live up to those rules, as god would clearly have known right from the start, as he made them in a way that won't ever allow them to live up to said rules?

He knew right from the start that he was sending Christ. All things through him.

He knew right from the start that he was sending Christ. All things through him.

And he also knew right from the start that he would create the vast majority of mankind in a way that would either make it impossible for them to ever hear about Christ, or make it impossible to believe the story if they do hear it.
Seriously, how would one force oneself to believe all that? And how would one know which of the hundreds of god-stories to pick?

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.


According to the book of official Catholic Doctorine that I read, the Church doesn't believe in this. According to a parish bulletin from a Catholic friend, the Church condemns this. It is a Protestant belief, so don't gnerealise to all Christians.

I am a Non-Denominational Christian. I reject it as well.

I believe that God judges you on your merit, your choices, and how you act, rather than weather you are a Christian or not. I belive that an Atheist that has been a good person in this life will go to heaven. I believe that a priest who sexually assaults children will go to hell. Or at least have a major few points against his entry into heaven.

So god is not omnipotent after all, then? Or just not capable of bringing bananas?

The apple to the students represented the gift of their only life. The gift from God is this life here and now, if you want eternal life you have to through Jesus, he has the 'bananas,' so to speak, he is the eternal bread and he is eternal life for us. So if you want more than the apple there is a method to get more.

The apple to the students represented the gift of their only life. The gift from God is this life here and now, if you want eternal life you have to through Jesus, he has the 'bananas,' so to speak, he is the eternal bread and he is eternal life for us. So if you want more than the apple there is a method to get more.

Ah, so he spiked the apples with glass shards, and only if you manage to praise him with shredded lips and tongue may you possibly, maybe, who knows, get a banana? You should have said so.

So god is not omnipotent after all, then? Or just not capable of bringing bananas?He can bring bananas, but he doesn't like the taste. Also he's not capable of earing tacos (only LG can), therefore not omnipotent.

According to the book of official Catholic Doctorine that I read, the Church doesn't believe in this. According to a parish bulletin from a Catholic friend, the Church condemns this. It is a Protestant belief, so don't gnerealise to all Christians.


Largely agreed. The (Eastern) Orthodox Church, for example, holds that while salvation is most likely through Orthodoxy, it is not for us to know whom God - in his infinite and unknowable wisdom - may choose to 'save' (using the more western terminology). It's perfectly possible that God may choose to 'save' those who are good, but not Christian.

The problem with this sort of theological debate is that American 'debate' on the Christian sidetends to be utterly dominated by a certain type of intolerant evangelical protestant who don't represent the majority of Christians, but simply shout louder than everything else and have, regrettably, managed to a certain extent to define themselves as the only true Christians.

Quite frankly, we Orthodox find them just as weird, intolerant and unpalatable as most atheists do.

I don't actually care what your interpretation of that particular passage is. For me it suffices that you interpret it to mean something other than Jesus being some kind of operable door that can be physically accessed to get to God.
You suffice wrong. If you don't care what my interpretation is, then don't make assumptions about it. Your assumption is wrong, by the way. I believe that you have to BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is true man and true God, part of the Holy Trinity, and it is the ONLY way of salvation. Not a physical door, but a spiritual door.

And there we are. Do you think I would be ignorant of God's gift? I have actually experienced God's grace. It required no faith on my part. None at all. When the faithful speak of these things (i.e. that you require faith to receive God's grace), I take them with a grain of salt. You have only read about what I experience.

What? I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Please, elaborate. (And I say that with no sarcasm. I'm intrigued by what you mean. I confess, I have only skimmed through the topic looking for replies to my post, and have not read many of your posts.)

Ah, so he spiked the apples with glass shards, and only if you manage to praise him with shredded lips and tongue may you possibly, maybe, who knows, get a banana? You should have said so.
Nah, it's like this:

Teacher/God brings apples to class one day. Some of the apples are rotten, some are under-ripe, and some are delicious. However, Teacher/God (being a loving and all-knowing sort) expects all the students to thank Him for the gift they have been given.

If your apple has worms in it, well, isn't that better than no apple at all? You should thank Teacher/God for dropping a rotten bit of fruit in your hands, you ungrateful little brat!

If your apple is lovely, but you're bothered by the fact that your friend got a rotten one, then you shouldn't complain or speak up on your friend's behalf. What, would you rather have a rotten apple?! Teacher/God gave you a nice one! You should be thanking Him, not complaining just because some kids got screwed over!

Look at how much Jimmy is enjoying his apple! Look how he thanks Teacher/God, like a good boy, and look how yummy his apple is! If only you'd stop being so selfish and thank Teacher/God for your apple, then you'd be as happy as Jimmy!

You think Teacher/God was a bit unfair for giving some students yummy apples and some students lousy ones? Who are you to judge? Teacher/God knows best. If Teacher/God chose to give some students yummy apples and other students garbage, then clearly it's because Teacher/God knows best.

And remember, if one of your fellow students decides to share their apple with the kids who got lousy apples, you should thank Teacher/God as well. You absolutely may not give credit to the kid who was generous in the face of the unjust, unfair, and unreasonable system of arbitrary apple assignment. You MUST give credit for all goodness to Teacher/God. After all, by creating the horribly unfair system, Teacher/God made it possible for that kid to rise above the injustice! Heaven knows, no child ever chooses to share if they live in a fair and equitable environment.

All hail Teacher/God!

Nah, it's like this:

Teacher/God brings apples to class one day. Some of the apples are rotten, some are under-ripe, and some are delicious. However, Teacher/God (being a loving and all-knowing sort) expects all the students to thank Him for the gift they have been given.

If your apple has worms in it, well, isn't that better than no apple at all? You should thank Teacher/God for dropping a rotten bit of fruit in your hands, you ungrateful little brat!

If your apple is lovely, but you're bothered by the fact that your friend got a rotten one, then you shouldn't complain or speak up on your friend's behalf. What, would you rather have a rotten apple?! Teacher/God gave you a nice one! You should be thanking Him, not complaining just because some kids got screwed over!

Look at how much Jimmy is enjoying his apple! Look how he thanks Teacher/God, like a good boy, and look how yummy his apple is! If only you'd stop being so selfish and thank Teacher/God for your apple, then you'd be as happy as Jimmy!

You think Teacher/God was a bit unfair for giving some students yummy apples and some students lousy ones? Who are you to judge? Teacher/God knows best. If Teacher/God chose to give some students yummy apples and other students garbage, then clearly it's because Teacher/God knows best.

Fair enough rebuttal so far. But I don't know about this next bit...

And remember, if one of your fellow students decides to share their apple with the kids who got lousy apples, you should thank Teacher/God as well. You absolutely may not give credit to the kid who was generous in the face of the unjust, unfair, and unreasonable system of arbitrary apple assignment. You MUST give credit for all goodness to Teacher/God. After all, by creating the horribly unfair system, Teacher/God made it possible for that kid to rise above the injustice! All hail Teacher/God!

I don't know what that bit is for.

EDIT: on the flip side, Jesus does say that's its the people with the 'bad' apples that are more likely to make it into eternal life, which I'm sure you will ridicule that as well, but I felt I had to put it out there anyway.

You suffice wrong. If you don't care what my interpretation is, then don't make assumptions about it. Your assumption is wrong, by the way. I believe that you have to BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is true man and true God, part of the Holy Trinity, and it is the ONLY way of salvation. Not a physical door, but a spiritual door.

Please reread my post carefully. You will see that I said the same thing you did, in a different way. I said that Christians believe that Jesus is a spiritual door, not a physical one. Like you just said. That's it. That's all I'm trying to say.

What? I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Please, elaborate. (And I say that with no sarcasm. I'm intrigued by what you mean. I confess, I have only skimmed through the topic looking for replies to my post, and have not read many of your posts.)

When I was an atheist, I had a mystical experience. I felt God's grace, to put it in Christian terms. Now, if faith is required to receive God's grace, then I would have never felt it, as I was an atheist. Therefore, god's grace must be available to those who do not have faith. In that respect, it is truly a gift, as the receiver did not ask for it, or even expect it.

Teacher/God brings apples to class one day. Some of the apples are rotten, some are under-ripe, and some are delicious. However, Teacher/God (being a loving and all-knowing sort) expects all the students to thank Him for the gift they have been given.
Right. God is the Creator, and He can do whatever He wants with His creations. He also has a plan (that we have no idea what it is) that requires some people to suffer more hardships than others, and some to live a life of comfort. Why are some put into such a harsh position? I do not know.


If your apple has worms in it, well, isn't that better than no apple at all? You should thank Teacher/God for dropping a rotten bit of fruit in your hands, you ungrateful little brat!

God gives us hardships so that we may learn and grow. Part of being a Christian is that it is a journey, and it is very hard. Journey means an act of traveling from place to place, and travel gets its word from travail, which means painful or laborious effort. Being a Christian can, indeed, be very painful, and it is hard to maintain the righteousness that Jesus has asked us to keep in the face of temptation to do sin.


If your apple is lovely, but you're bothered by the fact that your friend got a rotten one, then you shouldn't complain or speak up on your friend's behalf. What, would you rather have a rotten apple?! Teacher/God gave you a nice one! You should be thanking Him, not complaining just because some kids got screwed over!

This is where the analogy fails to accurately represent Christianity.. God asks us not to complain, but He asks us that we clothe the poor and feed the hungry. Was it not Jesus who let the blind see, healed the lepers, and forgave the thief? Jesus teaches us the golden rule, and that we should be philanthropists and help all that we can.


Look at how much Jimmy is enjoying his apple! Look how he thanks Teacher/God, like a good boy, and look how yummy his apple is! If only you'd stop being so selfish and thank Teacher/God for your apple, then you'd be as happy as Jimmy!

Right. We should all be happy for the gifts God has given us, especially the good ones. Should we be thankful of the bad things? One must realize that not every single good thing and every single bad thing has to be from God. God will allow bad things to happen, like with Job, and will allow good things to happen.

Nonetheless, it's very polite to thank God for all things.


You think Teacher/God was a bit unfair for giving some students yummy apples and some students lousy ones? Who are you to judge? Teacher/God knows best. If Teacher/God chose to give some students yummy apples and other students garbage, then clearly it's because Teacher/God knows best.

Quite true. God has a reason behind all of His things, because God has a plan. Again, we dunno what that plan is, but we have to take it on faith. Note the special emphasis on faith? That is because Christianity is a FAITH based religion. You can try and reason things about God, but first and foremost that fails because the whole thing is very illogical. Not that is breaks logical thinking, but that believing that an invisible man in the sky made the earth, and then damns everyone to eternal suffering if they don't believe that the invisible man has a son. That strikes me as rather silly.

But y'know what? I believe it. Why? Because God loves me, and I love God, and God is not a silly thing, although taken out of context it can be pretty silly.

View Post
And remember, if one of your fellow students decides to share their apple with the kids who got lousy apples, you should thank Teacher/God as well. You absolutely may not give credit to the kid who was generous in the face of the unjust, unfair, and unreasonable system of arbitrary apple assignment. You MUST give credit for all goodness to Teacher/God. After all, by creating the horribly unfair system, Teacher/God made it possible for that kid to rise above the injustice! All hail Teacher/God!
Half wrong, half right. Yes, you must thank God, since God is the very reason that you exist. When someone does a very nice thing to me, I thank both them AND God. Since he was exercising his free will when, he say, gave me a roll of quarters to finish my laundry at the laundromat instead of having me go home and look for change, I accept that as his work. I also thank God's plan for putting him there to help me, if that was part of God's plan.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

I enjoy when a question is so prejudiced to begin with, answering it is as foolish as writing it.

Please reread my post carefully. You will see that I said the same thing you did, in a different way. I said that Christians believe that Jesus is a spiritual door, not a physical one. Like you just said. That's it. That's all I'm trying to say.

Ohhh, OK. I made an assumption when you said "physically operable." My bad.


When I was an atheist, I had a mystical experience. I felt God's grace, to put it in Christian terms. Now, if faith is required to receive God's grace, then I would have never felt it, as I was an atheist. Therefore, god's grace must be available to those who do not have faith. In that respect, it is truly a gift, as the receiver did not ask for it, or even expect it.
Unless, it was not God. God's grace does not necessarily have to come from a mystical experience. Just by God sending Jesus Christ, that was His Grace being exercised, there was nothing personal or mystical about it. Now, I'm not going to debate with this you, since it's YOUR experience. For all I know, you could have been high on 'shrooms, or you're lying, or it really did happen.

Nah, it's like this:
*snip*

All hail Teacher/God!

And don't forget that all the students are expected to go out and explain the concept of apples to those students who have never seen them before and also explain that they will be expelled if they don't immediately agree to liking them.

And don't forget that all the students are expected to go out and explain the concept of apples to those students who have never seen them before and also explain that they will be expelled if they don't immediately agree to liking them.
Again, not entirely correct. We are encouraged to go out and preach the gospel, but we aren't ordered to. God gives us all spiritual gifts, and some of ours aren't the one for being a missionary. There is much, much more to being a Christian through actions than just going out and preaching.

Impressive connection made there...nifty.

As many misses as i make, i've got to have a hit every now & again. :p

Formula 409 is EFFECTIVE on cleaning mildew from bathtubs, but if the 409 if sitting in its spray-bottle in the closet, it's not actually cleaning ANYTHING... If you spray 409 on the tub, then it will affect the mildew....Interesting choice for comparison, although i'd have much preferred Formula 401 instead.
http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/Formula401.jpg
The general standpoint, catholic/covenential or dispensational is that this element is identified backwards in time by New Testament saints to the past sacrifice of Christ...THIS is getting interesting. Just stop before we get to Brannon Braga.
Whereas this element is viewed forwards in time through the various OT sacrificial elements towards the future sacrifice of Christ....I've had that thought before, several years ago, but i didn't find too many cases of "scripture" to quantify it. Worse yet is that whole catch of "confounding the wise" kinda kills any real intent to apply logic to it. Christ's sacrifice being the central accomplishment by God towards redemption...
I appreciate the effort you're putting forth, truly, since you're lucid as can be expected with this topic, but right about here is where it stops, since nothing in the literature shall redeem "God" of the OT to me. Frankly, after taking ALL of the bible into consideration, the NT god is quite a piece of work too. Not worth my imagination.

Maybe grammar club meetings would be more beneficial, do you think?

:D

And I suppose you think that those scriptures mean that God is so cruel, that he would simply hide his truth from people, just 'cause.The "scripture" speaks for itself. I don't need to try and confabulate it any worse than it already is for it to suddenly "make sense".
You think he spent 2000 years just giving his truth to the Hebrews and no one else?I'm pretty sure that the Hebrews don't have "the cornerstone" on "truth", and certainly so much less using the literature in question as the source. And i'm also pretty sure whatever god/s there may be certainly aren't preoccupied with masculinity as that one is.
Don't you realize that all of these faiths you see are simply evolutions of the original which started with Adam and Eve?Erm, no. That wouldn't be "realization" so much as "delusion".
It would be really hypocritical to sit and claim "My God loves everyone" and then say "All the millions of people who know nothing about my religion are going to Hell, even though they have no way of hearing about it."And i'm sure this far along they wouldn't let hypocrisy get in the way of a good sermon and tithe. For worth of a soul, of course.
Think about it?What? I don't frequent these threads to THINK ABOUT IT! I never have! It gets in the way! :p
What loving father punishes his children for doing something they never even knew was wrong. Or for not doing something no one had informed them they had to do? What type of Father rewards one child for doing good and not the other, only because the first child had been taught that if he didn't he would be severely punished.The same kind of immature imp that would spread faeces across his own children, as this particular god threatened in Malachi 2:3. Read the links. Actually, read the book. You'll get your answer back in spades. That's the point.
I would think that in the grand scheme of things, the one who decided to do the right thing simply because it was right would have more righteousness then the one who only did it because he thought he might go to hell. This is what I've learned in my readings of the Bible and my personal reflection with God.Personal reflections, i applaud. The bible, well, you're obviously reading a lot more into it than it actually provides. Confabulating, even.

Besides, you should know better then to accept everything you read or hear.Maybe not so good at it now, but at LEAST i've managed to figure that out about the bible and people who give sermons about its righteousness.
Because most of the laws became obsolete when Jesus died, he had to teach the truth while he lived.Obsolete, or wrong?
One of the biggest reasons that Jesus was killed was because the religious nuts of the day thought they had it all figured out, and Jesus came and let them know that the basic foundations of everything they believed in was wrong.Ah, wrong, as you'd said. Good thing we've come such a long way using just about EXACTLY the same literature, sources, and god.
I can assure you that if Jesus came again exactly as before, he would be executed once again, and this would be done most likely by a combination effort of the Catholic and Protestant churches.That would be unfortunate for everyone in many ways, one since there's no particularly conclusive evidence he ever did exist in the first place, except as his forerunners Horus and Mithra .... and also, because the messages were largely respectable.
read up on Jesus.CLUE: As links were provided ...
Then go online and look up all the apocryphal texts that speak of Jesus' life.Even the ones that contradict ... oh, never mind. :p
Pay special attention to the Gospel of Judas, which I truly believe tells the true story of one of the most misunderstood men in history.On this, i agree with you (as i have before the bigger publication this past year). I also appreciate the texts that deal with the married life of Jesus. And his relationships with his brothers.

Now then, I will go. Have fun...On a religion thread? Are you nuckin' futs? :p

If sin didn't exist, there would be nothing to choose from and freewill would be a meaningless phrase. Here's the part where you need to grow up:
Instead of attaching the concept of "sin" to things, come to terms with the very easily reproducible concept of CAUSE
AND
EFFECT
We, as finite human beings, probably can't understand an infinite God Then stop making the bullshit up to bridge the gap! Live up to your own statement and stop humiliating yourself and other gullible people. Seriously.

There are more choices that 'Do evil' and 'Do good'. The real world is simply more complicated than that.

Aye, there's the rub. The whole of his/her argument is insulation from responsibility of thought, especially of the inherent conscious neutrality of cause and effect.
Alas, the entire point of religion seems to be to pervert the sincere complications of the real world into false polarity and psycho-emotional stagnation.

His 'body' is stretched out through his blood. It can cover everyone, and everyone can enter through him.

Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony. *nods emphatically*
No reason.

Do you make the grade?
Well, we can certainly do the math. And the doomsaying don't add up anymore than the rest of the cacophony and fuzziness of the lit. :)

The arrogance of such a position would be staggering, to 'assume' that they would choose for themselves to have not been born. O
M
F'n
G
this is so, so deliciously choice a quote of yours.
*rubs tummy*

Red herring. The Curse of Jeconiah argument fails when scrutinized. Here is the primary rebuttal, Counter argument (http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm)

The rest of your discussion is directly with HotRodia and I will stay out of it.

I've seen those arguments before - it does amuse me that those who seek to claim a biblical justification for Jesus, based in Torah, seem to have no problems running to other texts when it's not going their way.

I'll not say their argument is automatically voided by the fact that they basically pretend to be observant Jews, but aren't (they are messianic jews - more commonly known as 'christians), they actually allow within their own 'refutation' of Jeconiah that they hold a christian bias (they claim Jeconiah as an ancestor of messiah - a ridiculous claim for observant Jews, since Messiah has yet to arrive).

It is worth pointing out, though - that these Messianic jews play fast and lose with the scripture - the date for embracing Zerubbabel is set as AFTER the reconstruction of the temple, and after the destruction and conversion of the heathen - that is - AFTER the arrival of the promised Messiah. It can hardly, then, be a contravention of the prohibition on Jeconiah's line...

Adam, screwed it up. God gave Him perfection and he chose to do an action that is against god.It all starts on the homefront. God was the source of Adam, ergo, the source of imperfection. No getting around that.
God is also infinitly justNot by actions. Prove it.
He is merciful, but he is also just.Hardly. Again the literature itself contradicts you.
I dont pretend to have all the answers though.You just did, with the whole "infinity" gambit :rolleyes:

Incompetent, or asshole.

Either?
I would say Asshole BECAUSE of Incompetence. It would explain *a lot*.

If this is the best an omnipotent god can do - omnipotent must mean something different down his way.The George W. Bush School of Competency! :p

Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods - the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.Sooooooooooo sigworthy! :D

It's so funny, all this discussion over a myth. Would there ever be this much debate over the myth of Zeus banishing the Titans? I think not! Now I will sit back and watch some more.Actually, there's been a few threads about those guys. They were almost as much fun. SOme of the posters were motivated differently because of the availability of RPG's utilizing said deities. :p

God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Conceive of two gods that are omnipotent, omniscient etc...then add existence to one. Obviously the one with existence is greater therefore God must exist...blah blah blah...yeah take a philosophy course.

Right. Where is this wall? If it physicaly exists, it must have a physical location. Please tell me where it is.

Wasn't there some literature saying the "holy grail" was actually the love canal of the feminine persuasion?
...that would put a new spin on the wall of blood, to be sure.
I'll have to start yelling out his name next time i'm 'round that way. Instead of "Cthulu"

blah blah blah...yeah take a philosophy course.

Weren't you saying that these threads were 2-credit options at Uni up there?

Either?
I would say Asshole BECAUSE of Incompetence. It would explain *a lot*.

I'm not ruling it out. If that's the best candidate gods had, Nietzsche's madman was onto something.

When we die we see it quickly enough.
Yay! Your last resort (and first shot at accuracy)


Kinda like when you're humming something, and someone asks you who sings the song.
You reply with whatever name you think the person is who does the song.
...and that person who asked you asks you now to keep it that way, like it belongs.

Weren't you saying that these threads were 2-credit options at Uni up there?

Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Kant....3 credits...

I'm not ruling it out. If that's the best candidate gods had, Nietzsche's madman was onto something.

Sick thing is, there's not nearly enough of the more interesting religions and characters being represented here AT ALL. Perhaps they don't want to have their names sullied by Jehovah.

Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Kant....3 credits...

And that's only, like, 8 letters...

Not at all. Your argument was debunked. It's not claiming victory, it's justa simple statement of fact. I don't think I was 'victorious' in that thread, because I would measure 'victory' by something other than merely showing your argument to be rubbish. For me, 'victory' would have been the knowledge that I helped someone better their understanding where they were wrong. You clearly still adhere to your flawed understanding, so - by my measure - I failed you.
...
Jesus didn't say he was fulfilling scripture. He said 'fuck this hurts', just in Aramaic.
...
Ironically, you claim exactly the same mission statement as me. You pervert the scripture, and I am trying to set it right. People have a hard enough time competing against the modern day pharisee followers of Paul, and their churches filled with 'tradition' rather than the spirit. I see you continuing that grand tradition of claiming that your 'letter of the law' is more important than a discerned 'spirit of the law'. Jesus would have told you "get thee behind me, satan".

I know i'm gonna get tired of saying this, but i fuckin' :fluffle: ya, man.
*bows*

I know i'm gonna get tired of saying this, but i fuckin' :fluffle: ya, man.
*bows*

is your girl ok with that...loving another man...and does that make baby jesus cry?

Sick thing is, there's not nearly enough of the more interesting religions and characters being represented here AT ALL. Perhaps they don't want to have their names sullied by Jehovah.

Gods are like cool kids. The ones spending all their time writing in stone how freaking great they are? They're the ones with bad skin and three downy hairs on their chests, writing complaint poetry about how 'all the nice godesses hate me'.

You will live your life hoping that it exists? If it doesn't what will you do?

As s/he says ... s/he'll be dead, so it'll be fairly obvious that s/he'll be feeding maggots presently.

is your girl ok with that...loving another man...and does that make baby jesus cry?

Nah, not with enough lube.

*burns in hell*

Do you know how many bumper stickers say "Real men love Jesus"?
Think about it.
Then, think about the "wall of blood" that Balderdash was mentioning.
Besides, she's encouraging me to broaden my horizons.

Great you are going to be singing Faith + 1 songs all the time aren't you. As for the latter what is good for the goose

is your girl ok with that...loving another man...and does that make baby jesus cry?

Do you know how many bumper stickers say "Real men love Jesus"?
Think about it.
Then, think about the "wall of blood" that Balderdash was mentioning.
Besides, she's encouraging me to broaden my horizons.

I know i'm gonna get tired of saying this, but i fuckin' :fluffle: ya, man.
*bows*

That's why I do it, man... it's like my own personal 'what is The Matrix'. :D

That reminds me, that it's a little odd that this particular thread hasn't enjoyed the "Celebrity Buttplugs" links.

maybe we could pass out buddy jesus ones with bibles....spread the love man spread the love

Nah, not with enough lube.

*burns in hell*

That reminds me, that it's a little odd that this particular thread hasn't enjoyed the "Celebrity Buttplugs" links.

Sweet. Verdi just totally demanded that I get equal access to Brev's SO. Awesome.

actually I meant the butt sex...not you getting access to his SO

Great you are going to be singing Faith + 1 songs all the time aren't you. As for the latter what is good for the goose

Sweet. Verdi just totally demanded that I get equal access to Brev's SO. Awesome.

That reminds me, that it's a little odd that this particular thread hasn't enjoyed the "Celebrity Buttplugs" links.

:D

Any page now....

It all boils down to my belief that God is such a supremely magnificent being that She couldn't care less what we think or say of Her.

Yay!
Now THERE's a cult worth some investment!

Sweet. Verdi just totally demanded that I get equal access to Brev's SO. Awesome.

He has his own sordid past to deal with, and he wants collateral damage. Trust me on this. :p

How do you serve someone who doesn't care about your opinion or want your adoration...it would be more like an realization that they exist and nothing more not much to base a cult on

actually I meant the butt sex...not you getting access to his SO

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the thread. Your interpretation is acceptable, but the appendices to the sacred apochrypha of Nebetnibot clearly state that you meant coveting someone's neighbour, or something.

And it's not fair, some apples are bigger than others.Who are you to judge? Who are you to question god's divine plan of dimensions of fruits?
What were you saying a little while back about arrogance? :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bCyIAsSid8

How do you serve someone who doesn't care about your opinion or want your adoration

You just do what I say. Oh, and thanks.

:D

like the apple can be misused.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050614/184015__pie_l.jpg
God's about love!

So if you want more than the apple there is a method to get more.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13302261&postcount=376
?

Gods are like cool kids. The ones spending all their time writing in stone how freaking great they are? They're the ones with bad skin and three downy hairs on their chests, writing complaint poetry about how 'all the nice godesses hate me'.

That would explain the drownings and animal massacres/sacrifices. Really and truly in man's image!

Great you are going to be singing Faith + 1 songs all the time aren't you.Only at dinner or where i deem appropriate.
As for the latter what is good for the gooseThis reminds me of an extremely funny/disturbing pic i got from a coworker involving a dog.
AFLAC!

That's why I do it, man... it's like my own personal 'what is The Matrix'. :DStop trying to hit me and *oof*
Oh, uhm, how 'bout a game of Parcheesi?

maybe we could pass out buddy jesus ones with bibles....spread the love man spread the love

Exactly what i was gettin' at, mon capitan.
*bows*

actually I meant the butt sex...That's a given :rolleyes:

The difference is that the story wasn't over and done when Jesus was crucified. Jesus rose from the dead and 'explained' it all to them after the fact. Without a doubt this would solidify the message and meaning in their heads for the rest of their lives, not something someone is likely to forget, talking and eating with the risen Lord and all.

Remember what I said about interperting things the way you want to see them?
This is a prime example.


Luke 24:44-48
Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.


Do you really believe that?
You honestly believe that these people wrote all this, and never forgot a single word?
Even if this was 30 years from when this happened?
Or...maybe the entire thing was paraphrased, and re-written to have a broader mesasage than was truly intended.
Also, its highly improbable that any of the so-called "disciples" lived that long. You know what the average life span was then?
35.




It's not just about what he meant, it's about who he was and what he did.

No. Thats what you were taught to think. That the dogma of sacrifice, and ressurection is far more important that the very simple notion of peace and kindness. That it is less important than the part of the story wich is likely entirely fiction.



Original sin is the condition we are born in.

I disagree.
Its a concept created by humans, to encourage complicity with canonical law.
It doesnt exist.
God is benevolent, right?
Would you condemn anyone before they commit a crime?
Is God less forgiving than you?
If not, then maybe a loving God wouldnt automatically condemn anyone until they earn such a punishment.



We are here, we live here, Jesus creates a way for us to leave it though and enter eternal life. We aren't taken from life and condemned to death, we are already in death and are given the opportunity to enter real life, through Jesus. If the door is here and open and inviting to all of us, I don’t see how it’s Jesus fault that not everyone enters in through it. He even delays that everyone might come to repentence….

This is the kind of thinking that is killing christianity in america.
This kind of "youre doomed unless you join" mentality.

Did you know that several denominations including Presbyterianism, and others are rapidly losing members to bigger, kinder, gentler "mega-churches", everyday?
In fact, many think that if such trends continue, that these denominations will be extinct in 50 years.

These groups are beginning to learn to use honey to attract new flies, so to speak. The "Hellfire and Brimstone" days are over, and folks just dont seem to want to belong to groups that discriminate, or hate others with slightly different views, or even narrow-minded views.

I say, if they cant learn, they deserve to die off.

Again, I propose to you, that its not really about the ressurection, or the crucifction and was never meant to be.
All of that was added later by early church officals to gain control of the populace who served them. This is a tactic wich has been repeated several times over the centuries.
Thats entirely why the first prayer books in english were so heavily edited.

Whats so hard to believe that the primary message was about peace, faith, and harmony with ones neighbors?
What could really be more important than that?

Sweet. Verdi just totally demanded that I get equal access to Brev's SO. Awesome.

Yeah, more of that collateral damage i was talking about. He's funny that way.

Stop trying to hit me and *oof*
Oh, uhm, how 'bout a game of Parcheesi?

:D

"I want you to hit me as hard as you can..."

That or Monopoly.

not much to base a cult on
More has been done with less, verily.

Do you really believe that?
You honestly believe that these people wrote all this, and never forgot a single word?
Even if this was 30 years from when this happened?
Or...maybe the entire thing was paraphrased, and re-written to have a broader mesasage than was truly intended.
Also, its highly improbable that any of the so-called "disciples" lived that long. You know what the average life span was then?
35.


Correct in its essentials, but there's one big exception. Laying aside for a moment discussions over New Testament authorship, there's good historical reasons for believing that St. John the Apostle lived until c.110 AD, which would have put him in his mid 90s.

Again, this isn't intended as a theological discussion - and I regret butt plugs are irrelevant here. While the evidence isn't absolutely clearcut, it's highly probable that the historical figure [St.] Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c.69-c.155) knew and was trained by John in his youth, after the latter moved to Asia Minor.

Here, for example, are a couple of quotes from the writings of the early second century theologian [St.] Irenaeus, who himself knew St. Polycarp in his youth.

Irenaeus' Against Heretics
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time ... Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.


Irenaeus' letter to Florinus:
For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance.

Again, this isn't intended as a theological discussion - and I regret butt plugs are irrelevant here.

This is one of the most sigworthy lines i've ever seen. I hope this doesn't die a muffled, asphyxiated death.
Oh, and butt plugs aren't really irrelevant in *any* thread on NS ... it just depends on how you work 'em in.
;)

Gods are like cool kids. The ones spending all their time writing in stone how freaking great they are? They're the ones with bad skin and three downy hairs on their chests, writing complaint poetry about how 'all the nice godesses hate me'.

... or end up getting reincarnated as turtles...

This is one of the most sigworthy lines i've ever seen. I hope this doesn't die a muffled, asphyxiated death.
Oh, and butt plugs aren't really irrelevant in *any* thread on NS ... it just depends on how you work 'em in.
;)


Well, I've done a quick search of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, and there's no mention of butt plugs there. I haven't the time to search Irenaeus' Against Heresies, but if there's any early Christian writing from the first two centuries AD, that's where you'd find it (perhaps the Marcionites were fans?)

Writing as both a professional archaeologist and an Eastern Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) Christian, I regret that I can't say that I've come across much in the archaeological or church history literature about early classical butt plugs. Dildos, however, are another matter - and if you're really interested, I can send you a reference for some post-medieval condoms recovered in the UK. The latter are a bit later, granted, but you take what you can get. ;)

... or end up getting reincarnated as turtles...

That is *so* remniscient of Farce of the Penguins.

Well, I've done a quick search of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, and there's no mention of butt plugs there.That's the curse, i guess, of having to distinguish between the literal translations and the figurative ones.
I haven't the time to search Irenaeus' Against Heresies, but if there's any early Christian writing from the first two centuries AD, that's where you'd find it (perhaps the Marcionites were fans?)Good point. If i'm really lucky, i'll find one of the pop-up variety. Not so lucky, and someone else here will have already uncovered it and aren't willing to share.

Writing as both a professional archaeologist and an Eastern Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) Christian, I regret that I can't say that I've come across much in the archaeological or church history literature about early classical butt plugs.That is regrettable, indeed.
Dildos, however, are another matter - and if you're really interested, I can send you a reference for some post-medieval condoms recovered in the UK. That would be smashing. :)
The latter are a bit later, granted, but you take what you can get. ;)That one does.

That is *so* remniscient of Farce of the Penguins.

You mean the bird of wisdom? :D

That would be smashing. :)


Your wish is my command:

David Gaimster, Peter Boland, Steve Linnane and Caroline Cartwright, 'The archaeology of private life: the Dudley Castle condoms', Post-Medieval Archaeology 30 (1996), 129-142

An account of the condom fragments, datable to before 1647, found in the garderobe during excavations at Dudley Castle: also includes discussion of other early organic condoms in the British Museum, plus a brief account of the historical and literary evidence about condoms in early modern Europe, and illustrations.

See, we Orthodox are much more fun than those evangelical protestants.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

For the first question I need a Non-English Speaker Grammar Book (to understand the differentiating methods of Vocabulary misuse) :eek:

"Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? "

1)Is already explained in the Bible itself, as the people who believed on God and lived righteous didn't go to hell.
2)If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...
He is indeed and says it three times at the Bible!

May I ask a question?

Jesus have said my blood is the new testament. He didn't bring a new religion at all, why did your Prophet brought a "new religion" and declared himself as the LAST PROPHET altough Jesus have said there would be more prophets to come untill the end of the world????

The Religion itself have came out after your last peaceful (!) :sniper: religion :mp5: why do you still criticize Christianity, not seeing how well your God and your believers living it????

Your god, my God... There is only one God!
And surely it is not the God of Moon Manah, (in other words neither Allah)

Correct in its essentials, but there's one big exception. Laying aside for a moment discussions over New Testament authorship, there's good historical reasons for believing that St. John the Apostle lived until c.110 AD, which would have put him in his mid 90s.

Sure, if he were ten years old when becoming a disciple.
But, even if he was roughly similar in ages to Jesus, that would make him 110 or so.
Thats not impossible, but incredibly improbable.


Again, this isn't intended as a theological discussion - and I regret butt plugs are irrelevant here. While the evidence isn't absolutely clearcut, it's highly probable that the historical figure [St.] Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c.69-c.155) knew and was trained by John in his youth, after the latter moved to Asia Minor.



Again, its possible, but very, very unlikely.
In a time when a minor cut could become quickly infected, and killing one within weeks...

As for your regret of the lack of buttplugs....well..maybe Mr Polycarp (twofish?) just needed one of these:

http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php

Interesting choice for comparison, although i'd have much preferred Formula 401 instead.
http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/Formula401.jpg
THIS is getting interesting. Just stop before we get to Brannon Braga.
I've had that thought before, several years ago, but i didn't find too many cases of "scripture" to quantify it. Worse yet is that whole catch of "confounding the wise" kinda kills any real intent to apply logic to it.
I appreciate the effort you're putting forth, truly, since you're lucid as can be expected with this topic, but right about here is where it stops, since nothing in the literature shall redeem "God" of the OT to me. Frankly, after taking ALL of the bible into consideration, the NT god is quite a piece of work too. Not worth my imagination.

Well, my point was never to convince YOU to accept the Judeo-Christian God or religion; but merely to point out, within the concept of it, how points within the OP actually fail to address questions valid within the context of most of the adherents of Christian Theology....

Sure, if he were ten years old when becoming a disciple.
But, even if he was roughly similar in ages to Jesus, that would make him 110 or so. Thats not impossible, but incredibly improbable.

Again, its possible, but very, very unlikely.
In a time when a minor cut could become quickly infected, and killing one within weeks...


You seem to making the proposition that just because the average age in the classical period was c.35, that no one lived to a great old age. This is patently a false premise.

For example, leaving aside the precise details of how old St. John the Apostle was when he died, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he lived to a ripe old age. By all accounts, he was the only apostle or first generation disciple to do so. This would mean that only one in twelve of the apostles lived into their ninth decade, which hardly strikes me as statistically all that improbable.

I realise that Irenaeus is not an entirely neutral source, and that some may take the position that perhaps Polycarp was lying, but Polycarp himself lived into his 80s, so ripe old age was hardly unknown in the period. Furthermore, all of the surviving historical documentation remarks how unusual it was for John and Polycarp to live that long; no one, least of all their contemporaries thought their longevity was normal.

Nor do we need to take biblical figures for whom the documentary record is, according to some perspectives, a matter of dispute in order to prove the point. Old Kingdom Pharaoh Pepi II - who lived some 2000 years before either John or Polycarp - ruled Egypt for over 90 years, and still holds the record for the longest reign of any monarch in history.

Unless, it was not God. God's grace does not necessarily have to come from a mystical experience. Just by God sending Jesus Christ, that was His Grace being exercised, there was nothing personal or mystical about it.

Sure, whatever. I just find it ironic when people who have never experienced God's grace seek to lecture me on how to attain it.

Well, I've done a quick search of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, and there's no mention of butt plugs there. I haven't the time to search Irenaeus' Against Heresies, but if there's any early Christian writing from the first two centuries AD, that's where you'd find it (perhaps the Marcionites were fans?)

Writing as both a professional archaeologist and an Eastern Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) Christian, I regret that I can't say that I've come across much in the archaeological or church history literature about early classical butt plugs. Dildos, however, are another matter - and if you're really interested, I can send you a reference for some post-medieval condoms recovered in the UK. The latter are a bit later, granted, but you take what you can get. ;)

One would assume that condoms would decompose rather quickly. I'm amazed that some survived that long.

As for buttplugs, it is quite possible that we have uncovered some and simply did not recognise them for what they were. I have walked through several museums with ceramic, metal and bone artifacts that share similar forms to those buttplugs on display at the local sex boutique.

For example, leaving aside the precise details of how old St. John the Apostle was when he died, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he lived to a ripe old age. By all accounts, he was the only apostle or first generation disciple to do so. This would mean that only one in twelve of the apostles lived into their ninth decade, which hardly strikes me as statistically all that improbable.

If John died in 90AD, would Polycarp have known him at an appropriate age to learn from him?

If John died in 90AD, would Polycarp have known him at an appropriate age to learn from him?

I believe so.

I haven't doublechecked first, but if memory serves, Polycarp was born c.65 AD. So even if we take the earlier c.90AD date for John's death - and accept that Polycarp's John is the same as John the Apostle - then Polycarp would have been c.25 at John's death

You seem to making the proposition that just because the average age in the classical period was c.35, that no one lived to a great old age. This is patently a false premise.

For example, leaving aside the precise details of how old St. John the Apostle was when he died, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he lived to a ripe old age. By all accounts, he was the only apostle or first generation disciple to do so. This would mean that only one in twelve of the apostles lived into their ninth decade, which hardly strikes me as statistically all that improbable.

I realise that Irenaeus is not an entirely neutral source, and that some may take the position that perhaps Polycarp was lying, but Polycarp himself lived into his 80s, so ripe old age was hardly unknown in the period. Furthermore, all of the surviving historical documentation remarks how unusual it was for John and Polycarp to live that long; no one, least of all their contemporaries thought their longevity was normal.

Nor do we need to take biblical figures for whom the documentary record is, according to some perspectives, a matter of dispute in order to prove the point. Old Kingdom Pharaoh Pepi II - who lived some 2000 years before either John or Polycarp - ruled Egypt for over 90 years, and still holds the record for the longest reign of any monarch in history.

Indeed, even look at modern times, where the life expectancy is in the 80's... But this does not mean that no one lives PAST 80.... A women just recently made it to 116...

i think if your gonna try and slam christians you should do a little bit of research first. because i am one. and just by reading your post, you did not take the time to try and answer your own questions. and you really don't care about the answers either. you just want to be a butthead and piss people off and look like a badass. well you didn't piss me off, and you def aren't a BA...so you pretty much just stuck your foot in your mouth...now tell me...what's it taste like?

i think if your gonna try and slam christians you should do a little bit of research first. because i am one. and just by reading your post, you did not take the time to try and answer your own questions. and you really don't care about the answers either. you just want to be a butthead and piss people off and look like a badass. well you didn't piss me off, and you def aren't a BA...so you pretty much just stuck your foot in your mouth...now tell me...what's it taste like?

ORLY?
I think his questions are more than justified, and 27 pages of discussion would speak for that as well.
Personally, I've been asking the very same questions over and over again, without ever receiving anything even remotely resembling a serious, logical, understandable answer from any Christian, Muslim or Jew, on this forum and off it.
So if you do happen to have an answer that is not "Because he's god and he says so", please, do share it.

i think if your gonna try and slam christians you should do a little bit of research first. because i am one. and just by reading your post, you did not take the time to try and answer your own questions. and you really don't care about the answers either. you just want to be a butthead and piss people off and look like a badass. well you didn't piss me off, and you def aren't a BA...so you pretty much just stuck your foot in your mouth...now tell me...what's it taste like?

The irony! It burns!

Remember what I said about interperting things the way you want to see them?
This is a prime example.

Do you really believe that? 1
You honestly believe that these people wrote all this, and never forgot a single word? 2
Even if this was 30 years from when this happened? 3
Or...maybe the entire thing was paraphrased, and re-written to have a broader mesasage than was truly intended. 4
Also, its highly improbable that any of the so-called "disciples" lived that long. You know what the average life span was then?
35. 5

You've made many statements there, so I numbered them. 1 Yes, I believe it. 2 I never said they didn't forget a word, I said talking to the risen Lord would leave a permanent impression on anyone. 3 Yes, even after 30 years, seeing as how they were talking about the events that happened everyday and in every town they visited and to every stranger that wanted to hear about it, plus they came from a culture that habitually 'remembered' events through the methodology of the oral tradition/recording, not a problem for these apostles. 4 They did broaden the message, for one thing, to include non Jewish people, the gentiles and pagans, in the hope of the good news. This is all recorded in the book of Acts and Paul's letters deal with it extensively, it's an open event, nothing secret about it (and I'm in favor of it as Christ had risen and explained to them better what he had been saying all along). 5 No long life extensions are required for any of this. Scribes working with the apostles and followers keeping the letters sent to them, none of the books need to be written by anyone that was even retired by today's standards (I'm not saying they weren't, I'm saying the mathematics of the years involved means that none of them are required to be over 65 years old, if any of them were born around the year 1BC - 1AD... As to your 35 year old average age, assuming it's close to correct and not bothering to look it up myself, if that's an average that means at least half the people lived to be older than that... 11 remaining apostles, four gospels, statistically it's not a problem.

No. Thats what you were taught to think. That the dogma of sacrifice, and ressurection is far more important that the very simple notion of peace and kindness. That it is less important than the part of the story wich is likely entirely fiction.

The change in the behavior of the apostles from the time of the passion (shy, scared, timid, denying that they even knew the man) to their behavior after the third day afterwards (loud and happy and preaching in the streets for everyone to know what they had seen and now were unashamed and self assure), something happened to these people that renewed their hope, their self assuredness and their message was solidified around the message of the risen Christ. THIS was the time period that created the Christian church, not the time while Christ was still walking and preaching to the Jews only. Jesus rose and spoke and taught to them after his resurrection, THAT is what motivated the shy to become public speakers, the timid to become proud conveyors of the gospel, the fearful to willingly face death and persecution for the message of the risen Christ and the good news.

I disagree.
Its a concept created by humans, to encourage complicity with canonical law.
It doesnt exist.
God is benevolent, right?
Would you condemn anyone before they commit a crime?
Is God less forgiving than you?
If not, then maybe a loving God wouldnt automatically condemn anyone until they earn such a punishment.

We are born in death, you WILL die, to deny it is to deny reality , if death is judgment and condemnation it is already assured regardless of our religious beliefs. The benevolent God has created a method for you to find a way out of death, through His Son Jesus Christ and his blood spilled on the cross and redeemed through the resurrection. Christ is not less forgiving than anyone that I know, he teaches us to become more forgiving of our brothers, not less. Jesus forgives even more than we can forgive, forgiving even those we would find unredeemable. Trying to pretend that any of us is more forgiving then Jesus is simply absurd. Mercy and Grace is available to all, not just the 'nice people' that you and I would think to forgive by default.

This is the kind of thinking that is killing christianity in america.
This kind of "youre doomed unless you join" mentality.

Did you know that several denominations including Presbyterianism, and others are rapidly losing members to bigger, kinder, gentler "mega-churches", everyday?
In fact, many think that if such trends continue, that these denominations will be extinct in 50 years.

These groups are beginning to learn to use honey to attract new flies, so to speak. The "Hellfire and Brimstone" days are over, and folks just dont seem to want to belong to groups that discriminate, or hate others with slightly different views, or even narrow-minded views.

I say, if they cant learn, they deserve to die off.

Here you couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps you should go read some of those mega-churches mission statements. The vast majority are the exact opposite of what you seem to think they are. They tend to be more like Baptists and Pentecostals and if you don't repent and are not born again and baptized as a grown believer you are going go hell. Hardly the 'liberal' theologians you make them out to be.

Again, I propose to you, that its not really about the ressurection, or the crucifction and was never meant to be.
All of that was added later by early church officals to gain control of the populace who served them. This is a tactic wich has been repeated several times over the centuries.
Thats entirely why the first prayer books in english were so heavily edited.

Whats so hard to believe that the primary message was about peace, faith, and harmony with ones neighbors?
What could really be more important than that?

Jesus rose from the dead, the Christian movement would never have started if Christ did not rise from the dead. Jesus would have been like any number of Jewish rebel leaders and messiah wanna-be's who lived near the same time period but who's names are forgotten or all but forgotten now. Jesus never wrote a book or held any public position, but Jesus knew his words would be recorded, Jesus knew he was fulfilling prophesy. The Christian movement’s very first written documents record the very early preaching of the risen Christ message. Paul's letters (although I don't necessarily believe that his writing were the first, they are the oldest writings we currently have copies of) wrote that Christ rose from the dead. You can't argue that the resurrection message was added later, it is the oldest part of the good news message. Secularist scholars say that 1 Thessalonians is the oldest book in the NT, 40-50 AD, even at this early date the resurrection WAS the cause of the spreading of the good news…

1 Thessalonians 4:14
For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, ...

And the attempts to argue against the witnesses that Christ had risen from the dead were already taking place then, the same as today.

Yay! Your last resort (and first shot at accuracy)


Kinda like when you're humming something, and someone asks you who sings the song.
You reply with whatever name you think the person is who does the song.
...and that person who asked you asks you now to keep it that way, like it belongs.

You don't think death is metaphorical do you? I assure you you are in for a real awakening if you think death is nothing but figurative.

i think if your gonna try and slam christians you should do a little bit of research first. because i am one. and just by reading your post, you did not take the time to try and answer your own questions. and you really don't care about the answers either. you just want to be a butthead and piss people off and look like a badass. well you didn't piss me off, and you def aren't a BA...so you pretty much just stuck your foot in your mouth...now tell me...what's it taste like?

Let me be the latest to note that there speaks someone who needs to get out more.

Or needs a butt plug. As a gag.

But just in case there's even the slightest hope that there's an ounce of rationality in our possibly soon to be forum-banned friend, I don't think the OP's (assuming this is addressing the OP) question was in any way unreasonable, or in any way 'slammed' Christians. The question of how far the mercy of a just and compassionate God would extend has exercised some of Christianity's finest theologians for centuries. Some few pages ago, I even attempted to answer it from a more inclusive Eastern Orthodox perspective (basically, that while we may hold salvation is more likely through Orthodoxy, that it's not for us to say whom God may 'save', and that it's perfectly possible that a good non-Orthodox or even a good non-Christian would be 'saved').

Now, I very much doubt my answer would have satisfied someone like Cabra West, but I see nothing to be frightened of in having a calm and rational discussion about a topic of varying concern to Christians and non-Christians alike (though their concern may stem from very different perspectives on the problem).

And for the record, I have three degrees. Including a doctorate (in archaeology). And I fail to see why whether someone would hold a BA or not is any way germane to anyone's ability to hold a discussion in this thread.

Well, I've done a quick search of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, and there's no mention of butt plugs there.


They use euphemisms. Buttplugs are in there, they're just buried deep.

Yeah - I just went there.

You seem to making the proposition that just because the average age in the classical period was c.35, that no one lived to a great old age. This is patently a false premise.

For example, leaving aside the precise details of how old St. John the Apostle was when he died, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he lived to a ripe old age. By all accounts, he was the only apostle or first generation disciple to do so. This would mean that only one in twelve of the apostles lived into their ninth decade, which hardly strikes me as statistically all that improbable.

I realise that Irenaeus is not an entirely neutral source, and that some may take the position that perhaps Polycarp was lying, but Polycarp himself lived into his 80s, so ripe old age was hardly unknown in the period. Furthermore, all of the surviving historical documentation remarks how unusual it was for John and Polycarp to live that long; no one, least of all their contemporaries thought their longevity was normal.

Nor do we need to take biblical figures for whom the documentary record is, according to some perspectives, a matter of dispute in order to prove the point. Old Kingdom Pharaoh Pepi II - who lived some 2000 years before either John or Polycarp - ruled Egypt for over 90 years, and still holds the record for the longest reign of any monarch in history.

I'm wondering how much actual evidence there even is for the life of 'John', let alone his alleged meeting with this multiple-fish-man.

I wasn't saying that you, specifically, were saying that prophecy was wrong, etc.

There are several reasons why Jesus couldn't be messiah - not least being that he is descended from Jeconiah, and thus forbidden from ever being able to sit on the Throne of David. Christians choose to change what the Hebrew scripture 'meant'... to add more value to some areas, and less value to others - example - Jesus can never now be mortal king of Israel, which gets ameliorated or ignored... versus the song of the servant (for example) which is a description of Israel, but is claimed as being a messianic prophecy.

Frankly, I haven't seen convincing evidence either way on that issue, and somehow I doubt I ever will.

If Christianity (collectively) is going to ignore the requirements failed to be met, and add other 'requirements' that they thing are better fitted... why even claim the title of the Hebrew scripture's 'messiah'?

I think it's pretty obvious that the trend you're referring to is rooted in history. A lot of the founding members of Christianity were Jews and still considered themselves to be Jews, so they needed to legitimize their beliefs in a Jewish context for reasons of identity and social circumstance. Those beliefs got into Christian thought via the thought of its early members.

That's where I was going with the 'revisionism' reference. If the text is so thoroughly redacted, the 'real' prophecies become meaningless (the other 'prophecies' already are meaningless, since they weren't prophetic writings). There is no significance to such a claim, if you don't accept the reliability of the original prophecy.

Let's say that this past summer I predicted that by October, I would have a girlfriend, and that she would have brown hair and brown eyes and would be 5'0".

Here we are in December, and I have a girlfriend with brown hair and hazel eyes who happens to be 5'6".

It's obvious that I got some major details wrong in my prediction, and some of them very wrong. If I were taking my words to be literal truth, I would clearly be very wrong in doing so. But does that mean that there's no significance to the claim, or that the woman I'm dating can't actually be my girlfriend?

When it comes down to it, I think your argument on prophetic unreliability is highly problematic for those who read the text only literally, but not particularly problematic for those who don't, and doesn't rule out the significance of prophesies or the genuine occurrence of a messianic figure.

...
Writing as both a professional archaeologist and an Eastern Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) Christian, I regret that I can't say that I've come across much in the archaeological or church history literature about early classical butt plugs. ...

You didn't think these were just amphora bottle stoppers did you?

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/stopper.jpg


And for everyone else, I'm just kidding, it is just a ancient bottle stopper, I just pulled that out of my ass, as they say... eww I just don't know when to quit do I! :p

Let's say that this past summer I predicted that by October, I would have a girlfriend, and that she would have brown hair and brown eyes and would be 5'0".

Here we are in December, and I have a girlfriend with brown hair and hazel eyes who happens to be 5'6".

It's obvious that I got some major details wrong in my prediction, and some of them very wrong. If I were taking my words to be literal truth, I would clearly be very wrong in doing so. But does that mean that there's no significance to the claim, or that the woman I'm dating can't actually be my girlfriend?

When it comes down to it, I think your argument on prophetic unreliability is highly problematic for those who read the text only literally, but not particularly problematic for those who don't, and doesn't rule out the significance of prophesies or the genuine occurrence of a messianic figure.

On the other hand, if you were claiming to be omniscient (and or omnipotent - irrelevent to this story) and you predicted that the woman who WOULD be your girlfriend WOULD have brown hair, hazel eyes and be 5'0"... then your 5'6" s.o. is either not your 'promised girlfriend'... or you're not nearly as omniscient as you've claimed.

So - either Jesus is not messiah, or the messianic prophecies are hogwash - in which case being messiah is meaningless.

You didn't think these were just amphora bottle stoppers did you?

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/stopper.jpg


And for everyone else, I'm just kidding, it is just a ancient bottle stopper, I just pulled that out of my ass, as they say... eww I just don't know when to quit do I! :p

Yeah sure... they say it's a bottle stopper....

On the other hand, if you were claiming to be omniscient (and or omnipotent - irrelevent to this story) and you predicted that the woman who WOULD be your girlfriend WOULD have brown hair, hazel eyes and be 5'0"... then your 5'6" s.o. is either not your 'promised girlfriend'... or you're not nearly as omniscient as you've claimed.

So - either Jesus is not messiah, or the messianic prophecies are hogwash - in which case being messiah is meaningless.

Where did the prophets claim omniscience?

Where did the prophets claim omniscience?

The prophets might or might not have - but their 'inspiration' is supposed to be omniscient.

The situation doesn't really hinge on THEM being omniscient, does it?

If they directly inspired, and god preserves his word - either his word is not worth the paper it is written on, to start with... or the prophets are unreliable (in which case, the prophecy of messiah is nonsensical).. or Jesus just wasn't the promised messiah.

I'm wondering how much actual evidence there even is for the life of 'John', let alone his alleged meeting with this multiple-fish-man.

The honest answer is, not an awful lot. But in that regard, they're no different from the majority of 1st century AD figures with no connection to the government or army.

The only early, first century, Christian figures for whom we have records, whether primary or other contemporary, that would fully satisfy the sceptical are Paul and James 'the Brother of the Lord' (a title which, depending on your tastes, you either take to mean literally, figuratively, or indicating a step-brother).

As far as John and Polycarp are concerned, the only sources that I know of personally are
1) The mid-2nd century writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, who personally knew Polycarp in his own youth, and who records several discussions where Polycarp spoke of learning from John "and others who saw the Lord with their own eyes".
2) Irenaeus writing of John 'living until the reign of Trajan'
3) Eusebius' 4th century 'History of the Church' which, while compiled some 200 years later, is largely based on Eusebius extensively quoting (modern scholars would say 'plaigiarising') much earlier sources.

There may be other sources that I'm not aware of.

This is enough to satisfy any reasonable historian familiar with the historiography of the period that, in his youth, the historical figure Polycarp of Smyrna knew someone called John, and that this John was believed to have 'seen the Lord'. Whether this John is necessarily John the Apostle, is more a matter of interpretation. Balance of opinion says it was, but there is no definitive proof.

Personally, I think the John in question was most likely John the Apostle, but happily admit that there's scope for doubt.

For what it's worth, the Church accepted as early as the 4th century Council of Rome that John the Apostle didn't write all of the materials ascribed to 'John'. The 2nd and 3rd epistles certainly weren't, and that thorny book Revelations was merely written by a John, who may or may not have been the John. Only weird literalist protestant evangelicals get seriously worked up over the non-existent dangers of serious historical enquiry into early Christianity.

... Only weird literalist protestant evangelicals get seriously worked up over the non-existent dangers of serious historical enquiry into early Christianity.

>>

<<

Who?

;)

The prophets might or might not have - but their 'inspiration' is supposed to be omniscient.

The situation doesn't really hinge on THEM being omniscient, does it?

If they directly inspired, and god preserves his word - either his word is not worth the paper it is written on, to start with... or the prophets are unreliable (in which case, the prophecy of messiah is nonsensical).. or Jesus just wasn't the promised messiah.

Hm. Your argument still seems to be relying on a strictly literal Christian view of scripture.

Which is fine, I suppose. There are plenty of Christians you can challenge on those grounds.

Could be the idiocy of some people assigning characteristics to god that directly mirror humankind at its most petty, immature, bloodthirsty and vile?
Or that part about humans being "in God's image"?
You're right, we should act much more responsibly and maturely than this "God" you keep mentioning.

Xenophanes pointed out that we construct the gods in our own image...and that is why we shouldn't trust our depictions of God

You mean the bird of wisdom? :D

I was thinking of that brief turtle scene, actually, but your idea's as good. :D

See, we Orthodox are much more fun than those evangelical protestants.
That much is clearly evident. Thank you for your indulgence! *bows*

Well, my point was never to convince YOU to accept the Judeo-Christian God or religion; but merely to point out, within the concept of it, how points within the OP actually fail to address questions valid within the context of most of the adherents of Christian Theology....
I suppose, and i'm sure my take on things isn't a straight line in any particular sense. :)

I actually had my own question for Christians, but it's hardly worth its own thread:

Can one be Christian but not be an environmentalist?

If God created the world, and did it so we could live here (or indeed for whatever other purpose) - then our destroying it would be an affront to God, right? So can one honestly be a Christian but at the same time condone things that do irreperable damage to the natural environment...say approving oil drilling in Alaska, or refusing to do anything about CO2 emissions because it might harm the economy?

Let's assume that the Christian in question doesn't doubt the validity of the climate change science.

You don't think death is metaphorical do you? I assure you you are in for a real awakening if you think death is nothing but figurative.Curious how you think you have some kind of advantage in the realm of "awakening" when you can't seem to get the point in the first place, but at least you're amusing.
I suggest to you, in kind, that it'll be extremely unfortunate for everyone involved in your life if you await your awakening upon your deathbed.
By death, nothing else to learn because there's no way to learn it. That's what death is. Care to argue about that from your figurative POV?

You didn't think these were just amphora bottle stoppers did you?

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/stopper.jpg


And for everyone else, I'm just kidding, it is just a ancient bottle stopper, I just pulled that out of my ass, as they say... eww I just don't know when to quit do I! :p:eek:
What's with all the respectability all of a sudden? :p

I actually had my own question for Christians, but it's hardly worth its own thread:

Can one be Christian but not be an environmentalist?

If God created the world, and did it so we could live here (or indeed for whatever other purpose) - then our destroying it would be an affront to God, right? So can one honestly be a Christian but at the same time condone things that do irreperable damage to the natural environment...say approving oil drilling in Alaska, or refusing to do anything about CO2 emissions because it might harm the economy?

Let's assume that the Christian in question doesn't doubt the validity of the climate change science.
Good question ... last year (or maybe even further) there were public movements of pastors explaining the value and significance of maintaining the sheparding of the earth, because of the obvious connection between right-wing pro-corporate anti-environment stances and the choices they make as faux moral watchdogs.

Personally, I think the John in question was most likely John the Apostle, but happily admit that there's scope for doubt.


I'm not sure this makes logical sense. 'Most likely' doesn't rely on being 'personally' anything - either it is msot likely, or it isn't. Personally, you believe one thing or another.

Not only is there 'scope for doubt'... there is really no good reason for what you say seems 'personally most likely'. One person said a thing, according to another person - hardly the most reliable of all historical provenences.

Hm. Your argument still seems to be relying on a strictly literal Christian view of scripture.

Which is fine, I suppose. There are plenty of Christians you can challenge on those grounds.

I was under the impression that the conflict between Old Testament and New Testament (a oposed to accepting the Old Testament unmodified by the New), would probably set this within the Christian view of scripture. I'm not sure how many people consider Jesus' claim to Messiah (or rather, the claims of others, about him being messiah) to be metaphorical...?

You seem to making the proposition that just because the average age in the classical period was c.35, that no one lived to a great old age. This is patently a false premise.

No, no. Not the average age. The life expectancy.
Meaning if you reached the ripe old age of 45, you were beating the odds.
So, certainly, people reached very old ages like 80's and 90's, it just wasnt as common as it is today. Thus, its improbable.

The point to all of that was that its very hard to believe that any such doddering old fart of 90, could recall an entire books worth of quotes by Jesus, 40 years (likely more) after the fact. This means that if such a book were in fact NOT written by John, the question becomes, who, when, and how much was paraphrased, or edited entirely.


For example, leaving aside the precise details of how old St. John the Apostle was when he died, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he lived to a ripe old age. By all accounts, he was the only apostle or first generation disciple to do so. This would mean that only one in twelve of the apostles lived into their ninth decade, which hardly strikes me as statistically all that improbable.

Not impossible.
Unlikely, but possible. More important to me is how good was this mans memory, and was he literate.



Nor do we need to take biblical figures for whom the documentary record is, according to some perspectives, a matter of dispute in order to prove the point. Old Kingdom Pharaoh Pepi II - who lived some 2000 years before either John or Polycarp - ruled Egypt for over 90 years, and still holds the record for the longest reign of any monarch in history.

Ha! and died of an abcessed molar, if im not mistaken.
So much for a ripe old age!

I actually had my own question for Christians, but it's hardly worth its own thread:

Can one be Christian but not be an environmentalist?

If God created the world, and did it so we could live here (or indeed for whatever other purpose) - then our destroying it would be an affront to God, right? So can one honestly be a Christian but at the same time condone things that do irreperable damage to the natural environment...say approving oil drilling in Alaska, or refusing to do anything about CO2 emissions because it might harm the economy?

Let's assume that the Christian in question doesn't doubt the validity of the climate change science.

Some 'christians' expect this 'phase of life' to end any second. Practically slobebring for Jesus' imminent arrival in the air. People like that - just don't give a damn about the einvironment... after all, it won't matter soon anyway.

Some 'christians' expect this 'phase of life' to end any second. Practically slobebring for Jesus' imminent arrival in the air. People like that - just don't give a damn about the einvironment... after all, it won't matter soon anyway.

I explained this to a friend of mine with a pretty nice analogy some time back.

Say you're a kid, and your dad gives you a shiny new toy. A shiny toy train. It's not perfect, there's a little obvious roughness around the edge, and he says "It'd be a good idea to play with it but keep it in good condition. It's the only one you have."
So naturally you roughhouse with it a little, but mostly you go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't take any major damage. When it does get damaged, inevitably, you go to great pains to fix it yourself, gluing on the broken wheel, taking on the caboose, etc.

Let's say there's another kid, and his dad gives him a new shiny toy train. Except this dad says, "I know it's not perfect, but some time in the future I'm going to give you a better one, in fact, a perfect one in every way that'll never break."
So instead of trying his hardest to maintain the toy he has, naturally with the indication that he's going to get a perfect toy train eventually, he goes to as much trouble as possible to make sure this one breaks, so as to hasten his father's begrudging forking over of the perfect train for his spoiled little brat of a kid.

I'm not sure this makes logical sense. 'Most likely' doesn't rely on being 'personally' anything - either it is msot likely, or it isn't. Personally, you believe one thing or another.

Not only is there 'scope for doubt'... there is really no good reason for what you say seems 'personally most likely'. One person said a thing, according to another person - hardly the most reliable of all historical provenences.

I regret that the first part of this strikes me as picking nits for their own sake. And very small ones at that.

The sentence construction "Personally, I think the John in question was most likely John the Apostle" indicates a personal opinion on a issue open to dispute, and where I concede that there's room for doubt and where I would be willing to accept evidence to the contrary. If you find that illogical or a poor grammatical construction, you must be an unusually strict editor. Or someone who insists that everything must be black or white, with no room for shades of grey; in which case I envy your certainty of opinion, but regret that I can't share it.

As to the reliability of first and second century historical documentation, anyone familiar with the historiography as an academic - regardless of their religious affiliation - would surely concede that there's considerable scope for interpretation and doubt, as I've always been careful to do. However, my personal opinion here is based on what I would like to believe is a reasonably broad reading of the topic; I haven't simply started from a pre-conceived notion of what I think should be right, and then used the evidence to fit my own interpretation (unlike, say, George Bush over Iraq).

As a short introduction to the topic, might I recommend "The Childhood of Christianity" by Etienne Trocme (which is an English translation of the French original). It's a valiant attempt to construct a historical narrative on the development of early Christianity based solely on the available - and admittedly slim - historical documentation.

I have no knowledge of what Trocme's religious affiliation might be, or if indeed he has one, but given that he considers anything smacking of a miracle to be a 'legendary interpolation', I think we can assume that he's not a devout literalist Christian. You may therefore find this book to be to more to your tastes than taking my word for it (since you presumably consider me to be biased).

Trocme accepts that the balance of the evidence indicates that John went to Asia Minor, and founded a Joannine theological school that was probably responsible for some of the works attributed to John.

Michael Grant's biography of St. Paul (again written as a purely historical work) is also worth a look as corroboration for Trocme's basic thesis on the early relations between Jewish and gentile Christians, though it doesn't touch upon the Joannine issue.

No, no. Not the average age. The life expectancy.

And in what way are they different? You're arguing that the average life expectancy was c.35 (which I don't in any case dispute). This surely means that, on average, the age at which residents of the early Roman Empire would die was c.35 - though if that statistic includes childhood mortality rates (and, offhand, I don't know if it does), then it should be true that anyone who made it past 16 would, on average, live past 35.

At least I can hold a discussion with Grave_n_Idle based on our differing opinions on the reliability of contemporary historical documentation. It's harder to have a discussion with someone who may not understand the statistical basis of an argument I'm not in fact disagreeing with.


The point to all of that was that its very hard to believe that any such doddering old fart of 90, could recall an entire books worth of quotes by Jesus, 40 years (likely more) after the fact. This means that if such a book were in fact NOT written by John, the question becomes, who, when, and how much was paraphrased, or edited entirely.


I regret that you seem to be interpolating an argument based on your interpretation of what you want me to have written rather than discussing what I actually wrote. Can you show me where I attempted to argue that John, if indeed it was the same John, was recalling 'entire books worths of quotes by Jesus'? Or where I suggested that John was necessarily literate? A careful check of previous posts suggests that I advanced no opinion on the nature of the interaction between Polycarp and John; and I have no opinion on the nature thereof either, except that Polycarp seems to have known him, and was believed to have learned from him. The available documentation doesn't support any further conclusion on what that learning may have entailed.

I would only note that long-term memory tends to be better than short-term memory in people suffering from dementia; however, this is hardly the basis of a serious argument on my part as to what John may or may not have remembered. But I will note that as Polycarp was probably about 20-25 years old when John died, there's no need to believe that John was a nonagenarian when Polycarp was learning from him.

I'm not Christian (or religious actually O.o) so I don't know if this is exactly correct, but I'll try to offer some input:

As far as I know, there's about a billion interpretations of the Bible (not literally, but you get the message). All of them pretty much contradict themselves or each other.

Words are also open to interpretation; what one person views as 'compassionate' might be completely different to another.

I do apologize if any of this is 'wrong' as such, but I thought I'd say something whilst I was here. ;)

Some 'christians' expect this 'phase of life' to end any second. Practically slobebring for Jesus' imminent arrival in the air. People like that - just don't give a damn about the einvironment... after all, it won't matter soon anyway.

And there are 'atheists' in the world that expect that 'this is the only life' and when they die it's all said an done. Entirely indifferent to anyone an everyone else that may come after them because everyone needs to care only for the ‘numero uno’, themselves. People like that - just don't give a damn about the environment... after all, they are here for the profit and to do whatever they can for themselves immediately here and now, and it won't matter what happens to the world after they are dead anyway...

Are we done reciting arguments and positions for people that aren't here?

Can one be Christian but not be an environmentalist?

Yes, it is entirely possible. (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/)

Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

It is also possible to be a Christian environmentalist. (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ecology.html)

A true Christian environmental ethic differs from the naturalistic and pantheistic ethics in that it is based on the reality of God as Creator and man as his image-bearer and steward. God is the Creator of nature, not part of nature. He transcends nature (Gen. 1-2; Job 38-41; Ps. 19, 24, and 104; Rom 1:18-20; Col. 1:16-17). All of nature, including man, is equal in its origin. Nature has value in and of itself because God created it. Nature's value is intrinsic; it will not change because the fact of its creation will not change. The rock, the tree, and the cat deserve our respect because God made them to be as they are.

The Bible can be used to support both positions. This should not come as a surprise.

I was under the impression that the conflict between Old Testament and New Testament (a oposed to accepting the Old Testament unmodified by the New), would probably set this within the Christian view of scripture. I'm not sure how many people consider Jesus' claim to Messiah (or rather, the claims of others, about him being messiah) to be metaphorical...?

I don't think it has to with the metaphorical as opposed to the literal, but with the importance of the spiritual.

Well even Jesus seemed more concerned with folks seeing him as a spiritual messiah rather than the literal political one. For example, Jesus emphasizes the importance of recognizing God's fatherhood over David's fatherhood. (See Mk 12:35-37, Mt 22:41-45, Lk 20:41-44)

Which is not to say that many Christians don't think that Jesus was the Messiah in a literal sense, especially considering that a fair number of Christians believe the Jesus is coming back at some point precisely to establish an earthly kingdom.

But certainly, not all Christians believe that, and they don't really need to. And I'm doubtful that even a majority of Christians worldwide would consider it important for Jesus to be the literal messiah in that way. In my experience, they just assume that he met the requirements and don't look into it very deeply because they simply have far more pressing things to attend to than a question that was settled very early on in the Christian tradition.

I'm not Christian (or religious actually O.o) so I don't know if this is exactly correct, but I'll try to offer some input:

As far as I know, there's about a billion interpretations of the Bible (not literally, but you get the message). All of them pretty much contradict themselves or each other.

Words are also open to interpretation; what one person views as 'compassionate' might be completely different to another.

I do apologize if any of this is 'wrong' as such, but I thought I'd say something whilst I was here. ;)

i agree with you.

anti-christians pick out the worst possible interpretations of the bible and christian theology. quite often the conglomeration of interpretations represent no actual christian sect but are bits and pieces of many sets of beliefs chosen only for their ability to put christianity in a bad light.

one could just as easily pick out the best, most benevolent christian beliefs and choose those to show that christianity is the most kind and loving of all religions.

most christians take their religion for its personal effect and leave the question of what happens to non believers to god.

For one, he's not "my" God, he is everyone's God.

He's not mine

Secondly, God gave humans free will. It's as simple as that. God is far more passive than most people make him out to be. Frankly, I don't think He does much of anything. I am a devout Christian, but I don't think much of anything is a miracle. At the same time, just look at the beautiful world we live in. It's a miracle unto itself.

So nothing (or almost nothing) is a miracle and everything is a miracle?

His 'body' is stretched out through his blood. It can cover everyone, and everyone can enter through him.

Explain how you literally travel through his body to get to heaven

you're going to fail at this since you've proven over and over that you don't understand what a metaphor is, but it give it your best shot

It has everything to do with it. God gave you the life you have so that you can complain to him about it. Your very ability to conceive of self is a gift from him, you ability to imagine even better is a gift from him too.
<SNIP>

Prove that god gave me this life

I'm always curious as to why people bring this stuff up on forums. anonymity factor plays a huge role in it I'm sure because people won't ask these questions to people in real life.

I don't know, I ask these kind of questions IRL frequentlyIf you want a sincere answer from a devout believer go ask a priest/paster/minister/etc. who will sit down and talk with you. Forums like this won't find you a good answer. You're going to get people with different views turning this into a Jerry Springer session on religion. . . makes no sense:headbang:[/QUOTE]

Some of us find these discussions interesting

does "being born in new jersey" qualify as being reincarnated as a lesser being?

Yes ;)

Nah, it's like this:

Teacher/God brings apples to class one day. Some of the apples are rotten, some are under-ripe, and some are delicious. However, Teacher/God (being a loving and all-knowing sort) expects all the students to thank Him for the gift they have been given.

If your apple has worms in it, well, isn't that better than no apple at all? You should thank Teacher/God for dropping a rotten bit of fruit in your hands, you ungrateful little brat!

If your apple is lovely, but you're bothered by the fact that your friend got a rotten one, then you shouldn't complain or speak up on your friend's behalf. What, would you rather have a rotten apple?! Teacher/God gave you a nice one! You should be thanking Him, not complaining just because some kids got screwed over!

Look at how much Jimmy is enjoying his apple! Look how he thanks Teacher/God, like a good boy, and look how yummy his apple is! If only you'd stop being so selfish and thank Teacher/God for your apple, then you'd be as happy as Jimmy!

You think Teacher/God was a bit unfair for giving some students yummy apples and some students lousy ones? Who are you to judge? Teacher/God knows best. If Teacher/God chose to give some students yummy apples and other students garbage, then clearly it's because Teacher/God knows best.

And remember, if one of your fellow students decides to share their apple with the kids who got lousy apples, you should thank Teacher/God as well. You absolutely may not give credit to the kid who was generous in the face of the unjust, unfair, and unreasonable system of arbitrary apple assignment. You MUST give credit for all goodness to Teacher/God. After all, by creating the horribly unfair system, Teacher/God made it possible for that kid to rise above the injustice! Heaven knows, no child ever chooses to share if they live in a fair and equitable environment.

All hail Teacher/God!

LOL

I regret that the first part of this strikes me as picking nits for their own sake. And very small ones at that.

The sentence construction "Personally, I think the John in question was most likely John the Apostle" indicates a personal opinion on a issue open to dispute, and where I concede that there's room for doubt and where I would be willing to accept evidence to the contrary. If you find that illogical or a poor grammatical construction, you must be an unusually strict editor. Or someone who insists that everything must be black or white, with no room for shades of grey; in which case I envy your certainty of opinion, but regret that I can't share it.

As to the reliability of first and second century historical documentation, anyone familiar with the historiography as an academic - regardless of their religious affiliation - would surely concede that there's considerable scope for interpretation and doubt, as I've always been careful to do. However, my personal opinion here is based on what I would like to believe is a reasonably broad reading of the topic; I haven't simply started from a pre-conceived notion of what I think should be right, and then used the evidence to fit my own interpretation (unlike, say, George Bush over Iraq).

As a short introduction to the topic, might I recommend "The Childhood of Christianity" by Etienne Trocme (which is an English translation of the French original). It's a valiant attempt to construct a historical narrative on the development of early Christianity based solely on the available - and admittedly slim - historical documentation.

I have no knowledge of what Trocme's religious affiliation might be, or if indeed he has one, but given that he considers anything smacking of a miracle to be a 'legendary interpolation', I think we can assume that he's not a devout literalist Christian. You may therefore find this book to be to more to your tastes than taking my word for it (since you presumably consider me to be biased).

Trocme accepts that the balance of the evidence indicates that John went to Asia Minor, and founded a Joannine theological school that was probably responsible for some of the works attributed to John.

Michael Grant's biography of St. Paul (again written as a purely historical work) is also worth a look as corroboration for Trocme's basic thesis on the early relations between Jewish and gentile Christians, though it doesn't touch upon the Joannine issue.

There's nothing wrong with bias. It doesn't alter the facts, it should just be considered when deciding how to weight your interpretation of them.

Of course, once you start dealing with scriptural events and figures, pretty much the whole argument has to be taken as biased (since vereything close to contemporary is non-independent, and everything even vaguely independent is nothing like contemporary) to such an extent that only those details that can be corroborated should be accepted as reallya cceptable premise.

From the new testament, that basically leaves us with the fact that there was a census, and a bit later, some people were in Jerusalem.

And there are 'atheists' in the world that expect that 'this is the only life' and when they die it's all said an done. Entirely indifferent to anyone an everyone else that may come after them because everyone needs to care only for the ‘numero uno’, themselves. People like that - just don't give a damn about the environment... after all, they are here for the profit and to do whatever they can for themselves immediately here and now, and it won't matter what happens to the world after they are dead anyway...

Are we done reciting arguments and positions for people that aren't here?

Wow. Well, that was a waste of time. Well done.

The question I was responding to was "Can one be Christian but not be an environmentalist?"

My response answers that question - yours is irrelevent. I hope it doesn't upset you, but I've therefore already given you all the response your post earns.

I don't think it has to with the metaphorical as opposed to the literal, but with the importance of the spiritual.

Well even Jesus seemed more concerned with folks seeing him as a spiritual messiah rather than the literal political one. For example, Jesus emphasizes the importance of recognizing God's fatherhood over David's fatherhood. (See Mk 12:35-37, Mt 22:41-45, Lk 20:41-44)

Which is not to say that many Christians don't think that Jesus was the Messiah in a literal sense, especially considering that a fair number of Christians believe the Jesus is coming back at some point precisely to establish an earthly kingdom.

But certainly, not all Christians believe that, and they don't really need to. And I'm doubtful that even a majority of Christians worldwide would consider it important for Jesus to be the literal messiah in that way. In my experience, they just assume that he met the requirements and don't look into it very deeply because they simply have far more pressing things to attend to than a question that was settled very early on in the Christian tradition.

If he's not 'messiah', he's not 'christ'.

I'm under the impression that most 'christians' consider the 'christ' part to be fairly necessary.

Prove that god gave me this life

There's actually another thread on thi very forum, right now, about the science of synthetic DNA. I wonder how the Christian arguments are going to respond, should this synthetic DNA avenue lead to creating new life-forms 'from scratch'.

There's actually another thread on thi very forum, right now, about the science of synthetic DNA. I wonder how the Christian arguments are going to respond, should this synthetic DNA avenue lead to creating new life-forms 'from scratch'.

It sure doesn't disprove creationism, it IS creationism (I'm not defending creationism by pointing this out).

God gave you the life you have so that you can complain to him about it.Prove that god gave me this life
There's actually another thread on this very forum, right now, about the science of synthetic DNA. I wonder how the Christian arguments are going to respond, should this synthetic DNA avenue lead to creating new life-forms 'from scratch'.

It sure doesn't disprove creationism, it IS creationism (I'm not defending creationism by pointing this out).

How about that proof?

It sure doesn't disprove creationism, it IS creationism (I'm not defending creationism by pointing this out).

Errr... okay.

Whatever floats your boat. But, again - I wonder what you think it is that we are discussing.

The OP mentioned that the onus is on the believer to provide evidence for the claim that our individual lives require some kind of unimaginably majestic 'designer' to sponsor them... and I responded by pointing out that - indeed, dudes in labcoats could (basically) soon be popping out new lifeforms for minimum wage. I then questioned how the christian arguments would address this.

What does 'creationism' have to do with the spark of life that differentiates the live flesh from the dead? I don't care to discuss mythology, certainly not here. If you want to talk about Japanese gods shitting the world into existence, or Egyptian gods being masturbated until they ejaculate all of reality... well, all well and good. But I'm not talking about 'creation' here. I was simply addressing the point made - prove 'your god' gave me MY life.

Errr... okay.

Whatever floats your boat. But, again - I wonder what you think it is that we are discussing.

The OP mentioned that the onus is on the believer to provide evidence for the claim that our individual lives require some kind of unimaginably majestic 'designer' to sponsor them... and I responded by pointing out that - indeed, dudes in labcoats could (basically) soon be popping out new lifeforms for minimum wage. I then questioned how the christian arguments would address this.

There was no onus at all, despite you trying to place it on me. The original point was him trying to get me to prove the essence of the position I defend. It's an entirely different argument, trying to prove God exists from one that argues from the point of view that there is a creationist God.

What does 'creationism' have to do with the spark of life that differentiates the live flesh from the dead? I don't care to discuss mythology, certainly not here. If you want to talk about Japanese gods shitting the world into existence, or Egyptian gods being masturbated until they ejaculate all of reality... well, all well and good. But I'm not talking about 'creation' here. I was simply addressing the point made - prove 'your god' gave me MY life.

Again, you're trying to accept the attempt to change of topic I don't agree to. The position you made was from the assumption that God did not exist and the position I had was made from a different angle, a different point of view. I say God created it, you say He didn't. Neither can prove anything, I don't have to accept your vantage point and you don't have to accept mine. But the lack of proof does not invalidate the vantage point itself.

There was no onus at all, despite you trying to place it on me.


I tried to place no such thing. Regarding the onus - well, we'll deal with that in a second.

The original point was him trying to get me to prove the essence of the position I defend.


The comment I responded to was: "Prove that god gave me this life" - not an unreasonable request, considering what it was (in turn) responding to.

You haven't proved that god gave the other poster that life. You haven't defended your position. My response further enlarged on the aspect of giving an individual life, by talking about the (very real) prospect that people may soon be creating brand new life, in the laboratory.

It's an entirely different argument, trying to prove God exists from one that argues from the point of view that there is a creationist God.


Not at all - both are irrelevent. The issue would be proving that 'god' gave the other poster 'life'. It might imply proving the existence of 'god' also, but that's your problem, you invoked an unverifiable clause.

And that's the problem - you are the one claiming there is more to 'life' than there appears - that there is some greater interpretation than just 'it happens'. Thus, the onus really IS on you to support it.


Again, you're trying to accept the attempt to change of topic I don't agree to.


It doesn't matter if you 'agree' to the topic. You invoked 'god' as the prime agent of life. Fine. Prove it.

Requesting you to back up your claims is hardly changing the topic.

The position you made was from the assumption that God did not exist and the position I had was made from a different angle, a different point of view.


Not at all. My argument doesn't necessitate either the acknowledgement or denial of god. My argument assumes neither - it simply asks you to support your claim that this 'god' fellow is responsible for the instigation of each life.

I say God created it, you say He didn't. Neither can prove anything, I don't have to accept your vantage point and you don't have to accept mine.


Created what? Each life?

Fine - what is the basis?

My 'evidence' is the union of an egg cell with a sperm cell, to form one single entity which may eventually grow to become a human body... or two, etc. That's rpetty observable - that's all the evidence I need to see 'life' beginning as a purely functional proposition.

Now - your evidence for why there's more to it than that?

But the lack of proof does not invalidate the vantage point itself.

No, you're right. But it does make it purely your opinion, and thus you can't really expect your arguments like "God gave you the life you have so that you can complain to him about it"... to be taken seriously.

...
The comment I responded to was: "Prove that god gave me this life" - not an unreasonable request, considering what it was (in turn) responding to.

You haven't proved that god gave the other poster that life. You haven't defended your position. My response further enlarged on the aspect of giving an individual life, by talking about the (very real) prospect that people may soon be creating brand new life, in the laboratory.

<sniped>

What conversation with him? He was taking a quote from me from a discussion I was having with you, we were BOTH assuming at the moment that God existed, you saying even if he did it didn't affect the outcome of that dispute, and me saying that it would affect the outcome of that dispute if he did...

Acting like it's all a completely different topic now because he took one sentence of mine out of context and represented it like that is absurd and very poor form, I’m surprised you’re even trying to defend it.

What conversation with him? He was taking a quote from me from a discussion I was having with you, we were BOTH assuming at the moment that God existed, you saying even if he did it didn't affect the outcome of that dispute, and me saying that it would affect the outcome of that dispute if he did...

Acting like it's all a completely different topic now because he took one sentence of mine out of context and represented it like that is absurd and very poor form, I’m surprised you’re even trying to defend it.

The one that I attempted to start, which you ignored because you have no proof of god's existence

There's nothing wrong with bias. It doesn't alter the facts, it should just be considered when deciding how to weight your interpretation of them.

Of course, once you start dealing with scriptural events and figures, pretty much the whole argument has to be taken as biased (since vereything close to contemporary is non-independent, and everything even vaguely independent is nothing like contemporary) to such an extent that only those details that can be corroborated should be accepted as reallya cceptable premise.

I regret that, fundamentally, I can't agree with your approach to historical interpretation and classical interpretation. This isn't limited here to the interpretation of records relating to early Christianity, but to most periods of Western European history pre-dating, roughly, 800 AD. If we eliminate every historical record pre-dating (for the sake of argument) Charlemagne's coronation that's either non-independent from, or non-contemporary to, the events it purports to represent, then we wouldn't be left with much at all.

For example, on your argument, presumably all we can say about British history between c.430 and c.600 is that a bloke called Gildas wrote about some Welsh princelings. This hasn't stopped quite a few people from trying to extrapolate considerably more than that.

Presumably you'd admit to biases of your own. Which again, is fair enough. But I have recommended a book (a couple of books, even) on the period under discussion which is far closer to your own biases than you appear to believe are my biases, and which I don't think would hurt you to at least skim if you want to engage in further debate on the subject.

I've been fairly open about at least some of the sources and citations - whether near-contemporary or modern peer-reviewed secondary - that I'm using to bolster my argument. I find it unfortunate that you're not willing to share at least a couple of similar citations; given that you clearly feel strongly about the subject, no doubt you've read broadly on the topic yourself, and would be willing to share some relevant sources that I'd be happy to try and at least skim myself.

I regret that you seem to be interpolating an argument based on your interpretation of what you want me to have written rather than discussing what I actually wrote. Can you show me where I attempted to argue that John, if indeed it was the same John, was recalling 'entire books worths of quotes by Jesus'?

Um..you didnt. You commented to me, on something to wich I was directing to a different poster. It was at that point, I adressed you.
In other words, you jumped into a conversation, and were included in it.

I was making the point that since origins of any such biblical text is in completely debateable state, and most likely not written anyhwere near the time the events transpire, that to put so much stock into them, and to become wrapped up in the dogma that has grown up around them, is logically a bad idea.

"el mensajero no es importante".

What conversation with him? He was taking a quote from me from a discussion I was having with you, we were BOTH assuming at the moment that God existed, you saying even if he did it didn't affect the outcome of that dispute, and me saying that it would affect the outcome of that dispute if he did...

Acting like it's all a completely different topic now because he took one sentence of mine out of context and represented it like that is absurd and very poor form, I’m surprised you’re even trying to defend it.

You posted some content - that much is not in dispute.

The other poster perceived something worth addressing, and asked you for verification - prove that my (as in either mine, or his/hers - either works) life is this gift of which you speak.

That's not an unreasonable request. I support such a demand.

For some reason - you consider that a hijack or off-topic, of some kind. I don't - I consider it to be asking you to support aspects of your argument - not at all unreasonable.

I regret that, fundamentally, I can't agree with your approach to historical interpretation and classical interpretation. This isn't limited here to the interpretation of records relating to early Christianity, but to most periods of Western European history pre-dating, roughly, 800 AD. If we eliminate every historical record pre-dating (for the sake of argument) Charlemagne's coronation that's either non-independent from, or non-contemporary to, the events it purports to represent, then we wouldn't be left with much at all.

For example, on your argument, presumably all we can say about British history between c.430 and c.600 is that a bloke called Gildas wrote about some Welsh princelings. This hasn't stopped quite a few people from trying to extrapolate considerably more than that.

Presumably you'd admit to biases of your own. Which again, is fair enough. But I have recommended a book (a couple of books, even) on the period under discussion which is far closer to your own biases than you appear to believe are my biases, and which I don't think would hurt you to at least skim if you want to engage in further debate on the subject.

I've been fairly open about at least some of the sources and citations - whether near-contemporary or modern peer-reviewed secondary - that I'm using to bolster my argument. I find it unfortunate that you're not willing to share at least a couple of similar citations; given that you clearly feel strongly about the subject, no doubt you've read broadly on the topic yourself, and would be willing to share some relevant sources that I'd be happy to try and at least skim myself.

You want me to provide sources to... verify... my doubts?

Interesting concept. One MUST believe, unless one can provide sort of anti-corroboration?

I'm something of a universal skeptic. When we are dealing with texts of the age and nature of scripture, I certainly weigh them with more than a pinch of salt in the balance. Indeed - I pretty much take ONLY what can be verified elsewhere as being more than cute flavour.

I apply similar standards to much more recent, or better supported texts. I'm not the only one. That's the reason why 'professional' opinions on things like the death-toll in Stalinist Russia vary by as much as factors of ten. Not everyone is willing to accept the same evidence - some demand more (or better) sources.

Anything that happened before I was born is treated fairly skeptically (by me). The media is treated skeptically (by me). I am more inclined to attach weight to things like Intelligence Estimates than statements for the press. All of these things are good, to my way of thinking - one SHOULD doubt - EVEN what one sees.

I'm not sure which things you think I'm going to cite... I don't think there's enough evidence to accept (well, loads of things) certain things - and you want me to somehow cite that.. lack? I just can't get round that.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

in reply to the first part, look up the wellknown poem called footprints. you may think he has no compassion for the non-believer or those like them, but he does.
secondly, what use would Jesus have been at the beginning of mankind when mankind had not progressed enough to record everything he did and taught us. the jews were chosen by God to prepare for the coming of Christ and he came at the perfect time for us to preserve everything and keep it existent and alive for over 2000 years.
as for the third part, your basically asking why is God doing everything he has done and is continuing to do so... that would surely be something a human could never know in this life.

You want me to provide sources to... verify... my doubts?

Interesting concept. One MUST believe, unless one can provide sort of anti-corroboration?

I'm something of a universal skeptic. When we are dealing with texts of the age and nature of scripture, I certainly weigh them with more than a pinch of salt in the balance. Indeed - I pretty much take ONLY what can be verified elsewhere as being more than cute flavour.



Not at all. Your assumption that I'm arguing "One must believe, unless one can provide sort of anti-corroboration" is entirely mistaken.

Perhaps you think that I'm trying to discuss theology with you, or the extent to which the historical record may be used to corroborate the existence of 'miracles'. I'm not. We're certainly not discussing the reliability of scripture.

The core of our discussion is the reliability of the historical record in the first and second centuries, and to what extent conclusions about whom the historical figure Polycarp of Smyrna may have known may be drawn from that record.

Now, we're not actually that far apart in one sense, in that - as an academic with a PhD (in archaeology) - I try to treat the historical record with a healthy pinch of salt, attempting to reach an opinion on the balance of a variety of evidence rather than reaching a conclusion ahead of time, and then using the evidence to bolster that conclusion. I also tend to use archaeological evidence where appropriate, naturally enough, but I'm the first to concede that archaeology is irrelevant to the present discussion.

I've attempted to provide you with some citations and sources which I've used to reach my conclusion. The near-contemporary sources are undoubtedly Christian, but the secondary sources clearly aren't. I hope that I can't be accused of only researching sources that reinforce a preconceived notion - I haven't engaged in the academic equivalent of a Republican only watching Fox News.

Now, you are naturally free to disagree with my conclusion. Robust debate can only be healthy for academic enquiry. I'm simply asking you on what basis you disagree. If you disagree because you've done your own research into the topic, I see no harm in pointing me in the direction of those sources which you feel support your disagreement. I'm not asking you to cite a lack of evidence, merely cite some sources who agree with your perspective that because there's a lack of evidence, my conclusion is fundamentally flawed. These need not even address the specific topic of Polycarp and John, or Christianity in the early second century; they might include thematic discussions of the historiography of the period which give support to your conclusion that I'm wrong.

If, however, you disagree because you fundamentally doubt anything that you can't personally corroborate - in other words you take a purely solipsistic perspective of the issue - we have a problem. Your previous post suggests that you believe that the burden of supporting our respective conclusions lies entirely on my side. You disagree with me, and your scepticism is enough to render you immune from offering any support for your argument other than "I think the sources you use are flawed, therefore you're wrong" [a paraphrase, not a direct quote]. Paradoxically, while you place the burden of support entirely on my side, you then simply ignore the sources which I do cite in support of my argument.

Now, if you do address these sources and still disagree with me, then fair enough. But at present your refusal to engage with the supporting evidence I am offering other than to state that your innate scepticism means that I must be wrong does make it rather hard to have a proper debate.

in reply to the first part, look up the wellknown poem called footprints. you may think he has no compassion for the non-believer or those like them, but he does.
secondly, what use would Jesus have been at the beginning of mankind when mankind had not progressed enough to record everything he did and taught us. the jews were chosen by God to prepare for the coming of Christ and he came at the perfect time for us to preserve everything and keep it existent and alive for over 2000 years.

Perfect time? I beg to differ. If the availability of script made it a perfect time, that was discovered centuries earlier.
If preservation techniques were the perfecting aspect, why not wait until parchment was available? Papyrus tends to disolve rather easily, and we actually know that a lot of accounts on what may have been going on those 2000 years ago have been lost forever.


as for the third part, your basically asking why is God doing everything he has done and is continuing to do so... that would surely be something a human could never know in this life.

In that case, god shouldn't demand admiration for it.
After all, he could have made us in a way that allows us to understand, right? I don't admire what I don't understand, I admire understanding and knowledge.

The other poster perceived something worth addressing, and asked you for verification - prove that my (as in either mine, or his/hers - either works) life is this gift of which you speak.

That's not an unreasonable request. I support such a demand.

For some reason - you consider that a hijack or off-topic, of some kind. I don't - I consider it to be asking you to support aspects of your argument - not at all unreasonable.

Support my argument from what? Proving whether or not God exists? Even if we were to begin such a contest, it should begin in its own thread, I agree with that, as it's an entirely different and larger discussion. However, that thread change was not my objection here, as I pointed out earlier and you want to ignore, it was not an innocent request for more information on his part, it was derision and disdain. And it comes from a source with a adamant prejudice against any answer I might give before giving it. As he said just a couple of posts before the one you have take up the cause of:

Explain how you literally travel through his body to get to heaven

you're going to fail at this since you've proven over and over that you don't understand what a metaphor is, but it give it your best shot

The bolded part there establishes two things. One, if this were a court case, he would have disqualified himself as a jury member before the case began, if this were a debate contest, he would have to be disqualified as a score judge before the debate. Two, he didn’t establish any intent of even trying to be open minded about the answer I might give. Thus, I saw no reason then, and still no reason now, to squander my time in such an undertaking. If you now want to pursue such a debate, go start a thread about how you can debunk any argument trying to prove God's very existence, I’m sure you will find much support around here.

The bolded part there establishes two things. One, if this were a court case, he would have disqualified himself as a jury member before the case began, if this were a debate contest, he would have to be disqualified as a score judge before the debate. Two, he didn’t establish any intent of even trying to be open minded about the answer I might give. Thus, I saw no reason then, and still no reason now, to squander my time in such an undertaking. If you now want to pursue such a debate, go start a thread about how you can debunk any argument trying to prove God's very existence, I’m sure you will find much support around here.

Which is hilariously irrelevant, because he is neither judge nor jury. He's a participant in the debate.

And really, you have already shown a poor understanding of the definition of "metaphor" as has been pointed out earlier in this exact same thread.

Which is hilariously irrelevant, because he is neither judge nor jury. He's a participant in the debate.

And really, you have already shown a poor understanding of the definition of "metaphor" as has been pointed out earlier in this exact same thread.

You know what's endlessly and hilariously irrelevant? It is the poor understanding and comprehension which is displayed around here when a simple sentence is not understood by so many. When someone says something like... I know what a metaphor is, I am saying that this is not a metaphor but is literally true...

But here, for this topic I will attempt yet another clarification to remove any doubt:

Metaphor:
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Literal:
1. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
2. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

One side says that Jesus is metaphorically a door to eternal life and I'm saying no, I think he is literally the door to eternal life. To argue I'm wrong is one thing but to argue I’m wrong because you think I don't know what a metaphor is, is simply inaccurate and ineffective.

You know what's endlessly and hilariously irrelevant? It is the poor understanding and comprehension which is displayed around here when a simple sentence is not understood by so many. When someone says something like... I know what a metaphor is, I am saying that this is not a metaphor but is literally true...

But here, for this topic I will attempt yet another clarification to remove any doubt:

Metaphor:
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Literal:
1. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
2. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

One side says that Jesus is metaphorically a door to eternal life and I'm saying no, I think he is literally the door to eternal life. To argue I'm wrong is one thing but to argue I’m wrong because you think I don't know what a metaphor is, is simply inaccurate and ineffective.

OK, you have proven that you can look up the definitions of literal and metaphor, and at the same time (barring an explanation of how you literally travel through Jesus' body/blood) showed that you don't understand them.

OK, you have proven that you can look up the definitions of literal and metaphor, and at the same time (barring an explanation of how you literally travel through Jesus' body/blood) showed that you don't understand them.

Yeah, I honestly have to wonder how many people really believe you pass through a big stretchy door of congealed blood to get into heaven.

Which for some strange reason gets me wondering how thin the door would have to be. Given an average density of blood, an average amount of blood in the body, and the dimensions of your average door.

Yeah, I honestly have to wonder how many people really believe you pass through a big stretchy door of congealed blood to get into heaven.

Which for some strange reason gets me wondering how thin the door would have to be. Given an average density of blood, an average amount of blood in the body, and the dimensions of your average door.

It could be a small door that you have to crawl through. Ooops, I meant Jesus could be a small door that you have to crawl through.

OK, you have proven that you can look up the definitions of literal and metaphor, and at the same time (barring an explanation of how you literally travel through Jesus' body/blood) showed that you don't understand them.
Yeah, I honestly have to wonder how many people really believe you pass through a big stretchy door of congealed blood to get into heaven.

Which for some strange reason gets me wondering how thin the door would have to be. Given an average density of blood, an average amount of blood in the body, and the dimensions of your average door.
It could be a small door that you have to crawl through. Ooops, I meant Jesus could be a small door that you have to crawl through.

Lets clarify some vocabulary shall we? There appears to be some people in need of larger dictionaries. Not all doors have hinges, or grooves, not all barriers are man made or feel like walls.

Door
1 any gateway marking an entrance or exit from one place or state to another
2 any means of approach, admittance, or access

Barrier
1 a limit or boundary of any kind
2 anything built or serving to bar passage, as a railing, fence, or the like

Jesus is the Door through the barrier that is found between death and eternal life. Jesus' blood is both the agent that cleans and protects you and is the passage through which you can enter eternal life from the side of death.

Matthew 26:27-28
…saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Maybe you don’t understand why the blood is important, maybe you think there is a shortage of Jesus blood? Maybe you think the the blood is metaphorical... But the life is in the blood, God recognizes the blood and the use of real blood for this purpose, and I'm not talking about metaphorical blood.

Exodus 12:23
For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

There we saw in the OT, the uses and meaning of Blood. In the NT we see how Christ applies his own blood to us.

Hebrews 9:12-14
…he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Romans 5:8-10
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It's real blood, it's the way of real passage through death and into eternal life through Jesus Christ. Christ is the door and you find the door in the barrier between death and eternal life and you get through the door via the blood of Jesus.

Lets clarify some vocabulary shall we? There appears to be some people in need of larger dictionaries. Not all doors have hinges, or grooves, not all barriers are man made or feel like walls.

Door
1 any gateway marking an entrance or exit from one place or state to another
2 any means of approach, admittance, or access

Barrier
1 a limit or boundary of any kind
2 anything built or serving to bar passage, as a railing, fence, or the like

Jesus is the Door through the barrier that is found between death and eternal life. Jesus' blood is both the agent that cleans and protects you and is the passage through which you can enter eternal life from the side of death.

Matthew 26:27-28
…saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Maybe you don’t understand why the blood is important, maybe you think there is a shortage of Jesus blood? Maybe you think the the blood is metaphorical... But the life is in the blood, God recognizes the blood and the use of real blood for this purpose, and I'm not talking about metaphorical blood.

Exodus 12:23
For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

There we saw in the OT, the uses and meaning of Blood. In the NT we see how Christ applies his own blood to us.

Hebrews 9:12-14
…he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Romans 5:8-10
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It's real blood, it's the way of real passage through death and into eternal life through Jesus Christ. Christ is the door and you find the door in the barrier between death and eternal life and you get through the door via the blood of Jesus.

Congratulations!!!

you have once again proven you don't understand the definitions:headbang::headbang::headbang:

It could be a small door that you have to crawl through. Ooops, I meant Jesus could be a small door that you have to crawl through.

Yeah, that might give some credence to the "kneel before God" thing. It's not to show reverence, but because you need to get that low to fit through the door.

Yeah, that might give some credence to the "kneel before God" thing. It's not to show reverence, but because you need to get that low to fit through the door.

No. no. no that's to keep your head from getting chopped off by a big scything blade :D

No. no. no that's to keep your head from getting chopped off by a big scything blade :D

Pah, Indiana Jones reference :p

Pah, Indiana Jones reference :p

couldn't resist :(
sorry ;)

Yeah, I honestly have to wonder how many people really believe you pass through a big stretchy door of congealed blood to get into heaven.

Which for some strange reason gets me wondering how thin the door would have to be. Given an average density of blood, an average amount of blood in the body, and the dimensions of your average door.They can believe anything! They're so gullible they believe that god is all-loving, all-compassionate, but if you commit a sin, he'll send you down to burning pit of doom, fire, and damnation.

OK, you have proven that you can look up the definitions of literal and metaphor, and at the same time (barring an explanation of how you literally travel through Jesus' body/blood) showed that you don't understand them.

*shudder*

and doesnt a literal bloody door imply a physical self that goes through it to an actual place on the other side that has some kind of physical dimension?

where would that be?

*shudder*

and doesnt a literal bloody door imply a physical self that goes through it to an actual place on the other side that has some kind of physical dimension?

where would that be?

It doesn't say. But after the 'Resurrection of the dead' there is no reason it would have to be anywhere different than right here. The barrier is between us and eternal life, not necessarily between here and somewhere else.

The inside of the temple grounds before the destruction of the temple in 70AD probably looked a lot like a slaughter house there would be so much blood and carcasses there. Applying the Blood through the Eucharist is far cleaner

It doesn't say. But after the 'Resurrection of the dead' there is no reason it would have to be anywhere different than right here. The barrier is between us and eternal life, not necessarily between here and somewhere else.

The inside of the temple grounds before the destruction of the temple in 70AD probably looked a lot like a slaughter house there would be so much blood and carcasses there. Applying the Blood through the Eucharist is far cleaner

So it's a figurative barrier

One side says that Jesus is metaphorically a door to eternal life and I'm saying no, I think he is literally the door to eternal life. To argue I'm wrong is one thing but to argue I’m wrong because you think I don't know what a metaphor is, is simply inaccurate and ineffective.
But Jesus isn't a door. What you mean is that Jesus is the way to eternal life, or something like that, and there is nothing metaphorical about that. But to say Jesus is literally a door is like saying He is literally a lamb, or that he is literally a temple.

But Jesus isn't a door. What you mean is that Jesus is the way to eternal life, or something like that, and there is nothing metaphorical about that. But to say Jesus is literally a door is like saying He is literally a lamb, or that he is literally a temple.

We've been trying to tell/show Balderdash71964 that he has no comprehension of the difference, he's just not getting it :(

It's more nuanced than that.

Baldy believes that it is the literal truth that Jesus is the sole method for entering heaven. He believes this to be literally true though not necessarily physically real (though it may be that as well). If we stretch the word 'door' to mean any opening in a barrier, Baldy is correct.

This is an extremely literal interpretation, but it is not a completely literal interpretation. By stretching the meaning of the word 'door', Baldy is using 'door' as a metaphor for a sole method of passage beyond an obstacle.

This can be easily shown by simply substituting the word 'bridge' in any of baldy's posts, like this:


Actually, that's about right. Jesus IS the bridge through which we can achieve eternal life, over the wall of death. He is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God, he is narrow path which we must follow for salvation.


Bolded parts are my changes.

Much ado about nothing.

It doesn't say. But after the 'Resurrection of the dead' there is no reason it would have to be anywhere different than right here. The barrier is between us and eternal life, not necessarily between here and somewhere else.

The inside of the temple grounds before the destruction of the temple in 70AD probably looked a lot like a slaughter house there would be so much blood and carcasses there. Applying the Blood through the Eucharist is far cleaner

there was an interesting episode of "the naked archaeologist" on the history channel (international?) that talked about the temple. it was the opinion of some israeli achaeologist that the temple mount could not possibly be the location of the temple because it would need the water flow through the temple to wash out the massive amounts of blood that would be present at time.

temple mount is uphill so no gravity fed system could bring water to it.

But Jesus isn't a door. What you mean is that Jesus is the way to eternal life, or something like that, and there is nothing metaphorical about that. But to say Jesus is literally a door is like saying He is literally a lamb, or that he is literally a temple.

Jesus is metaphorically like a lamb. But he IS the sacrifice himself.
Jesus is metaphorically like a temple building. But he IS a temple unto himself (as we can all be now, with God's writings in our hearts instead of the temple's holy of holy’s, room).

However, Jesus' blood IS a part of him, not metaphorically. Jesus blood needs to be applied over us for us to cross over from death into eternal life, literally through the barrier between death and real life, not metaphorically. Jesus IS the door to eternal life, the only door, unless you go through him, you're not getting there. Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant...

Even though we die, we literally can have life through him. This is a are real door I'm talking about, not metaphorical.

there was an interesting episode of "the naked archaeologist" on the history channel (international?) that talked about the temple. it was the opinion of some israeli achaeologist that the temple mount could not possibly be the location of the temple because it would need the water flow through the temple to wash out the massive amounts of blood that would be present at time.

temple mount is uphill so no gravity fed system could bring water to it.

Oh, I don't know about that argument, I don’t think that’s very convincing. If that were true though, why could they do it with all the blood on top of the central American pyramids? Or on those ziggurats is Mesopotamia... The Temple would be no different from those, 'carrying the water in buckets' works for everyone else.

Oh, I don't know about that argument, I don’t think that’s very convincing. If that were true though, why could they do it with all the blood on top of the central American pyramids? Or on those ziggurats is Mesopotamia... The Temple would be no different from those, 'carrying the water in buckets' works for everyone else.

i believe its known that it had actual running water. otherwise, as you say, buckets would be inefficient but they would get the job done.

Not at all. Your assumption that I'm arguing "One must believe, unless one can provide sort of anti-corroboration" is entirely mistaken.

Perhaps you think that I'm trying to discuss theology with you, or the extent to which the historical record may be used to corroborate the existence of 'miracles'.


'The historical record' and 'theology' are the same thing - just a story. Sometimes, either may be more than that, but not as a default.


I'm not. We're certainly not discussing the reliability of scripture.

The core of our discussion is the reliability of the historical record in the first and second centuries, and to what extent conclusions about whom the historical figure Polycarp of Smyrna may have known may be drawn from that record.

Now, we're not actually that far apart in one sense, in that - as an academic with a PhD (in archaeology) - I try to treat the historical record with a healthy pinch of salt, attempting to reach an opinion on the balance of a variety of evidence rather than reaching a conclusion ahead of time, and then using the evidence to bolster that conclusion. I also tend to use archaeological evidence where appropriate, naturally enough, but I'm the first to concede that archaeology is irrelevant to the present discussion.


I use the same methodology... although, maybe with more salt.


I've attempted to provide you with some citations and sources which I've used to reach my conclusion. The near-contemporary sources are undoubtedly Christian, but the secondary sources clearly aren't.


The near contemporary sources aren't that near, and they certainly aren't independent.

The 'secondary' sources is a questionable phrasing. If we talk about something like the historicity of 'Christ', there is no real reason to consider that we have ANY primary sources.

I think what you are describing as 'secondary sources' here, are later commentators, yes? Like Josephus?

If so - such sources are even less contemporary... and it should be considered, in analysing them, that they are merely re-telling hearsay.


I hope that I can't be accused of only researching sources that reinforce a preconceived notion - I haven't engaged in the academic equivalent of a Republican only watching Fox News.


I certainly made no such claim. Unfortunately - the entire nature of the evidence in this arena tends to be the equivalent of the Fox report... apparently, no one outside a very select few people thought it newsworthy that zombies were in the mall in Jerusalem.


Now, you are naturally free to disagree with my conclusion. Robust debate can only be healthy for academic enquiry. I'm simply asking you on what basis you disagree. If you disagree because you've done your own research into the topic, I see no harm in pointing me in the direction of those sources which you feel support your disagreement. I'm not asking you to cite a lack of evidence, merely cite some sources who agree with your perspective that because there's a lack of evidence,


So - I can only have 'valid' doubts, if I can prove that someone else has the same doubts???


...my conclusion is fundamentally flawed. These need not even address the specific topic of Polycarp and John, or Christianity in the early second century; they might include thematic discussions of the historiography of the period which give support to your conclusion that I'm wrong.


My conclusion isn't that 'you are wrong'. More that, there is no good reason to accept that version as 'right'.


If, however, you disagree because you fundamentally doubt anything that you can't personally corroborate - in other words you take a purely solipsistic perspective of the issue - we have a problem.


Not exactly. I do pretty much doubt as a general rule, and I do basically require corroboration.


Your previous post suggests that you believe that the burden of supporting our respective conclusions lies entirely on my side. You disagree with me, and your scepticism is enough to render you immune from offering any support for your argument other than "I think the sources you use are flawed, therefore you're wrong" [a paraphrase, not a direct quote]. Paradoxically, while you place the burden of support entirely on my side, you then simply ignore the sources which I do cite in support of my argument.


I don't offer support for my 'argument', because mine isn't an argument. Mine is doubt. I see no good enough reason to accept the accounts as anything more than entertaining (educating) diversions. Not necessarily flawed - but no reason to assume otherwise.


Now, if you do address these sources and still disagree with me, then fair enough. But at present your refusal to engage with the supporting evidence I am offering other than to state that your innate scepticism means that I must be wrong does make it rather hard to have a proper debate.

Again - not saying you are 'wrong'.

Support my argument from what? Proving whether or not God exists?


Are you kidding me? I quite clearly said:

The other poster perceived something worth addressing, and asked you for verification - prove that my (as in either mine, or his/hers - either works) life is this gift of which you speak.

Verifying the existence of God is a different issue - proving that this 'gift of life' is a gift from the good you favour - that's the issue.


...as I pointed out earlier and you want to ignore, it was not an innocent request for more information on his part, it was derision and disdain. And it comes from a source with a adamant prejudice against any answer I might give before giving it. As he said just a couple of posts before the one you have take up the cause of:


What you call disdain, derision and 'adamant prejudice'... I would call 'doubt'. There is no reason to believe your little story about 'god' and what he does for you, me, or Inigo Montoya - unless you can provide something concrete. If you think that's 'being mean'... well, you're just easier to convince than I?

Are you kidding me? I quite clearly said:

The other poster perceived something worth addressing, and asked you for verification - prove that my (as in either mine, or his/hers - either works) life is this gift of which you speak.

Verifying the existence of God is a different issue - proving that this 'gift of life' is a gift from the good you favour - that's the issue.

Are you kidding me? In order to prove that this life is a gift to you from God you would first have to believe that God exists. Logic 101.

What you call disdain, derision and 'adamant prejudice'... I would call 'doubt'. There is no reason to believe your little story about 'god' and what he does for you, me, or Inigo Montoya - unless you can provide something concrete. If you think that's 'being mean'... well, you're just easier to convince than I?

You see, that's just it. I don't have to provide you with something concrete that proves the existence of God himself, I only have to give you the 'good news' of what he’s done and allow you to decide for yourself. Proving God's existence is not a directive Jesus gave to Christians, in fact, Jesus didn’t convince everyone he spoke to in person either. We only need to testify what he’s done and what he’s done for us as individuals, if you want to hear testimonies of what Jesus has done for individuals in their own lives, I recommend you go to something like a Teen Challenge (http://www.teenchallengeusa.com/testimonies.php)meeting and listen to all the people that will tell you what Jesus has done for them since they accepted him as their personal savior.

Actually, it belongs mostly to Catholics. They are more conservative than Protestants, also. For example, the current Pope recently proclaimed officially that the only true church is the Roman Catholic Church, and all others are "sects" and will not lead you to salvation. This included a slightly more liberal but still Catholic Church. Also, that silly Pope has started a process that, if successful, will result in the return of mass in Latin only- you know, that incredibly complex language that only a handful of people know and that has been dead for 3,000 years.
So you see, it is the Roman Catholic Church that proclaims that if you do not belong to their Church you will go to Hell.
Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Unicity_and_Salvific_Universality_of_the_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Motu_proprio_on_Tridentine_Mass
Pope Benedict XVI is not tying to make Latin the official language of the Catholic Church, nor is he trying to say anything about exclusive salvation. However many protestant churches believe in exclusive salvation. Calvinism to name one.

Are you kidding me? In order to prove that this life is a gift to you from God you would first have to believe that God exists. Logic 101.


Not at all. We could assume that there is a god. We could assume it is even the dude from the Bible. That assumed - the onus is still on you to prove that that god (or any god - I'll take ANY evidence) is directly responsible for the literal life in my body.


You see, that's just it. I don't have to provide you with something concrete that proves the existence of God himself,


You do if you want to debate it. If all you want to do is witness, you're wasting your time, because I don't give a fuck.


..I only have to give you the 'good news' of what he’s done and allow you to decide for yourself. Proving God's existence is not a directive Jesus gave to Christians, in fact, Jesus didn’t convince everyone he spoke to in person either. We only need to testify what he’s done and what he’s done for us as individuals, if you want to hear testimonies of what Jesus has done for individuals in their own lives, I recommend you go to something like a Teen Challenge (http://www.teenchallengeusa.com/testimonies.php)meeting and listen to all the people that will tell you what Jesus has done for them since they accepted him as their personal savior.

All irrelevent. The teen thing, especially so... by about 20 years. I know people who tell me how much better their life is since they... well, any number of things. By your 'logic', 'christianity', Allah, Judaism, Wicca and tantric sex are equally valid.

If you want to actually debate, I'll need more than your statements of faith, or attempts to redirect me to some other witnessing resource. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to need to up your game. Considerably.

Sweet. Verdi just totally demanded that I get equal access to Brev's SO. Awesome.
He's funny that way. I suspect it's a revenge issue. :)

Xenophanes pointed out that we construct the gods in our own image...and that is why we shouldn't trust our depictions of God

...anymore than we should trust our neighbors :)

Are we done reciting arguments and positions for people that aren't here?
Some posters do a world of disservice to themselves by continuing to represent their peculiarly bizarre and largely unsubstantiated P'sOV here, but that never seems to stop them. :)

What conversation with him? He was taking a quote from me from a discussion I was having with you
That sounds sorta like some issue you had with Brevious, The ....

in reply to the first part, look up the wellknown poem called footprints. you may think he has no compassion for the non-believer or those like them, but he does.Actually, if god didn't write the poem, it's blasphemy.

your basically asking why is God doing everything he has done and is continuing to do so... that would surely be something a human could never know in this life.
Then, surely, so many people who suppose themselves to understand "god"'s nature should, surely, shut the fuck up about assuming anything about "god". They can keep their ideas to themselves until asked, eh?
Which, of course, means this forum, so by all means, enjoy what you garner from that approach. :)

If you now want to pursue such a debate, go start a thread about how you can debunk any argument trying to prove God's very existence, I’m sure you will find much support around here.
It matches the complex that people will provide the argument and bitch & moan about "being under attack", though, huh?

OK, you have proven that you can look up the definitions of literal and metaphor, and at the same time (barring an explanation of how you literally travel through Jesus' body/blood) showed that you don't understand them.

OuchouchowieOUCH. :)

It could be a small door that you have to crawl through. Ooops, I meant Jesus could be a small door that you have to crawl through.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/beingjohnmalkovich.jpg
...
http://www.tollbooth.org/movies/malkovich.jpg

Yeah, that might give some credence to the "kneel before God" thing. It's not to show reverence, but because you need to get that low to fit through the door.

http://www.indygear.com/props/images/trap.jpg

It's more nuanced than that.


"We would like to return to work with our writers," said Stewart and Colbert in a joint statement. "If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence."
:p