Saw a video on youtube by a literary researcher. The man claims that the whole story of Jesus was invented by roman emperor Flavius. Flavius needed to get the Jewish people under control so he obtained a Torah for himself then proceeded to destroy every other copy he could find. He used his copy of the Torah to create a Messiah story that sounded credible. Mixing details of the Torah with details of his own life Flavius wrote all four gospels trying to paint himself as the Messiah so that the Jews would see Emporer Flavius as the Messiah. What do you think? Was Jesus real or just an invention of the successor of Nero?
Quote from: fencerider on November 17, 2016, 12:36:28 AM
Saw a video on youtube by a literary researcher. The man claims that the whole story of Jesus was invented by roman emperor Flavius. Flavius needed to get the Jewish people under control so he obtained a Torah for himself then proceeded to destroy every other copy he could find. He used his copy of the Torah to create a Messiah story that sounded credible. Mixing details of the Torah with details of his own life Flavius wrote all four gospels trying to paint himself as the Messiah so that the Jews would see Emporer Flavius as the Messiah. What do you think? Was Jesus real or just an invention of the successor of Nero?
"Flavius" was originally pre-christian. The title being used sometimes until Ceasar (in various forms) became popular later. The original Flavious seems to have been around 300 BC, but certainly there was no connection to Christianity.
YouTube videos can and are often made by complete blitherring idiots. Do yourself a favor and don't pay any attention to them.
Youtube videos CAN be informing however should always be referenced. If they aren't then you still need to do some work to determine if the claim in the video is true by looking for other sources that verify that claim.
I've never heard of this theory you mention before and am unwilling to buy it. Yes I agree with most historians that jesus is not a historical person rather he is a legend of the time, popularized and enforced by Constantine. There's little evidence to support that any historical claims made in the bible are true. Exodus, not historical. Noah not historical. And many other old testament stories are also not historical. The new testament was written 100 years and some versions even later than that, after the time jesus supposably lived. Certainly the gospels were not written before the time of jesus so any one claiming that it was is incorrect. That's not to say there weren't co-occurring or previous religions with similarities to christianty. Christianity is most likely borrowed from other religions.
So be aware of youtube videos. And there is a lot of misinformation out there so use good judgement and always sight more than one source. I would say if you can find 5 or more sources it's probably accurate information.
Thank you for sharing though.
Quote from: doorknob on November 17, 2016, 05:35:10 AM
Youtube videos CAN be informing however should always be referenced. If they aren't then you still need to do some work to determine if the claim in the video is true by looking for other sources that verify that claim.
That's not to say there weren't co-occurring or previous religions with similarities to christianty. Christianity is most likely borrowed from other religions.
It depends on the sources YouTube videos reference. They tend to be inbred and and mutully-referencing and that's not good.
There is no doubt that Judaism (Christianity being a schism) was wholly constructed from the myths those nomadic people met. The Flood story came from Gilgamesh and that probably came from the even older legends of the refilling of the Mediterranean plains and/or Black Sea from the Atlantic, the Exodus from Babylonian experiences (the artefacts of the Jews exist in Egypt) , and the Virgin stuff of the Christians from the Mithras myths many centuries before. Same ideas of Virgin birth, single deity, etc.
No one knows for sure, but I think it likely, that there was a man by that name who preached, and possibly did some fake faith healing. But the supernatural nature of any of his actions, and the preponderance of his words, are embellishments by the authors, writing 70 years and more after the supposed events of their stories. Then these scraps were gathered together, by priests, many years later, and they kept the ones they liked, and threw out the ones they didn't like. Thus was born the Bible.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:47:32 AM
"Flavius" was originally pre-christian. The title being used sometimes until Ceasar (in various forms) became popular later. The original Flavious seems to have been around 300 BC, but certainly there was no connection to Christianity.
YouTube videos can and are often made by complete blitherring idiots. Do yourself a favor and don't pay any attention to them.
Multiple Youtube videos are useful for inducing skepticism ... not dogmatism.
Quote from: fencerider on November 17, 2016, 12:36:28 AM
Saw a video on youtube by a literary researcher. The man claims that the whole story of Jesus was invented by roman emperor Flavius. Flavius needed to get the Jewish people under control so he obtained a Torah for himself then proceeded to destroy every other copy he could find. He used his copy of the Torah to create a Messiah story that sounded credible. Mixing details of the Torah with details of his own life Flavius wrote all four gospels trying to paint himself as the Messiah so that the Jews would see Emporer Flavius as the Messiah. What do you think? Was Jesus real or just an invention of the successor of Nero?
In a word, no. I wish he had ;-) The 2002 movie, Joshua ... about Jesus visiting the US ... was awesome! Too bad Santa Claus and Superman aren't real either.
I think that the author of Caesar's Messiah is clever, but not a very good historian ... the Romans weren't that clever. From Julius Caesar forward, they didn't need to write fiction to make the Roman leaders like gods ... it was commonly believed that the Emperor was god incarnate, and savior. So when you write a story, of losers not winners, and say that this executed Jewish tramp was god ... the pagans had a hard time with that for various reasons. The Emperor didn't become Jesus incarnate until later, until Constantine ... he was already Sol Invictus incarnate, his birthday the same as the birthday of Sol invictus ... Dec 25th. And yes, the Roman Mithras is closely related to Sol Invictus. The Eastern Church still celebrates Epiphany, not Christmas.
Don't rely on iffy history. You can't cross-examine dead people. All history is, is political propaganda (Herodotus, first Western historian, was a Greek propagandist). History is written by the winners, the losers view is written out. If you want to see G-d, look about you ... talk to people, not books. I love books, but you won't find G-d in them.
I looked into whether Jesus was a real man or not a few months ago. You can wade through a mountain of historical documents you are not qualified to analyze or you can just ask what the majority of historians believe. The majority of historians believe that Jesus was, in fact, a real person.
There's a big difference between a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics, and a Jesus who performed miracles. Proving that there was a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics doesn't lend credibility to the Bible. It actually demolishes it. Now which Jesus are the historians talking about? Just a guy named Jesus? Or a miracle Jesus? If it's the first, well, OK, maybe, why not? If it's the miracle Jesus, then that sounds like bullshit. If all you can do is prove there was a guy named Jesus, well whoop-de-doo. You haven't got Jack. And no one has been able to prove that, anyway. I've never understood the point of arguing about the existence of just a regular guy named Jesus. It's a waste of theological discussion and hurts Christianity more than it supports it.
Quote from: SGOS on November 17, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
There's a big difference between a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics, and a Jesus who performed miracles. Proving that there was a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics doesn't lend credibility to the Bible. It actually demolishes it. Now which Jesus are the historians talking about? Just a guy named Jesus? Or a miracle Jesus? If it's the first, well, OK, maybe, why not? If it's the miracle Jesus, then that sounds like bullshit. If all you can do is prove there was a guy named Jesus, well whoop-de-doo. You haven't got Jack. And no one has been able to prove that, anyway. I've never understood the point of arguing about the existence of just a regular guy named Jesus. It's a waste of theological discussion and hurts Christianity more than it supports it.
Historians generally lean toward the belief that the Jesus mentioned in the Bible was a real person. To my knowledge no mainstream, respected historian has ever spoken about his time at Hogwarts. You are correct in that proving that a man named Jesus used to be walking around claiming to be the son of God absolutely does not in any way support any of the magical claims of the Bible. But the OP wasn't about the magic powers of Jesus, just whether or not he had existed.
Of course proving a mundane thing does nothing to even remotely suggest that associated fantastical claims have any basis in reality. And of course nobody here thinks it does. Christians only see it that way because all they can do is prove the mundane. It's all they have, so they elevate the significance of anything the Bible got right. Many years ago I heard what was essentially a claim that archaeologists had found Sodom and Gomorrah, which they had previously not believed to have existed, and this proved the Biblical account of the two cities. To understand why mundane evidence is more significant to a theist than it is to a reasonable human being you have to understand how they think and why.
To the theist, getting just ONE THING wrong brings the whole house of cards crashing down on them. Prove the entire planet wasn't flooded, the story of Noah's Ark isn't real and the Bible can't be taken literally. Entire religious sects cease to exist. Prove evolution happened and the Biblical account of creation didn't happen. Again, entire religious sects cease to exist. Prove Jesus wasn't magical then nothing about his life is correct, including him rising from the dead. Pretty much all of Christianity dies that day. Sure, it would be replaced with something just as stupid immediately as people try desperately to hold on to as much of their belief systems as possible, but its current for dies overnight. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Christians are adept at ignoring facts so what you "proved" would, like the Bible, be "open to interpretation".
That is the mindset Christians come from. Prove ONE SINGLE THING wrong and their entire belief system gets tossed out. So that is how they see the world. Archaeologists are "scientists". Scientists are a group of evil "smart people" with a hive mind who are desperate to do nothing more so than to kill God. So if archaeologists say "This probably never existed" and then they're proved wrong they get to toss out ALL of science that they disagree with. And, of course, all scientists have that hive mind thing going on, so they all say exactly the same thing (when it's convenient, of course. As Randy showed us, when it's not convenient you get to choose the one who agrees with you and throw out the thousands who don't). So if you can prove ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST wrong then you have proved EVERYTHING you disagree with wrong. Thus, prove that Jesus really walked the Earth, something all scientists everywhere dispute, and you have proved the Bible in its entirety.
We all know that's stupid. We all get physically ill over the flawed logic of that way of thinking. This wasn't one of "those conversations", though, so all the bullshit logical flaws can (thankfully) simply be ignored in this context.
I've got a copy of Caesar's Messiah (http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/), and it was a pretty good read. I'm more skeptical of the idea merely because I'd love it to be true. He talks a good game, though. Could be on to something.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 17, 2016, 05:48:59 PM
I've got a copy of Caesar's Messiah (http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/), and it was a pretty good read. I'm more skeptical of the idea merely because I'd love it to be true. He talks a good game, though. Could be on to something.
Better title ... Constantine's Messiah
Maybe Jesus was a real man, whose legend evolved over time. Maybe was entirely made up based on stories that came before him. This story of Flavius making up the story to try to control Jews, though, is just silly.
Yeah, so was the idea that Chump would be our next POTUS.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 17, 2016, 07:03:45 PM
Maybe Jesus was a real man, whose legend evolved over time. Maybe was entirely made up based on stories that came before him. This story of Flavius making up the story to try to control Jews, though, is just silly.
Constantine made it up, to control the Empire.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 17, 2016, 07:07:24 PM
Yeah, so was the idea that Chump would be our next POTUS.
I hear Caligula is ready for a comeback tour ;-(
Quote from: widdershins on November 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AM
I looked into whether Jesus was a real man or not a few months ago. You can wade through a mountain of historical documents you are not qualified to analyze or you can just ask what the majority of historians believe. The majority of historians believe that Jesus was, in fact, a real person.
I do think that the majority of those historians who believe Jesus was real have a stake in promoting the Christian religion. I see a mounting number of serious scholars who dispute that Jesus was a real person. I tend to side with those. One fact alone--that no person contemporary to Jesus (including himself) wrote about the man. Nobody. Strange at best. The Jesus of the bible is a fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 17, 2016, 08:09:05 PM
I do think that the majority of those historians who believe Jesus was real have a stake in promoting the Christian religion. I see a mounting number of serious scholars who dispute that Jesus was a real person. I tend to side with those. One fact alone--that no person contemporary to Jesus (including himself) wrote about the man. Nobody. Strange at best. The Jesus of the bible is a fiction.
I was gonna say it's news to me that historians believe jesus was a real person historically. I was informed that as mike says the serious historians do not believe he was based on a real man named jesus. Historically pretty much the whole bible is a fabrication.
Quote from: doorknob on November 17, 2016, 08:15:48 PM
I was gonna say it's news to me that historians believe jesus was a real person historically. I was informed that as mike says the serious historians do not believe he was based on a real man named jesus. Historically pretty much the whole bible is a fabrication.
The Bible is the greatest work of Jewish fiction ... not to detract from more recent Jewish authors. If Gentiles and theists misunderstand that ... that isn't our problem.
I got my degree from the University of Youtube. I'm currently at 45° C. (http://rationalia.com/z/hot-sun-192.gif)
Quote from: SGOS on November 17, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
There's a big difference between a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics, and a Jesus who performed miracles. Proving that there was a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics doesn't lend credibility to the Bible. It actually demolishes it. Now which Jesus are the historians talking about? Just a guy named Jesus? Or a miracle Jesus? If it's the first, well, OK, maybe, why not? If it's the miracle Jesus, then that sounds like bullshit. If all you can do is prove there was a guy named Jesus, well whoop-de-doo. You haven't got Jack. And no one has been able to prove that, anyway. I've never understood the point of arguing about the existence of just a regular guy named Jesus. It's a waste of theological discussion and hurts Christianity more than it supports it.
So what if a man named Jesus did all miracles listed but that literal interpretation is a misunderstanding? Walked on water could be seen a metaphor for GOD and hovering over the void in Genesis. Healing the lame and blind can all be taken spiritually. Even reviving the dead can and does seem to refer to spiritual death or utter misdirection in ones own life coupled with the inability to change ones path though one may know of its erroneous direction. Jesus was a man. So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.
Peace
Most experts in Norse history agree that there probably was an actual man named Thor, who was a local leader and could lift a lot of heavy weight. Some experts refute this, of course, but they aren't very good experts.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:56:27 AM
So what if a man named Jesus did all miracles listed but that literal interpretation is a misunderstanding? Walked on water could be seen a metaphor for GOD and hovering over the void in Genesis. Healing the lame and blind can all be taken spiritually. Even reviving the dead can and does seem to refer to spiritual death or utter misdirection in ones own life coupled with the inability to change ones path though one may know of its erroneous direction. Jesus was a man. So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.
Peace
I think I finally figured out where you are coming from, Pops. You like to think of life and religion and the bible and Jesus as metaphor's for how to live one's life. Am I correct?
There was a gentleman named Charles Fillmore who founded the Unity Church. He authored a book that I think you would simply love! It is called The Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. In it he tells you how to take any story in the bible and turn it into a metaphor for your current situation in life. At the time I was a member of that church, I found I used that book quite a bit; I still own a copy. As a very brief example, I rendered the David vs Goliath story this way. David went from the mountain to the valley to meet Goliath. The mountains are when we are connecting with our inner self, assessing what it is we need. The valley is where the rubber meets the road. Saul offer David help of armor and weapons. David refused the help and used his own weapons; when tackling a huge undertaking search within and determine what works for you and the use those tools to the best of your ability. In the valley use those tools and have trust in your abilities when tackling your own goliath. My full rendition was over a page long, so this is simply a taste. I really do hope you look this book up--it is right down your alley!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:56:27 AM
So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.
Peace
I'm sure you do, Pops. Your opinion holds that Jesus was a man, therefore you will say that the historians that agree with you are correct. That is simply wishful thinking, along the lines of believing the Tooth Fairy exists because you want her to. Same, same. There is no proof that the bibical jesus existed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 09:31:19 AM
I think I finally figured out where you are coming from, Pops. You like to think of life and religion and the bible and Jesus as metaphor's for how to live one's life. Am I correct?
There was a gentleman named Charles Fillmore who founded the Unity Church. He authored a book that I think you would simply love! It is called The Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. In it he tells you how to take any story in the bible and turn it into a metaphor for your current situation in life. At the time I was a member of that church, I found I used that book quite a bit; I still own a copy. As a very brief example, I rendered the David vs Goliath story this way. David went from the mountain to the valley to meet Goliath. The mountains are when we are connecting with our inner self, assessing what it is we need. The valley is where the rubber meets the road. Saul offer David help of armor and weapons. David refused the help and used his own weapons; when tackling a huge undertaking search within and determine what works for you and the use those tools to the best of your ability. In the valley use those tools and have trust in your abilities when tackling your own goliath. My full rendition was over a page long, so this is simply a taste. I really do hope you look this book up--it is right down your alley!
As a religion, I'm not going to complain about that. Metaphors are OK. It's not a claim of literal reality. As long as your interpretation isn't that it's also everybody else's interpretation, and that you realize that you're making a temporary interpretation based on an immediate need, that's cool. I start getting skeptical when theists wander beyond the bounds of what they know, conflating what they know, with what they want.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2016, 09:04:39 AM
Most experts in Norse history agree that there probably was an actual man named Thor, who was a local leader and could lift a lot of heavy weight. Some experts refute this, of course, but they aren't very good experts.
I heard he did God's work, killing Ice Giants.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 09:34:24 AM
I'm sure you do, Pops. Your opinion holds that Jesus was a man, therefore you will say that the historians that agree with you are correct. That is simply wishful thinking, along the lines of believing the Tooth Fairy exists because you want her to. Same, same. There is no proof that the bibical jesus existed.
I said relevant.
And we are talking about a person not a tooth fairy.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2016, 11:04:09 AM
As a religion, I'm not going to complain about that. Metaphors are OK. It's not a claim of literal reality. As long as your interpretation isn't that it's also everybody else's interpretation, and that you realize that you're making a temporary interpretation based on an immediate need, that's cool. I start getting skeptical when theists wander beyond the bounds of what they know, conflating what they know, with what they want.
You will find that those who strive to be pleasing to GOD or on the right path will have, as a necessity, removed want from self. The conflation is in saying that the Will of the Creator and the will of man are the same. One must negate want for self that is contrary to what is good for the whole. I'd they deny this simple truth totally then they are aiming for their own wants. As with anything; when the results equal negativity then the source is negative. Morality is intrinsic to human life but greed negates it.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:56:27 AM
So what if a man named Jesus did all miracles listed but that literal interpretation is a misunderstanding? Walked on water could be seen a metaphor for GOD and hovering over the void in Genesis. Healing the lame and blind can all be taken spiritually. Even reviving the dead can and does seem to refer to spiritual death or utter misdirection in ones own life coupled with the inability to change ones path though one may know of its erroneous direction. Jesus was a man. So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.
Peace
It is what a good metaphor can teach you ... that is relevant ... not any man, historical or otherwise.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 11:43:45 AM
I said relevant.
And we are talking about a person not a tooth fairy.
No quarters under your pillow for you! ;-)
Quote from: doorknob on November 17, 2016, 08:15:48 PM
I was gonna say it's news to me that historians believe jesus was a real person historically. I was informed that as mike says the serious historians do not believe he was based on a real man named jesus. Historically pretty much the whole bible is a fabrication.
From the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), the first line of the second paragraph reads "The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."
That's the information I am going by, the same information I went by when debating Randy. Big surprise, Christians are apparently all too happy to accept the consensus of a majority of historians when said historians are saying what they want to hear, but not so much when the majority of historians are saying that the gospels were written between about 40 and 100 years after the death of Jesus, literally 1 to 2 1/2 lifetimes in for the time.
Regardless what I would like, the information I have says a "vast majority", including secular historians, agree that he existed, so I accept it. Unless someone has some information I do not that they would be willing to offer, I will continue to accept this as the historical consensus and, thus, the probable reality.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 11:43:45 AM
I said relevant.
And we are talking about a person not a tooth fairy.
What is relevant to you many not be relevant to me. The jesus of the bible has as much actuality as the tooth fairy. Both are fictional.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 03:44:54 PM
What is relevant to you many not be relevant to me. The jesus of the bible has as much actuality as the tooth fairy. Both are fictional.
Obviously what is relevant or important to me may not be important to you. The teachings and example of the Christ are significant though seeing as how they are generally agreed upon and received in a positive manner by all societies.
If the Jesus of the NT did exist, he wasn't such a great guy:
Realize that Jesus was a jerk (http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Obviously what is relevant or important to me may not be important to you. The teachings and example of the Christ are significant though seeing as how they are generally agreed upon and received in a positive manner by all societies.
That is only your opinion. People cannot even agree what the teachings of your fictitious christ are; nor if he is real or not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 06:24:33 PM
That is only your opinion. People cannot even agree what the teachings of your fictitious christ are; nor if he is real or not.
Nonsense. I'm not speaking of an orthodox Christian's perspective or the division among those who claim to be Christian. I am speaking of the actual learned individuals of other faiths or schools of thought.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 07:19:25 PM
Nonsense. I'm not speaking of an orthodox Christian's perspective or the division among those who claim to be Christian. I am speaking of the actual learned individuals of other faiths or schools of thought.
I see. Other faiths and schools of thought (whatever those and that is) are accurate whereas christanity is not. Okay. Let me see..............Bugs Bunny is not accurate, but Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck are. Gotcha.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 07:37:00 PM
I see. Other faiths and schools of thought (whatever those and that is) are accurate whereas christanity is not. Okay. Let me see..............Bugs Bunny is not accurate, but Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck are. Gotcha.
All I'm saying is that the teachings and example of the man Jesus the Christ of GOD are generally accepted throughout the entire world and throughout time, atheists included. If you plainly deny this then I would say you are plainly being wilfully ignorant.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 07:41:17 PM
All I'm saying is that the teachings and example of the man Jesus the Christ of GOD are generally accepted throughout the entire world and throughout time, atheists included. If you plainly deny this then I would say you are plainly being wilfully ignorant.
Peace
In comparative religious terms, much of the ethical aspects of Jesus' mission are applauded ... in human terms (not divine terms). What Jesus claimed to be, or what Paul claimed he was ... isn't very important to other religions ... though it is important within Christianity. The Social Gospel of the 19th century is a bright light in human ethics.
In pre-Constantine times, even Jews applauded some Christian behavior (particularly compared to pagan behavior) ... that Christians not only provided social services for their own members, but for anyone in need. This is more likely true, because Jews aren't in favor of Christianity. Relations hardened after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, then the destruction of Jerusalem again in 135 CE, then the rise of Orthodox Christianity under Constantine. Christians were seen less and less Jewish over time, because they were.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 07:41:17 PM
All I'm saying is that the teachings and example of the man Jesus the Christ of GOD are generally accepted throughout the entire world and throughout time, atheists included. If you plainly deny this then I would say you are plainly being wilfully ignorant.
Peace
I am being willfully ignorant? Well, as another fictional character said--Stupid is as stupid does. The entire world knows of your fictional god and son???? Really??? And they have been known for the last several billion years as well???? Really???? Clearly empirical evidence does not enter into your world, does it. And I am willfully ignorant. :))))))
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 08:15:34 PM
I am being willfully ignorant? Well, as another fictional character said--Stupid is as stupid does. The entire world knows of your fictional god and son???? Really??? And they have been known for the last several billion years as well???? Really???? Clearly empirical evidence does not enter into your world, does it. And I am willfully ignorant. :))))))
Didn't say anything about people knowing of GOD since before written history. But now that you bring it up, yes.
Read the Zend Avesta then tell me that the fire of GOD isn't the son of GOD.
Humans would have had to have had been around in order to contemplate GOD. I don't think they were around billions of years ago though.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2016, 11:04:09 AM
As a religion, I'm not going to complain about that. Metaphors are OK. It's not a claim of literal reality. As long as your interpretation isn't that it's also everybody else's interpretation, and that you realize that you're making a temporary interpretation based on an immediate need, that's cool. I start getting skeptical when theists wander beyond the bounds of what they know, conflating what they know, with what they want.
What I found most attractive about Unity is what they call Christ Consciousness. Which translates into self-talk of a positive type. Each has the Christ inside. And it can be tapped in each of us. What that means is that if you think you can't do something, you will always be right. The thrust of this teaching is to learn to train oneself to think in positive ways--to see the positive paths to gaining what one wants.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:20:35 PM
Didn't say anything about people knowing of GOD since before written history. But now that you bring it up, yes.
Read the Zend Avesta then tell me that the fire of GOD isn't the son of GOD.
Humans would have had to have had been around in order to contemplate GOD. I don't think they were around billions of years ago though.
So, Pops, did you read the post I made about Unity?
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 08:20:41 PM
What I found most attractive about Unity is what they call Christ Consciousness. Which translates into self-talk of a positive type. Each has the Christ inside. And it can be tapped in each of us. What that means is that if you think you can't do something, you will always be right. The thrust of this teaching is to learn to train oneself to think in positive ways--to see the positive paths to gaining what one wants.
Christ consciousness has little to do with what one wants in terms of attainment.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
So, Pops, did you read the post I made about Unity?
I did and though I haven't researched this group I do hold great reverence for the mere ideal of unity, and find the Christ consciousness or Krishna consciousness to be likened to the selfless conscience.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:26:05 PM
I did and though I haven't researched this group I do hold great reverence for the mere ideal of unity, and find the Christ consciousness or Krishna consciousness to be likened to the selfless conscience.
Peace
Have you ever heard of the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary??
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:23:21 PM
Christ consciousness has little to do with what one wants in terms of attainment.
So you say.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 08:40:15 PM
Have you ever heard of the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary??
Not prior to today when I believe you mentioned it
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 08:43:08 PM
Not prior to today when I believe you mentioned it
I think you would like it. Google it and read a bit about it. If you like it, you can download the entire book (and it isn't short) for free.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 09:27:40 PM
I think you would like it. Google it and read a bit about it. If you like it, you can download the entire book (and it isn't short) for free.
I don't doubt that I would enjoy the read for multiple reasons based on your description. I might read it at some later date further down the line though. People wouldn't generally agree with me, but as a rule I donot delve into the explanatory works of others when it comes to scripture of any sort. I will, and do read the core writings themselves, but do not rely on the interpretation of others, namely scholars in much of any significant way. I may look into the meaning of a theological term for clarification but that's about the extent of it. I honestly believe that one should read the inspired word of GOD for themselves. If they cannot comprehend it then they should simply continue to read until a fluidity in reading and comprehension is achieved. Because of the evident misdirection of some of the "religious" I wouldn't advise any blindly accept anything from the mouth or hand of another man, but that all things be compared to what one can know through the selfless conscience. Of course even this is a grand undertaking for some it seems, as so many seem so detached from just their basic conscience, let alone any altruistic or selfless conscience.
I do thank you for the suggestion though. It does sound interesting.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 10:24:09 PM
I don't doubt that I would enjoy the read for multiple reasons based on your description. I might read it at some later date further down the line though. People wouldn't generally agree with me, but as a rule I donot delve into the explanatory works of others when it comes to scripture of any sort. I will, and do read the core writings themselves, but do not rely on the interpretation of others, namely scholars in much of any significant way. I may look into the meaning of a theological term for clarification but that's about the extent of it. I honestly believe that one should read the inspired word of GOD for themselves. If they cannot comprehend it then they should simply continue to read until a fluidity in reading and comprehension is achieved. Because of the evident misdirection of some of the "religious" I wouldn't advise any blindly accept anything from the mouth or hand of another man, but that all things be compared to what one can know through the selfless conscience. Of course even this is a grand undertaking for some it seems, as so many seem so detached from just their basic conscience, let alone any altruistic or selfless conscience.
I do thank you for the suggestion though. It does sound interesting.
Peace
Ah shucks. Think nothing of it. You do seem like a nice guy, even if you do believe in fictional stuff.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 10:27:15 PM
Ah shucks. Think nothing of it. You do seem like a nice guy, even if you do believe in fictional stuff.
And you seem nice enough despite your incessant stabs at beliefs which you don't have a full grasp of, nor how they relate to me personally due to lack of conversation of such on my part.
I would expect nothing less from any genuine individual.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 18, 2016, 10:33:18 PM
And you seem nice enough despite your incessant stabs at beliefs which you don't have a full grasp of, nor how they relate to me personally due to lack of conversation of such on my part.
I would expect nothing less from any genuine individual.
Peace
Not 'incessant stabs of beliefs which you don't have a full grasp of............' (how do you know that??); but incessant stabs at you lack of trying to understand even simple facts; of ignoring empirical data; and your incessant lack of understanding that I don't have beliefs--none--all I think is based on some evidence of some sort.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 11:30:35 PM
Not 'incessant stabs of beliefs which you don't have a full grasp of............' (how do you know that??); but incessant stabs at you lack of trying to understand even simple facts; of ignoring empirical data; and your incessant lack of understanding that I don't have beliefs--none--all I think is based on some evidence of some sort.
Empirical data for Jesus (of the Bible) would involve a time machine, and a trip into the past 2000 years ago, and a taking the Skeptics Society with you, to cross-examine this Jesus guy, if you could even find him. Absurd.
However, what you think of as evidence, is partly based on your assumptions ... facts don't speak for themselves.
https://iai.tv/video/missing-evidence
Scientific method is a human dialectic ... an interplay between theory and evidence (neither of which exist without people), you can't have one without the other. So for example, evidence for chaos was ignored for over 200 years ... the data points were simply thrown out. And facts are fudged ... we now know thru high tech planetarium calculations that Ptolemy fudged his data to make his epicycle theory fit better what measurements they were capable of 2000 years ago. Until chaos theory developed in the 1970s, they stopped throwing the data points out, and as it turned out (and didn't have to be) the theory was shown to be true (whatever that means). Peer review literally didn't help, but impeded ... because the effort to keep nonsense out of science, has also effectively kept out progress (see Aristotelian physics endorsed by the Catholic Church).
So yes, absence of evidence for Biblical type miracles is telling ... so one can't take a Biblical narrative literally, any more than you can take Tom Sawyer literally. One can debate, in literary criticism, the value of the Gospel of Mark ... but it is fallacious to debate the Gospel of Mark as theology (and in that I am completely opposed to 99% of theologians).
Popsthebuilder is speaking of subjective personal experience ... which will never be science (but then science isn't everything, it is something only).
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 08:20:41 PM
What I found most attractive about Unity is what they call Christ Consciousness. Which translates into self-talk of a positive type. Each has the Christ inside. And it can be tapped in each of us. What that means is that if you think you can't do something, you will always be right. The thrust of this teaching is to learn to train oneself to think in positive ways--to see the positive paths to gaining what one wants.
What is crucial is wanting the right things. If you want the common good, you are ethical, otherwise you are a predator. Most people are predators most of the time ... so even the power of positive thought, is a two edged sword.
Quote from: Baruch on November 19, 2016, 08:03:04 AM
What is crucial is wanting the right things. If you want the common good, you are ethical, otherwise you are a predator. Most people are predators most of the time ... so even the power of positive thought, is a two edged sword.
I would venture to say that it much more edged than two. What is 'positive'??? What is being a 'predator'? Self preservation? Total evil? Natural or societal or what??? What I do know is, if I think I can't do something, then I am always right.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 19, 2016, 09:19:29 AM
I would venture to say that it much more edged than two. What is 'positive'??? What is being a 'predator'? Self preservation? Total evil? Natural or societal or what??? What I do know is, if I think I can't do something, then I am always right.
You will have to expand that ;-)
i think you meant, if something stops me from my egotistical manifest destiny, then I am triggered, and should call in the Soros protestors ... or maybe my friends at the Federal Reserve to bail me out?
Hitler was engaged in self preservation ... but he thought he needed to kill millions of people to achieve that. Self preservation is Social Darwinism ... which is the same as social predation. Society should be about mutualism, not predation ... same as marriage and parenting.
If you can't define "common good" then you need to educate yourself.
Quote from: Baruch on November 19, 2016, 12:06:51 PM
You will have to expand that ;-)
Come, Baruch. I know that you know what I mean. You are nothing if nuanced. Very little is as it seems. What is positive to me may be negative to you--but you fully understand that. You fully well know that there is only one way to look at the world--from you own eyes; nothing else is possible. I can imagine what others want or like (using the golden rule or one of it's partners) and make a pretty good guess. But still, that is not what all want and still it is only a guess. But I still try to make that guess daily. And I do know that if I think I can't do something, I am correct all the time. And the flip side to that is that I cannot succeed at something until I think I can. Only then can I make plans or take the effort to get it done. But you know all that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 11:30:35 PM
Not 'incessant stabs of beliefs which you don't have a full grasp of............' (how do you know that??); but incessant stabs at you lack of trying to understand even simple facts; of ignoring empirical data; and your incessant lack of understanding that I don't have beliefs--none--all I think is based on some evidence of some sort.
I didn't mean that you don't understand general theistic ideology. I meant that you didn't understand my own perception. I worded it poorly. As far as you claiming that I don't accept imperial evidence, well feel free to offer some up, or at least reference what you claim I deny and we can see if indeed do deny it.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 19, 2016, 09:19:29 AM
I would venture to say that it much more edged than two. What is 'positive'??? What is being a 'predator'? Self preservation? Total evil? Natural or societal or what??? What I do know is, if I think I can't do something, then I am always right.
What?
How do you know that to think one can never do anything isn't to always be wrong?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 19, 2016, 07:01:37 PM
What?
How do you know that to think one can never do anything isn't to always be wrong?
I don't understand your question.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 19, 2016, 08:30:43 PM
I don't understand your question.
Maybe I misunderstood you.
I thought you said to think one cannot do anything is to never be wrong.
I was asking how thinking you can't do anything equals always right instead of always wrong.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 19, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
Maybe I misunderstood you.
I thought you said to think one cannot do anything is to never be wrong.
I was asking how thinking you can't do anything equals always right instead of always wrong.
You misunderstood. If a person does not think they can do something, they are right, because they cannot/will not do it. If I don't think I can fix my car, I'll be right, since I never will fix it. If I really think I can fix my car, then I will find a way to do that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 19, 2016, 09:31:00 PM
You misunderstood. If a person does not think they can do something, they are right, because they cannot/will not do it. If I don't think I can fix my car, I'll be right, since I never will fix it. If I really think I can fix my car, then I will find a way to do that.
Oh...cool.
I like that.
Attitude is important I'm learning.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 19, 2016, 09:31:00 PM
You misunderstood. If a person does not think they can do something, they are right, because they cannot/will not do it. If I don't think I can fix my car, I'll be right, since I never will fix it. If I really think I can fix my car, then I will find a way to do that.
So true. The only way I can fix my car is if family does it for me or I pay some one. I've tried helping my Dad but I'm just not strong enough for a lot of things and my hands are just too damn fat to fit into tiny crevices.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 19, 2016, 09:32:23 PM
Oh...cool.
I like that.
Attitude is important I'm learning.
Attitude is everything.
I'm still waiting for any historical evidence that Jesus actually existed. Any actual records from the time. Not a century later.
I had a fascinating discussion with some Jehovah's Witnesses a couple of days ago. They were shocked at the question. I saw them comong and put on my Atheist hat. THAT really discombuberated them. So we had a nice discussion for 20 minutes on my front porch.
I wasn't surprised that they hadn't the slightest idea what "evidence" was. To them, "evidence" is faith. They said the Bible tells them Jesus was real. I told them I had a book that said Unicorns were real. They actually considered that valid. Because I "believed" it.
Oh crap...
They are without the ability to think. As are most theists... They came by again and left a pamphlet on my door explaining how Jesus exists. Some Biblical Archeologist said so apparently. That's good enough for them.
Estimated IQ of 90. And I may be being generous...
Power of positive thinking ...
I think I'm smart ... I think I'm smart ... I think I'm smart ...
You don't need to be smart - just be a cynical pessimist and you'll be right much more often than otherwise.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 22, 2016, 06:03:59 PM
You don't need to be smart - just be a cynical pessimist and you'll be right much more often than otherwise.
I'm way ahead of you.
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/a8c961d529bd5afd4a45903da9a923f7/tumblr_myndmdCZEd1rr8d1ko1_500.png)
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 17, 2016, 06:27:53 AM
No one knows for sure, but I think it likely, that there was a man by that name who preached, and possibly did some fake faith healing. But the supernatural nature of any of his actions, and the preponderance of his words, are embellishments by the authors, writing 70 years and more after the supposed events of their stories. Then these scraps were gathered together, by priests, many years later, and they kept the ones they liked, and threw out the ones they didn't like. Thus was born the Bible.
So "No one knows for sure", but you are convinced of his existence anyway? There just aren't any records of Jesus, and the Romans kept good records. Don't mistake that for saying there was no one named Jesus at the time. It was a common name.
I love history, but I am a skeptic. I consider history to be a part of literature.
Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2016, 06:50:00 AM
I love history, but I am a skeptic. I consider history to be a part of literature.
Three unconnected thoughts...
"I love history" is neutral and signifies nothing.
"I am a skeptic" is doubtful.
"I consider history to be part of literature", suggests that history is equally fiction and myth (as literature is mostly), not to be taken seriously.
Do you actually THINK before you type?
I must insist that jesus never existed as a real human.
I don't really even know if there is any actual evidence rather then testimony that he was. But even if there was a historical jesus it really doesn't mean much to me. It'd be no different then a historical muhammed or budda.
Quote from: doorknob on December 02, 2016, 02:47:56 AM
I must insist that jesus never existed as a real human.
I don't really even know if there is any actual evidence rather then testimony that he was. But even if there was a historical jesus it really doesn't mean much to me. It'd be no different then a historical muhammed or budda.
I will agree that even IF there was a real jesus preacher, it wouldn't change my view about the existence of a deity. But I do love to annoy the J/W doorknockers with the question. It really throws them off balance.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 02:41:07 AM
Three unconnected thoughts...
"I love history" is neutral and signifies nothing.
"I am a skeptic" is doubtful.
"I consider history to be part of literature", suggests that history is equally fiction and myth (as literature is mostly), not to be taken seriously.
Do you actually THINK before you type?
You can believe that Tide is new and improved ... if you want. Whatever happened in the past, isn't history. It is a mistake to label propaganda, contemporary or directed to past events, as history. Even the things I have personally experienced, their meaning is questionable (at least to self criticism) ... let alone Pontificating on things I didn't personally experience.
Of course I am a skeptic ... you aren't a real bear, are you? ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 07:26:34 AM
You can believe that Tide is new and improved ... if you want. Whatever happened in the past, isn't history. It is a mistake to label propaganda, contemporary or directed to past events, as history. Even the things I have personally experienced, their meaning is questionable (at least to self criticism) ... let alone Pontificating on things I didn't personally experience.
Of course I am a skeptic ... you aren't a real bear, are you? ;-))
As usual. you make little sense.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
As usual. you make little sense.
Better than no sense at all ;-) You really need to chill, maybe a hibernation is in order? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 07:29:28 AM
Better than no sense at all ;-) You really need to chill, maybe a hibernation is in order? ;-)
Forgive me, I meant "no sense" but I was trying to be polite. But you have lead us off-topic (as usual and as you like). Did Jesus ever exist?
Quote from: doorknob on December 02, 2016, 02:47:56 AM
I must insist that jesus never existed as a real human.
I don't really even know if there is any actual evidence rather then testimony that he was. But even if there was a historical jesus it really doesn't mean much to me. It'd be no different then a historical muhammed or budda.
Exactly. Thanks to the author of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," C. S. Lewis, Christians love to repeat this phrase: "Either Jesus was a lunatic, liar, or Lord." But that statement falsely assumes that no other options exist. There are two more that I can think of: myth or legend. There's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, so it's likely he's a myth. But even if he were real, if you look at the New Testament in the order that they were actually written (starting with Paul's letters), it's easy to see that the stories about Jesus became more and more fantastical as time went on. He may have been an ordinary man that legends elevated into the Son of God, with the powers to command oceans and raise the dead.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 02, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Exactly. Thanks to the author of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," C. S. Lewis, Christians love to repeat this phrase: "Either Jesus was a lunatic, liar, or Lord." But that statement falsely assumes that no other options exist. There are two more that I can think of: myth or legend. There's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, so it's likely he's a myth. But even if he were real, if you look at the New Testament in the order that they were actually written (starting with Paul's letters), it's easy to see that the stories about Jesus became more and more fantastical as time went on. He may have been an ordinary man that legends elevated into the Son of God, with the powers to command oceans and raise the dead.
I sometimes imagine being transported 2,000 years into the future and seeing what past people (real or not) are considered holy. Nader The Warrior? Xandu The Healer? Boson The Energetic? Me?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 10:12:44 AM
I sometimes imagine being transported 2,000 years into the future and seeing what past people (real or not) are considered holy. Nader The Warrior? Xandu The Healer? Boson The Energetic? Me?
I know that religions will likely exist for the rest of human history (or at least for a very, very, very long time). It's just too easy to manipulate people with religion. But I hope that in 2,000 years, the vast majority of people will be secular, and that they will see all organized religion the same way we look back on Greek myths. I hope that in age of such advanced technology that their people, more educated than ours, will not fall for the mind games of religion.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 02, 2016, 10:27:58 AM
I know that religions will likely exist for the rest of human history (or at least for a very, very, very long time). It's just too easy to manipulate people with religion. But I hope that in 2,000 years, the vast majority of people will be secular, and that they will see all organized religion the same way we look back on Greek myths. I hope that in age of such advanced technology that their people, more educated than ours, will not fall for the mind games of religion.
I was visited by some J/W recently, and I felt like messing with them. I asked if they believed in Thor. "No". I asked if they believed in Vishnu. "No". So I said I believed in their god like they believed in Thor and Vishnu. One of them seemed to get my point, the other didn't. My wearing my American Atheist hat might have clued them in...
I asked them to prove that Jesus actually existed. That baffled them. Not something they ask themselves...
I bet they exist 2,000 years from now.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 02, 2016, 10:27:58 AM
I know that religions will likely exist for the rest of human history (or at least for a very, very, very long time). It's just too easy to manipulate people with religion. But I hope that in 2,000 years, the vast majority of people will be secular, and that they will see all organized religion the same way we look back on Greek myths. I hope that in age of such advanced technology that their people, more educated than ours, will not fall for the mind games of religion.
Advanced technology that the average person doesn't understand, so makes it into idol worship, like the Omega Bomb in Planet of the Apes II?
There were, of course, many men back in those days that had the name Joshua (Jesus). The Christians can take their pick of those, but whichever they choose, it still won't be God the Son.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a5/13/2f/a5132f36fa06c5c58ed9c2b756d8c4a5.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 01:06:24 PM
Advanced technology that the average person doesn't understand, so makes it into idol worship, like the Omega Bomb in Planet of the Apes II?
So you are basing an argument on a technology which doesn't exist?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 02:10:40 AM
So you are basing an argument on a technology which doesn't exist?
We do have the H bomb, and were basically worshipping that from the early 50s to the early 60s ... fiction does mirror current events at times.
So, how much QM do you understand, and when did you understand it? (Star chamber dialog like Bengazi committee).
I'm not sure at this stage whether it even matters if there was a historical Jesus, since the xian community is almost unanimously Paulist, not Jesusist. Even if there was a historical Jesus, he's not followed anyway.
Quote from: trdsf on January 10, 2017, 01:09:45 PM
I'm not sure at this stage whether it even matters if there was a historical Jesus, since the xian community is almost unanimously Paulist, not Jesusist. Even if there was a historical Jesus, he's not followed anyway.
You get a gold star. Doesn't matter if there is a historical anyone; including Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna. It is a polemic/apologetic item ... which is pointless if you reject the whole system that the polemic/apologetic is defending. This was the Church Father's argument ... that those other savior gods like Orpheus and Osiris were mere myth, but our savior god is the real deal. A fiction that is believed in, even if it is a historical person, that fiction is far more powerful than the reality ... see George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Christianity has been almost entirely Pauline since 135 CE. I don't mean that as a criticism of Paul, he was one awesome Jewish dude ;-) Since 325 CE ... Christianity outside of Ethiopia and the Near East, has been the cult of Constantine, not Paul, not Jesus.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 01:21:33 PM
You get a gold star. Doesn't matter if there is a historical anyone; including Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna. It is a polemic/apologetic item ... which is pointless if you reject the whole system that the polemic/apologetic is defending. This was the Church Father's argument ... that those other savior gods like Orpheus and Osiris were mere myth, but our savior god is the real deal. A fiction that is believed in, even if it is a historical person, that fiction is far more powerful than the reality ... see George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Christianity has been almost entirely Pauline since 135 CE. I don't mean that as a criticism of Paul, he was one awesome Jewish dude ;-) Since 325 CE ... Christianity outside of Ethiopia and the Near East, has been the cult of Constantine, not Paul, not Jesus.
You're like a little treasure trove of information pertinent to me.
Sweeeet!
Oops....
peace
From the other string ... yes, of course some of us know who the Bahais are. Their HQ is in Tel Aviv.
Pops - A good overview of what being a theist is like is: Finding Your Religion by Rev. Scotty McLennan ... who is the real life inspiration for the hip clergyman in Doonesbury. But you probably already know this ;-) The psychology and experience of being human, which for most people includes religion/spirituality ... is what I constantly emphasize. The who did what to whom when and where ... that is history, and I am interested in that, as literature, not as fact. So the Christian argument that "our savior is historical" is pointless for me.
If a theist believes in god, but doesnt believe in any specific description of god, how would a theist recognize a god if he met It/Him/Her?
Quote from: fencerider on January 12, 2017, 10:34:19 AM
If a theist believes in god, but doesnt believe in any specific description of god, how would a theist recognize a god if he met It/Him/Her?
If you met some person, but didn't have a prior specific description of that person, how do you know they aren't a reptilian alien? But yes, you won't know it is John, unless you have met him before, or you have a description (photo) of him.
In my case, I don't have a belief about G-d, I don't have to struggle with an invisible entity like Paul (though he was mostly speaking of the future). My G-d is quite visible all the time. This is well explained by Jesus ... if you help person X, then you have helped me. If you have seen me then you have seen the Father. Or on the road to Emmaus, they didn't recognize him at first, but after they discussed what had happened that Passover (aka the Logos speaks) then they knew who they had been talking to. An analogy, not something to be taken literally. The Logos is a Greco-Roman concept ... not Jewish at all, but it reappears in Kabbalah. And the Quran is the Logos for Muslims, it is the living word of Allah ... and thus the physical presence of Muhammad as well (as sound, not as a book ... the Quran is speech, not writing).
Also, for those who put great stock in documentability, we have rather more documentary evidence of, say, Siddhartha Gautama and Mohammed than we do for Jeshua bar-Joseph. And even photographs of Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'à faith. And yet I see no great rush to convert thither. So I guess actual independent documentation isn't quite as relevant.
There is no accounting for popularity ... or marketing ;-)
It makes sense that there is more evidence for Muhamed than Jesus. He was supposed to exist at a much later time period. Less time for evidence to be destroyed by things; like the Roman empire.
I wanted to ask this earlier but I was still figuring out the website when it first came up. Certain individuals have said that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the next generation and not by eyewitnesses. So how do we know this? How do we know that they weren't written when Jesus was supposed to be alive? How do we know they were't written 500 years later? Or back to the point of evidence how do we know that there was never any record of Jesus by the Roman empire as opposed to all the evidence being destroyed by the Roman empire because Jesus was perceived as some kind of threat? Certainly the lack of substance in those 4 books makes a whole lot of sense if they were written after the fact. (if you met the son of a god and knew who you were talking to, it would make more sense that you would write down everything he said than the lame excuse that is given " if we wrote down everything Jesus said there would not be space for all the books we would have to write")
Quote from: fencerider on January 17, 2017, 01:12:51 AM
It makes sense that there is more evidence for Muhamed than Jesus. He was supposed to exist at a much later time period. Less time for evidence to be destroyed by things; like the Roman empire.
I wanted to ask this earlier but I was still figuring out the website when it first came up. Certain individuals have said that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the next generation and not by eyewitnesses. So how do we know this? How do we know that they weren't written when Jesus was supposed to be alive? How do we know they were't written 500 years later? Or back to the point of evidence how do we know that there was never any record of Jesus by the Roman empire as opposed to all the evidence being destroyed by the Roman empire because Jesus was perceived as some kind of threat? Certainly the lack of substance in those 4 books makes a whole lot of sense if they were written after the fact. (if you met the son of a god and knew who you were talking to, it would make more sense that you would write down everything he said than the lame excuse that is given " if we wrote down everything Jesus said there would not be space for all the books we would have to write")
Your last sentence, the quote ... is the tell. If the NT are the deeds of the Church, and the Church is still kicking, then the NT is still being written ... I will give you the short form ..
Actual nearly complete manuscripts date from around 200 CE ... based on carbon dating and handwriting analysis. So at best these are copies of copies. How were the copies made, and why where they in a codex (book) form instead of a scroll form? Also these oldest copies have no ascription to any apostle, that was added by church fathers in the 2nd century and later, starting with Papias. And of course the NT you would read isn't in the right language, not the original Judeo-Greek. The usual lay view is completely wrong, because of how the NT is printed. There were no chapters, no verse numberings, those came centuries later. Judeo-Greek is a soon to be extinct dialect of Jew-speak ... not Greek-speak ... as Yiddish is Jewish, not German. There are fewer than 50 elderly native speakers left. Modern Greeks think they can read the NT in the original language, but they really can't, same as you and I can't really read Shakespeare ... because we aren't Elizabethans, and Shakespeare's vocabulary is too complicated, obsolete and invented on the spot by Shakespeare. Se we don't know exactly how old the originals of the NT would be, we are guessing, as were the folks in Constantine's time (circa 300 CE). There was no reason for a standardized version of the NT before Constantine, and it was fought over for decades afterward.
Another great tell ... the letters of Paul are the oldest part of the NT, mostly from the 1st century ... and Paul has never heard of the Gospels, doesn't know a living Jesus, only a dead but resurrected one. This implies we are dealing with a mythical character. Conventional scholarship says that Jesus the man was real but Jesus the god isn't, that the man became god gradually. This is apologetic, to please the Christians so they don't burn the scholars. Jesus started as a god, and became a man thanks to the Gospels, and then became a god again under Constantine (backed by the Roman government). The Gospels are Roman novellas ... hagiographies, of such exist for the pagan religions. They were popular literature like women's romance paperbacks. This is in a culture that knows what tragedy and comedy are at the theater ... the tragedy in this case being the execution of a good man, and the comedy being his resurrection in spite of that. It is literature, no more real than Star Wars (modern mythology, even for so called atheists).
So here is the short form of Biblical scholarship -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE
There is zero chance a lay person or average clergy can follow this ... it takes a mad genius ;-)
PS - Mohammad is more recent, but his scripture wasn't written by him, but scraps of oral speech that were composed into a book decades later. The first version of the Quran may have came about 12 years after he died. There is little corroborating evidence for Muhammad either, but since he did no miracles, he is at least plausible. The only things we know about his life, are inferred from the text of the Quran and the Hadiths. The final version of the Quran took about a century to form, because his polity had state power within his lifetime. Muhammad, like Moses and Jesus was illiterate. Scripture much? Both Moses and Muhammad got their messages directly from Heaven. Muslims consider the oral Quran (not the book) as a miracle (it is oracular speech, only Allah is speaking, it isn't a narrative or dialog). The literate people around him wrote down his favorite sayings, like fortune cookies ... Muhammad says ... and we see this process in what didn't get into the Quran ... the Hadiths. The Hadiths are of varying quality, and are not independent witnesses. In spite of death threats, non-Muslim scholars are giving it a good going over, in a neutral way. It would appear that early Muslims weren't as primitive as they would have you believe, and not as original as they insist they are. There were Jewish, Christians and Zoroastrian Arabs, in addition to the pagan ones. Some of them could write. At least in how the Quran was eventually standardized .. it is like the Psalms of David ... meant to be memorized and used liturgically. At times Christians have done this with their versions of the Psalms ... be we don't see it much in modern times, because of cheap books and general literacy. Muslims still hold to an oral ideal. It is the recitation orally, of the Quran, that is authoritative, and it is on that basis that the text of the Quran is corrected, not primarily on the basis of trees of related manuscripts (as Jews and Christians do). Of course at one time, the Jewish oral Torah, was oral. It wasn't written down for several hundred years. You had to be a memory prodigy to do this stuff. And we understand in modern times how this works, and it isn't photographic, it is a slightly new composition each time the oral stuff is recited.
Mohammad comes off as a fire breathing anti-social prophet in the mold of Elijah. Not by cup of tea, but certainly plausible. If we had more stuff by Elijah, I think it would be very similar ... do this, don't do that, or you will burn in Hell. This goes back to the Egyptian Book of the Dead ... it isn't original even with Jews. Even the Hindus and Buddhists have this idea (but a different version of time).
so yur saying Jesus was a story built up over time?
That brings to mind the story of the creation of the Jade Emperor (one of the bigger gods in China)... I dont remember all the details.
A man set out to increase his fortune (supposed to be a real person) on the road, leaving his wife at home. She didn't trust him not to cheat on her so she secretly followed him. Following him wasn't enough. They finally arrived in a far off town and the wife decided to trick the husband. She put on a disguise and danced for him. The man said to her you dance so much like my wife and you are the same size as she is. Then the wife took off her disguise. The man was so embarrassed that he jumped into the fireplace to kill himself. The woman didn't trust her husband but she loved him very much, so she lit some candles for him. Every year she would come to the town to light more candles for him. As the story slowly spread across China it changed to her worshipping the god of the kitchen to bring wealth and goodness into her life... slowly over time this god of the kitchen was changed into Jade Emperor....
It was a few years ago that I saw that, not much more detail
Quote from: fencerider on January 17, 2017, 11:29:12 PM
so yur saying Jesus was a story built up over time?
That brings to mind the story of the creation of the Jade Emperor (one of the bigger gods in China)... I dont remember all the details.
A man set out to increase his fortune (supposed to be a real person) on the road, leaving his wife at home. She didn't trust him not to cheat on her so she secretly followed him. Following him wasn't enough. They finally arrived in a far off town and the wife decided to trick the husband. She put on a disguise and danced for him. The man said to her you dance so much like my wife and you are the same size as she is. Then the wife took off her disguise. The man was so embarrassed that he jumped into the fireplace to kill himself. The woman didn't trust her husband but she loved him very much, so she lit some candles for him. Every year she would come to the town to light more candles for him. As the story slowly spread across China it changed to her worshipping the god of the kitchen to bring wealth and goodness into her life... slowly over time this god of the kitchen was changed into Jade Emperor....
It was a few years ago that I saw that, not much more detail
Yes. What people think of Jesus today (which is what is most relevant to us) has been a process over the last 2000 years, obviously. What people thought of Jesus 2000 years ago (apostles, not Jesus himself, who wrote nothing) is clear from the Gospels, but not from the Epistles. As to what Jesus was; human, god or fiction ... we can't tell ... but I think it is safe to assume anyone associated with miracles is a fiction, just as much as Zeus is. This didn't bother most people 2000 years ago, nor today. We all want our particular fiction to be The Truth. My theism doesn't depend on any of that, or I couldn't be a theist ... as many others witness here. The Jesus of the Church in particular took at least 300 years to form, in ways it is hard for us to fathom, though the writings of the Church Fathers is clear enough on part of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Emperor
Basically the personification of good government, and personal cultivation. I confuse him with the Yellow Emperor ;-)
Most recent Americanized version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJJjP51Dim4
Quote from: fencerider on January 17, 2017, 01:12:51 AM
It makes sense that there is more evidence for Muhamed than Jesus. He was supposed to exist at a much later time period. Less time for evidence to be destroyed by things; like the Roman empire.
I wanted to ask this earlier but I was still figuring out the website when it first came up. Certain individuals have said that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the next generation and not by eyewitnesses. So how do we know this? How do we know that they weren't written when Jesus was supposed to be alive? How do we know they were't written 500 years later? Or back to the point of evidence how do we know that there was never any record of Jesus by the Roman empire as opposed to all the evidence being destroyed by the Roman empire because Jesus was perceived as some kind of threat? Certainly the lack of substance in those 4 books makes a whole lot of sense if they were written after the fact. (if you met the son of a god and knew who you were talking to, it would make more sense that you would write down everything he said than the lame excuse that is given " if we wrote down everything Jesus said there would not be space for all the books we would have to write")
I think the earliest fragments have been dated to the second and third centuries CE and the earliest full copies of individual books to the third, so they weren't half a millennium later. Even so, that's well after the purported events, and well after the times of the alleged witnesses and writers. At a temporal distance that, it might as well be fanfic -- and in a thousand years time, historians may well think that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical figure, based on the Baring-Gould "biography" (highly recommended, BTW, for my fellow Holmes fans).
And you would think that a god who's supposed to be able to work universe-altering miracles could work up something as simple as a complete transcript. Y'know, in case his boy said something it was really important for us to know. Then there wouldn't be any question about what exactly he said, or whether he even said it in the first place.
Fencerider, for most of my life, I thought of Jesus as a person who had an embellished career. But the more I have looked into his history, the more I am amazed by the utter silence about him by early historians. I also used to think there were few historians in the first and second centuries. Wrong. One author researched 118 or so from the first century. From these historians not a peep, not a word not a hint of this so called man. Nothing. And the more I think about it, the louder that silence becomes. I just don't think it possible Jesus lived so quiet a life that no historian noticed him. He is a fiction created to further the political power of his creators.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 11:49:55 PM
I had a fascinating discussion with some Jehovah's Witnesses a couple of days ago. They were shocked at the question. I saw them comong and put on my Atheist hat. THAT really discombuberated them. So we had a nice discussion for 20 minutes on my front porch.
I wasn't surprised that they hadn't the slightest idea what "evidence" was. To them, "evidence" is faith. They said the Bible tells them Jesus was real.
I had an almost identical conversation with them years ago. I felt in the mood, so I let them in, which resulted in several return visits. The first couple of times, it was with some kids, probably new to their obligation of testifying door do door, I asked them how they knew the Bible was telling the truth. They didn't handle that very well.
The second or third visit, the preacher from the church came instead. We pursued the same questions, but he didn't do that well either.
The next visit, they sent an older woman about my age. I remember she drove a Cadillac. I wondered what she was like in bed. I asked her how she knew the Bible was telling the truth. Now this lady was ready. Out came the Bible with several bookmarkers she could use to address the important issues. Same old shit: "Look here, the Bible says it is telling the truth." And here, "The Bible is the word of God." She looked up suddenly and caught be laughing. I wasn't laughing to insult her. I was just laughing at the absurdity of her failing to understand the absurdity of what she was doing. I felt guilty. She asked, "Is something wrong?" All I could think of to say was, "No, there's nothing wrong."
She returned once more in her Cadillac. I wondered if she would have sex with me. We continued the conversation, with her racing through the bookmarkers, quoting the Bible and its alleged truths. She never returned, and I was relieved that it was over. I still wonder if I had been more accommodating if I could have had sex with her. It's too bad too. If things had been different, maybe there could have been something good come out of it.
A couple of years later, I needed a cement pour for a garage floor in a hurry. The contractors were all busy at the time, but the preacher at that church was also a contractor, and I gave him a call. He said he was busy, but he could send his two sons to do the job. He said, "You don't have to worry, these two have poured a lot of cement, and they are very good at it.
Out they came two days later on the date he had promised (very unusual with cement contractors in my town. Usually, they would be three weeks late). Those two kids poured the best slab I had ever hired out, and I had 5 of them poured over the years. They were fast, (which you have to be pouring cement), left it with a smoothest finish from magnesium floats on long poles that I had ever seen, and poured a slab that never even cracked in that two car garage that I owned for several more years.
We never talked about religion, although they were confirmed JWs. They even gave me a hand hoisting a heavy overhead beam which I couldn't do myself. The two of them just grabbed that beam and horsed up overhead as I stood by and watched. After that, I could lock it into position on my own. Great kids they were, and a very satisfying business transaction. So there was something good that came out of the incident after all.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 18, 2017, 12:05:00 PM
Fencerider, for most of my life, I thought of Jesus as a person who had an embellished career. But the more I have looked into his history, the more I am amazed by the utter silence about him by early historians. I also used to think there were few historians in the first and second centuries. Wrong. One author researched 118 or so from the first century. From these historians not a peep, not a word not a hint of this so called man. Nothing. And the more I think about it, the louder that silence becomes. I just don't think it possible Jesus lived so quiet a life that no historian noticed him. He is a fiction created to further the political power of his creators.
More likely wasn't written about due to fear of the Romans. Documents could have been written in nominal amount due to fear and the rest gathered and destroyed either intentionally or not.
It is feasible.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 01:49:04 AM
More likely wasn't written about due to fear of the Romans. Documents could have been written in nominal amount due to fear and the rest gathered and destroyed either intentionally or not.
It is feasible.
It's also feasible that an alien race planted life on this planet and has secretly been observing us ever since. Just because it's possible doesn't make it true, and the possibility that real evidence once existed but was destroyed does not substitute for observable evidence.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2017, 02:06:21 AM
It's also feasible that an alien race planted life on this planet and has secretly been observing us ever since. Just because it's possible doesn't make it true, and the possibility that real evidence once existed but was destroyed does not substitute for observable evidence.
That would be a piss-poor excuse for an almighty god.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2017, 02:06:21 AM
It's also feasible that an alien race planted life on this planet and has secretly been observing us ever since. Just because it's possible doesn't make it true, and the possibility that real evidence once existed but was destroyed does not substitute for observable evidence.
Possible isn't the right word. Probable is better
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 01:49:04 AM
More likely wasn't written about due to fear of the Romans. Documents could have been written in nominal amount due to fear and the rest gathered and destroyed either intentionally or not.
It is feasible.
As always you prefer to go with a fiction. It is not possible that all of the historians of that era were afraid of the Romans. That is called, at best, a stretch, and there is no proof that that is even a consideration. Consider that your fictional god was supposed to deliver the word to the world and live his life as THE example of how and what to do, to have it squelched by the big, bad Romans is beyond consideration. God is afraid of the Romans????
Quote from: Baruch on January 19, 2017, 06:09:03 AM
That would be a piss-poor excuse for an almighty god.
Yeah, it would. But name me an excuse that isn't piss poor????
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 07:54:38 AM
Possible isn't the right word. Probable is better
Nothing in your paragraph suggests that it is probable. We have no reason to think that any historians wrote about Jesus, and the Romans managed to destroy every single document they wrote about him. In fact, I'd call that quite a leap.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 07:54:38 AM
Possible isn't the right word. Probable is better
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is probable that an alien race planted life on this planet and has secretly been observing us ever since.
I was having dinner at a friend's house. Why he was a good friend were for reasons that aren't really germane to this post. He would jump from one job to another and one obsession to another. He lived 500 miles away, so I only saw him once or twice a year. Every time I visited him, I had no idea what obsession would be dominating his thoughts from one visit to the next. During dinner, he directed the conversation to his belief in alien seeding. He had recently discovered the "theory" and had been reading books on it and advised me to do the same. He was married to a devoted wife, who never objected to his job changing and always seemed to gracefully take his obsessions in stride.
While he was going on and on about alien seeding, I'm starting to reach the limits of my ability to avoid voicing objections and was trying to maintain the impression of being the perfect guest. His wife was refilling my coffee much as a waitress would do. She was standing next to me and with a pleasant smile openly observed, "You can tell him to stop anytime, and he probably will." He quietly dropped the subject after finishing his next couple of comments.
Quote from: SGOS on January 19, 2017, 10:53:35 AM
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is probable that an alien race planted life on this planet and has secretly been observing us ever since.
I think he was saying that it was probable that evidence to support his religious beliefs either existed and was destroyed or was never created out of fear. In that case he is saying it is probable because his beliefs are real, therefore there must have been evidence at some point and since there was evidence at some point, that proves his beliefs are real. Standard circular reasoning.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2017, 10:40:30 AM
Nothing in your paragraph suggests that it is probable. We have no reason to think that any historians wrote about Jesus, and the Romans managed to destroy every single document they wrote about him. In fact, I'd call that quite a leap.
popsthebuilder wants it to be true, so that's enough for him to believe it is true...and to hell with evidence or lack thereof.
Quote from: widdershins on January 19, 2017, 12:54:43 PM
I think he was saying that it was probable that evidence to support his religious beliefs either existed and was destroyed or was never created out of fear. In that case he is saying it is probable because his beliefs are real, therefore there must have been evidence at some point and since there was evidence at some point, that proves his beliefs are real. Standard circular reasoning.
I assumed that. I didn't read far enough back into the thread, but in the isolation of that one post (which doesn't even make sense as a response to Blackleaf), I couldn't help myself.
I don't want anything from anyone. I need no material proof for what I know to be true.
According to Tacitus, Nero targeted Christians as those responsible for the fire. The Great Fire of Rome was an urbanfire that started on the night between 18 and 19 July in the year 64 AD. It caused widespread devastation, before being brought under control after six days.
Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire
Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries until the year 313 AD when the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius jointly promulgated the Edict of Milan which legalised the Christian religion. The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250, empire-wide persecution took place by decree of the emperor Decius. The edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others apostatised to escape execution.
These persecutions heavily influenced the development of Christianity, shaping Christian theology and the structure of the Church. Among other things, persecution gave rise to many saints' cults which may have contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity and sparked written explanations and defenses of the Christian religion.
Duration and extentEdit
Anti-Christian policies directed at the early church had occurred sporadically and in localised areas since its beginning. The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome. With the passage in 313 AD of the Edict of Milan, anti-Christian policies directed against Christians by the Roman government ceased.[1] The total number of Christians who lost their lives because of these persecutions is unknown; although early church historian Eusebius, whose works are the only source for many of these events, speaks of "great multitudes" having perished, he is thought by many scholars today to have exaggerated their numbers.[1][2]:217â€"233
There was no empire-wide persecution of Christians until the reign of Decius in the third century.[3] Provincial governors had a great deal of personal discretion in their jurisdictions and could choose themselves how to deal with local incidents of persecution and mob violence against Christians. For most of the first three hundred years of Christian history, Christians were able to live in peace, practice their professions, and rise to positions of responsibility. Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor.[2]:129
ReasonsEdit
See also: Religio licita and Religion in ancient Rome

Roman Hall of Justice,Young Folks' History of Rome,1880
Public interestEdit
Without agitation from the public, the Roman government had little motivation to persecute local Christians. However, because of the secrecy of their rituals, Christians frequently aroused suspicion among the pagan population accustomed to religion as a public event; beliefs developed that Christians committed flagitia, scelera, and maleficiaâ€" "outrageous crimes", "wickedness", and "evil deeds", specifically, cannibalism and incest (referred to as "Thyestian banquets" and "Oedipodean intercourse")â€" due to their rumored practices of eating the "blood and body" of Christ and referring to each other as "brothers" and "sisters".[4][5] Christians' refusal to participate in public religion was as problematic to the populace as it was to the elites, and contributed to the general hostility toward Christians. Much of the pagan populace maintained a sense that bad things would happen if the established pagan gods were not respected and worshiped properly.[6][7] Edward Gibbon wrote:
"By embracing the faith of the Gospel the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural and unpardonable offence. They dissolved the sacred ties of custom and education, violated the religious institutions of their country, and presumptuously despised whatever their fathers had believed as true, or had reverenced as sacred."[8]
Gibbon argued that the seeming tendency of Christian converts to renounce their family and country, their dislike for the common business and pleasures of life, and their frequent predictions of impending disasters instilled a feeling of apprehension in their pagan neighbours.[9] As Christianity became more widespread and better understood, however, these suspicions faded away.[10]
Legal basisEdit

The trial of Justin Martyr
Due to the informal and personality-driven nature of the Roman legal system, nothing "other than a prosecutor" (an accuser, including a member of the public, not only a holder of an official position), "a charge of Christianity, and a governor willing to punish on that charge"[11] was required to bring a legal case against a Christian. Roman law was largely concerned with property rights, leaving many gaps in criminal and public law. Thus the process cognitio extra ordinem ("special investigation") filled the legal void left by both code and court. All provincial governors had the right to run trials in this way as part of their imperium in the province.[12]
In cognitio extra ordinem, an accuser called a delator brought before the governor an individual to be charged with a certain offenseâ€"in this case, that of being a Christian. This delator was prepared to act as the prosecutor for the trial, and could be rewarded with some of the accused's property if he made an adequate case or charged with calumnia (malicious prosecution) if his case was insufficient. If the governor agreed to hear the caseâ€"and he was free not toâ€"he oversaw the trial from start to finish: he heard the arguments, decided on the verdict, and passed the sentence.[13] Christians sometimes offered themselves up for punishment, and the hearings of such voluntary martyrs were conducted in the same way.
More often than not, the outcome of the case was wholly subject to the governor's personal opinion. While some tried to rely on precedent or imperial opinion where they could, as evidenced by Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan concerning the Christians,[14] such guidance was often unavailable.[15] In many cases months' and weeks' travel away from Rome, these governors had to make decisions about running their provinces according to their own instincts and knowledge.
Even if these governors had easy access to the city, they would not have found much official legal guidance on the matter of the Christians. Before the anti-Christian policies under Decius beginning in 250, there was no empire-wide edict against the Christians, and the only solid precedent was that set by Trajan in his reply to Pliny: the name of "Christian" alone was sufficient grounds for punishment and Christians were not to be sought out by the government. There is speculation that Christians were also condemned for contumaciaâ€"disobedience toward the magistrate, akin to the modern "contempt of court"â€"but the evidence on this matter is mixed.[16] Melito of Sardis later asserted that Antoninus Pius ordered that Christians were not to be executed without proper trial.[17]
Given the lack of guidance and distance of imperial supervision, the outcomes of the trials of Christians varied widely. Many followed Pliny's formula: they asked if the accused individuals were Christians, gave those who answered in the affirmative a chance to recant, and offered those who denied or recanted a chance to prove their sincerity by making a sacrifice to the Roman gods and swearing by the emperor's genius. Those who persisted were executed.
According to the Christian apologist Tertullian, some governors in Africa helped accused Christians secure acquittals or refused to bring them to trial.[18] Overall, Roman governors were more interested in making apostates than martyrs: one proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, when confronted with a group of voluntary martyrs during one of his assize tours, sent a few to be executed and snapped at the rest, "If you want to die, you wretches, you can use ropes or precipices."[19]
During the Great Persecution which lasted from 303 to 312/313, governors were given direct edicts from the emperor. Christian churches and texts were to be destroyed, meeting for Christian worship was forbidden, and those Christians who refused to recant lost their legal rights. Later, it was ordered that Christian clergy be arrested and that all inhabitants of the empire sacrifice to the gods. Still, no specific punishment was prescribed by these edicts and governors retained the leeway afforded to them by distance.[20] Lactantius reported that some governors claimed to have shed no Christian blood,[10] and there is evidence that others turned a blind eye to evasions of the edict or only enforced it when absolutely necessary.
Government motivationEdit
See also: Military saint
When a governor was sent to a province, he was charged with the task of keeping it pacata atque quietaâ€"settled and orderly.[21]His primary interest would be to keep the populace happy; thus when unrest against the Christians arose in his jurisdiction, he would be inclined to placate it with appeasement lest the populace "vent itself in riots and lynching."[22]
Political leaders in the Roman Empire were also public cult leaders. Roman religion revolved around public ceremonies and sacrifices; personal belief was not as central an element as it is in many modern faiths. Thus while the private beliefs of Christians may have been largely immaterial to many Roman elites, this public religious practice was in their estimation critical to the social and political well-being of both the local community and the empire as a whole. Honoring tradition in the right way â€" pietas â€" was key to stability and success.[23] Hence the Romans protected the integrity of cults practiced by communities under their rule, seeing it as inherently correct to honor one's ancestral traditions; for this reason the Romans for a long time tolerated the highly exclusive Jewish sect, even though some Romans despised it.[24] Historian H. H. Ben-Sasson has proposed that the "Crisis under Caligula" (37-41) was the "first open break" between Rome and the Jews.[25] After the First Jewishâ€"Roman War (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax. There is debate among historians over whether the Roman government simply saw Christians as a sect of Judaism prior to Nerva's modification of the tax in 96. From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax while Christians did not, providing hard evidence of an official distinction.[26] Part of the Roman disdain for Christianity, then, arose in large part from the sense that it was bad for society. In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:
"How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?"[27]
Once distinguished from Judaism, Christianity was no longer seen as simply a bizarre sect of an old and venerable religion; it was a superstitio.[24] Superstition had for the Romans a much more powerful and dangerous connotation than it does for much of the Western world today: to them, this term meant a set of religious practices that were not only different, but corrosive to society, "disturbing a man's mind in such a way that he is really going insane" and causing him to lose humanitas (humanity).[28] The persecution of "superstitious" sects was hardly unheard-of in Roman history: an unnamed foreign cult was persecuted during a drought in 428 BCE, some initiates of the Bacchic cult were executed when deemed out-of-hand in 186 BCE, and measures were taken against the Druids during the early Principate.[29]
Even so, the level of persecution experienced by any given community of Christians still depended upon how threatening the local official deemed this new superstitio to be. Christians' beliefs would not have endeared them to many government officials: they worshipped a convicted criminal, refused to swear by the emperor's genius, harshly criticized Rome in their holy books, and suspiciously conducted their rites in private. In the early third century one magistrate told Christians "I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion."[30]
Definatly reaching for predetermined biased outcomes and using circular thinking too. Absolutely no evidence of a great fire in Rome or extreme persecution of any even mentioning to be Christian.
I'm sure historians would be ecstatic about recording the life and times of the Christ of GOD.
Very linear and logical thinking.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 05:08:12 PMI need no material proof for what I know to be true.
Not having evidence and not needing evidence. What a suspiciously convenient pairing...
QuoteAbsolutely no evidence of a great fire in Rome or extreme persecution of any even mentioning to be Christian.
I'm sure historians would be ecstatic about recording the life and times of the Christ of GOD.
Did you read the part of what you posted where it says that Christian persecution was sporadic and not empire-wide until much later?
So this idea that Jesus was the talk of the town and historians were eager to write about him but those darn Romans torched everything comes across as one hell of a rationalization attempt.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 05:08:12 PM
I'm sure historians would be ecstatic about recording the life and times of the Christ of GOD.
peace
I quite agree. But god is a fiction, so being historians, there was nothing to write about.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 19, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Not having evidence and not needing evidence. What a suspiciously convenient pairing...
Did you read the part of what you posted where it says that Christian persecution was sporadic and not empire-wide until much later?
So this idea that Jesus was the talk of the town and historians were eager to write about him but those darn Romans torched everything comes across as one hell of a rationalization attempt.
Only to the biased mind.
Try reading a little more, and, or again.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 19, 2017, 06:34:06 PM
I quite agree. But god is a fiction, so being historians, there was nothing to write about.
You remind me of an inapt hyper Calvinist I know of stuck on repeat regardless of how many times and how many different ways they are shown new things worth sincere consideration.
It's sorta sad.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 19, 2017, 06:34:06 PM
I quite agree. But god is a fiction, so being historians, there was nothing to write about.
Of course Tacitus or Suetonius is no more reliable than National Inquirer. The exact language in Tacitus doesn't say Christians ... it says "anointed ones" ... it is Christian interpretation that it is referring to Christians, as opposed to Jews (who may also be Christians, but not like the later Gentile ones) or some other disapproved religious or social group (anointing is a common religious practice, going back to Egypt). The physical description matches followers of Isis better than Jews (there were insignificant numbers of Gentile Christians at this point). At one point Nero was quite in love with all things Egyptian, but had fallen out. Also it is quite possible that some apocalypticists (not all Jews but also Pythagoreans and other gnostics) may have added arson to a natural disaster, since the fire broke out a second time in an unexpected place, after the main fire had been quelled. And that could have been driven by ordinary insurance fraud. Followers of Isis were more disrespected at this point than Jews ... because of their animal headed gods. Just a few years later, and for the following 60 years, Jews were hated fiercely ... but this predates that. Tacitus' story could be colored by that time shift, since he was writing after the first Jewish war (in a series of 3).
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 06:41:02 PM
You remind me of an inapt hyper Calvinist I know of stuck on repeat regardless of how many times and how many different ways they are shown new things worth sincere consideration.
It's sorta sad.
You have said not a single word that is new--or worthy of consideration. I have studied all of this in enough detail to know that your theist beliefs are unfounded and bereft on any facts. Do you think the junk you have spewed forth on this forum is new to me?? Or anybody else? My, my, my, what a hugely inflated ego you must have!
Quote from: Baruch on January 19, 2017, 07:22:50 PM
Of course Tacitus or Suetonius is no more reliable than National Inquirer. The exact language in Tacitus doesn't say Christians ... it says "anointed ones" ... it is Christian interpretation that it is referring to Christians, as opposed to Jews (who may also be Christians, but not like the later Gentile ones) or some other disapproved religious or social group (anointing is a common religious practice, going back to Egypt). The physical description matches followers of Isis better than Jews (there were insignificant numbers of Gentile Christians at this point). At one point Nero was quite in love with all things Egyptian, but had fallen out. Also it is quite possible that some apocalypticists (not all Jews but also Pythagoreans and other gnostics) may have added arson to a natural disaster, since the fire broke out a second time in an unexpected place, after the main fire had been quelled. And that could have been driven by ordinary insurance fraud. Followers of Isis were more disrespected at this point than Jews ... because of their animal headed gods. Just a few years later, and for the following 60 years, Jews were hated fiercely ... but this predates that. Tacitus' story could be colored by that time shift, since he was writing after the first Jewish war (in a series of 3).
I have a strong feeling some of the stories that the christian latched onto were actually very early novels. Christian leaders did not care if a story were fiction or fact if it fit their needs.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 19, 2017, 09:56:37 PM
You have said not a single word that is new--or worthy of consideration. I have studied all of this in enough detail to know that your theist beliefs are unfounded and bereft on any facts. Do you think the junk you have spewed forth on this forum is new to me?? Or anybody else? My, my, my, what a hugely inflated ego you must have!
You conflating my words with whatever you've heard before is your own error and I will not be responsible for your actions, or rather willful ignorance.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 19, 2017, 10:01:06 PM
I have a strong feeling some of the stories that the christian latched onto were actually very early novels. Christian leaders did not care if a story were fiction or fact if it fit their needs.
Religious fiction is very powerful ... Muad' Dib
Quote from: Baruch on January 19, 2017, 10:26:44 PM
Religious fiction is very powerful ... Muad' Dib
Loved Dune. Read it twice, I think. Also bought and played the Avalon Hill game version of the novel. I remember enjoying it.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 19, 2017, 10:24:15 PM
You conflating my words with whatever you've heard before is your own error and I will not be responsible for your actions, or rather willful ignorance.
I will admit to being ignorant. And willfully so about some stuff--but not religion and the search for god. You seem to think you have new stuff to give to the ignorant atheist (or nonbeliever) that will just sweep us off our feet with the shear reasoning of your well crafted words of wisdom and joy! And you keep spewing the same crap as though it was the best stuff ever. And without a shred of evidence to back up what you are spewing. And so, when you label 'willful ignorance'--look in the mirror and wink at the dummy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 19, 2017, 11:51:41 PM
I will admit to being ignorant. And willfully so about some stuff--but not religion and the search for god. You seem to think you have new stuff to give to the ignorant atheist (or nonbeliever) that will just sweep us off our feet with the shear reasoning of your well crafted words of wisdom and joy! And you keep spewing the same crap as though it was the best stuff ever. And without a shred of evidence to back up what you are spewing. And so, when you label 'willful ignorance'--look in the mirror and wink at the dummy.
Sure....sure....
i like the term Christian apologist. sounds like someone is apologizing for Christianity...
pops were you quoting from a book? or was that info you collected somewhere? can't possibly verify what you are saying with out knowing where the info is coming from.
so far it is sounding like Jesus only existed as a literary fiction, as; I'm sorry to say Baruch; House Atriedes only exists as a literary fiction
Quote from: fencerider on January 20, 2017, 01:27:40 AM
i like the term Christian apologist. sounds like someone is apologizing for Christianity...
I'm always fascinated by that word. The literal meaning for me means "apologizing for Christianity not making sense." Having adopted the term themselves, Christians must understand that important aspects and foundations of their faith don't make sense without an explanation. These explanations are not found in the Bible itself (if they were, presumably Christianity would make sense, and an apology would not be required). Therefore the apologies have to be fashioned independently of the word of God. Man must lend a hand to the perfection of the divine, which isn't quite perfect enough to be literally, logically, or understandably coherent.
It seems like "explanation" would be a better word than apology because the literal implication of "apology" is an apology for God's inability to communicate his word. That itself might be the first apology, but apologetics is the process that not only creates the apologies, but also includes the sum total of all the necessary apologies, which likely include a number both existing and yet to made that approaches infinity. You can think of each apology as one of cards in the fragile house of cards used to bolster the fragile faith of the flock.
But as in other parts of life, apologies are worthless without actual amends. Unfortunately, the word of God, being perfect, allows no amends, so worthless apologies seem like a weak attempt at explaining the unexplainable. In fact, Revelations actually writes that anyone who tries to amend God's Word will be sent into the Lake of Fire.
Quote from: fencerider on January 20, 2017, 01:27:40 AM
i like the term Christian apologist. sounds like someone is apologizing for Christianity...
pops were you quoting from a book? or was that info you collected somewhere? can't possibly verify what you are saying with out knowing where the info is coming from.
so far it is sounding like Jesus only existed as a literary fiction, as; I'm sorry to say Baruch; House Atriedes only exists as a literary fiction
Oops. It was from Wikipedia
Quote from: fencerider on January 20, 2017, 01:27:40 AM
i like the term Christian apologist. sounds like someone is apologizing for Christianity...
pops were you quoting from a book? or was that info you collected somewhere? can't possibly verify what you are saying with out knowing where the info is coming from.
so far it is sounding like Jesus only existed as a literary fiction, as; I'm sorry to say Baruch; House Atriedes only exists as a literary fiction
The first Dune book is worthy of its own popular religion ... Jedi is official in GB ... why not Muad' Dib? Herbert was one sophisticated thinker.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 20, 2017, 06:50:44 AM
Oops. It was from Wikipedia
Wikipedia is right about 90% of the time, but unfortunately the interesting part is the 10% they are wrong on. Same old ratio problem crops up everywhere.
Quote from: fencerider on January 20, 2017, 01:27:40 AM
i like the term Christian apologist. sounds like someone is apologizing for Christianity...
pops were you quoting from a book? or was that info you collected somewhere? can't possibly verify what you are saying with out knowing where the info is coming from.
so far it is sounding like Jesus only existed as a literary fiction, as; I'm sorry to say Baruch; House Atriedes only exists as a literary fiction
Yeah, but there is more of a chance that House Atriedes is real than Jesus is real. Or maybe.............the same chances?????
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2017, 07:03:12 AM
The first Dune book is worthy of its own popular religion ... Jedi is official in GB ... why not Muad' Dib? Herbert was one sophisticated thinker.
The first book was great--may have to dig it up and reread it. I could not get into the others that spun from it, tho.
i guess i have to admit that the story line in Dune is more coherent
Quote from: fencerider on January 21, 2017, 10:14:30 PM
i guess i have to admit that the story line in Dune is more coherent
That is because we can "hear" the thoughts of the characters explaining their deliberations ... not just their spoken deceptions. We don't know as story, what the thoughts of the characters in the Jesus story were thinking. Also Hebert had the additional story of Muhammad to work with.
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2016, 07:28:24 PM
Constantine made it up, to control the Empire.
yet it existed before Constintine?
Quote from: randomvim on January 23, 2017, 06:53:47 PM
yet it existed before Constintine?
Not the same Christianity. There were several before Constantine .. and several afterward. The main one Roman Catholicism/Greek Orthodox ... was his invention at Nicea in 325 CE. From that most of the Protestant and Orthodox churches stem.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 18, 2016, 09:31:19 AM
I think I finally figured out where you are coming from, Pops. You like to think of life and religion and the bible and Jesus as metaphor's for how to live one's life. Am I correct?
There was a gentleman named Charles Fillmore who founded the Unity Church. He authored a book that I think you would simply love! It is called The Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. In it he tells you how to take any story in the bible and turn it into a metaphor for your current situation in life. At the time I was a member of that church, I found I used that book quite a bit; I still own a copy. As a very brief example, I rendered the David vs Goliath story this way. David went from the mountain to the valley to meet Goliath. The mountains are when we are connecting with our inner self, assessing what it is we need. The valley is where the rubber meets the road. Saul offer David help of armor and weapons. David refused the help and used his own weapons; when tackling a huge undertaking search within and determine what works for you and the use those tools to the best of your ability. In the valley use those tools and have trust in your abilities when tackling your own goliath. My full rendition was over a page long, so this is simply a taste. I really do hope you look this book up--it is right down your alley!
Any story could be looked at this way though.
Quote from: randomvim on January 23, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
Any story could be looked at this way though.
Especially if the story was authored by Aesop.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 23, 2017, 10:46:45 PM
Especially if the story was authored by Aesop.
...or is non-fictional
Quote from: Baruch on January 23, 2017, 07:01:02 PM
Not the same Christianity. There were several before Constantine .. and several afterward. The main one Roman Catholicism/Greek Orthodox ... was his invention at Nicea in 325 CE. From that most of the Protestant and Orthodox churches stem.
how was it his invention when catholicism pulls from its church fathers and apostles?
furthermore, notes from Nicea indicate Constatine spoke little as the bishops took control of that meeting.
Quote from: randomvim on January 23, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
Any story could be looked at this way though.
To a physicist, everything is physics. To a psychologist, everything is psychology. Are you an atom or a human being? For the average person, the POV of psychology is the right POV. In that POV what is the purpose of a story? Not just entertainment, but not less than that either. And yes, it is stories all the way down ;-)
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 02:05:27 AM
...or is non-fictional
Non-fictional story = dull story. But I like those too. If you think you know the truth ... at any time ... you are wrong. The only relevant truth is ... "know yourself" ... you can thank the priestess of Apollo at Delphi for that one. Been there, done that. Aesop was thrown off the nearby mountain at Delphi, because the priests didn't like his stories.
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 02:07:00 AM
how was it his invention when catholicism pulls from its church fathers and apostles?
furthermore, notes from Nicea indicate Constatine spoke little as the bishops took control of that meeting.
The Church tells its story how it wants. But at Nicea, Constantine could have had them killed one at a time or all at once. A Roman Emperor is ... bad ass. He had his oldest son executed and had his second wife boiled alive. Nice guy. The bishops could have done nothing to him. Think of Don Carleone ... but with a 25 legion army.
The Church chose ... under orders from Constantine ... what Church Fathers to include, and how to edit it for later generations. Stuff was included outside the Church Fathers, in their deliberations, including the very Roman Sibylline Oracles. I have read that Constantine "prophesied" new Sibylline Oracles as necessary for that conference (the Sibylline Oracles were a state secret .. like the Grassy Knoll). The bishops in general, and the bishop of Rome ... were nothing powerful in Roman politics until after Charlemagne over 500 years later. They were all official Roman civil servants, under Constantine, think bureau of motor vehicles. The Church was nationalized under him, like Chavez in Venezuela vs the petroleum industry. Sunday was chosen as an official holiday for the first time, and Dec 25th a holiday for the first time, because Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus ... and that Dec 25th was the birthday of Sol Invictus and of Constantine himself. Bishop garb today was formal Roman government clothing back then, including the mitre hat. If they wore business casual back then, then clergy would wear a suit and tie ;-) The three piece suit we wear now is taken from King Louis XIV. The tie is taken from Croatian folk costume. Previously, in paganism, the weekday was 8 days long, not seven (the Jewish system), this made Sabbath particularly hard for Jews among Gentiles. The Western Church chose a different date for Easter than the Eastern Church (which was closer to Jewish practices) ... and a few generations before, had moved their liturgy from Greek to Latin. That is why an official Latin Bible was necessary, though it took a few generations after Constantine to produce one (the Vulgate of Jerome). There was no Bible as we know it, before Constantine ... he ordered up the first ones ... though the content was a bit Version 2.x at that point. There were only scrolls and codexes (think blank businessman journals) ... a library subject to individual taste. There was little papyrus available at that point ... it took an emperor to afford to produce 25 of them. A single Bible, to produce the vellum (sheep skin) took the sacrifice of over 3000 sheep to produce. The average person only has a children's version of an official foundation story (propaganda) about where the Church came from. There were many competing churches before Constantine, after him just one, more or less ... the others were criminalized. Uniformity doesn't exist, except as government policy. This is the future reimagining the past, like 1984 reediting of the books and newspapers. The idea that the Roman Church goes back to even Paul, let alone Jesus, is laughable (and I laughed and laughed at Randy, our last Roman Catholic troll). Paul was a missionary of the Antiochean Church ... he founded the Greek and Roman churches ... though he wasn't the only founder, there was more than one in every case. The Antiochean church is where people were first called Christians, and it was a Jewish group, not Gentile. Paul was missioned specifically because the Jewish Christians hated him (he was a self hating Jew, we still have them), but could be put out of their hair by having him mission to Gentiles, way away from Antioch. These were Gentiles though, who were hangers on at the Jewish synagogue, not at the pagan temples. This was disruptive to those synagogues ... he was taking away their Gentile supporters (god fearers). Men didn't want to convert, because of the circumcision thing. Women and children didn't convert ... you were whatever your husband/father was like it or not. But the god fearers were financially supportive. See when slaves were freed (and this happened often) they simply changed into employees ... clients of a patron. But what if you were a Gentile slave of a Jewish master? You became a synagogue employee, not a member, if you were Gentile. These are called Shabbos Goyim to this day. Pagans, other than Egyptians and Arabs, were very very anti-circumcision. It was a moral mandate on the Jewish synagogue, to purchase and then free Jewish slaves. But if you were a Gentile master of a Jewish slave, and you don't want to keep him/her as an employee, then who would be your new master? A synagogue. Of course any slave, Jew or Gentile, felt gratitude for this. But Gentiles manumitted to a synagogue, couldn't become full members unless ...
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 02:05:27 AM
...or is non-fictional
Yeah? Well, the christ-story is as fictional as it gets.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2017, 05:25:06 AM
The Church tells its story how it wants. But at Nicea, Constantine could have had them killed one at a time or all at once. A Roman Emperor is ... bad ass. He had his oldest son executed and had his second wife boiled alive. Nice guy. The bishops could have done nothing to him. Think of Don Carleone ... but with a 25 legion army.
The Church chose ... under orders from Constantine ... what Church Fathers to include, and how to edit it for later generations. Stuff was included outside the Church Fathers, in their deliberations, including the very Roman Sibylline Oracles. I have read that Constantine "prophesied" new Sibylline Oracles as necessary for that conference (the Sibylline Oracles were a state secret .. like the Grassy Knoll). The bishops in general, and the bishop of Rome ... were nothing powerful in Roman politics until after Charlemagne over 500 years later. They were all official Roman civil servants, under Constantine, think bureau of motor vehicles. The Church was nationalized under him, like Chavez in Venezuela vs the petroleum industry. Sunday was chosen as an official holiday for the first time, and Dec 25th a holiday for the first time, because Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus ... and that Dec 25th was the birthday of Sol Invictus and of Constantine himself. Bishop garb today was formal Roman government clothing back then, including the mitre hat. If they wore business casual back then, then clergy would wear a suit and tie ;-) The three piece suit we wear now is taken from King Louis XIV. The tie is taken from Croatian folk costume. Previously, in paganism, the weekday was 8 days long, not seven (the Jewish system), this made Sabbath particularly hard for Jews among Gentiles. The Western Church chose a different date for Easter than the Eastern Church (which was closer to Jewish practices) ... and a few generations before, had moved their liturgy from Greek to Latin. That is why an official Latin Bible was necessary, though it took a few generations after Constantine to produce one (the Vulgate of Jerome). There was no Bible as we know it, before Constantine ... he ordered up the first ones ... though the content was a bit Version 2.x at that point. There were only scrolls and codexes (think blank businessman journals) ... a library subject to individual taste. There was little papyrus available at that point ... it took an emperor to afford to produce 25 of them. A single Bible, to produce the vellum (sheep skin) took the sacrifice of over 3000 sheep to produce. The average person only has a children's version of an official foundation story (propaganda) about where the Church came from. There were many competing churches before Constantine, after him just one, more or less ... the others were criminalized. Uniformity doesn't exist, except as government policy. This is the future reimagining the past, like 1984 reediting of the books and newspapers. The idea that the Roman Church goes back to even Paul, let alone Jesus, is laughable (and I laughed and laughed at Randy, our last Roman Catholic troll). Paul was a missionary of the Antiochean Church ... he founded the Greek and Roman churches ... though he wasn't the only founder, there was more than one in every case. The Antiochean church is where people were first called Christians, and it was a Jewish group, not Gentile. Paul was missioned specifically because the Jewish Christians hated him (he was a self hating Jew, we still have them), but could be put out of their hair by having him mission to Gentiles, way away from Antioch. These were Gentiles though, who were hangers on at the Jewish synagogue, not at the pagan temples. This was disruptive to those synagogues ... he was taking away their Gentile supporters (god fearers). Men didn't want to convert, because of the circumcision thing. Women and children didn't convert ... you were whatever your husband/father was like it or not. But the god fearers were financially supportive. See when slaves were freed (and this happened often) they simply changed into employees ... clients of a patron. But what if you were a Gentile slave of a Jewish master? You became a synagogue employee, not a member, if you were Gentile. These are called Shabbos Goyim to this day. Pagans, other than Egyptians and Arabs, were very very anti-circumcision. It was a moral mandate on the Jewish synagogue, to purchase and then free Jewish slaves. But if you were a Gentile master of a Jewish slave, and you don't want to keep him/her as an employee, then who would be your new master? A synagogue. Of course any slave, Jew or Gentile, felt gratitude for this. But Gentiles manumitted to a synagogue, couldn't become full members unless ...
false speculation derived from anti catholic centers. yay.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
Yeah? Well, the christ-story is as fictional as it gets.
only one may assume
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2017, 05:11:45 AM
Non-fictional story = dull story. But I like those too. If you think you know the truth ... at any time ... you are wrong. The only relevant truth is ... "know yourself" ... you can thank the priestess of Apollo at Delphi for that one. Been there, done that. Aesop was thrown off the nearby mountain at Delphi, because the priests didn't like his stories.
You never seen hoosiers have you? or maybe sports isnt your thang. the manner of stories we are attracted to is subjective I guess.
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 12:50:52 PM
false speculation derived from anti catholic centers. yay.
Stupid observation by a brainless theist. yay. But typical................
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 12:54:29 PM
only one may assume
So, you are a typical theist--vague and nonthinking. Typical.
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 12:50:52 PM
false speculation derived from anti catholic centers. yay.
Baruch gives this intelligent and thorough response, displaying his expertise on the subject, and you respond to that with what basically amounts to, "Nuh-uh?"
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 24, 2017, 03:09:20 PM
Baruch gives this intelligent and thorough response, displaying his expertise on the subject, and you respond to that with what basically amounts to, "Nuh-uh?"
Perhaps a Catholic apologist, only not as smart as Randy. Sigh ... call the Pope, another inmate has escaped from the Roman asylum ;-)
It would probably blow his mind, if I repeated that in marriage, I deflowered a recently former nun ;-) At least I didn't have to dress up as a priest ;-))
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2017, 01:17:03 PM
So, you are a typical theist--vague and nonthinking. Typical.
what is so vague?
QuoteDid Jesus ever exist?
No.
/thread
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 24, 2017, 03:09:20 PM
Baruch gives this intelligent and thorough response, displaying his expertise on the subject, and you respond to that with what basically amounts to, "Nuh-uh?"
As much as I like Baruch's posts, he still reiterated his earlier post which only declares claims. Did not share how a non-involved observer becomes a devistating lead and mastermind.
Otherwise I may respond how it comes. especially if all I have is my phone. Dont plan on "texting" an essay response - or which I would view as needed for adequate point for point refute.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2017, 01:15:06 PM
Stupid observation by a brainless theist. yay. But typical................
insults. also typical.
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 08:57:13 PM
As much as I like Baruch's posts, he still reiterated his earlier post which only declares claims. Did not share how a non-involved observer becomes a devistating lead and mastermind.
Otherwise I may respond how it comes. especially if all I have is my phone. Dont plan on "texting" an essay response - or which I would view as needed for adequate point for point refute.
Paul was a genius ... and failed, he was trying to unify a remnant of Jews and Gentiles before the world was destroyed. Some of his followers kept his legacy going along, long enough that the Roman Trump (Constantine) found it politically useful 250 years later, but only by completely reinterpreting it and turning it on its head (pacifism for example). Read for 40 years and you know what I know. MikeCL is similarly well informed, as are others. There is no Jesus, then or now or in the future (in the way people usually mean that, not their lawn mower boy from Mexico). And even if there was, he would be irrelevant. You have to find your own revelation, if there is any to be had (see Buddha). Go into the Sinai desert for 40 years like Moses ... and see what happens ;-)
Part of the message of the Gospels is .. even if G-d incarnated as a human being, and walked over to you and shook your hand, you wouldn't believe him anyway. The movie Joshua (2003) is a good retelling in modern terms.
Quote from: randomvim on January 24, 2017, 09:01:24 PM
insults. also typical.
Your stupidity is an insult to this board.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2017, 12:08:32 AM
Your stupidity is an insult to this board.
ouch. such an opinion
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2017, 11:15:56 PM
Paul was a genius ... and failed, he was trying to unify a remnant of Jews and Gentiles before the world was destroyed. Some of his followers kept his legacy going along, long enough that the Roman Trump (Constantine) found it politically useful 250 years later, but only by completely reinterpreting it and turning it on its head (pacifism for example). Read for 40 years and you know what I know. MikeCL is similarly well informed, as are others. There is no Jesus, then or now or in the future (in the way people usually mean that, not their lawn mower boy from Mexico). And even if there was, he would be irrelevant. You have to find your own revelation, if there is any to be had (see Buddha). Go into the Sinai desert for 40 years like Moses ... and see what happens ;-)
Part of the message of the Gospels is .. even if G-d incarnated as a human being, and walked over to you and shook your hand, you wouldn't believe him anyway. The movie Joshua (2003) is a good retelling in modern terms.
see. there are issues.
1. "well informed." from whom are you informed from?
.
2. you present the Christians of that time as a fleeting remaining of a forgotten cult. when in reality Christianity was growing despite decades of being outlawed. so that doesnt match history.
3. after being hunted and killed. the oral tradition would not have changed at first glance at royalty. Christians died for their God's word at rejection of alterting their belief. wont happen over night as you suggest. thats not logical
there is a whole tone of errors in this hypothesis for early Church history
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
well typed consideration towards why or how one may come to believe Jesus was man. Just a small presentation.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/four-reasons-i-think-jesus-really-existed
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2017, 09:55:53 PM
You
now who is being vague?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2017, 07:02:55 PM
Perhaps a Catholic apologist, only not as smart as Randy. Sigh ... call the Pope, another inmate has escaped from the Roman asylum ;-)
It would probably blow his mind, if I repeated that in marriage, I deflowered a recently former nun ;-) At least I didn't have to dress up as a priest ;-))
I am not an apologist.
But the candor of one:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/popular-news-site-claims-jesus-never-existed
As for your second paragraph, it does nothing but go off topic.
You are clearly from the office of propaganda (Catholic church invented it). Why not admit it, Father Guido Sarduchi?
You perhaps assume that atheists, seculars and heretics (me) eat little babies for breakfast, because the Pope says so ;-))
But as a theist, I am anything but ... anti-Catholic. I am anti-authoritarian ... which pretty much makes the Catholic Church a no-go zone for me.
You have to refute me, thru your own experience and your own research. The experience and research of others ... is irrelevant to me. For the other regulars, your personal experience is also irrelevant. You have to have done the research, critically but reasonably ... and you will find your own answers (I like the Buddha .. who said we are to work diligently to save ourselves, the opposite of Paul). Nobody here is asking you to believe anything, you came here to get us to believe something ... it isn't clear what.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2017, 07:02:55 PMIt would probably blow his mind, if I repeated that in marriage, I deflowered a recently former nun ;-) At least I didn't have to dress up as a priest ;-))
Have you ever heard the song, "Only the Good Die Young?" It's by Billy Joel. I think you will like it. :agreenod:
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:41:45 AM
now who is being vague?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
You have not come to this forum and made your beliefs clear; how you come to form those beliefs; or what evidence you find compelling that lead you to those beliefs. You make off the cuff remarks. You came here to share/convert to your beliefs. Clearly an atheist forum will not be swayed by vague god statements. We need some facts to work with. Do you have any????
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:36:56 AM
see. there are issues.
1. "well informed." from whom are you informed from?
With the above dismissal you are just trying to avoid admitting, that you really don't know as much about it, as you think you do. The man just gave you an obviously well researched overview of church history. If you are able to dispute any specific point, then please provide your own analysis for us to compare.
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:36:56 AM
2. you present the Christians of that time as a fleeting remaining of a forgotten cult. when in reality Christianity was growing despite decades of being outlawed. so that doesnt match history.
That is an unwarranted inference, from what Baruch said.
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:36:56 AM
3. after being hunted and killed. the oral tradition would not have changed at first glance at royalty. Christians died for their God's word at rejection of alterting their belief. wont happen over night as you suggest. thats not logical
Early Christians were not some superhuman Holy Spirit filled martyrs. They were fallible people. Although, I have little doubt, some died for the name of Jesus Christ, I seriously doubt that any died for “God's word.†Even if they did, I see idiots martyr themselves for other gods all the time. Are their religions also true?
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:36:56 AM
there is a whole tone of errors in this hypothesis for early Church history
Tone?
There is always a mix of fact and opinion, with Baruch's history lessons. But you are not educated enough on the topic to tell which is which, let alone call them errors.
Father Guido ... have you ever been married to Catholic/Protestant clergy? Have you ever been married to a valedictorian seminary student? Then you don't know much about the Church.
The Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest bureaucracy. The backbone of Western Civilization for the last 1500 years generally, and the last 500 years in particular (since the fall of Constantinople). That by itself isn't a bad thing, but it is a weighty responsibility, that has been shouldered more or less well (most here would argue, not well at all).
While I have criticized abuses of authority, by anyone ... I have never been anti-Catholic. I believe in the continuation, in some form, of my ancestors, a great many of whom were Catholic. I believe in respecting my elders ;-) I have a few Jewish ancestors, maybe some Muslims (Iberia). And before that, they were all pagans. I don't judge any of them as individuals.
There were non-Orthodox/Catholic martyrs before Constantine ... this was a PR problem for those promoting the "bishop" system that led to the uniformity necessary for the formation of organized church networks. But the priests (Catholic/Orthodox) couldn't act legally against it, since all such groups were illegal. Once they were civil servants of the Roman Empire, they could act against everyone else, including pagans, Jews and dissident Christians.
One of my ancestors was Emperor Magnus Maximus ... he was the first Christian Roman Emperor to execute other Christians for heresy. I take a very deep view of personal history, going back almost 2000 years, genealogically. Not everything was bad or insignificant with pre-Constantine Christians .. or any other folks alive back then. They were a significant contributor to what we call Welfare now. The Jewish community was jealous of that, the Christian Welfare system was even better than the Jewish one (in some respects). The pagans had no proper welfare system (see orphans and widows in the Bible vs Pater Familias). Congregational worship was in many respects, better than the temple worship humanity had before that. Congregationalism started in Judaism, in Babylon, during the first Exile. Gentile Christians and Muslims all found it .. progressive.
Quote from: Baruch on January 25, 2017, 06:52:55 AM
You are clearly from the office of propaganda (Catholic church invented it). Why not admit it, Father Guido Sarduchi?
You perhaps assume that atheists, seculars and heretics (me) eat little babies for breakfast, because the Pope says so ;-))
But as a theist, I am anything but ... anti-Catholic. I am anti-authoritarian ... which pretty much makes the Catholic Church a no-go zone for me.
You have to refute me, thru your own experience and your own research. The experience and research of others ... is irrelevant to me. For the other regulars, your personal experience is also irrelevant. You have to have done the research, critically but reasonably ... and you will find your own answers (I like the Buddha .. who said we are to work diligently to save ourselves, the opposite of Paul). Nobody here is asking you to believe anything, you came here to get us to believe something ... it isn't clear what.
1. My presence is not planned and my posts habe been speratic.
2. Your concept of how a person refutes is incorrect. why would I not lean on those who came before me? How reliable is personal experience when I do not travel or read all books on such a topic?
some how I am not to rely on others (who are irrelevant) but your own statements/claims do not origionate from you!
that is backwards thinking.
Ah ... so you are a human being then. Well get to work. Maybe you will know more in the future (based on your own experience and research). Until then, if the Pope asks you to jump, are you going to ask "how high?".
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2017, 09:57:34 AM
You have not come to this forum and made your beliefs clear; how you come to form those beliefs; or what evidence you find compelling that lead you to those beliefs. You make off the cuff remarks. You came here to share/convert to your beliefs. Clearly an atheist forum will not be swayed by vague god statements. We need some facts to work with. Do you have any????
what are you talking about? I am merely disputing in my own words when and what I view is most important. Why must my beliefs be clear when it is clear that may subject me to more prejudice?
my first refute was to put into question source or content provided to develope rhetoric. Where oh where did information about Nicea and Constantine come from?
perhaps my manner in doing so was flawed as it were a statement instead of question but there goes the problems of today - clear communication.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on January 25, 2017, 10:14:15 AM
With the above dismissal you are just trying to avoid admitting, that you really don't know as much about it, as you think you do. The man just gave you an obviously well researched overview of church history. If you are able to dispute any specific point, then please provide your own analysis for us to compare.
That is an unwarranted inference, from what Baruch said.
Early Christians were not some superhuman Holy Spirit filled martyrs. They were fallible people. Although, I have little doubt, some died for the name of Jesus Christ, I seriously doubt that any died for “God's word.†Even if they did, I see idiots martyr themselves for other gods all the time. Are their religions also true?
Tone?
There is always a mix of fact and opinion, with Baruch's history lessons. But you are not educated enough on the topic to tell which is which, let alone call them errors.
1. a warranted inference based on words used. if paul failed his goal of spreading Christianity then Christianity is not spreading.
as for information presented. how is it well researched when I dont know who Baruch is?! some how skepticism isnt appriciated on an atheist forum...
2. I have yet to say any religion is true, so lets stay on topic. the purpose of the martyr earlier was to question the character of the bishops who turned their back on their own beliefs to change an entire religion to what that religion is not. doesnt seem practical to me.
for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Martyrs_of_Sebaste
3. Another poster just called me vague. how do you know how educated I am? I have not questioned anyones background here just infornation they present and where they get it.
please stay on topic though
Quote from: Baruch on January 25, 2017, 12:53:12 PM
Father Guido ... have you ever been married to Catholic/Protestant clergy? Have you ever been married to a valedictorian seminary student? Then you don't know much about the Church.
The Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest bureaucracy. The backbone of Western Civilization for the last 1500 years generally, and the last 500 years in particular (since the fall of Constantinople). That by itself isn't a bad thing, but it is a weighty responsibility, that has been shouldered more or less well (most here would argue, not well at all).
While I have criticized abuses of authority, by anyone ... I have never been anti-Catholic. I believe in the continuation, in some form, of my ancestors, a great many of whom were Catholic. I believe in respecting my elders ;-) I have a few Jewish ancestors, maybe some Muslims (Iberia). And before that, they were all pagans. I don't judge any of them as individuals.
There were non-Orthodox/Catholic martyrs before Constantine ... this was a PR problem for those promoting the "bishop" system that led to the uniformity necessary for the formation of organized church networks. But the priests (Catholic/Orthodox) couldn't act legally against it, since all such groups were illegal. Once they were civil servants of the Roman Empire, they could act against everyone else, including pagans, Jews and dissident Christians.
One of my ancestors was Emperor Magnus Maximus ... he was the first Christian Roman Emperor to execute other Christians for heresy. I take a very deep view of personal history, going back almost 2000 years, genealogically. Not everything was bad or insignificant with pre-Constantine Christians .. or any other folks alive back then. They were a significant contributor to what we call Welfare now. The Jewish community was jealous of that, the Christian Welfare system was even better than the Jewish one (in some respects). The pagans had no proper welfare system (see orphans and widows in the Bible vs Pater Familias). Congregational worship was in many respects, better than the temple worship humanity had before that. Congregationalism started in Judaism, in Babylon, during the first Exile. Gentile Christians and Muslims all found it .. progressive.
I dont know what this has to do with topic at hand. but lets shorten this. where did you get your information?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6sz8D411kE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxgnd8mYr0
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:30:03 PM
what are you talking about? I am merely disputing in my own words when and what I view is most important. Why must my beliefs be clear when it is clear that may subject me to more prejudice?
my first refute was to put into question source or content provided to develope rhetoric. Where oh where did information about Nicea and Constantine come from?
perhaps my manner in doing so was flawed as it were a statement instead of question but there goes the problems of today - clear communication.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Get some balls. This is Fight Club. If you can't stand up for yourself, ask the Pope to do it for you ;-) I don't have any problem with how you express yourself, do it anyway you can, it will be fine with me. Manner is much less important than content. Start by reading History of the Church by Eusebius .. he was there. Then apply critical analysis to his claims, same as if he was a reporter for the National Inquirer. Eusebius was a shill for the Emperor. But in the end, it won't matter ... because you can't cross-examine dead people. You either know G-d here and now, or you don't.
Bottom line with Nicea ... the Church had to organize into one or two massive organizations, civil service for the Roman Empire. Greek speaking and Latin speaking. Freedom of thought, faith, speech are gone ... in the Church. The Holy Spirit is silenced (clergy had been working on that since Pentecost). Christians have to give up their subversion of the Roman State (they were subversive before that, in spite of Paul's rhetoric about it). Christians have to give up their pacifism (it subverts the Roman army). So basically, Christians have to do a 180 about face, and the persecution stops, and then all the priests get on the government dole. Oh, and no more Jewish practices (Shabbat Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) ... it is from midnight Sunday morning to midnight Monday morning. No more Jewish festivals either, unless you are a licensed Jew (works for rabbis, who are there to keep the Jews in line for the Emperor).
Quote from: randomvim on January 25, 2017, 01:54:25 PM
1. a warranted inference based on words used. if paul failed his goal of spreading Christianity then Christianity is not spreading.
as for information presented. how is it well researched when I dont know who Baruch is?! some how skepticism isnt appriciated on an atheist forum...
2. I have yet to say any religion is true, so lets stay on topic. the purpose of the martyr earlier was to question the character of the bishops who turned their back on their own beliefs to change an entire religion to what that religion is not. doesnt seem practical to me.
for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Martyrs_of_Sebaste
3. Another poster just called me vague. how do you know how educated I am? I have not questioned anyones background here just infornation they present and where they get it.
please stay on topic though
Paul wasn't trying to create the Christian Church or the Roman Catholic Church as we know it. The world would end shortly (it didn't) ... so Paul was a failed Jewish prophet. Also as part of his version (but not other Jews) the apocalypse of John etc couldn't happen, unless certain Gentiles were brought into the Faith of Abraham, and certain Jews were kicked out. Who would be saved would be a mystery, but Paul had to contact as many as possible, just in case. Specifically he was trying to heal the rift between Palestinian Jews and Greek Jews ... and between Jews in general and Gentiles. A mighty idealism, that failed. There can be no eschaton without peace, and there can be no peace while division persists. Of course anyone outside the "saved" would be destroyed, same as in any other apocalypse.
A religion based on subversion of the Roman Empire ... will get opposition. And martyrdom isn't practical, particularly if the Romans are effective against all those false Jewish messiahs (they are all false, even the historical ones).
And no, I welcome your skepticism. I am not trying to convert you ... that is un-Jewish. Thru your skepticism and your own efforts you will grow, maybe even bigger than a mustard plant ;-)
Unbeliever ... I appreciate the videos, but lets not try to scare this one off too easily ... I think he has potential to reject either pill (Matrix).
Okay Baruch already beat me to the post, but here's my response:
Quote1. a warranted inference based on words used. if paul failed his goal of spreading Christianity then Christianity is not spreading.
I don't think that is what he meant by failed, but I will let him answer that.
Quoteas for information presented. how is it well researched when I dont know who Baruch is?! some how skepticism isnt appriciated on an atheist forum...
He obviously didn't just pull those events out of his ass, therefore he must have read it somewhere. Even if his take on it is skewed, it shows a great deal of background in the subject.
Quote2. I have yet to say any religion is true,
You have yet to say much, at all. Mostly just asking leading questions. But it is clear from your focus, that you favor Christianity.
Quoteso lets stay on topic. the purpose of the martyr earlier was to question the character of the bishops who turned their back on their own beliefs to change an entire religion to what that religion is not. doesnt seem practical to me.
I think what Baruch is saying, though, is that religion had no singular form, until then. And whatever competing versions previously existed mostly fell by the wayside.
Quote3. ... how do you know how educated I am?
“A warranted inference based on words used.†Or better put, based on the lack of any verifiable knowledge of your own, in your responses.
QuoteI have not questioned anyones background here just infornation they present and where they get it.
I'm not asking your post graduate status, I'm just saying you have to have some knowledge of the subject if you expect to understand, or argue with the responses of someone who has done his homework, like Baruch.
"fell by the wayside" ... or stabbed in the back ;-( Holy Spirit ...dead from about 325 CE until about 1900 CE. Smothered by the Church, but never quite dead.
Quote from: Baruch on January 25, 2017, 06:37:14 PM
Unbeliever ... I appreciate the videos, but lets not try to scare this one off too easily ... I think he has potential to reject either pill (Matrix).
Well, if "this one" scares off that easily, then I doubt the faith is strong in "this one", anyway.
Random has made it quite clear in his response to me that he does not have faith in his faith. He is a theistic coward. This is what he said: "Why must my beliefs be clear when it is clear that may subject me to more prejudice?" He is simply scared that his beliefs are not based on facts--just thin air.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2017, 05:17:51 PM
Random has made it quite clear in his response to me that he does not have faith in his faith. He is a theistic coward. This is what he said: "Why must my beliefs be clear when it is clear that may subject me to more prejudice?" He is simply scared that his beliefs are not based on facts--just thin air.
no. Just that in area or forum like this, descussions devolve into name calling, or a genuine question or statement is ignored.
For example: if person a disgregards a logical referral from person b due to person b's ethnicity. quite illogical.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 26, 2017, 04:21:01 PM
Well, if "this one" scares off that easily, then I doubt the faith is strong in "this one", anyway.
accept some athiests/agnostics believe Jesus was a real person so how much does faith really have to do with this?
I provided a link fron a catholic source who referrence a couple/few of these individuals.
You might want to try reading your posts before posting them to see if there are typos, it would be much easier for us to read them. Anyone can miss a typo here and there, but your posts seem to have a lot of them.
Thank you.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on January 25, 2017, 07:07:29 PM
Okay Baruch already beat me to the post, but here's my response:
I don't think that is what he meant by failed, but I will let him answer that.
He obviously didn't just pull those events out of his ass, therefore he must have read it somewhere. Even if his take on it is skewed, it shows a great deal of background in the subject.
You have yet to say much, at all. Mostly just asking leading questions. But it is clear from your focus, that you favor Christianity.
I think what Baruch is saying, though, is that religion had no singular form, until then. And whatever competing versions previously existed mostly fell by the wayside.
“A warranted inference based on words used.†Or better put, based on the lack of any verifiable knowledge of your own, in your responses.
I'm not asking your post graduate status, I'm just saying you have to have some knowledge of the subject if you expect to understand, or argue with the responses of someone who has done his homework, like Baruch.
4. yes yes. there was a good amount of information, but I can duplicate that same story in my own words. actually I'd be able to make one up to.
If I believed everything he said and duplicated that information, then Id still be quoting a guy from the internet. Now Im not asking for credentials either, but knowing where information comes from helps people understand that information.
Quote from: randomvim on January 27, 2017, 03:51:00 PM
no. Just that in area or forum like this, descussions devolve into name calling, or a genuine question or statement is ignored.
For example: if person a disgregards a logical referral from person b due to person b's ethnicity. quite illogical.
I could agree with this---but for two things. If you think this forum will devolve into name calling, why come here at all?
And, when have you offered a 'genuine' question or make a reasonable statement? You only refute--with little to no proof--or deny statements.
Quote from: Baruch on January 25, 2017, 06:34:15 PM1. 5.
Paul wasn't trying to create the Christian Church or the Roman Catholic Church as we know it. The world would end shortly (it didn't) ... so Paul was a failed Jewish prophet. Also as part of his version (but not other Jews) the apocalypse of John etc couldn't happen, unless certain Gentiles were brought into the Faith of Abraham, and certain Jews were kicked out. Who would be saved would be a mystery, but Paul had to contact as many as possible, just in case. Specifically he was trying to heal the rift between Palestinian Jews and Greek Jews ... and between Jews in general and Gentiles. A mighty idealism, that failed.
There can be no eschaton without peace, and there can be no peace while division persists. Of course anyone outside the "saved" would be destroyed, same as in any other apocalypse.
2. A religion based on subversion of the Roman Empire ... will get opposition. And martyrdom isn't practical, particularly if the Romans are effective against all those false Jewish messiahs (they are all false, even the historical ones).
And no, I welcome your skepticism. I am not trying to convert you ... that is un-Jewish. Thru your skepticism and your own efforts you will grow, maybe even bigger than a mustard plant ;-)
I contemplated on this. There are still parts that have not been explained and now more issues arrive. Thus I must reitterate the importance of sources.
1. where are you obtaining or have obtainned this information?
5. I forget what digit this was but lets cover Paul. you describe him as trying to get more gentiles in and kicking out more jews, like himself. then you say that while he is doing this to start the apocolypse(?) he is trying to fix a rift between gentiles and jews. beyond this contradiction, I am understanding that you are trying to say Paul's overall goal is to obtain more members. this is what you have been saying, yes?
Paul's overall goal is increase membership, yes?
2. okay, so I think you are trying to respond to the claim that bishops at Nicea pertain the same mentality as those who have accepted martyrdom (or being killed) for not compromising their beliefs.
You are addressing this point at this...point?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2017, 05:45:42 PM
I could agree with this---but for two things. If you think this forum will devolve into name calling, why come here at all?
And, when have you offered a 'genuine' question or make a reasonable statement? You only refute--with little to no proof--or deny statements.
I think this is getting too personal. but I'll humor it.
1. I come here to pass time. Work is almost here.I need food.
2. what points have I had little proof of or you have had issues with?
Quote from: randomvim on January 27, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
4. yes yes. there was a good amount of information, but I can dublicate that same story in my own words. actually I'd be able to make one up to.
If I believed everything he said and duplicated that information, then Id still be quoting a guy from the internet. Now Im not asking for credentials either, but knowing where information comes from helps people understand that information.
1. where are you obtaining or have obtainned this information?
40 years of study, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic ... I just love history, love languages. And I don't believe anything found on an ancient grocery checkout kiosk. If you can't cross-examine person X, then you really don't know. Historians are literature writers, except for contemporaries, they just don't know. The good ones admit this. Just ask Herodotus, the first Western historian. This is why it is hard to convey ... where do I get X. Can you prove to me what you had for breakfast a week ago? Why should we believe you?
And no, I am not asking you to believe what I write, I am simply answering your question, in very condensed form, the only way I can. And no, I am not just any guy on the Internet ... I am unique ... and in some areas I have actual expertise at high level (which can only be appreciated by other interested experts).
Yes, please tell us a story. Make one up if you wish. You could use the ... articulation ... practice. But this is a tough crowd. You will always have my sympathy however, even if you are Catholic, even if you are a priest.
5. I forget what digit this was but lets cover Paul. you describe him as trying to get more gentiles in and kicking out more jews, like himself. then you say that while he is doing this to start the apocolypse(?) he is trying to fix a rift between gentiles and jews. beyond this contradiction, I am understanding that you are trying to say Paul's overall goal is to obtain more members. this is what you have been saying, yes?
Paul's overall goal is increase membership, yes?"
Some miscommunication here. Paul is trying to save those preordained for salvation (Jew and Gentile), not everyone. It isn't a Walmart store trying to increase sales. He isn't trying to start an apocalypse, but he isn't trying to prevent one either. He is on the Titanic, he knows it has hit an iceberg (no prediction, it has already hit) and he is trying to get the most number of people (as selected by G-d) into the life boats. This requires that the Jews and Gentiles who are in the life boats, don't try to kill each other. Those who make it into the life boats win a free cruise to Fantasy Island ... but you can only get in, if you have a ticket from G-d. Without the Holy Spirit, you will stay on the sinking ship listening to the band play on.
2. okay, so I think you are trying to respond to the claim that bishops at Nicea pertain the same mentality as those who have accepted martyrdom (or being killed) for not compromising their beliefs. You are addressing this point at this...point?
Yes, the bishops at Nicea were total sellouts. Like if a pacifist like Gandhi, invited the Brits to run his ashram.
Quote from: randomvim on January 27, 2017, 03:52:53 PM
accept some athiests/agnostics believe Jesus was a real person so how much does faith really have to do with this?
I provided a link fron a catholic source who referrence a couple/few of these individuals.
You are correct. More study! Unfortunately in English, words have multiple meanings .. so there is faith and FAITH. Usually people here attack the FAITH kind ... where you simply believe something that has no evidence in your life or anyone else's life. I do support faith ... though it is very hard for me to do, with the hardened old heart I have. I am a theist, but a heretical one (freethinker). I have no problem with the existence of G-d at all ... I do have a problem with theodicy ... the evil in the world. My answer is that life is supposed to be hard, and I don't think I can forgive G-d's cruelty.
Quote from: randomvim on January 27, 2017, 06:54:06 PM
I think this is getting too personal. but I'll humor it.
1. I come here to pass time. Work is almost here.I need food.
2. what points have I had little proof of or you have had issues with?
Well, to eat then. And when you wander back to your computer, why not use the solitaire game that came with it. Coming his and making cryptic remarks and nothing else--why bother? Solitaire passes the time and it would be more productive for you anyway.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2017, 07:08:33 PM
1. where are you obtaining or have obtainned this information?
40 years of study, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic ... I just love history, love languages. And I don't believe anything found on an ancient grocery checkout kiosk. If you can't cross-examine person X, then you really don't know. Historians are literature writers, except for contemporaries, they just don't know. The good ones admit this. Just ask Herodotus, the first Western historian. This is why it is hard to convey ... where do I get X. Can you prove to me what you had for breakfast a week ago? Why should we believe you?
And no, I am not asking you to believe what I write, I am simply answering your question, in very condensed form, the only way I can. And no, I am not just any guy on the Internet ... I am unique ... and in some areas I have actual expertise at high level (which can only be appreciated by other interested experts).
Yes, please tell us a story. Make one up if you wish. You could use the ... articulation ... practice. But this is a tough crowd. You will always have my sympathy however, even if you are Catholic, even if you are a priest.
5. I forget what digit this was but lets cover Paul. you describe him as trying to get more gentiles in and kicking out more jews, like himself. then you say that while he is doing this to start the apocolypse(?) he is trying to fix a rift between gentiles and jews. beyond this contradiction, I am understanding that you are trying to say Paul's overall goal is to obtain more members. this is what you have been saying, yes?
Paul's overall goal is increase membership, yes?"
Some miscommunication here. Paul is trying to save those preordained for salvation (Jew and Gentile), not everyone. It isn't a Walmart store trying to increase sales. He isn't trying to start an apocalypse, but he isn't trying to prevent one either. He is on the Titanic, he knows it has hit an iceberg (no prediction, it has already hit) and he is trying to get the most number of people (as selected by G-d) into the life boats. This requires that the Jews and Gentiles who are in the life boats, don't try to kill each other. Those who make it into the life boats win a free cruise to Fantasy Island ... but you can only get in, if you have a ticket from G-d. Without the Holy Spirit, you will stay on the sinking ship listening to the band play on.
2. okay, so I think you are trying to respond to the claim that bishops at Nicea pertain the same mentality as those who have accepted martyrdom (or being killed) for not compromising their beliefs. You are addressing this point at this...point?
Yes, the bishops at Nicea were total sellouts. Like if a pacifist like Gandhi, invited the Brits to run his ashram.
1. thank you for sharing that information. true, difficult it is for sharing just where some knowledge is from when it spans decades of research. I will look into this part more...personally. In some situations, however, certain revelations are more recent. allowing others to say names or books, but like I said. personal time will be better suited in this respect (for me).
5. thank you for clarifying, but more may be required. based on how you describe it, preordained sounds like pre-determined. but first, if paul is trying to get x amount of people to be saved or on the life boat (or how ever we may say it), then to say he failed should suggest
a. he did not help
b. did not gather enough people
c. did not keep people together
d. etc.
e. all of above
which comes to an issue I pointed out earlier. Christianity at point of Nicea would not have been great in number, would not have been as influencial as it was, and as you said earlier would be fleeting. If I have the correct term.
So this puts into question the mentality of the Bishops and condition of Christianity as you suggest.
2. sell outs? see I just do t see how a group of diverse people who have operated with targets on their heads for x amount of time could all sell out at the same time for the same reasons. thats not practical. especially if Christianity was still growing, building on St Peter and St. Paul and others.
current readings::
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamespaulgaard.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-expansion-of-christianity-in-the-roman-empire/amp/
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2017, 11:04:07 PM
Well, to eat then. And when you wander back to your computer, why not use the solitaire game that came with it. Coming his and making cryptic remarks and nothing else--why bother? Solitaire passes the time and it would be more productive for you anyway.
As I stated before. I only have may phone. Otherwise, this is a good educational experience.
But looks like you did not add notes on which I have not added evidence for. To me, I have asked questions and pointed out potential errors in presented information. but au du. farewell. even if not.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Christian foundation myth ... G-d who is Christian, and Christian bishops (who represent true Christianity) used voodoo on Emperor Constantine to work their will. Sorry, total bullshit. It is estimated (how?) that 10% of Roman citizens (all males by this time were citizens if not slaves) ... were potent, like the Green party in Germany. The Emperor used the useful part of the Church (the ones using bishops were well organized) and brought them into government employment. In a few generation later all other religions were outlawed ... and Christians went from being pacifist Roman subversives to militant government employees. This is nothing that Paul, or Jesus had he existed, would have imagined. Now what is done, is done. There is nothing wrong or right with human behavior ... we are amoral creatures. For the clergy who went from being persecuted to being well paid government employees, with an eventual captive audience ... this was a very good deal indeed. This was a proletariat revolution from above ... hence "pagani" or country folk are so labeled. The disaffected urban poor were the original basis in the decades before Constantine.
interesting, so the Catholic church was the first and still the biggest multi-level marketing scam. Always good for the people at the top, not so good for the suckers at the bottom.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses come around here every month. They know I'm an atheist, so they bring their best to convert me. I SOMETIMES open the door.
A few months ago, I asked them for proof that their Jesus ever existed. Talked to them for a good 30 minutes about it. They had a hard time even understanding the question.
I understand their difficulty. They have to assume the existence of Jesus. But proof baffles them. They exist on faith, not evidence.
Still, one did leave a brochure at my front door a few weeks later. It quoted some people who claimed that Jesus did exist. Of course, they had no actual evidence, but THEY thought they did. It is a sad commentary on thought, that hearsay is reality to them.
I have heard that Trump is President, and a lot of people seem to believe that .. but I have never met him, so I don't know. Fortunately I don't need faith, because I didn't vote for him, so I am not involved in his cult.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:31:09 AM
I have heard that Trump is President, and a lot of people seem to believe that .. but I have never met him, so I don't know. Fortunately I don't need faith, because I didn't vote for him, so I am not involved in his cult.
Romans kept good records. None mention Jesus in any specific way.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:34:17 AM
Romans kept good records. None mention Jesus in any specific way.
Most of the records were destroyed by the Barbarians .. and the Romans. And the Romans were into narration control, that is the whole point of the Aeneid by Virgil. Augustus Caesar was the godfather of all propaganda.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 12:49:05 PM
Most of the records were destroyed by the Barbarians .. and the Romans. And the Romans were into narration control, that is the whole point of the Aeneid by Virgil. Augustus Caesar was the godfather of all propaganda.
That is actually the best argument against using records about the Jesus existence I've ever heard. I'm glad the JVs didn't try that one on me.
But the Romans DID keep good Legion records. Which is why we know Masada is a fable.
Josephus was a propagandist ... under Flavian control. So probably a lot of spin doctoring for Emperor Vespasian and Titus. It was Josephus, who claimed years later, that he was a Jewish prophet, who saved his life by faking it, and telling Vespasian, after the fall of Jotapata ... that Vespasian was the awaited Jewish messiah. Did he check Vespasian for circumcision or not?
Caesar's Messiah (http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/) was a very interesting read, in which Josephus is implicated in the construction of the whole story, so the Romans (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) could lessen the zealotry of the Jews.
I guess it didn't work out quite like they'd planned.
Ceasar's Messiah wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar's_Messiah)
I think that Caesar's Messiah is half true ... and that is a pretty good score in that league. Vespasian was old, and died early. Titus was younger, but died prematurely (his brother helped?). Domitian (youngest son) was mental, and eventually had to be assassinated. If the Flavians had a connection to the NT ... and I think they did ... this is a tell ... Domitian sought out all the known descendants of King David, and had them snuffed out. He also executed Roman nobility who debased themselves with Jewish beliefs. This may have been to protect "The Narrative" as it was being pushed then. Once Domitian was assassinated, their narrative was a moot point ... Emperor Nerva was a caretaker, with Emperor Trajan in the ante-room. Trajan was an emperor of a traditional sort, and not the type to care for Jewish affairs. So I think the Flavians may have been ahead of their time ... with Constantine coming along 200 years later, picking up where they left off. If there were secret Flavian records, he would have had access to them.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:34:17 AM
Romans kept good records. None mention Jesus in any specific way.
I did mention fire and extreme persecution of Christian's for possible if not probable reasons why there is no traditional record.
I showed some third grader links from Wikipedia that further established my claim. I thought the dates seemed about right but I really am no history buff at all.
peace
Evidence from Tacitus
Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians?
Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.
Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus.
Evidence from Josephus
On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, the first century Jewish historian mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."
F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him.
We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same.
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.
The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
"Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. The passage also tells us why Jesus was put to death. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." And such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery. Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater god than any that Greece had to offer!
To summarize:
First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah.
And of course, there are also the four gospel accounts and the entire body of letters in the NT.
I find that it doesn't really matter to me if Jesus existed or not.
Was there a historical Jesus? Was he in personality like how the bible describes him?
Interesting questions if you are a historian. But I'm but a layman and my main interests lie elsewhere.
So rather than fine-combing the necessary data to justify having a position in this debate I'll just admit my ignorance.
Jesus supposedly died around 30-33 AD. So let's be generous and use the later year.
Josephus was born 37 AD, four years after Jesus' death. Never saw Jesus himself, and likely never met anyone who did, because by the time he grew up and became a "historian," most of Jesus' contemporaries would be dead. Thirty-five was the average life span in the first century. And notice I put quotation marks over "historian," because he was not a secular keeper of history. He was a Christian, and his "historical" writings included events that his religion taught him to believe happened, such as the six day creation story.
Babylonian Talmud's possible references to Jesus were written hundreds of years after Jesus' death, well after the myth had time to be born and spread. And the references, which are not universally considered to be references to Jesus, were made to make fun of the religion and its beliefs, not to affirm its historical accuracy.
Lucian was born in 120 AD. Never met Jesus, obviously. Never met anyone who met Jesus, obviously. Did not write anything about Jesus until well after the myth had time to form and spread.
Now, where are the contemporaries? Where are the people who met Jesus personally, or even heard about him and decided to write about it? There are none. That speaks volumes. No one from the early first century wrote about Jesus because he either didn't exist or wasn't considered important enough to mention. He was not walking around performing miracles, gathering huge crowds as he healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, and more.
If there was a real man behind the myth, the stories about him became more grandiose over time. The books of the New Testament give evidence for this when read in the order that they were written, starting with the letters of Paul. He goes from being a great teacher to someone who could command the weather. This is how many legends are born. They begin with a true story, but that story changes over time to be more and more fantastical, until the truth is consumed by myth.
We can add on to this a whole other line of thinking.
According to the Christian religion Jesus was a real person that was crucified by Romans. Then he resurrected himself to prove he is the son of a god. He is supposed to be alive and well and around somewhere right now. How many people have prayed for Jesus to prove he exists and got nothing? Far too many people have not gotten any response to not question the authenticity of the Christian religion.
Quote from: fencerider on February 04, 2017, 01:24:25 PM
We can add on to this a whole other line of thinking.
According to the Christian religion Jesus was a real person that was crucified by Romans. Then he resurrected himself to prove he is the son of a god. He is supposed to be alive and well and around somewhere right now. How many people have prayed for Jesus to prove he exists and got nothing? Far too many people have not gotten any response to not question the authenticity of the Christian religion.
The claim will be payers answered in dreams and visions. No god or god-ling has ever appeared ... factually. I discount history, because it mostly can't be confirmed. This includes Jesus and all other gods. As long as the subjective and private is discounted, and the objective and public confirmed ... the existence of religion can be confirmed, and the existence of spirituality can be denied.
It doesn't matter what the majority of historians believe, what matters is what is their evidence. Fact is there are exactly ZERO contemporary accounts he existed and we don't know anything he said except by people that never met him tell us he said. A lot of what he did miracle-wise are copied from prior savior figures. Even if he did exist, he was a man. Period
Every reference I see about Jesus as a actual person is by tainted references. Josphesus was a liar and not really a contemporary, and the references you would expect from the Romans never exist for such a person or the events so currently famous about such person.
Not that it really matters. So if such a messiah type existed, so what? The whole deity thing is unfactual at the base.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 04:42:08 AM
Every reference I see about Jesus as a actual person is by tainted references.
Not only tainted references, but absolutely zero contemporary ones. There are reports of reports of reports, but even those come down to us as copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Worse, most of those copies were made by those who had a vested interest in passing down their beliefs more than the truth, rather than the truth despite their beliefs. It was one of the Josephus documents, in fact, where the supposed reference to Jesus was a clear insert by a later scribe, because the reference is very clearly written to push the idea of the divinity of Jesus -- and therefore not at all what an observant Jew like Josephus would have written.
so Jesus is fiction huh? and how much money did people make off of the Jesus fiction???
I would love to create a fiction like that (with some iron clad royalty rights to boot)
Quote from: fencerider on February 06, 2017, 11:48:08 PM
so Jesus is fiction huh? and how much money did people make off of the Jesus fiction???
I would love to create a fiction like that (with some iron clad royalty rights to boot)
People continue to get rich off of the Jesus fiction. The Bible is the number one best seller, and the church is the biggest business in the world. Joel Osteen's church even charges for tickets for the Sunday services.
There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: AwkwardOctopus on February 07, 2017, 08:59:43 AM
There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Can you share with me what historical records that support jesus being a real person might be? One will do.
Quote from: AwkwardOctopus on February 07, 2017, 08:59:43 AM
There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Welcome, AwkwardOctopus!
And no, there is a good deal of evidence supporting a late 1st or early 2nd century origin for at least some of the synoptic gospels.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 07, 2017, 09:21:24 AM
Welcome, AwkwardOctopus!
And no, there is a good deal of evidence supporting a late 1st or early 2nd century origin for at least some of the synoptic gospels.
For small parts of the synoptic gospels. The first full copies are circa 200 CE. Similarly the epistles of Paul ... though in content the true epistles (with some later editing) do seem to come from the first century CE. And Paul knows no human Jesus. The Jesus of Paul and John, is gnostic, metaphysical ... not historical nor human.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 07, 2017, 09:17:17 AM
Can you share with me what historical records that support jesus being a real person might be? One will do.
There is a Roman record of crucifixion, and a burial record for a man named Jesus of Nazareth around the correct time. There was an excellent research study published last year. I'll have to dig around and find it again.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: AwkwardOctopus on February 07, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
There is a Roman record of crucifixion, and a burial record for a man named Jesus of Nazareth around the correct time. There was an excellent research study published last year. I'll have to dig around and find it again.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Thank you--I'd be very interested to read it.
Quote from: AwkwardOctopus on February 07, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
There is a Roman record of crucifixion, and a burial record for a man named Jesus of Nazareth around the correct time. There was an excellent research study published last year. I'll have to dig around and find it again.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The evidence you suggest would be both fascinating and world-impacting. And therefore, unlikely.
Quote from: AwkwardOctopus on February 07, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
There is a Roman record of crucifixion, and a burial record for a man named Jesus of Nazareth around the correct time. There was an excellent research study published last year. I'll have to dig around and find it again.
You would think that if they could record the burial, they might also chance to note an un-burial three days later. Seems to me that would be a lot more newsworthy than the execution and burial of a colonial rebel.
Besides, even if Jeshua bar-Joseph is a historical figure,
that doesn't make him divine. You can't say "Ah! Jesus existed! Therefore he must be the son of god!" Those are two different things entirely. You can with just as much legitimacy (and with a lot more evidence of his physical existence) say "Ah! Alexander the Great existed! Therefore he's a god!" Certainly he was proclaimed one, and there is a great deal more documentary evidence for his real and historical existence.
Hardly matters anyway. Almost all "christians" are actually Paulists, not Jesuists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism). His interpretation dominates most modern theology far more than the purported recorded words of Jesus. So why isn't Paul venerated as divine?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 07, 2017, 08:33:15 PM
Thank you--I'd be very interested to read it.
Don't hold your breath, Mike - I doubt any such thing will be forthcoming.
I almost forgot.
Jesus does exist.
He exist in various forms today by the Spanish name; you might know him as the gardener that Trump wants to deport, leaving no one else to do your gardening because, after all, who wants to do the jobs that only Spanish people do?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:37:35 PM
Don't hold your breath, Mike - I doubt any such thing will be forthcoming.
Yeah, I kind of figured that at the time. But nothing ventured--nothing gained.
I've always thought most christians were Essenes... But more hedonistic.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:26:45 AM
I've always thought most christians were Essenes... But more hedonistic.
Some scholars think there is an Essene connection to John the Baptist, and from that a connection to Jesus ... or if they weren't real, at least between the communities that the two men symbolically represent. The Essenes criticized the Temple establishment, and so did those two groups.
Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 06:43:52 AM
Some scholars think there is an Essene connection to John the Baptist, and from that a connection to Jesus ... or if they weren't real, at least between the communities that the two men symbolically represent. The Essenes criticized the Temple establishment, and so did those two groups.
I think the Romans did actually mention Essenes (as noisy pests) and there seems to have been ritual water-bathing (a good thing in unwashed times), but all other than that is unproven as to individuals.
I consider the entirety of the bible as copied stuff from older also false theisms of older theisms of older theisms back to the first idiot who came up with the deity idea after too much catnip equivalent.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:40:54 AM
I think the Romans did actually mention Essenes (as noisy pests) and there seems to have been ritual water-bathing (a good thing in unwashed times), but all other than that is unproven as to individuals.
I consider the entirety of the bible as copied stuff from older also false theisms of older theisms of older theisms back to the first idiot who came up with the deity idea after too much catnip equivalent.
We are of course infinitely superior to early humans (who were anatomically identical to us) ... there has been a lot of social and cultural evolution since the Stone Age. But as people ... we are not different from them. Now I might have a higher social or cultural evolution that X, because I go to Shakespeare plays for example. Is that the one-up-man-ship you are talking about. Every song was stolen from every other song, every poem was copied from every other poem ... imitation is the greatest admiration.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:40:54 AM
I think the Romans did actually mention Essenes (as noisy pests) and there seems to have been ritual water-bathing (a good thing in unwashed times), but all other than that is unproven as to individuals.
I consider the entirety of the bible as copied stuff from older also false theisms of older theisms of older theisms back to the first idiot who came up with the deity idea after too much catnip equivalent.
And probably should have added that the some of the biblical actions make no sense at all. But disproving religious texts is as pointless as arguing with earthworms about what to eat.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 01:00:03 PM
And probably should have added that the some of the biblical actions make no sense at all. But disproving religious texts is as pointless as arguing with earthworms about what to eat.
If you want sense, read a logic text book. But that is a futile exercise.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:40:54 AM
I consider the entirety of the bible as copied stuff from older also false theisms of older theisms of older theisms back to the first idiot who came up with the deity idea after too much catnip equivalent.
I think the first deities that came along were the result of people watching the sky and trying to remember when various stars and groups of stars would rise/set. This is called
astro-theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrotheology).
QuoteAstrotheology is the study of the astronomical origins of religion; how gods, goddesses, and demons are personifications of astronomical phenomena such as lunar eclipses, planetary alignments, and apparent interactions of planetary bodies with stars.
Yes, the procto-theologists weren't nearly as popular ;-) (pulling ideas out of their asses)
Freakin lofl!
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 04:16:50 PM
I think the first deities that came along were the result of people watching the sky and trying to remember when various stars and groups of stars would rise/set. This is called astro-theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrotheology).
I suspect religion was caused more by humans seeking explanations without evidence. As we became more evidential, religion became more vague and non-evidential. Eventually, religion will fade away.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 03:58:08 AM
I suspect religion was caused more by humans seeking explanations without evidence. As we became more evidential, religion became more vague and non-evidential. Eventually, religion will fade away.
That is what Jefferson claimed, 200 years ago. Genius.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 03:58:08 AM
I suspect religion was caused more by humans seeking explanations without evidence. As we became more evidential, religion became more vague and non-evidential. Eventually, religion will fade away.
Keep wishing.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 07:43:51 AM
Keep wishing.
faith in selfless unity for good
Evangelical geekdom wants everyone to enjoy geekdom like they do ;-)
The further science progresses and information abounds the more logical a first cause becomes.
My very simple opinion
faith in selfless unity for good
Posting is all about us editorializing our own neuroses in public. I love it.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 07:43:51 AM
Keep wishing.
faith in selfless unity for good
You are the one who has to rely on wishes for your proof.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2017, 10:06:01 AM
You are the one who has to rely on wishes for your proof.
Nonsense; my proof is self evident and indisputable for me.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 12:52:41 PM
Nonsense; my proof is self evident and indisputable for me.
faith in selfless unity for good
Yes. For you. It is not self-evident for people not programmed to believe in gods. Wishful thinking is not proof. Claiming something as "self-evident" is just an excuse to provide no verifiable evidence. And please stop responding to intelligent responses with "nonsense" when all you have is nonsense to follow with.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 12:52:41 PM
Nonsense; my proof is self evident and indisputable for me.
faith in selfless unity for good
Ah, yes. "...for me.", being the key words. We all realize that--you have constructed your own universe in which you live. And within that universe, wishes have power as does belief. And you get to define what facts are and how they provide the foundation for your system. And it all works great for you. For me, none of that works. Your crutches don't work for me. It's not nonsense for you, but it sure is for me!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 12:52:41 PM
faith in selfless unity for good
do you mind explaining what this means? in English?
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 03:57:12 PM
do you mind explaining what this means? in English?
To believe and act through deed and word selflessly and with altruism actively, putting active thought of it throughout your daily processes and potentials. Past that it is belief that if all were to attain to such it would unify life and the two together would be wholly good for literally all.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2017, 02:56:45 PM
Ah, yes. "...for me.", being the key words. We all realize that--you have constructed your own universe in which you live. And within that universe, wishes have power as does belief. And you get to define what facts are and how they provide the foundation for your system. And it all works great for you. For me, none of that works. Your crutches don't work for me. It's not nonsense for you, but it sure is for me!
No crutch friend. Motivation to actually do what one knows to be right and good regardless of personal circumstances or rather personal benefit.
You can say you don't agree with a thing without attempted insult and degradation of the foundation of ones very core beliefs....But you know that already.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 12:52:41 PM
Nonsense; my proof is self evident and indisputable for me.
Donald? Is that you?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 19, 2017, 01:20:30 PM
Yes. For you. It is not self-evident for people not programmed to believe in gods. Wishful thinking is not proof. Claiming something as "self-evident" is just an excuse to provide no verifiable evidence. And please stop responding to intelligent responses with "nonsense" when all you have is nonsense to follow with.
News flash dumbass; I wasn't programmed to believe in a god.
I was fucking atheist from early childhood to my late 20s. K?
If you can't understand that a thing can be proven to you, yet you may not have the capacity to prove it to others, then that is your own broke ass logic, not mine
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
I was fucking atheist from early childhood to my late 20s.
meh...you called yourself an atheist so you could be "special". If you had put in the work, you would be a real atheist. You never did, defaulted to the stupid side. That much is pretty obvious.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
News flash dumbass; I wasn't programmed to believe in a god.
I was fucking atheist from early childhood to my late 20s. K?
If you can't understand that a thing can be proven to you, yet you may not have the capacity to prove it to others, then that is your own broke ass logic, not mine
faith in selfless unity for good
Love it! Selfless unity for good in action. That is the way of the theist...................
Quote from: aitm on February 19, 2017, 05:06:01 PM
meh...you called yourself an atheist so you could be "special". If you had put in the work, you would be a real atheist. You never did, defaulted to the stupid side. That much is pretty obvious.
Stop projecting and assuming.
Your comments are completely and utterly unfounded
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2017, 05:21:59 PM
Love it! Selfless unity for good in action. That is the way of the theist...................
If one can't even grasp simple ideas then they are wasting both of our time.
I can reciprocate disrespect for disrespect at times. Doesn't make it right, but I never claimed to be anything near perfect or of any value so.....
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
News flash dumbass; I wasn't programmed to believe in a god.
You were not raised into the faith. Understood.
What reason drove you to believe in god? Was it during a time of weakness when you sought comfort that you were informed only a belief in god could provide?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 05:49:17 PM
Your comments are completely and utterly unfounded
my comments are absolutely founded on your irrational beliefs. If you had spent the time studying like a real atheist does, you would be one. No one here buys your bullshit.
Quote from: aitm on February 19, 2017, 06:26:53 PM
my comments are absolutely founded on your irrational beliefs. If you had spent the time studying like a real atheist does, you would be one. No one here buys your bullshit.
Yeeaahhh...I'm not selling anything.
I was atheist for over twenty years.
Nothing you say changes that. Just like nothing you say changes the fact that I was given faith, not by anything I had done, not from upbringing, not from indoctrination, and not from gulability and/ or lack of critical thought. Say whatever it is you want to say. It changes nothing at all. If the things I say are so obviously false then show them to be with simple logic. If I am illogical in my thought processes then show that to be the case. Anyone can claim anything, right, isn't that what you are accusing me of basically? But you are the one guilty of it it seems.
faith in selfless unity for good
It would be most beneficial to read the story of how you came to your faith after twenty years of atheism.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 06:53:31 PM
It would be most beneficial to read the story of how you came to your faith after twenty years of atheism.
I could post a copy of an attempted explanation I had messaged someone about a year ago if it is OK. If it isn't or is seen as disrespectful to ones own lack of belief then I could pm it. Just let me know.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 07:02:48 PM
I could post a copy of an attempted explanation I had messaged someone about a year ago if it is OK. If it isn't or is seen as disrespectful to ones own lack of belief then I could pm it. Just let me know.
faith in selfless unity for good
Post it.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 06:53:31 PM
It would be most beneficial to read the story of how you came to your faith after twenty years of atheism.
it's all bullshit. this butt was never a real atheist. He may have been a non-believer, but he was never a real atheist. He never put in the time or effort . He simply was lead by the nose until he was convinced by a book in a toilet stall. Thus guy was never a real atheist.
Quote from: aitm on February 19, 2017, 07:09:48 PM
it's all bullshit. this butt was never a real atheist. He may have been a non-believer, but he was never a real atheist. He never put in the time or effort . He simply was lead by the nose until he was convinced by a book in a toilet stall. Thus guy was never a real atheist.
Damn....You must have missed the part where I said I was given faith in 2011, and didn't read any scripture until years later, like 2015...
oops
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: aitm on February 19, 2017, 07:09:48 PM
it's all bullshit. this butt was never a real atheist. He may have been a non-believer, but he was never a real atheist. He never put in the time or effort . He simply was lead by the nose until he was convinced by a book in a toilet stall. Thus guy was never a real atheist.
Bad doggie, bad dog!
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 07:05:37 PM
Post it.
You are the only one who said to post it.
Is it OK if I just pm it to you?
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:31:24 AM
That is what Jefferson claimed, 200 years ago. Genius.
For his knowledge and insights, I admire Jefferson. For other aspects of his character, not so much.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 07:20:28 PM
Damn....You must have missed the part where I said I was given faith in 2011, and didn't read any scripture until years later, like 2015...
oops
faith in selfless unity for good
SO god gave you faith. Well why does god pick and choose who he bestows faith upon? Since you don't exactly follow the bible to a T let me tell you that the bible makes it clear that who god picks is pretty arbitrary. Actions apparently have nothing to do with it. example would be Paul. There are many more examples in there of god arbitrarily choosing people to "do his work".
This is one example of how yaweh is not a loving god.
Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 02:18:15 PM
SO god gave you faith. Well why does god pick and choose who he bestows faith upon? Since you don't exactly follow the bible to a T let me tell you that the bible makes it clear that who god picks is pretty arbitrary. Actions apparently have nothing to do with it. example would be Paul. There are many more examples in there of god arbitrarily choosing people to "do his work".
This is one example of how yaweh is not a loving god.
You don't have to tell me what the bible says, and you don't have to deny that it says it is the will of GOD for all to come to belief and repentance.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 20, 2017, 03:09:22 PM
You don't have to tell me what the bible says, and you don't have to deny that it says it is the will of GOD for all to come to belief and repentance.
faith in selfless unity for good
Irrelevant for most people ... the Bible isn't in their culture, nor the Quran either (which is comparable). The best good people can do is go do some good, and have the other folks point at us as good examples worth emulating. If they do more good themselves, then I have no complaints. And of course, if one does good, not let it go to one's head.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 20, 2017, 03:09:22 PM
You don't have to tell me what the bible says, and you don't have to deny that it says it is the will of GOD for all to come to belief and repentance.
faith in selfless unity for good
Yeah, but talk is cheap :)
Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 03:13:49 PM
Irrelevant for most people ... the Bible isn't in their culture, nor the Quran either (which is comparable). The best good people can do is go do some good, and have the other folks point at us as good examples worth emulating. If they do more good themselves, then I have no complaints. And of course, if one does good, not let it go to one's head.
Couldn't have said it better myself
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 20, 2017, 03:16:34 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself
faith in selfless unity for good
If people want to blame their good behavior on E O Wilson's theories of ant behavior, then "All Hail The Queen!". I love animals, but I find human behavior more relevant to myself.
Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 03:18:18 PM
If people want to blame their good behavior on E O Wilson's theories of ant behavior, then "All Hail The Queen!". I love animals, but I find human behavior more relevant to myself.
I think what we can see of altruism within social animals is somewhat telling. At least interesting.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 20, 2017, 03:09:22 PM
You don't have to tell me what the bible says, and you don't have to deny that it says it is the will of GOD for all to come to belief and repentance.
faith in selfless unity for good
Excuse me I wasn't trying to imply you didn't know what the bible says. And that is beside the point. You basically skirted around the issue I just presented. I just stated that who god "saves" is arbitrary. As in not based on actions. You're own bible portrays this! Yet you continue to accuse me of denying god?
God's will must be pretty weak considering all have not come to believe and repent. And don't give me free will crap because no where in the bible does it say any one has free will. And there are examples of god directly interfering with free will. That's not how gods will works. He's god what ever he wills comes true. Since it is not true that would tell me the bible is full of shit. Oh but I forgot you cherry pick the bible.
Apologetics ... religious folks notice the arbitrariness of G-d a lot longer ago than atheists ... it is Biblical. G-d blesses the current saint, or blesses the current saint and several generations further along. G-d curses just the current sinner, or curses the current sinner and several generations farther along. G-d allows the wicked to flourish now, because of mercy to the sinner in the hope they will change, or because in the afterlife everyone gets what they deserve. Similarly the saint ... they might get curses now, in order to teach them humility and patience, or because in the afterlife everyone gets what they deserve. This all derives from the notions that G-d answers prayers or is a judge. What if G-d doesn't answer prayers, or judges no one?
In Judaism this is called protecting the integrity of G-d against charges that arise from theodicy (lack of blessing or justice in the current life). This is discussed in David's psalms.
I agree, that in usual terms, it doesn't make sense, whether you try to derive it from mysticism or scripture. The theodicy question is my primary reason why I hate G-d (the flip side of loving G-d). For some atheists, the theodicy question is the reason why they are indifferent ... which is the true opposite of love ... the absence of passion. So people react these three ways, descriptively if not proscriptively ... indifference, love, hate. Of course real people are more likely to be a changing mixture of all three.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 07:20:28 PM
Damn....You must have missed the part where I said I was given faith in 2011, and didn't read any scripture until years later, like 2015...
and of course you tell the truth....yeah.....sure....because xians are "famous" for telling the truth.
Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 05:19:59 PM
no where in the bible does it say any one has free will.
There is also no place that the Bible says god doesn't make mistakes. And arguably it doesn't even say that god knows everything.
Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 05:36:38 PM
protecting the integrity of G-d against charges that arise from theodicy (lack of blessing or justice in the current life).
It is such an odd thing to say about a real being who is supposed to be more than able to take care of himself. But it sorta makes sense if we think of god as a fiction or an ideology.
If some one made charges of theodicy would that not automatically make him/her into an antagonist and anti-theist?
Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 01:22:53 AM
There is also no place that the Bible says god doesn't make mistakes. And arguably it doesn't even say that god knows everything.
It is such an odd thing to say about a real being who is supposed to be more than able to take care of himself. But it sorta makes sense if we think of god as a fiction or an ideology.
If some one made charges of theodicy would that not automatically make him/her into an antagonist and anti-theist?
Thinking and dialog, not triggering and dismissing ... I like it.
So is the god of the Greek theologians, the ideal ... the real? The Bible says no. The Quran says yes. The Bible is mostly about G-d ... the Quran is G-d, the Logos (but only in Arabic). This is why I prefer the Bible, though I appreciate the Quran. In old Hinduism (not the current version) there is room for both gods and anti-gods (they are not demons). Even the gods are against the gods (as were the Titans against the Olympians). So yes, anti-theism is interesting, in polytheism. It gets twisted in dualism (Zoroastrianism) or monotheism. Even the Quran isn't quite monotheist, because it allows jinn, angels and Iblis. The context of Jewish and Christian religious imagination, back in the day, wasn't exactly monotheist either .. given demons, angels and Samael (the Devil). It is hard in theology, to even achieve completely coherent monotheism, though pantheism comes close. In pantheism, everything and everyone is G-d. A lot like the Nature that naturalists worship, only with personality. All persons internal to the pantheist G-d are demigods, partial images of G-d. That is the G-d I know, not believe. In pantheism, G-d isn't ontologically good, but only as good as we are.
Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 05:19:59 PM
Excuse me I wasn't trying to imply you didn't know what the bible says. And that is beside the point. You basically skirted around the issue I just presented. I just stated that who god "saves" is arbitrary. As in not based on actions. You're own bible portrays this! Yet you continue to accuse me of denying god?
God's will must be pretty weak considering all have not come to believe and repent. And don't give me free will crap because no where in the bible does it say any one has free will. And there are examples of god directly interfering with free will. That's not how gods will works. He's god what ever he wills comes true. Since it is not true that would tell me the bible is full of shit. Oh but I forgot you cherry pick the bible.
I didn't realize I had skirted around anything. Let me clarify my position.
Though the will of GOD is absolute and unrestrained, it isn't random as far as I can tell. I must admit that your opinion on what the bible says matches that of the ignorant. This isn't an insult and really is better than actually dishonestly saying such.
1 Corinthians: 15. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians: 15. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Lamentations: 3. 31. For the Lord will not cast off for ever: 32. But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
1 Timothy: 4. 10. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Colossians: 1. 17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
C. Other Verses Show That, by Itself, Inward Faith Will Not Save.
John 12:42,43 - People "believed" in Jesus but would not confess Him, because they loved the praises of men more than the praises of God. Were they saved? (Cf. Rom. 10:9,10; Matt. 10:32,33.)
James 2:19,20 - Even devils believe. Are they saved?
James 2:14,24 - Can faith save withoutobedience? No, that is a dead faith (v17,20,26). Man is not justified by "faith only." This is the only passage that mentions "faith only," and it says we are not justified by it! Men say justification by faith only is a wholesome, comforting doctrine; but the Bible flatly says we are not justified by faith only!
Some say these people were unsaved because they have the wrong kind of faith: They have intellectual conviction, but they do not trust Jesus to save them. We are making progress! We now agree that faith is essential to salvation, but there are different kinds of faith! Faith is necessary, but there are kinds of faith that do not save, even when people believe in God and Jesus.
The issue then is: What kind of faith saves, and what does that saving faith include? Does it include repentance, confession, obedience to Divine commands, and even baptism? Before answering, let us add more information.
II. Many Things Are Essential to Salvation.
A. Some Things that are Essential to Salvation
God's grace (Ephesians 2:4-10; 1:7; Titus 2:11,12; Acts 15:11)
Jesus' death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:6-10; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Revelation 1:5; 1 Corinthians 15:17; 1 Peter 3:21)
The gospel (Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Acts 11:14; James 1:18,21; 1 Corinthians 15:1,2; John 8:31,32)
Learning God's will (Acts 11:14; John 6:44,45; Romans 10:17; 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21)
Faith (see the verses listed above)
Love (1 Corinthians 16:22; 13:1-3; Galatians 5:6; 1 John 4:7,8)
Hope (Romans 8:24)
Repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; Luke 13:3,5; 2 Peter 3:9)
Obedience (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 6:17,18; 1 Peter 1:22; Acts 10:34,35; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9; Galatians 5:6; James 2:14-26)
Confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matthew 10:32)
Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-7; Galatians 3:26,27; Colossians 2:12,13)
Faithfulness (Matthew 10:22; Revelation 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Matthew 28:20; Titus 2:11,12; 1 John 2:1-6)
The freedom to choose is synonymous with free will. Now go and look if we are told to make any choices in scripture, and get back with me. In fact, loose whatever preconceived notions of scripture Christ and GOD you have from whatever old religious experience lead you so far off. It is the will of God that man have freedom to choose.
Substantiate your false claims.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: aitm on February 20, 2017, 09:40:10 PM
and of course you tell the truth....yeah.....sure....because xians are "famous" for telling the truth.
I'm not exactly a Christian per say.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 21, 2017, 07:09:49 AM
I'm not exactly a Christian per say.
faith in selfless unity for good
Neither am I. But ...
1 Corinthians: 15. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Is a statement from Kabbalah ... without Kabbalah, there is no way to interpret this. Except the Pauline ... but the resurrection ending was appended to the original pseudo-Mark gospel, to bring it into conformance with Pauline theology. In Kabbalah, the first Adam and the second Adam ... are one, Adam Kadmon.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 12:52:41 PM
Nonsense; my proof is self evident and indisputable for me.
Well, yes, as I pointed out (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11091.msg1166740#msg1166740) (and, not surprisingly, the point at which you ceased engaging with me), you had already essentially admitted both that you have no actual evidence outside of your own faith, and that you cherry-pick anyways.
What you still have not done, and which I suspect you cannot do, is explain your claimed proofs and their alleged self-evidence in a non-circular way. If you want to believe that your bible is the inspired word of your god, that's fine, but you cannot expect us to take such a claim seriously without evidence outside of "because I believe it is".
Do I believe things on incomplete evidence? Yes. But I admit to the incomplete evidence, and I do not insist upon the absolute truth of those beliefs, and I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about them, with varying degrees of likelihood.
I
believe there are other intelligent life forms in this galaxy. That is consistent with everything we currently know about planetary formation and biological evolution. It accepts the Principle of Mediocrity, which is to assume that when you have an exceptionally small data set, it is more likely that the datum is average than extreme for the projected rest of the population. It does not require the violation of any known laws of science -- physics, chemistry or biology. If you were to ask me of my certainty of the existence of other intelligent life forms in this galaxy, I would say it's 1-ε -- as close to a dead cert as you could ask for.
But.I will freely and even cheerily admit that I have no hard evidence, that my statistics could be wrong (or simply interpreted differently), that there could be some impediment to the rise of complex life that we don't understand yet, that due to a fluke, we are not average for the assumed dataset but unusual. I can point to observations that would make my belief much less tenable.
In short, I can say with equal confidence that yes, I could easily be wrong and maybe we are alone in the galaxy, possibly even the universe, but the statistics become so staggering on that last point, I would be strongly hesitant.
I do not think you can do the same. I do not think you can provide objective evidence supporting your belief, and more importantly, I do not think you can provide potential observations that would cause you to say that your belief is much more unlikely because of them, that the available evidence has as many interpretations contrary to yours than concordant with. Most of all, I do not think you can admit to the possibility that you might be just plain old wrong, that your bible is just a collection of the writings of men with no divine inspiration, that there's even that ε chance that there's no god for you to believe in.
But, I could be wrong. Maybe you can.
But, like my extraterrestrials, that remains to be seen.
Cut the crap! The freedom to choose is not synonymous with free will. Gods will is free will. The will of man is limited to the choices known to him. There maybe many more choices but if he doesn't know of them he can not choose it. Also I'd like to will myself to have riches but since I'm still poor guess my will isn't exactly free now is it?
Yes choices are given to some unless you're heart is hardened like that of pharaohs. God selects who has choices and who does not. That is not free will. The Bible also speaks of divination. A little confusing isn't it.
Also on regards to faith. I never said it was necessary, your bible says that. I don't find faith to be a virtue, I find it to be asinine. Believing something without substance is delusional.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 20, 2017, 03:09:22 PM
it says it is the will of GOD for all to come to belief and repentance.
Jesus told much his teaching in parables, but do you know why?
It says right here:
Mark 4:10-12
QuoteAnd when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Quote from: aitm on February 20, 2017, 09:40:10 PM
and of course you tell the truth....yeah.....sure....because xians are "famous" for telling the truth.
Yeah, they don't lie, do they?
And yet
Pious Lies (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=49.0) are very common.
If people had actual integrity, then things would go better. But we don't, so it won't.
Quote from: Baruch on February 21, 2017, 06:33:01 PM
If people had actual integrity, then things would go better. But we don't, so it won't.
With many theists, it is easy to hide behind their faith, expecting everyone to think they are of good moral character just because of that faith.
K, I'm gonna post a copy of my recounting of the experience of my being given faith or rather belief in GOD.
Maybe that will allow people to know my scenario a little better.
faith in selfless unity for good
This is a copy that I wrote to someone who had inquiries about a year ago I guess.
Please ask anything and give honest opinion.
Okay. A little back ground is in order I suppose.
From early childhood up until what happened I was an atheist or agnostic. I remember thinking at a young age that there couldn't be a God because pain and suffering seemed to be observable everywhere. At some point I did consider the Sun to be a higher power of sorts as no life that I knew of could live without it. I remember asking my father once if he thought there was a God. After careful consideration he replied that he did not know. I lived with my mom. We didn't go to church much; maybe a handful of times in early childhood. She wasn't really spiritual or religious that I could tell. I do recall my grandmother being a believer because at family gatherings she would insist that someone said grace or have thanks to God. Anyway, I went through life in relative solitude, always being somewhat odd or different I guess. At an early age I recognized pain as an electronic signal of sorts. In doing so I was able to train myself to endure quite a bit of it. I turned myself off emotionally somehow, letting little really affect me. I began to realize that anger and pain could be channeled and used as strength and motivation. Not being spiritual in any way, I guess I didn't realize the ramifications this could have later.
Fast forward to mid twenties. All lessons I learned the hard way, taking no advice from any, finding out for myself. Personal failure and disappointment on a constant level made me self loathing. Severe drug addiction made it worse. Though I had strength I couldn't stop by my own will seemingly. I hated pretty much everything, but most of all, myself. I awoke angry and fell asleep angry for years, even before serious drug addiction. I fought myself for a couple of years trying to change the direction I was witnessing myself going. I used to park at graveyards and contemplate death. I fervently wished I had the strength to kill myself, and hated myself that much more for being too cowardly to go through with it. Throughout my life, but mostly throughout my addiction, I had a lot of time to contemplate things, and view my own actions or the lack there of retrospectively. Somewhere in the midst of all this I recall sincerely swallowing my misplaced pride which was all but gone already, and asking for help. I pleaded to GOD, Christ, Jesus, whatever. I did this once. I realized that regardless of what I thought and how strong I thought I was, I couldn't seem to be able to make the change for better happen. Down, at my lowest point, I recall seeing what most likely would have been explained away by anyone(including myself) as a smudge on a window. There was light coming through. Regardless, the smudge had the vague form of an Angel. I don't know exactly why, but seeing that gave me an inkling of hope. I was still severely addicted though I had lost almost everything I had ever cared about. A woman I had a child with had taken me in at this point and the three of us were struggling pretty bad. She told me she was moving back home and said I could come. I did. I vaguely recall seeing something again when we moved. I don't even remember what it was, but I do remember that it reminded me of what I had seen on the window, and again that misplaced hope surfaced. Months went by. Her, my son, and myself moved in together in her home town. I had not used since we moved. I made a trip back home and used for one night. I returned and went back to not using. Throughout this time I still had all the same hate and anger that I had before. Though I was doing better as far as my drug addiction was concerned, she wasn't really trying to change. Our son was in the middle. This and other things brought great tention on our relationship. I went to jail for a somewhat unrelated reason. I got out about a month later I guess. When I returned home with her and my son I realized she had been doing some really messed up things while I was gone. I was so worried for the upbringing of my son that I justified killing her and going to prison, because I thought my son would be better off. I chased her for about a half an hour, methodically. She couldn't leave because I had her car keys. For those minutes I did intent to take her life with my hands. Thankfully, I eventually have her her keys and she left.
Okay, so that was a lot of back story. Sorry if it bored you. I've never went into that much detail about it but it seemed necessary to convey the state of mind I was in.
I'm not sure if it was the next day or a couple of days later.
I'm driving home from work on a usual road. Listening to the radio as I drive. The radio fades out to silence. This never happened before. I adjust the station and volume to no avail whatsoever...silence. Suddenly and inexplicably I feel this great weight, this huge burden lifted from me. My anger, pain, and hatred are removed all at once. I am overwhelmed with joy as tears flow freely from my eyes( something that previously just didn't really happen). I am utterly and wholly grateful and thank GOD. Many things begin to come into my mind. Things I never even fathomed. I am shown, in my mind, how GOD was with me through all things I had endured. I was shown how every step in my life had been for a reason and that GOD had been ever present through it all regardless of my obliviousness to it. I was shown how GOD was there before my conception and through my troubled birth. I was shown that I was here for a reason and that all I had been through was too, for a reason. Many understandings and revelations took place. Then things stopped coming into my mind. An utter peace never thought possible was with me. A joyous expectation of life filled me. The radio fades back in to the same station and volume it had been at. I felt the strong edge to write down what had taken place. When I got home, I found the nearest utensils at hand and began writing. I had intended to describe the happenings that had taken place. What I wrote is more of some sort of moral code. This all happened when I was thirty in 2011. I never really looked at those writings again for about four years. At which time I started reading the bible. For some reason I don't recall I found this invoice book that I had written in years before. When I read it it was as if it had been taken out of the bible or something because of the nature of the written material.
I had never read the bible or really even heard it prior to writing what I wrote.
In the past couple of years other things have happened and changes have taken place. But that is a different story I suppose. Regardless of what happens to me for whatever reasons, I will never forget the miraculous event that took place in my life by the grace and mercy of GOD.
All praise and thanks is to GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Life is a drama. You experienced catharsis. See The Poetics by Aristotle. I get little insights all the time, because my mind is open, not closed. Some confirm what I already think, some cause me to have new thoughts. Psychology.
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 06:59:55 AM
Life is a drama. You experienced catharsis. See The Poetics by Aristotle. I get little insights all the time, because my mind is open, not closed. Some confirm what I already thing, some cause me to have new thoughts. Psychology.
I agree. It was catharsis that was caused, along with other things.
faith in selfless unity for good
Do men imagine that We are far distant from the people of the world? Nay, the day We cause them to be assailed by the pangs of death they shall, upon the plain of Resurrection, behold how the Lord of Mercy and His Remembrance were near. Thereupon they shall exclaim: “Would that we had followed the path of the Báb! Would that we had sought refuge only with Him, and not with men of perversity and error! For verily the Remembrance of God appeared before us, behind us, and on all sides, yet we were, in very truth, shut out as by a veil from Him.â€
Do not say, “How can He speak of God while in truth His age is no more than twenty-five?†Give ye ear unto Me. I swear by the Lord of the heavens and of the earth: I am verily a servant of God. I have been made the Bearer of irrefutable proofs from the presence of Him Who is the long-expected Remnant of God. Here is My Book before your eyes, as indeed inscribed in the presence of God in the Mother Book. God hath indeed made Me blessed, wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon Me to observe prayer and fortitude so long as I shall live on earth amongst you.
Glorified is He besides Whom there is none other God. In His grasp He holdeth the source of authority, and verily God is powerful over all things. We have decreed that every long life shall in truth suffer decline and that every hardship shall be followed by ease, that perchance men may recognize the Gate of God as He Who is the eternal Truth, and verily God shall stand as witness unto those that have believed.
The Daystar of Truth that shineth in its meridian splendor beareth Us witness! They who are the people of God have no ambition except to revive the world, to ennoble its life, and regenerate its peoples. Truthfulness and goodwill have, at all times, marked their relations with all men. Their outward conduct is but a reflection of their inward life, and their inward life a mirror of their outward conduct. No veil hideth or obscureth the verities on which their Faith is established. Before the eyes of all men these verities have been laid bare, and can be unmistakably recognized. Their very acts attest the truth of these words.
Every discerning eye can, in this Day, perceive the dawning light of God’s Revelation, and every attentive ear can recognize the Voice that was heard from the Burning Bush. Such is the rushing of the waters of Divine mercy, that He Who is the Dayspring of the signs of God and the Revealer of the evidences of His glory is without veil or concealment associating and conversing with the peoples of the earth and its kindreds. How numerous are those who, with hearts intent upon malice, have sought Our Presence, and departed from it loyal and loving friends! The portals of grace are wide open before the face of all men. In Our outward dealings with them We have treated alike the righteous and the sinner, that perchance the evildoer may attain the limitless ocean of Divine forgiveness. Our name “the Concealer†hath shed such a light upon men that the froward hath imagined himself to be numbered with the pious. No man that seeketh Us will We ever disappoint, neither shall he that hath set his face towards Us be denied access unto Our court.…
O friends! Help ye the one true God, exalted be His glory, by your goodly deeds, by such conduct and character as shall be acceptable in His sight. He that seeketh to be a helper of God in this Day, let him close his eyes to whatever he may possess, and open them to the things of God. Let him cease to occupy himself with that which profiteth him, and concern himself with that which shall exalt the all-compelling name of the Almighty. He should cleanse his heart from all evil passions and corrupt desires, for the fear of God is the weapon that can render him victorious, the primary instrument whereby he can achieve his purpose. The fear of God is the shield that defendeth His Cause, the buckler that enableth His people to attain to victory. It is a standard that no man can abase, a force that no power can rival. By its aid, and by the leave of Him Who is the Lord of Hosts, they that have drawn nigh unto God have been able to subdue and conquer the citadels of the hearts of men.
CXXVIIIf it be your wish, O people, to know God and to discover the greatness of His might, look, then, upon Me with Mine own eyes, and not with the eyes of anyone besides Me. Ye will, otherwise, be never capable of recognizing Me, though ye ponder My Cause as long as My Kingdom endureth, and meditate upon all created things throughout the eternity of God, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Omnipotent, the Ever-Abiding, the All-Wise. Thus have We manifested the truth of Our Revelation, that haply the people may be roused from their heedlessness, and be of them that understand.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Pops, this reminds me of people who are fond of saying: There but for the grace of God, go I.
They think or want people to think they are being humble and grateful--but what they are really saying is I have grace from God, you don't. I'm glad God did not fuck me over like he fucked you over!
Why does god visit pain and suffering never ending to some--and some who are newborns--and not on others???
Sorry I didn't read your second wall of text. You should write a book someday.
I respect that you experienced something and no one here will deny you experienced something. But I'm not you and I wasn't there. So I don't know what you experienced.
Anecdotal stories are still not evidence however. Many people claim to have come in contact with aliens. I still don't believe in aliens at this time.
Don't take it personally.
I have a history of addiction too. I'm glad you found something that works for you. My story I went in the reverse direction. I started out as an honest believer. I really believed with all my heart. I even remember feeling what I thought was the Holy Spirit at the time.
But after my drug addiction I started analyzing things different and came to a different conclusion. I'd go into more of it but I'm afraid of boring people. And I'm not sure you really want to hear it. If you do I'll start a different thread about it.
Thank you for sharing your story. I didn't mind reading it at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yet, none of this is evidence. You had a profound psychological moment -- call it catharsis, satori, whatever -- that you chose to interpret as an encounter with something supernatural rather than something within.
You call it 'god'. I call it becoming a responsible adult.
Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 10:02:24 AM
And yet, none of this is evidence. You had a profound psychological moment -- call it catharsis, satori, whatever -- that you chose to interpret as an encounter with something supernatural rather than something within.
You call it 'god'. I call it becoming a responsible adult.
I was already a responsible adult.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: doorknob on February 22, 2017, 09:59:41 AM
Sorry I didn't read your second wall of text. You should write a book someday.
I respect that you experienced something and no one here will deny you experienced something. But I'm not you and I wasn't there. So I don't know what you experienced.
Anecdotal stories are still not evidence however. Many people claim to have come in contact with aliens. I still don't believe in aliens at this time.
Don't take it personally.
I have a history of addiction too. I'm glad you found something that works for you. My story I went in the reverse direction. I started out as an honest believer. I really believed with all my heart. I even remember feeling what I thought was the Holy Spirit at the time.
But after my drug addiction I started analyzing things different and came to a different conclusion. I'd go into more of it but I'm afraid of boring people. And I'm not sure you really want to hear it. If you do I'll start a different thread about it.
Thank you for sharing your story. I didn't mind reading it at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the genuine response. Your story does strike some level of interest. You could pm it to me or start a thread with a link here. I'll read it.
It seems very many conflate organized religion with the truth of GOD.
Indeed the things I experienced did come from within in some way. But they still weren't my own doing or products of cognition or thought processes in the standard sense. I know that may not make sense to some, but it is the most accurate way I can express it.
There was no thought of GOD or Jesus that kicked off a thought that I made conclusions from. First was the radio and second was an overwhelming joy and utter relief from the weight of my own loathsome existence. Even the things that came after the initial elation where from a different perspective, and comprised of memories long forgotten.
Rambling, sorry, I wasn't meaning to address those points towards you, or as a response to your post.
sincerely peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 22, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
I was already a responsible adult.
Not by your own testimony. Contemplating the murder of another human being is not the act of a responsible man, regardless of your imputing 'good' reasons for it (thinking your son would be better off). You may have been functional day to day, but I would not say responsible.
Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 11:52:06 AM
Not by your own testimony. Contemplating the murder of another human being is not the act of a responsible man, regardless of your imputing 'good' reasons for it (thinking your son would be better off). You may have been functional day to day, but I would not say responsible.
Killing her would have been poor judgement. Responsible was not doing it regardless of my own flawed reasoning and justifications.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 09:55:20 AM
Pops, this reminds me of people who are fond of saying: There but for the grace of God, go I.
They think or want people to think they are being humble and grateful--but what they are really saying is I have grace from God, you don't. I'm glad God did not fuck me over like he fucked you over!
Why does god visit pain and suffering never ending to some--and some who are newborns--and not on others???
This is all explained in Greek "pagan" theater. The struggle of live is "agon" ... so the result is "agony". There is a protagonist, an antagonist and the chorus ... and always the audience is watching (angels or watchers). And there is the playwright. In fact, the gospel of Mark is structured as a Greek tragedy. Probably not a coincidence.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 22, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
Killing her would have been poor judgement. Responsible was not doing it regardless of my own flawed reasoning and justifications.
That's hair-splitting. What is so difficult about just admitting you grew up? Why do you insist on believing you are incapable of becoming a better person without some outside force
making you do it?
And if you want to insist on the supernatural explanation anyway, why you and why not millions of other men around the world who have not only thought about, but actually gone through with abusing and/or killing their wives/girlfriends? Why did those women deserve their injuries and or deaths, why did those men not warrant being pulled back from the brink?
Because that doesn't paint a portrait of a god who actually cares, certainly not about the millions of other victims. It sounds
exactly like a self-imposed explanation, not an externally-imposed reformation.
Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 01:06:04 PM
That's hair-splitting. What is so difficult about just admitting you grew up? Why do you insist on believing you are incapable of becoming a better person without some outside force making you do it?
And if you want to insist on the supernatural explanation anyway, why you and why not millions of other men around the world who have not only thought about, but actually gone through with abusing and/or killing their wives/girlfriends? Why did those women deserve their injuries and or deaths, why did those men not warrant being pulled back from the brink?
Because that doesn't paint a portrait of a god who actually cares, certainly not about the millions of other victims. It sounds exactly like a self-imposed explanation, not an externally-imposed reformation.
I have no difficulty admitting I grew up. If you review my recounting of said experience you would see that I noted that I had matured and my partner had not, which was much of the problem.
Never said I was incapable without trying. Through exceeding effort I had begun the long road to sobriety; prior to being given faith.
I donot think that what happened to me was a result of my not commiting murder. I didn't insinuate such. I merely noted it because it may or may not have had some significance. I cannot be certain. I am glad I didn't do it though.
Who said women deserved injuries or death? Surely not me. Nor would assume why things that happen to individuals other than myself happened to them. I will say that I think that everything does happen for some reason and that pain is to be learned from, and as such; should, eventually, manifest change in the coherent, operable mind.
I have painted no picture whatsoever. It was an attempt to accurately, honestly, and simply convey what had happened to me, to someone who had kindly inquired.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 09:55:20 AM
Pops, this reminds me of people who are fond of saying: There but for the grace of God, go I.
They think or want people to think they are being humble and grateful--but what they are really saying is I have grace from God, you don't. I'm glad God did not fuck me over like he fucked you over!
Why does god visit pain and suffering never ending to some--and some who are newborns--and not on others???
You presume GOD fucked any over whatsoever.
Didn't we discuss actions or the lack there of, and consiquince.
It was a dishonest statement.
I consider myself quite afflicted actually, yet thankful for life, opportunity, potential, and experience regardless.
I, in truth find those with less...Uhm... genuine faith....to be, in cases, blessed with ignorance, as knowledge equals potential, and not acting according to known potential is chaos and knowing misdirection of self.
Ranting again....I'll stop.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 22, 2017, 01:21:25 PM
Who said women deserved injuries or death? Surely not me. Nor would assume why things that happen to individuals other than myself happened to them. I will say that I think that everything does happen for some reason and that pain is to be learned from, and as such; should, eventually, manifest change in the coherent, operable mind.
I have painted no picture whatsoever. It was an attempt to accurately, honestly, and simply convey what had happened to me, to someone who had kindly inquired.
Well, by omission or commission, that's the portrait of your god that you have just given: one who randomly picks and chooses who suffers and who doesn't and who straightens out and who doesn't, without rhyme or reason.
I have to say that "everything happens for a reason" is probably the biggest philosophical cop-out there is. If there is a reason for an event, it should be evident, not mysterious.
And still,
not one syllable of this is evidentiary for your proposition. You must admit that the idea that you simply once and for all took charge of your own life and chose for whatever reason to credit it to supernatural interdiction is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of everything you've said -- and so too is the idea that you were visited by, say, Vishnu but because you're a product of Western civilization you misinterpreted the supernatural entity that came to straighten you out.
It still falls to you saying "I believe because I believe", and has been discussed previously, that's not evidence.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 22, 2017, 01:28:19 PM
You presume GOD fucked any over whatsoever.
Didn't we discuss actions or the lack there of, and consiquince.
It was a dishonest statement.
I consider myself quite afflicted actually, yet thankful for life, opportunity, potential, and experience regardless.
I, in truth find those with less...Uhm... genuine faith....to be, in cases, blessed with ignorance, as knowledge equals potential, and not acting according to known potential is chaos and knowing misdirection of self.
Ranting again....I'll stop.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
I simply look at nature, Pops and see it as a statement that no god exists. Nature is based entirely upon survival of the fittest. Would a merciful or careful or just or loving or thinking or caring god make it so that the lion must kill the gnu? That the, spider eat it's victims while they are alive, that all animals must kill to live? And I could go on and include the microscopic creatures and diseases and such--but you get the point. No. No god would do that and be called god--it would be called the devil and the personification of evil--which is how I view your concept of god.
Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 01:51:42 PM
Well, by omission or commission, that's the portrait of your god that you have just given: one who randomly picks and chooses who suffers and who doesn't and who straightens out and who doesn't, without rhyme or reason.
I have to say that "everything happens for a reason" is probably the biggest philosophical cop-out there is. If there is a reason for an event, it should be evident, not mysterious.
And still, not one syllable of this is evidentiary for your proposition. You must admit that the idea that you simply once and for all took charge of your own life and chose for whatever reason to credit it to supernatural interdiction is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of everything you've said -- and so too is the idea that you were visited by, say, Vishnu but because you're a product of Western civilization you misinterpreted the supernatural entity that came to straighten you out.
It still falls to you saying "I believe because I believe", and has been discussed previously, that's not evidence.
I thought I made it clear that God is GOD. All names referring to the benevolent creator God are but names for the One Creator GOD.
If what happened to me was a product of my own doing and of my own thought processes I would say so. All I have is my word, but you by no means have to believe me. What's so hard to believe anyway? I'm not saying, nor ever said it was evidence of GOD.
Sorry you have such a problem with what I know to be true through personal experience on numerous levels.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 02:10:42 PM
I simply look at nature, Pops and see it as a statement that no god exists. Nature is based entirely upon survival of the fittest. Would a merciful or careful or just or loving or thinking or caring god make it so that the lion must kill the gnu? That the, spider eat it's victims while they are alive, that all animals must kill to live? And I could go on and include the microscopic creatures and diseases and such--but you get the point. No. No god would do that and be called god--it would be called the devil and the personification of evil--which is how I view your concept of god.
I see life as striving to live. Nature is a cruel thing it seems at times in our vanity. But the capacities of man are wholly different.
faith in selfless unity for good
I compare theistic beliefs to delusions.
There is a plethora of people with mental disorders who claim personal knowledge and experience to something they daily witness and yet cannot provide any evidence of what they believe to be true. Sometimes, another crazy person will believe the same thing, and certainly multiple people believing the same thing despite the lack of evidence does not make it true.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 09:55:20 AMWhy does god visit pain and suffering never ending to some--and some who are newborns--and not on others???
Well, obviously, it's because Eve ate a piece of fruit that God didn't want her to eat, and so pain and suffering came into the world. It wasn't God's fault! He was just doing his God thing! The Devil made him do it!
And some people just have too many sins in their ancestral line, so God has to inflict much more suffering on them than on those whose ancestors didn't sin so much...
Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 10:02:24 AM
You call it 'god'. I call it becoming a responsible adult.
Yeah, why be born again, when you can just grow up?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:21:22 PM
Well, obviously, it's because Eve ate a piece of fruit that God didn't want her to eat, and so pain and suffering came into the world. It wasn't God's fault! He was just doing his God thing! The Devil made him do it!
And some people just have too many sins in their ancestral line, so God has to inflict much more suffering on them than on those whose ancestors didn't sin so much...
I have found that theists don't really want to look at nature. It is full of cruel and painful acts because of the system that is in place. So, Eve earned that for us--god did not create it. Say what??? Did Eve invent 'evil'--did she design it? No god the creator did. He created evil, even if he did not include it into human life yet. he created evil and had it waiting in the wings if and when it was needed. And he created his star creatures with terrible flaws--and he did not know this? The all-knowing, all-loving and perfect creator? He told Eve not to eat a fruit--what the hell does fruit have to do with morals and ways to act??? Anyway, he told Eve not to eat it--but sent in satan as a serpent to test her. Mind you, the serpent was created by god, so god knew what the outcome of the meeting would be. Yet Eve gets the blame and earns evil for the human race and terrible birthing pains for herself and all other women. But god know this, for it was his scripting that was directing the action. Once a person understands that Santa is not real--how could they continue to believe Eve was real????? But they do! The mystery of the big bang pales compared to that mystery!!
Quote from: Sorginak on February 22, 2017, 04:59:03 PM
I compare theistic beliefs to delusions.
There is a plethora of people with mental disorders who claim personal knowledge and experience to something they daily witness and yet cannot provide any evidence of what they believe to be true. Sometimes, another crazy person will believe the same thing, and certainly multiple people believing the same thing despite the lack of evidence does not make it true.
Now you understand the origin of culture and politics ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 02:10:42 PM
I simply look at nature, Pops and see it as a statement that no god exists. Nature is based entirely upon survival of the fittest. Would a merciful or careful or just or loving or thinking or caring god make it so that the lion must kill the gnu? That the, spider eat it's victims while they are alive, that all animals must kill to live? And I could go on and include the microscopic creatures and diseases and such--but you get the point. No. No god would do that and be called god--it would be called the devil and the personification of evil--which is how I view your concept of god.
But G-d is the Devil, and yes, you will be punished ;-(
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:21:22 PM
Well, obviously, it's because Eve ate a piece of fruit that God didn't want her to eat, and so pain and suffering came into the world. It wasn't God's fault! He was just doing his God thing! The Devil made him do it!
And some people just have too many sins in their ancestral line, so God has to inflict much more suffering on them than on those whose ancestors didn't sin so much...
Would you actually believe a woman, or anyone, who came to you and told you that a talking snake seduced her into sinning? The actual text is an elliptical reference to what happened in the movie, Blue Lagoon.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 22, 2017, 06:50:22 PM
Once a person understands that Santa is not real--how could they continue to believe Eve was real????? But they do!
(https://lotharlorraine.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fundamentalist-bible-david-hayward.jpg)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 19, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
News flash dumbass; I wasn't programmed to believe in a god.
I was fucking atheist from early childhood to my late 20s. K?
Again with the unprovoked name calling. You're really looking pathetic right now. Not all programming begins from birth. Some people, like you, are brainwashed later in life. It doesn't make you special.
Something people of faith cannot seem to understand is that just because something can exist in the mind does not mean it ever existed in reality.
Fantasy writers are perfect examples of this truth, for they create that which does not exist in reality yet does exist in the mind when reading about it.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 23, 2017, 12:30:17 AM
Something people of faith cannot seem to understand is that just because something can exist in the mind does not mean it ever existed in reality.
Fantasy writers are perfect examples of this truth, for they create that which does not exist in reality yet does exist in the mind when reading about it.
Yup. They make a lot of money and help us pass the time
Quote from: fencerider on February 23, 2017, 02:53:25 AM
Yup. They make a lot of money and help us pass the time
Ironically, writers make very little money compared to religious leaders.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 21, 2017, 07:07:57 AM
I didn't realize I had skirted around anything. Let me clarify my position.
Though the will of GOD is absolute and unrestrained, it isn't random as far as I can tell. I must admit that your opinion on what the bible says matches that of the ignorant. This isn't an insult and really is better than actually dishonestly saying such.
Anything that starts declaring the Will Of God and goes to biblical quotations is not evidence to me. You might as well be saying that Princesses kiss frogs and make them Princes.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 23, 2017, 12:30:17 AM
Something people of faith cannot seem to understand is that just because something can exist in the mind does not mean it ever existed in reality.
Fantasy writers are perfect examples of this truth, for they create that which does not exist in reality yet does exist in the mind when reading about it.
Fantasy is different than delusion. If you think of fantasy, that is fantasy, if you believe fantasy, that is delusion. So are you saying he is pulling our leg, being a fantasist, or are you saying he is deluded. And if you are saying he is deluded, where did you get your medical degree?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:17:40 AM
Anything that starts declaring the Will Of God and goes to biblical quotations is not evidence to me. You might as well be saying that Princesses kiss frogs and make them Princes.
Ah yes, the Frog Formerly Named Prince .. not as famous as the other singer, but the other one did croak ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:17:40 AM
Anything that starts declaring the Will Of God and goes to biblical quotations is not evidence to me. You might as well be saying that Princesses kiss frogs and make them Princes.
But you presumed to know the will of God and went on to declare that God only cares for some and damns the rest. You used scripture as a reference point. So I used it to show my point.
I don't care if you like it, or believe it or whatever, but don't act like you get to reference scripture but others don't. Why would you use the bible for a guide anyway? It is the selfless conscience that guides rightly, not a book or 66 or them.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 05:57:51 AM
But you presumed to know the will of God and went on to declare that God only cares for some and damns the rest. You used scripture as a reference point. So I used it to show my point.
I don't care if you like it, or believe it or whatever, but don't act like you get to reference scripture but others don't. Why would you use the bible for a guide anyway? It is the selfless conscience that guides rightly, not a book or 66 or them.
faith in selfless unity for good
Theists aren't the only hypocrites, or confused.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 17, 2016, 07:03:45 PM
Maybe Jesus was a real man, whose legend evolved over time. Maybe was entirely made up based on stories that came before him. This story of Flavius making up the story to try to control Jews, though, is just silly.
So you think that Flavius Josephus arranging the suicide lotteries at Mesada so that he would be the lone survivor makes sense?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 22, 2017, 03:53:45 PM
I thought I made it clear that God is GOD. All names referring to the benevolent creator God are but names for the One Creator GOD.
If what happened to me was a product of my own doing and of my own thought processes I would say so. All I have is my word, but you by no means have to believe me. What's so hard to believe anyway? I'm not saying, nor ever said it was evidence of GOD.
Sorry you have such a problem with what I know to be true through personal experience on numerous levels.
Considering that this is what you brought up when pressed for evidence, yes, I think it was meant to be that -- at the very least it isn't unreasonable of me to take it as being meant that way, under the terms of the discussion so far.
And really, the only objection I have to all this is the word 'know'. You don't 'know'. You believe very strongly, and I don't question that, but you
do not have actual knowledge. Knowledge is that which is demonstrable, and subject to further independent observation. Harking back to my earlier point, despite my near certainty that there is other intelligent life in this galaxy, and regardless of how certain I am of it, I would
never say I 'know' it's out there.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 10:34:01 AM
Considering that this is what you brought up when pressed for evidence, yes, I think it was meant to be that -- at the very least it isn't unreasonable of me to take it as being meant that way, under the terms of the discussion so far.
And really, the only objection I have to all this is the word 'know'. You don't 'know'. You believe very strongly, and I don't question that, but you do not have actual knowledge. Knowledge is that which is demonstrable, and subject to further independent observation. Harking back to my earlier point, despite my near certainty that there is other intelligent life in this galaxy, and regardless of how certain I am of it, I would never say I 'know' it's out there.
I don't know what to tell you. Again; if you limit knowledge to that which can be repeated by mere men then that is your own flaw in logic and vanity.
To be clear; if it was only that all sacred ancient and non ancient texts seemed to be of a single accord, and that certain ones actually outright speak to this and other obvious similarities, then I could justifiably state that I believe a thing. But the fact that it only verifies what I had already been shown from an outside source(experience we have been talking about)within a grand experience and revelation (for and to me personally) in itself, makes it undeniable to me, and as such, indeed known. I do not expect that you would consider my words knowledge. I would contend however, that if the same or similar had happened to you, then you would attest to such similarly as I have, except most assuredly more legibly and coherently.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:49:09 AM
I don't know what to tell you. Again; if you limit knowledge to that which can be repeated by mere men then that is your own flaw in logic and vanity.
This is the frustration in trying to communicate with you. "Mere" men are all there is--and 'knowledge' has to be repeatable for it to be knowledge; otherwise it is only belief. You have your BELIEF--and that is fine--for you better than fine. But do not expect me to share 'your' belief because you believe it. In order for me to accept your 'belief' as factual, I have to see some proof. Your 'logic' is not logic--it is a self accepted set of beliefs which you accept as personal proof. Fine. It works well for you. That's good. But your choice of those words simply blocks communication with you. Most on this forum accept the fact that your have your own belief system, and one that works wonders for you on a personal level. Great! But don't use words like 'knowledge', or 'logic' when describing it.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 08:21:09 AM
So you think that Flavius Josephus arranging the suicide lotteries at Mesada so that he would be the lone survivor makes sense?
Jotapata ... Modern Biblical Scholar (Gilbert and Sullivan)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:49:09 AM
I don't know what to tell you. Again; if you limit knowledge to that which can be repeated by mere men then that is your own flaw in logic and vanity.
To be clear; if it was only that all sacred ancient and non ancient texts seemed to be of a single accord, and that certain ones actually outright speak to this and other obvious similarities, then I could justifiably state that I believe a thing. But the fact that it only verifies what I had already been shown from an outside source(experience we have been talking about)within a grand experience and revelation (for and to me personally) in itself, makes it undeniable to me, and as such, indeed known. I do not expect that you would consider my words knowledge. I would contend however, that if the same or similar had happened to you, then you would attest to such similarly as I have, except most assuredly more legibly and coherently.
Needless to say, I do not regard holding to logic and observation to be a flaw, but a virtue. It requires me to constantly examine my own thinking and beliefs, rather than just settling on something and allowing it to rest inviolate.
You may or may not believe me, but even when I was myself religious I never claimed knowledge of the metaphysical, and recognized my own perceived experiences as being anecdotal at best.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 12:49:36 PM
Needless to say, I do not regard holding to logic and observation to be a flaw, but a virtue. It requires me to constantly examine my own thinking and beliefs, rather than just settling on something and allowing it to rest inviolate.
You may or may not believe me, but even when I was myself religious I never claimed knowledge of the metaphysical, and recognized my own perceived experiences as being anecdotal at best.
As I would too in any other case.
I looked into alternate explanations. Also, the revelation(about singular accord/harmony and profitable existence for all) or rather, checking how it matched with the written words of the faithful was too a way to check the validity of what I had come to believe. To be clear I do draw the line between belief and knowledge. But I do know that I experienced GOD on some level, be it a wholy internal event (which it was not given radio malfunction), or the Holy Spirit, or a lesser angel or spirit of GOD. Based solely on the nature and breadth of the experience I can only say it was GOD. When it happened( the lifting of all burden) it was simply known that it was GOD. It wasn't a conclusion of thought as bad as that sounds. But I have done quite a bit of inquiry into explanations. What some people don't get is that a "natural" explanation in no way negated GOD as the ultimate cause.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 01:43:41 PM
As I would too in any other case
faith in selfless unity for good
Observation and logic ...
All Greeks are human
Socrates is Greek
Therefore Socrates is human
But by what observation can I justify my first two premises?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 01:43:41 PM
As I would too in any other case.
And why is this a special case? This is carving out an exemption in reality in which to wedge your beliefs, not ensuring your beliefs accord with reality.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 02:41:02 PM
And why is this a special case? This is carving out an exemption in reality in which to wedge your beliefs, not ensuring your beliefs accord with reality.
And where have I exempted reality exactly?
faith in selfless unity for good
meh....born again drug addict...born again drunk....much the same...failures. Can't handle life on their own, or so they think, so they conjure up a different version of a dad and voila, all is good again.
Many of us have similar stories but we didn't get all pussified and beg for something else to give us balls. Meh....weak people, no spine. The truth is you did everything yourself that you give your imaginary wizard all the credit for. Too bad, you finally proved you could do it and you couldn't even thank yourself for the courage. Sad.
It is hard being an ape man ... go easy on us, and make some more paint for the cave, man!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 05:56:17 PM
And where have I exempted reality exactly?
As soon as you said you would "in any other case". You're making an exemption for your opinion rather than ensuring your opinion accords with reality.
Quote from: aitm on February 23, 2017, 08:57:16 PM
meh....born again drug addict...born again drunk....much the same...failures. Can't handle life on their own, or so they think, so they conjure up a different version of a dad and voila, all is good again.
Many of us have similar stories but we didn't get all pussified and beg for something else to give us balls. Meh....weak people, no spine. The truth is you did everything yourself that you give your imaginary wizard all the credit for. Too bad, you finally proved you could do it and you couldn't even thank yourself for the courage. Sad.
Are you an illiterate moron?
I hope you get better if so.
I gave credit to GOD and thanks for a literal feeling of removal of burden and revelations.
I was already well on the road to recovery.
Also; me not wholly snapping and offing someone was me too.
Did you even read it?
My faith had actually softened my resolve in most cases, not strengthened it.
My anger was my drive.
When it was removed I was indeed weakened in one way.
I take credit and responsibility for my own actions and the lack there of; always have; always will.
I may be a hypocrite, but I'm not a vain hypocrite; I don't think I am exempt from judgement as some niave hypocrites do.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 10:07:48 PM
As soon as you said you would "in any other case". You're making an exemption for your opinion rather than ensuring your opinion accords with reality.
As stated; I checked all readily available scenarios or explanations. If you have one I haven't checked into, then I will. I can only give my word though, and wouldn't be able to prove it exactly.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 10:17:22 PM
As stated; I checked all readily available scenarios or explanations. If you have one I haven't checked into, then I will. I can only give my word though, and wouldn't be able to prove it exactly.
I have the simplest one of all: you finally got around to taking responsibility for yourself and your behavior. Crediting your turnaround to a supernatural source is selling yourself short. As for what happened to the radio? I don't know. I can only assume that it happened to go out at that time -- radio stations (and I have done radio, so I know) experience 'dead air' all the time. The transmitter blows a fuse, the engineer throws the wrong switch, there are any number of reasons a radio station might fade out and none of them require supernatural interference.
And coincidence isn't as uncommon as people think. Weird things happen all the time, and that's only because you have billions of events happening to billions of people. With numbers like that, something weird
has to happen to someone somewhere.
Also, I have to say, disabling a radio seems a pretty picayune and mundane 'miracle' for an allegedly all-powerful entity to pull off. It's vastly more likely that you assigned meaning to it in retrospect, and that it faded out for perfectly physical reasons.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 21, 2017, 07:07:57 AM
I didn't realize I had skirted around anything. Let me clarify my position.
Though the will of GOD is absolute and unrestrained, it isn't random as far as I can tell. I must admit that your opinion on what the bible says matches that of the ignorant. This isn't an insult and really is better than actually dishonestly saying such.
1 Corinthians: 15. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians: 15. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Lamentations: 3. 31. For the Lord will not cast off for ever: 32. But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
1 Timothy: 4. 10. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Colossians: 1. 17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
C. Other Verses Show That, by Itself, Inward Faith Will Not Save.
John 12:42,43 - People "believed" in Jesus but would not confess Him, because they loved the praises of men more than the praises of God. Were they saved? (Cf. Rom. 10:9,10; Matt. 10:32,33.)
James 2:19,20 - Even devils believe. Are they saved?
James 2:14,24 - Can faith save withoutobedience? No, that is a dead faith (v17,20,26). Man is not justified by "faith only." This is the only passage that mentions "faith only," and it says we are not justified by it! Men say justification by faith only is a wholesome, comforting doctrine; but the Bible flatly says we are not justified by faith only!
Some say these people were unsaved because they have the wrong kind of faith: They have intellectual conviction, but they do not trust Jesus to save them. We are making progress! We now agree that faith is essential to salvation, but there are different kinds of faith! Faith is necessary, but there are kinds of faith that do not save, even when people believe in God and Jesus.
The issue then is: What kind of faith saves, and what does that saving faith include? Does it include repentance, confession, obedience to Divine commands, and even baptism? Before answering, let us add more information.
II. Many Things Are Essential to Salvation.
A. Some Things that are Essential to Salvation
God's grace (Ephesians 2:4-10; 1:7; Titus 2:11,12; Acts 15:11)
Jesus' death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:6-10; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Revelation 1:5; 1 Corinthians 15:17; 1 Peter 3:21)
The gospel (Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Acts 11:14; James 1:18,21; 1 Corinthians 15:1,2; John 8:31,32)
Learning God's will (Acts 11:14; John 6:44,45; Romans 10:17; 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21)
Faith (see the verses listed above)
Love (1 Corinthians 16:22; 13:1-3; Galatians 5:6; 1 John 4:7,8)
Hope (Romans 8:24)
Repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; Luke 13:3,5; 2 Peter 3:9)
Obedience (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 6:17,18; 1 Peter 1:22; Acts 10:34,35; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9; Galatians 5:6; James 2:14-26)
Confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matthew 10:32)
Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-7; Galatians 3:26,27; Colossians 2:12,13)
Faithfulness (Matthew 10:22; Revelation 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Matthew 28:20; Titus 2:11,12; 1 John 2:1-6)
The freedom to choose is synonymous with free will. Now go and look if we are told to make any choices in scripture, and get back with me. In fact, loose whatever preconceived notions of scripture Christ and GOD you have from whatever old religious experience lead you so far off. It is the will of God that man have freedom to choose.
Substantiate your false claims.
faith in selfless unity for good
I see your cherrypicked verses that vaguely seem sort of related to the subject and raise you a long list of verses that clearly show that god does not give a damn about free will, nor that he grants it to anyone:
Genesis 50:18-21 - His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
Proverbs 16:4 - The Lord works out everything to its proper end,
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
Proverbs 16:9 - In their hearts humans plan their course,
but the LORD establishes their steps.
Proverbs 16:33 - The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.
Proverbs 20:24 - A person's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand their own way?
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things."
Isaiah 45:8 - "You heavens above, rain down my righteousness;
let the clouds shower it down.
Let the earth open wide,
let salvation spring up,
let righteousness flourish with it;
I, the Lord, have created it."
Daniel 4:35 - All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: "What have you done?"
Luke 18:24-27 - Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
John 6:35-39 - Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."
John 6:44,63-65 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
..."The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
John 8:42-47 - Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
John 10:25-30 - Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 12:37-40 - Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
"Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn, and I would heal them."
John 13:18 - I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: "He who shared my bread has turned against me."
John 15:16 - You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit; fruit that will last, and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
John 17:1-2 - After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him."
John 17:6-9 - "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."
Acts 4:27-28 - Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
Acts 13:48 - When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
Romans 8:28-30 - And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 9:10-21 - Not only that, but Rebekah's children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls, she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Romans 11:7 - What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened,
1 Corinthians 1:26-31 - "Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God; that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord."
Ephesians 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will; to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Ephesians 1:11-12 - In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 2:1-5 - As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions; it is by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:8-10 - For it is by grace 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 handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Philippians 2:13 - for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 - For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 - But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 2:8-10 - Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.
James 1:18 - He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
James 2:5 - Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
1 Peter 1:1-5 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
1 Peter 2:7-8 - Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
and,
"A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."
They stumble because they disobey the message; which is also what they were destined for.
Revelation 17:8 - The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.
Revelation 17:17 - "For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God's words are fulfilled."
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 10:30:44 PM
I have the simplest one of all: you finally got around to taking responsibility for yourself and your behavior. Crediting your turnaround to a supernatural source is selling yourself short. As for what happened to the radio? I don't know. I can only assume that it happened to go out at that time -- radio stations (and I have done radio, so I know) experience 'dead air' all the time. The transmitter blows a fuse, the engineer throws the wrong switch, there are any number of reasons a radio station might fade out and none of them require supernatural interference.
And coincidence isn't as uncommon as people think. Weird things happen all the time, and that's only because you have billions of events happening to billions of people. With numbers like that, something weird has to happen to someone somewhere.
Also, I have to say, disabling a radio seems a pretty picayune and mundane 'miracle' for an allegedly all-powerful entity to pull off. It's vastly more likely that you assigned meaning to it in retrospect, and that it faded out for perfectly physical reasons.
No...I have always taken responsibility for my actions. It was indifference that plagued/ plagues me, and a very deep seeded hatred for self and low self esteem. A predisposition or inclination to self defeating behavior or tendencies.
The new knowledge of GOD did motivate me in a wholly new and previously unknown manner though, having completely replaced pain and anger with joy and hope and even knowledge. Even now, in my oft knowing misdirection and slow descent into old familiar territory, I do find hope and joy pretty much solely in the truth of GOD and the promises.
The radio didn't "go out" it rather slowly faded out. At which time I noticed and adjusted the knobs....auxiliary knobs. They would not have rebounded to the same spots at the end of the event even if the car battery had been disconnected and reconnected. If it was a malfunction or human error then the broadcaster might have at least apologized for the brief lapse in signal or what have you.
Show me evidence for coincidences, then for random chance....I'll wait...
Who said the radio was the miracle?
The miracle was taking a dead man and changing him into a new vessel for life with potential for benefit towards all, while technically changing nothing, but simply bringing unknown things to light for said individual. I do credit GOD for all things, but that isn't to say that I am not a willing participant, as all are free to choose there own actions and even thoughts to some extent.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 23, 2017, 11:04:09 PM
I see your cherrypicked verses that vaguely seem sort of related to the subject and raise you a long list of verses that clearly show that god does not give a damn about free will, nor that he grants it to anyone:
Genesis 50:18-21 - His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
Proverbs 16:4 - The Lord works out everything to its proper end,
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
Proverbs 16:9 - In their hearts humans plan their course,
but the LORD establishes their steps.
Proverbs 16:33 - The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.
Proverbs 20:24 - A person's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand their own way?
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things."
Isaiah 45:8 - "You heavens above, rain down my righteousness;
let the clouds shower it down.
Let the earth open wide,
let salvation spring up,
let righteousness flourish with it;
I, the Lord, have created it."
Daniel 4:35 - All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: "What have you done?"
Luke 18:24-27 - Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
John 6:35-39 - Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."
John 6:44,63-65 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
..."The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
John 8:42-47 - Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
John 10:25-30 - Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 12:37-40 - Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
"Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn, and I would heal them."
John 13:18 - I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: "He who shared my bread has turned against me."
John 15:16 - You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit; fruit that will last, and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
John 17:1-2 - After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him."
John 17:6-9 - "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."
Acts 4:27-28 - Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
Acts 13:48 - When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
Romans 8:28-30 - And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 9:10-21 - Not only that, but Rebekah's children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls, she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Romans 11:7 - What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened,
1 Corinthians 1:26-31 - "Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God; that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord."
Ephesians 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will; to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Ephesians 1:11-12 - In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 2:1-5 - As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions; it is by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:8-10 - For it is by grace 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 handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Philippians 2:13 - for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 - For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 - But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 2:8-10 - Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.
James 1:18 - He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
James 2:5 - Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
1 Peter 1:1-5 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
1 Peter 2:7-8 - Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
and,
"A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."
They stumble because they disobey the message; which is also what they were destined for.
Revelation 17:8 - The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.
Revelation 17:17 - "For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God's words are fulfilled."
What are you getting at exactly?
Are we talking about free will?
It is the will of God for man to have free will.
Conundrum solved
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
What are you getting at exactly?
Are we talking about free will?
It is the will of God for man to have free will.
Conundrum solved
faith in selfless unity for good
Your claim has no Biblical basis. In fact, as the verses in the post you replied to show, it states quite the opposite on a number of occasions. According to the Bible, you make plans for your life, but God is the one who decides your destiny. God decides if he wants you or not, and only lets you obtain faith if he chooses you as one of his elect. The Bible says, "Well, God made us, so who are we to complain?" What a weak excuse for a tyrant to predestine the majority of humanity to an eternity of torment in hell.
Science is against you on this one too. There's a reason it's called the "nature vs nurture debate." Our decisions are the result of a combination of biology and environmental factors, not a magical self-driving force that can be called "free will." It's even been demonstrated that choices could be predicted several seconds before a person even is consciously aware that they have made their decision.
So no. No conundrum solved. If you want to claim that God gave us free will, and that he respects our free will and never violates it, you're going to have to admit that you have no authority to make such claims. You believe it because you want to believe it. The Bible and science are against you on this one.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 23, 2017, 11:32:57 PM
Your claim has no Biblical basis. In fact, as the verses in the post you replied to show, it states quite the opposite on a number of occasions. According to the Bible, you make plans for your life, but God is the one who decides your destiny. God decides if he wants you or not, and only lets you obtain faith if he chooses you as one of his elect. The Bible says, "Well, God made us, so who are we to complain?" What a weak excuse for a tyrant to predestine the majority of humanity to an eternity of torment in hell.
Science is against you on this one too. There's a reason it's called the "nature vs nurture debate." Our decisions are the result of a combination of biology and environmental factors, not a magical self-driving force that can be called "free will." It's even been demonstrated that choices could be predicted several seconds before a person even is consciously aware that they have made their decision.
So no. No conundrum solved. If you want to claim that God gave us free will, and that he respects our free will and never violates it, you're going to have to admit that you have no authority to make such claims. You believe it because you want to believe it. The Bible and science are against you on this one.
Absolute bull shit.
Why don't you check and see if we are told to choose anything in the bible. Now use your brain. Freedom of choice is.....Freewill....Good job.
Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.[1][2]
In lawEdit
In the abortion debate, for example, the term "freedom of choice" may be used in defense of the position that a woman has a right to determine whether she will proceed with or terminate a pregnancy.[3][4][5] Similarly, other topics such as euthanasia,[6] contraception[7]and same-sex marriage[8] are sometimes discussed in terms of an individual right of "freedom of choice." Some social issues, for example the New York "Soda Ban" have been both defended[9] and opposed[10] with reference to "freedom of choice."
In economicsEdit
[https://upload]
The freedom to choose which brand and flavor of soda to buy is related to market competition.
In microeconomics, freedom of choice is the freedom of economic agents to allocate their resources as they see fit, among the options (such as goods, services, or assets) that are available to them.[11][12] It includes the freedom to engage in employment available to them.[13]
Ratner et al., in 2008, cited the literature on libertarian paternalism which states that consumers do not always act in their own best interests. They attribute this phenomenon to factors such as emotion, cognitive limitations and biases, and incomplete information which they state may be remedied by various proposed interventions. They discuss providing consumers with information and decision tools, organizing and restricting their market options, and tapping emotions and managing expectations. Each of these, they state, could improve consumers' ability to choose.[14]
However, economic freedom to choose ultimately depends upon market competition, since buyers' available options are usually the result of various factors controlled by sellers, such as overall quality of a product or a service and advertisement. In the event that a monopoly exists, the consumer no longer has the freedom to choose to buy from a different producer. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out:
Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy.
â€" Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom â€" "Can planning free us from care?"[15]
As shown in the above quote, libertarian thinkers are often strong advocates for increasing freedom of choice. One example of this is Milton Friedman's Free to Choose book and TV series.
There is no consensus as to whether an increase in economic freedom of choice leads to an increase in happiness. In one study, the Heritage Foundation's 2011 Index of Economic Freedom report showed a strong correlation between its Index of Economic Freedom and happiness in a country.[16]
Measuring freedom of choiceEdit
The axiomatic-deductive approach has been used to address the issue of measuring the amount of freedom of choice (FoC) an individual enjoys.[17] In a 1990 paper,[18][19]Prasanta K. Pattanaik and Yongsheng Xu presented three conditions that a measurement of FoC should satisfy:
Indifference between no-choice situations. Having only one option amounts to the same FoC, no matter what the option is.Strict monotonicity. Having two distinct options x and y amounts to more FoC than having only the option x.Independence. If a situation A has more FoC than B, by adding a new option x to both (not contained in A or B), A will still have more FoC than B.
They proved that the cardinality is the only measurement that satisfies these axioms, what they observed to be counter-intuitive and suggestive that one or more axioms should be reformulated. They illustrated this with the example of the option set "to travel by train" or "to travel by car", that should yield more FoC than the option set "to travel by red car" or "to travel by blue car". Some suggestions have been made to solve this problem, by reformulating the axioms, usually including concepts of preferences,[20][21][22] or rejecting the third axiom.[23]
From Wikipedia
So yeah, someone needed to admit something alright! I doubt they will though....What a joke. To think I came here for serious, I, honest conversation.
faith in selfless unity for good
Sorry, but I face plant when a theist or an atheist, uses scripture, ignorantly. Burlesque. Pops is thinking outside the box of scripture (and daring to interpret it without the Pope's permission) ... and an atheist calls him out as a heretic who denies "infallibility and inerrancy"? Does anyone here realize where "infallibility and inerrancy" comes from? Wanna know? It came into Christianity and Judaism thru the printing press ... prior to that, people were illiterate, and had to have the church/synagogue interpret for them. Now we have religious people who are no longer illiterate, but who are still ignoramuses. Literalism is their only choice.
Sorry, just taking a Bible and beating a theist with it, is a fail. Thuggish. Even if Pops can't clearly explain himself. However I know what he is saying, largely because we have shared experiences and insights. Communication is impossible without that, in any language, with any rhetoric. The Pope can never understand, or communicate much, about marriage, without having been a husband first. Second hand observation of his father or other husbands ... won't cut it. This is why in Zen, it is admitted that real enlightenment is ineffable, it can't be communicated at all ... and that all scripture is ultimately futile.
I'm not going to pretend to know your mind; I don't question that you believe this is the sequence of events. I just question the interpretation of them.
Just a couple small points:
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:08:44 PM
The radio didn't "go out" it rather slowly faded out. At which time I noticed and adjusted the knobs....auxiliary knobs. They would not have rebounded to the same spots at the end of the event even if the car battery had been disconnected and reconnected. If it was a malfunction or human error then the broadcaster might have at least apologized for the brief lapse in signal or what have you.
Having worked in radio myself -- no, not necessarily. There were a couple times we had a loss of signal that I didn't know about until well after the event. The signal fading out is a simple matter of a loss or drift of signal -- if it's a loss of signal, the fadeout would be a matter of capacitance and/or inductance in the broadcast circuit. If it's a signal drift, the slow fadeout is because the broadcast signal wandered away from where it should be.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:08:44 PM
Show me evidence for coincidences, then for random chance.... I'll wait...
Surely you're not suggesting that there's no such thing as coincidence, or random events? I mean, that's patently ludicrous on the face of it.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:08:44 PM
Who said the radio was the miracle?
You're the one imputing importance to it. If it wasn't connected, why did you bring it up?
Quote from: trdsf on February 24, 2017, 11:04:11 AM
I'm not going to pretend to know your mind; I don't question that you believe this is the sequence of events. I just question the interpretation of them.
Just a couple small points:
Having worked in radio myself -- no, not necessarily. There were a couple times we had a loss of signal that I didn't know about until well after the event. The signal fading out is a simple matter of a loss or drift of signal -- if it's a loss of signal, the fadeout would be a matter of capacitance and/or inductance in the broadcast circuit. If it's a signal drift, the slow fadeout is because the broadcast signal wandered away from where it should be.
Surely you're not suggesting that there's no such thing as coincidence, or random events? I mean, that's patently ludicrous on the face of it.
You're the one imputing importance to it. If it wasn't connected, why did you bring it up?
About the radio; you miss my main and most solid point. I physically adjusted both the auxiliary tuner knob, and the volume knob. Being an auxiliary radio, the fading back in would have been to a different frequency and volume, but wasn't.
I donot ascribe importance to it. Just recalling what actually took place.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 24, 2017, 11:55:46 AM
About the radio; you miss my main and most solid point. I physically adjusted both the auxiliary tuner knob, and the volume knob. Being an auxiliary radio, the fading back in would have been to a different frequency and volume, but wasn't.
I donot ascribe importance to it. Just recalling what actually took place.
But by bringing it up, you imply that it was relevant to the situation. Certainly it read that way to me.
Anyway, not having been there, I can only offer possible alternative explanations, not definite technical diagnoses. Certainly it's been my experience that strange events have rational and natural explanations when examined.
Quote from: trdsf on February 24, 2017, 12:21:45 PM
But by bringing it up, you imply that it was relevant to the situation. Certainly it read that way to me.
Anyway, not having been there, I can only offer possible alternative explanations, not definite technical diagnoses. Certainly it's been my experience that strange events have rational and natural explanations when examined.
I would agree.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
What are you getting at exactly?
Are we talking about free will?
It is the will of God for man to have free will.
Conundrum solved
faith in selfless unity for good
You just contradicted what you quoted and you didn't even give an explanation as to why you believe that way. If you are basing anything on the bible than you can't make that claim was the point that was trying to be made.
Since I see in another post you try to present evidence of free will. On a scientific level it has been noted. Humans have freedom of choice not free will. And what a human chooses largely depends on a combination of inherited personality traits and environmental factors. So there are constraints not exactly free will.
In other words it may not be your fault you believe in god as it is not our fault that we don't. Environmental factors as you show in your own story of how you came to the conclusion god exists definitely played a huge part in how you decided to interpret them. So knowing that
I will have to ask. How did you conclude that god gave us free will? Did you just make that assumption based on personal biases because that isn't stated in the bible. On the next level science does not agree with either.
Sure you can choose what cereal to buy but with out even knowing it your choice in cereal was formed by genetic traits (aka taste buds you may have inherited.) and environmental factors, such as what was available and how much money you had and other factors as well. That is not free will that is programing. We are like computers basically programed to have certain responses to certain situations. It can be proven that large numbers of people respond in a similar way to similar or the same situations. That is a person acting on psychological instincts, not free will.
Quote from: doorknob on February 24, 2017, 04:43:51 PM
You just contradicted what you quoted and you didn't even give an explanation as to why you believe that way. If you are basing anything on the bible than you can't make that claim was the point that was trying to be made.
Since I see in another post you try to present evidence of free will. On a scientific level it has been noted. Humans have freedom of choice not free will. And what a human chooses largely depends on a combination of inherited personality traits and environmental factors. So there are constraints not exactly free will.
In other words it may not be your fault you believe in god as it is not our fault that we don't. Environmental factors as you show in your own story of how you came to the conclusion god exists definitely played a huge part in how you decided to interpret them. So knowing that
I will have to ask. How did you conclude that god gave us free will? Did you just make that assumption based on personal biases because that isn't stated in the bible. On the next level science does not agree with either.
Sure you can choose what cereal to buy but with out even knowing it your choice in cereal was formed by genetic traits (aka taste buds you may have inherited.) and environmental factors, such as what was available and how much money you had and other factors as well. That is not free will that is programing. We are like computers basically programed to have certain responses to certain situations. It can be proven that large numbers of people respond in a similar way to similar or the same situations. That is a person acting on psychological instincts, not free will.
Preferences in no way negate free will. Though I would not want to readily kill myself, I am still free to do so. We are limited to some extent or rather our options are, but that isn't saying there isn't a free will. No freedom would be no choice whatsoever.
Though the words free will aren't in the bible it is obvious throughout that we have freedom to choose and that is synonymous with free will. Do I mean we are free to fly around like birds with wings and natural feathers? No, obviously we are limited to the constraints of percievable reality in some form. But you and I both know that free will isn't the freedom do outside of options, but within. Science says the same thing. Scripture says that GOD's will be done, and shows that we are to choose GOD and what is good and right at all intervals. How does one choose without the ability to do so? That ability is freewill.
I can use some other word or phrase if you like, but it is obvious observable truth that is verified with scripture.
You sure take a strong Calvinists stance for an atheist, for your own motives surely.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 24, 2017, 04:54:18 PM
Preferences in no way negate free will. Though I would not want to readily kill myself, I am still free to do so. We are limited to some extent or rather our options are, but that isn't saying there isn't a free will. No freedom would be no choice whatsoever.
Though the words free will aren't in the bible it is obvious throughout that we have freedom to choose and that is synonymous with free will. Do I mean we are free to fly around like birds with wings and natural feathers? No, obviously we are limited to the constraints of percievable reality in some form. But you and I both know that free will isn't the freedom do do outside of options, but within. Science says the same thing.
Glad you cleared up what your definition of free will your going with, as that greatly helps.
Even though I just stated that science does not say the same thing you are saying I will just go with the idea that you are mostly correct. So we do have constraints you just admitted it whether you think you did or not. So we have the freedom to choose, I'll agree that we do, however most people are not really making choices, they are just living off instincts and nee jerk reactions. I can prove it. Go up to any black person and call them a nigger. 9 times out of ten they will get offended. That is their own programing. For a person to have free will they have to have constant awareness and also be open to the idea that things may not have been as they perceived. You constantly have to be searching for other choices that are not the perceived choices. AKA thinking out side of the box.
But that isn't how humans behave on a regular basis. Science has demonstrated this over the years through psychological testing. A person can receive cognitive therapy which helps with awareness and challenging oneself to keep searching for the truth beyond what instinct would have us believe. Aka the thinking patterns we were programed with. Having so called free will is hard work, and takes a constant level of effort. Even I can not make every decision this way. Our instincts often guide is in a response that is safe or healthy, unless like I said our patterns and programming were healthy from the start. If you weren't lucky enough to be born with healthy responses for what ever reason then it takes hard work to reprogram your self. But call a spade a spade, Either way we are responding using some kind of programming. Not free will.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 24, 2017, 04:54:18 PM
Scripture says that GOD's will be done, and shows that we are to choose GOD and what is good and right at all intervals. How does one choose without the ability to do so? That ability is freewill.
I can use some other word or phrase if you like, but it is obvious observable truth that is verified with scripture.
You sure take a strong Calvinists stance for an atheist, for your own motives surely.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
And we keep explaining to you that belief in god is not exactly a choice. I can't force my self to believe in something when I simply don't. Just as you can't force yourself into not believing. Therefor no matter how much you want it to be, belief in god is not a choice. You may have reasons why you do or don't believe but the belief it's self is not a conscious effort. You just do it as part of your psychological instincts.
If you still don't believe me try to stop believing in god for 10 minutes. Honestly not believing. You can't because to honestly not believe you likely wouldn't just jump straight back into believing so easily. You still believe that whole time even if you convince your self you don't.
It's the same with homosexuality. Some people seem to think it's a choice. Well then if it is a choice choose to be homosexual for a day or any amount of time. You can't. Because it's not a choice.
I'm probably wasting my time as you are determined to believe your view point and haven't even considered that anything I said in the previous post had any truth to it. You rejected it right away. How much thought did you put into that rejection? Was it you rejecting it? Or was it your psychology programing you into rejecting?
food for thought.
Quote from: trdsf on February 24, 2017, 12:21:45 PM
But by bringing it up, you imply that it was relevant to the situation. Certainly it read that way to me.
Anyway, not having been there, I can only offer possible alternative explanations, not definite technical diagnoses. Certainly it's been my experience that strange events have rational and natural explanations when examined.
There is evidence that Emilia Earhart's Mayday signal skipped all the way from the S Pacific to Florida ... radio transmission isn't a controlled experiment.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 23, 2017, 10:13:00 PM
I gave credit to GOD
Too bad. You did it all yourself. But hey, why not credit an imaginary fairy? You go...boy.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 24, 2017, 06:32:26 AM
Absolute bull shit.
Why don't you check and see if we are told to choose anything in the bible. Now use your brain. Freedom of choice is.....Freewill....Good job.
Deflection. You can't dispute the verses which clearly say that god ordains our every move, so that's all you can do. Neither can you dispute scientific evidence that shows that our decisions are determined by biological and environmental factors, and not an self-driven invisible soul.
Allowing us options is rather a pointless gesture if our decisions were made for us before we were even born. If he tells us to choose to believe in him, but then hardens the hearts of those he doesn't want to believe, then that choice was not really a choice. Think about it. God's attributes are incompatible with free will. Knowledge of our every decision means our choices are set in stone. Combined with complete power, that means that god not only knew our decisions ahead of time, but had the power to create the situations in which we would make those decisions. He could have created a universe where humans chose never to do evil. Our choices are part of his design.
God's plan and his providence are both concepts dependent on god controlling us like puppets as well. What's the point of having a "plan" for our lives if he plays no role in determining our decisions? "Oops! I planned for Jimmy to be a doctor, but he chose instead to be an artist. Time to go back to the drawing board!" And how could God be credited for providing for us, or "using" people for his will for the benefit of his people, if he does not have control over us? If we have free will, then God is taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. With free will, both of these concepts are completely pointless.
And God's behavior in the Bible shows no signs of interest in free will either. He frequently puts words in people's mouths, hardens hearts to make them unable to accept his messages so that he can punish them later, causes people to succeed, causes people to fail, and even chooses people before birth for heaven or hell by no criteria other than his own arbitrary will to do as he pleases. Read Romans 9, where Paul describes how God regards us as pots, and himself the potter. He designs some to be destroyed and others to be saved. We are his playthings, and we have no right to argue because...well, he made us!
Quote from: doorknob on February 24, 2017, 05:20:32 PM
Glad you cleared up what your definition of free will your going with, as that greatly helps.
Even though I just stated that science does not say the same thing you are saying I will just go with the idea that you are mostly correct. So we do have constraints you just admitted it whether you think you did or not. So we have the freedom to choose, I'll agree that we do, however most people are not really making choices, they are just living off instincts and nee jerk reactions. I can prove it. Go up to any black person and call them a nigger. 9 times out of ten they will get offended. That is their own programing. For a person to have free will they have to have constant awareness and also be open to the idea that things may not have been as they perceived. You constantly have to be searching for other choices that are not the perceived choices. AKA thinking out side of the box.
But that isn't how humans behave on a regular basis. Science has demonstrated this over the years through psychological testing. A person can receive cognitive therapy which helps with awareness and challenging oneself to keep searching for the truth beyond what instinct would have us believe. Aka the thinking patterns we were programed with. Having so called free will is hard work, and takes a constant level of effort. Even I can not make every decision this way. Our instincts often guide is in a response that is safe or healthy, unless like I said our patterns and programming were healthy from the start. If you weren't lucky enough to be born with healthy responses for what ever reason then it takes hard work to reprogram your self. But call a spade a spade, Either way we are responding using some kind of programming. Not free will.
And we keep explaining to you that belief in god is not exactly a choice. I can't force my self to believe in something when I simply don't. Just as you can't force yourself into not believing. Therefor no matter how much you want it to be, belief in god is not a choice. You may have reasons why you do or don't believe but the belief it's self is not a conscious effort. You just do it as part of your psychological instincts.
If you still don't believe me try to stop believing in god for 10 minutes. Honestly not believing. You can't because to honestly not believe you likely wouldn't just jump straight back into believing so easily. You still believe that whole time even if you convince your self you don't.
It's the same with homosexuality. Some people seem to think it's a choice. Well then if it is a choice choose to be homosexual for a day or any amount of time. You can't. Because it's not a choice.
I'm probably wasting my time as you are determined to believe your view point and haven't even considered that anything I said in the previous post had any truth to it. You rejected it right away. How much thought did you put into that rejection? Was it you rejecting it? Or was it your psychology programing you into rejecting?
food for thought.
Regardless of if people in general actually use freedom of choice or free will to their fullest extent, it is still true that we all have e that potential if we have normally functioning minds. Even if enslaved and forced to do things you found terrible, doing them is still a choice. I don't deny that sheeple in general do exactly what they are preprogrammed by societal norms to do, though I'm not sure that is exactly what you were saying, it is close. People in general do not act according to the selfless conscience or Holy (different) Spirit. They according to their own greedy inclinations. To not do such takes not only great levels of retrospect and introspection, but too a generally selfless Spirit. Attaining to all these simultaneously at all times in order to actually act according to them only is indeed seemingly exceedingly difficult task.
As far as someone's natural preprogramming being flawed; that would either be a case of those lacking full capacities on some level, or just not ever being honest with themselves. I believe the conscience to be in all of us, and too the potential to actively remove self from equations allowing for some form of objective morality. Who else does this? Freakin few I'm sure. How many have the potential to ne capable? Pretty much all of them I am nearly sure as well.
Why do you say you attempt to tell me belief isn't a choice? I never said it was. Being faithful is a choice....Belief in a thing really isn't.
Contrary to your own opinion; it isn't that I do not listen to your words, it's more that these things have all been gone over quite often before. What point is it that you are trying to change me on? Free will? It is a funny thing and perhaps the word free isn't wholly accurate, but we have the potential to choice....always.
If I have quick short responses then that's all I needed to accurately convey my message. If long and wordy, my attempts are most likely not exactly successes. I do find is agreeing on multiple points though. That is a good thing.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 24, 2017, 10:46:56 PM
Deflection. You can't dispute the verses which clearly say that god ordains our every move, so that's all you can do. Neither can you dispute scientific evidence that shows that our decisions are determined by biological and environmental factors, and not an self-driven invisible soul.
Allowing us options is rather a pointless gesture if our decisions were made for us before we were even born. If he tells us to choose to believe in him, but then hardens the hearts of those he doesn't want to believe, then that choice was not really a choice. Think about it. God's attributes are incompatible with free will. Knowledge of our every decision means our choices are set in stone. Combined with complete power, that means that god not only knew our decisions ahead of time, but had the power to create the situations in which we would make those decisions. He could have created a universe where humans chose never to do evil. Our choices are part of his design.
God's plan and his providence are both concepts dependent on god controlling us like puppets as well. What's the point of having a "plan" for our lives if he plays no role in determining our decisions? "Oops! I planned for Jimmy to be a doctor, but he chose instead to be an artist. Time to go back to the drawing board!" And how could God be credited for providing for us, or "using" people for his will for the benefit of his people, if he does not have control over us? If we have free will, then God is taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. With free will, both of these concepts are completely pointless.
And God's behavior in the Bible shows no signs of interest in free will either. He frequently puts words in people's mouths, hardens hearts to make them unable to accept his messages so that he can punish them later, causes people to succeed, causes people to fail, and even chooses people before birth for heaven or hell by no criteria other than his own arbitrary will to do as he pleases. Read Romans 9, where Paul describes how God regards us as pots, and himself the potter. He designs some to be destroyed and others to be saved. We are his playthings, and we have no right to argue because...well, he made us!
Actually I have a quite Calvinistic view myself. I openly admit that I cannot explain in logical terms what I believe when it comes to all things being ordained and free will. I believe both in short. I believe the intellect and power of GOD to be that which enables our somewhat percievable freedom of choice, and still ultimately whose will is done too. It is as if with every choice or action a new set of variables is opened, including the opportunity to do good or right, but each still ultimately leading one towards the will of GOD for that individual. I also believe that he'll is not eternal torment but eternal death.
Can you not grasp what a decision is? Again; we should all, as adults, easily grasp that we cannot freely do things that we are otherwise limited from doing. We can freely think things that are less limited, but still, even thoughts are limited to the capacities of ones mind. So please; stop attempting to argue with an adult at the level of the adolescent. Or continue I suppose, maybe it will help you or another in some fashion at some time....Who knows....
You mention hearts being hardened unto death by the will of GOD. And to this I reply that all things happen for a reason, and we know not who is to be destroyed or return to that good source. But if GOD's will is done through those whom we think had or have a hardened heart then their destination will be judged by GOD and GOD, being just and merciful, will surely not destroy that thing that did carry out IT's will.
Perhaps you've never read the part about all sins being forgiven men, or the part about it being GOD's will for all to come to salvation.
Knowledge of every choice beforehand is not synonymous with us not having a choice. Just because GOD knows what will happen doesn't mean it can't happen another way too. If there are options would an all knowing thing be aware of them all? And does that knowledge mean there aren't choices? Not from the limited perspective of the one making the choice; regardless of GOD knowing of your options and which you will choose and the outcome of such and so forth and so on, that doesn't take away the choice from the individuals perspective. I'm sorry if it doesn't make sense. Basically I know I have choices because I have made and do make them. But I know all to be ordained due to my experience.
Again I admit two things; that I cannot logically explain my stance in regards to freedom of choice and destiny, and that I do not completely understand it myself at this time.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AM
Just because GOD knows what will happen doesn't mean it can't happen another way too.
Again I admit two things; .... that I do not completely understand it myself at this time.
In a nut shell, the complete idiocy of xian thought. God is omniscient...and then again......maybe not...how the fuck would I know?
And they wonder why we consider them stupid.
Quote from: aitm on February 25, 2017, 12:20:34 PM
In a nut shell, the complete idiocy of xian thought. God is omniscient...and then again......maybe not...how the fuck would I know?
And they wonder why we consider them stupid.
Wow. You can't grasp the fact that finite intellectual capacities cannot fully understand or description infinite capacities accurately.
You really have little business debating anyone. You only attempt to belittle and offend for you whole strategy. How very boring and disingenuous.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Wow. You can't grasp the fact that finite intellectual capacities cannot fully understand or description infinite capacities accurately.
You are free to feel anyway you want. What is frustrating is that, from our perspective, you are trying to 'fully understand' a fiction. There is no one or nothing that has infinite capabilities. You are asking us to accept that trying to figure out what Santa's full capacities really are. It's a fiction, both god and Santa. You are on a site that does not see what you do--so, what you are suggesting as truth and sanity and goodness, we see as simply 'bullshit' that has been spread from forever and is simply a fiction used to control people.
Pops - You may be Calvinist, but I am Hobbesian ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2017, 01:14:28 PM
Pops - You may be Calvinist, but I am Hobbesian ;-)
Not that I'm exactly Calvinist. Is that what you where getting at? Surely you aren't exactly Hobbesian. That just doesn't sound accurate at all.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 01:37:47 PM
Not that I'm exactly Calvinist. Is that what you where getting at? Surely you aren't exactly Hobbesian. That just doesn't sound accurate at all.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Calvin & Hobbs ... got you!
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2017, 12:33:27 PM
You are free to feel anyway you want. What is frustrating is that, from our perspective, you are trying to 'fully understand' a fiction. There is no one or nothing that has infinite capabilities. You are asking us to accept that trying to figure out what Santa's full capacities really are. It's a fiction, both god and Santa. You are on a site that does not see what you do--so, what you are suggesting as truth and sanity and goodness, we see as simply 'bullshit' that has been spread from forever and is simply a fiction used to control people.
Yes yes I've heard; wrong crowd...I'll choose to believe it is the right one along with other ones. Surely the most challenging.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2017, 01:39:51 PM
Calvin & Hobbs ... got you!
Damn....tricked again!
My father actually enjoyed that comic if I remember correctly.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Wow. You can't grasp the fact that finite intellectual ...........blah blah
QuoteJust because GOD knows what will happen doesn't mean it can't happen another way too.
QuoteJust because GOD knows what will happen..
QuoteJust because GOD knows
yeah...I am the one who should avoid debating....LOLOL...your god is apparently, a fucking idiot as a god.
Oooohh, my god knows all and everything that happens is because of gawd.....unless something else happens,,then that is gawd also....unless what god knew would happen doesn't happen that way..then he did it that way so he wouldn't know it was going to happen that way so he planned it to happen so he wouldn't know it......
yeah...right...LOLOL
yer an idiot.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AM
Actually I have a quite Calvinistic view myself. I openly admit that I cannot explain in logical terms what I believe when it comes to all things being ordained and free will. I believe both in short. I believe the intellect and power of GOD to be that which enables our somewhat percievable freedom of choice, and still ultimately whose will is done too. It is as if with every choice or action a new set of variables is opened, including the opportunity to do good or right, but each still ultimately leading one towards the will of GOD for that individual. I also believe that he'll is not eternal torment but eternal death.
I was a Calvinist when I was a Christian. I'm pretty sure free will is incompatible with predetermination, unless you conveniently define free will to mean something completely different to what most people mean by it. My pastor at the Baptist church I attended said that free will meant that God did not physically force us into making decisions, even if he did predetermine our choices through other means. Problem with that is that free will is made into a meaningless term. Do we say that characters in a novel have free will? No. A good writer will keep a character consistent to make them seem realistic, but the characters' lives are all in the hands of the writer.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AMCan you not grasp what a decision is? Again; we should all, as adults, easily grasp that we cannot freely do things that we are otherwise limited from doing. We can freely think things that are less limited, but still, even thoughts are limited to the capacities of ones mind. So please; stop attempting to argue with an adult at the level of the adolescent. Or continue I suppose, maybe it will help you or another in some fashion at some time....Who knows....
Stop trying to talk down to me. It's pathetic. You and I both know that my contributions are intelligent. Which is more than can be said for yours sometimes.
You're deflecting. I never said that we required the power to flap our arms and fly in order to have free will. I said that if God preordains our every move, then our choices are not really ours to make. Either our lives are ordained by God or they are determined by a combination of biological and environmental factors. All of these things are forces outside of our control. Free will is meaningless in religion and it is meaningless in the real world. It is a myth; a concept invented by the church well after the conception of the Bible in order to excuse God for all of the evil in the world. And it can easily be torn apart under scrutiny, yet continues to be believed by many of the unthinking masses.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AMYou mention hearts being hardened unto death by the will of GOD. And to this I reply that all things happen for a reason, and we know not who is to be destroyed or return to that good source. But if GOD's will is done through those whom we think had or have a hardened heart then their destination will be judged by GOD and GOD, being just and merciful, will surely not destroy that thing that did carry out IT's will.
Again, read Romans 9. It contradicts everything you just said. God created the pharaoh to be destroyed so that he could show off his power. He has no qualms over punishing people for disobeying them, even when he hardens their hearts to ensure that they could do nothing else but disobey him.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AMPerhaps you've never read the part about all sins being forgiven men, or the part about it being GOD's will for all to come to salvation.
The Bible contradicts itself in many areas, including the few places where God is painted as a benevolent being who just wants everyone to be at peace and be happy. He is said in many places to be unchanging, but he changes his mind after Moses speaks some sense into him. He's said to have all power in many places in the Bible, yet he's powerless against armies with iron chariots. He both punishes the son for the sins of the father and does not do that, depending on where you read the Bible. However, when it comes to free will, there are many verses which directly say that God ordains our every move, or say that he predestines us for Heaven or Hell. There are zero verses which directly say that we have free will. That concept, at best, can only be claimed to be implied.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AMKnowledge of every choice beforehand is not synonymous with us not having a choice. Just because GOD knows what will happen doesn't mean it can't happen another way too.
I've already addressed this... Before creating the world, if God knew every possible universe that he could create, and if he had power to make any universe he wanted, he could have easily created a universe in which everyone never chose to do evil. He didn't have to make us robots in order to keep us from doing evil. He just needed to get the ball rolling in just the right way. And yet, with his infinite power and knowledge, he chose to create a universe full of evil, in which the vast majority of humans and 1/3 of all angels would go to Hell.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 02:00:02 AMAgain I admit two things; that I cannot logically explain my stance in regards to freedom of choice and destiny, and that I do not completely understand it myself at this time.
faith in selfless unity for good
That's fine. Believe what you want, but don't pretend that you can defend your beliefs when you can't.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 25, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Wow. You can't grasp the fact that finite intellectual capacities cannot fully understand or description infinite capacities accurately.
You really have little business debating anyone. You only attempt to belittle and offend for you whole strategy. How very boring and disingenuous.
faith in selfless unity for good
He just pointed out a glaring inconsistency in your claims, and all you can do is claim that HE is the one intellectually lacking? Seriously, Pops. You're like a child arguing trying to tell an astronaut that the moon is made of cheese.
Predetermination vs predestination. With predetermination, nobody has free will, G-d micromanages everything. With predestination ... G-d knows the future, even if you don't, G-d gives you free choice, but knows in advance how you will choose. Predestination hinges on the concept of eternity. Predetermination hinges on the concept of providence. Predetermination to me, is an obscenity. Predestination is OK, but doesn't make any difference to me, since I don't know the future, and don't want to know. Calvinism is predetermination. Calvinism is an obscenity to me. Predetermination is Catholic ... so I can criticize them on other things, but not that.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2017, 05:30:48 PM
Predetermination vs predestination. With predetermination, nobody has free will, G-d micromanages everything. With predestination ... G-d knows the future, even if you don't, G-d gives you free choice, but knows in advance how you will choose. Predestination hinges on the concept of eternity. Predetermination hinges on the concept of providence. Predetermination to me, is an obscenity. Predestination is OK, but doesn't make any difference to me, since I don't know the future, and don't want to know.
I don't agree with that definition of predestination. Pre = before. Destination = the end of the road. Predestination means that God chooses your ending--which eternal existence you will have--ahead of time. Some claim that God chooses the destination, but not the road. That makes God's plans sound like a Telltale game, where your choices don't matter.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 25, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
I don't agree with that definition of predestination. Pre = before. Destination = the end of the road. Predestination means that God chooses your ending--which eternal existence you will have--ahead of time. Some claim that God chooses the destination, but not the road. That makes God's plans sound like a Telltale game, where your choices don't matter.
That would make a third category ... again depending on the definition of eternity. I don't believe that G-d even determines the ending, let alone the path. Let Freedom Ring!
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2017, 05:38:44 PM
That would make a third category ... again depending on the definition of eternity. I don't believe that G-d even determines the ending, let alone the path. Let Freedom Ring!
Interestingly enough, the average theist believes that god is omniscient enough to the point that no one can truly choose his own path.
By itself, the very idea is illogical.
To believe in it, the god would have to be proven to be real.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 25, 2017, 06:54:50 PM
Interestingly enough, the average theist believes that god is omniscient enough to the point that no one can truly choose his own path.
By itself, the very idea is illogical.
To believe in it, the god would have to be proven to be real.
Not really, the believer in fatalism, pagan or Christian, will simply say it is the god's will. For ancient people, the irretrievable past, is the god's judgement. Last Judgement is simply when you have transitioned as an individual into the irretrievable past. As long as we live in this life, the past is partly retrievable.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 10:34:01 AM
Considering that this is what you brought up when pressed for evidence, yes, I think it was meant to be that -- at the very least it isn't unreasonable of me to take it as being meant that way, under the terms of the discussion so far.
And really, the only objection I have to all this is the word 'know'. You don't 'know'. You believe very strongly, and I don't question that, but you do not have actual knowledge. Knowledge is that which is demonstrable, and subject to further independent observation. Harking back to my earlier point, despite my near certainty that there is other intelligent life in this galaxy, and regardless of how certain I am of it, I would never say I 'know' it's out there.
Well put. The claim of certainity does not match any actual evidence of the existence of a deity.
The Buddha says, your claim of certainty ... that you exist ... isn't sufficient.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:10:23 AM
The Buddha says, your claim of certainty ... that you exist ... isn't sufficient.
And that's why I am not a buddhist...
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:10:23 AM
The Buddha says, your claim of certainty ... that you exist ... isn't sufficient.
Descartes said, "I think, therefor I am." The ability to question one's existence alone is evidence that one exists. It's everyone else who's existence I cannot really prove. This is why I've been considering solipsism for years now.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2017, 01:27:20 PM
Descartes said, "I think, therefor I am." The ability to question one's existence alone is evidence that one exists. It's everyone else who's existence I cannot really prove. This is why I've been considering solipsism for years now.
Well maybe I can save you some slight effort. I'm pretty sure that *I* exist. And I'm willing to grant (provisionally of course) that you exist. So let's consider that all here but Baruch exist. Would that work? Would that work for YOU. Assuming *I* exist?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2017, 01:27:20 PM
t's everyone else who's existence I cannot really prove.
I have always tended to the Occam's razor strategy with this. If I am in a matrix style existence and some nefarious entity is using me for its means, why all the grand detail? Everything would take at least "some" amount of energy to create. All the minutiue involved, when the same result could be had if my "life" was that of a mole, or a worm. Think of the cost saved if the president of the "company" was told...Gerald's new program eliminates 20 billion in new design up grades by simply making the existence of the next generation asexual worms.....
KA-CHING!!!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 02:03:30 PM
Well maybe I can save you some slight effort. I'm pretty sure that *I* exist. And I'm willing to grant (provisionally of course) that you exist. So let's consider that all here but Baruch exist. Would that work? Would that work for YOU. Assuming *I* exist?
A person can tell that they are themselves a thinking being. However, a person cannot tell that another has thought independent of their own. Even if I could somehow connect my brain to yours and see your thoughts, how would I know that your thoughts were not just extensions of my own, an illusion to make the world around me seem real?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2017, 01:27:20 PM
Descartes said, "I think, therefor I am." The ability to question one's existence alone is evidence that one exists. It's everyone else who's existence I cannot really prove. This is why I've been considering solipsism for years now.
If you are a solipsist, you can stop posting to yourself on the Internet now ;-)
Quote from: aitm on February 26, 2017, 04:56:30 PM
I have always tended to the Occam's razor strategy with this. If I am in a matrix style existence and some nefarious entity is using me for its means, why all the grand detail? Everything would take at least "some" amount of energy to create. All the minutiue involved, when the same result could be had if my "life" was that of a mole, or a worm. Think of the cost saved if the president of the "company" was told...Gerald's new program eliminates 20 billion in new design up grades by simply making the existence of the next generation asexual worms.....
KA-CHING!!!
You are a dog, with delusions of being human ;-)
Quote from: aitm on February 26, 2017, 04:56:30 PM
I have always tended to the Occam's razor strategy with this. If I am in a matrix style existence and some nefarious entity is using me for its means, why all the grand detail? Everything would take at least "some" amount of energy to create. All the minutiue involved, when the same result could be had if my "life" was that of a mole, or a worm. Think of the cost saved if the president of the "company" was told...Gerald's new program eliminates 20 billion in new design up grades by simply making the existence of the next generation asexual worms.....
KA-CHING!!!
I don't know if it's still solipsism if there is another being creating the illusion of the world. It's also possible that the person experiencing the world also created it. If I could manipulate the world somehow, like I can in my dreams, it would confirm it. But I haven't been able to do that yet. On the other hand, I have experienced some strange coincidences before, similar to what one might expect from a "glitch in the Matrix." For example, one time I had a song suddenly pop into my head, just before I scrolled down a page and saw the song's name in a forum's title. Another time, I was waiting for the end of my shift, and the clock on the computer seemed to be stuck for a while before suddenly jumping ahead ten minutes.
The one thing that keeps me from embracing solipsism is that I realize that whether or not it is true, it makes no difference. If I don't eat, I'll feel hungry. If I don't sleep, I'll get tired. If I don't live by the rules of this world, I will suffer for it, so I might as well play along.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:04:33 PM
If you are a solipsist, you can stop posting to yourself on the Internet now ;-)
Do you not often find the answer you're looking for as soon as you speak it out loud?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2017, 08:19:21 PM
Do you not often find the answer you're looking for as soon as you speak it out loud?
Yes, I am my own Oracle, but I am not the CEO of Oracle. Too bad ;-(
I've always wanted to upload my brain to a computer so I could have unlimited knowledge or rather that limited only by the internet.
Just think if we all did that we would become the borg! Borg or matrix very little difference.
Quote from: doorknob on February 28, 2017, 09:06:08 AM
I've always wanted to upload my brain to a computer so I could have unlimited knowledge or rather that limited only by the internet.
Just think if we all did that we would become the borg! Borg or matrix very little difference.
More like the copy of your mind would get to become the Borg. Your original, fleshy self would continue as normal.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 28, 2017, 09:36:02 AM
More like the copy of your mind would get to become the Borg. Your original, fleshy self would continue as normal.
Well then I would just get the best of both worlds
Meatspace v. cyberspace - which is better?
(http://www.vrlife.news/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Meatspace-Vs-Cyberspace.jpg)
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*yYqPvk-d56AYklnKnGPwkA.png)
I am trying to twitter like a little bird. Chirp!
What guy new avatar? Don't recognize.
Kaspar Hauser, one of my favorite movies.
(http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/half/public/image/the-enigma-of-kaspar-hauser-1974-004-s-bruno-and-the-letter.jpg?itok=ue2w_Ee3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser
A kind of wolf-boy, who wasn't. Autistic perhaps?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2017, 08:03:07 PM
A person can tell that they are themselves a thinking being. However, a person cannot tell that another has thought independent of their own. Even if I could somehow connect my brain to yours and see your thoughts, how would I know that your thoughts were not just extensions of my own, an illusion to make the world around me seem real?
You seem to sort of generelly agree with me. I grant you some degree of existence.
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 07:42:43 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser
A kind of wolf-boy, who wasn't. Autistic perhaps?
Locked up for 17 years, as I understand it. Had to be taught how to even walk when his "keeper" decided he was too much trouble and dumped him in some town. Turned out to be pretty smart.
Just curious, how do the recent posts have anything to do with whether Jesus actually existed or not?
Externalized chattering-monkey-brains ... Grasshopper.
But I didn't know that this so called "wolf-boy" existed either. I would give him better odds of being historical than the Jesus guy.