Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[Apey]

Well, nobody can know what happens after we die beyond the scientific and biological stuff. The brain shuts down and the body decomposes etc.

We can't say that there definitively is or is not an afterlife. You can choose to believe that there isn't and others can choose to have faith that there is.

I don't choose to believe anything. There is no evidence for an afterlife, so the default position is to reject the hypothesis and accept the alternative.

One of the beauties about believing in the afterlife though; if you're wrong, you'll never know. It's why it's such an easy thing to believe in.

I've always enjoyed Hitchen's analogy

[youtube]GZ0r8oT0Ams[/youtube]

 

[RHCP]

If there's an afterlife and I don't get in because of what went on down below, then the god that didn't let me in isn't loving enough for me to worship.

 

[afinalsin666]

Drew, you're the only Christian I know who knows his shit, why does Satan punish you for going against God? It never made sense to me that God cast him down from heaven for being a prick, but then he would keep working for god more or less when he gets down there? Why punish the wicked, and not reward them?

 

[Misanthrope]

You know what scares me the most? The people who say that without God there is no morality; that without God there is no reason not to go around killing and raping people (yes I have seen people say these exact things). f**king nutjobs. I wonder if, say the impossible happened and it was proven beyond doubt that there was no God, if these nutters would just go on a rapin' and killin' spree.

Well, at the heart of it all, we are animals. It was religion (not necessarily Christianity) that first imposed rules upon us.

"Don't kill people" is a central tenant of most religions because, well, that's what we did before we were told it wasn't cool. Want a girl? Kill the guy who has her. Want something? Kill the guy who has it. Hungry? Kill a guy.

Society keeps us civil these days, but most modern society finds its foundations in religion. Like it or not, religion has played a huge role in 'civilizing' us, even as it's also played a huge role in holding us back.

"and the FFB in general".

Does that mean you love BulldogForce?

Nah, f**k that merkin.

Hmm, individuals are getting better at it for sure, however it is solely because of religion that nothing has been done to increase the rights of homosexuals, and it shits me to tears. It's always shitty human beings who end up f**king it for the rest, but we all know that.

Solely? I teach my students not to use blanket statements because they're so easy to disprove. All you need is one example of a person being a homophobic merkin without religion, and you've proven the original theory wrong.

Homophobia infuriates me, but it can't be blamed solely on religion.

I don't choose to believe anything. There is no evidence for an afterlife, so the default position is to reject the hypothesis and accept the alternative.

There's no evidence against it either, though. Your default position may be to disbelieve it, but not everybody opts for cynicism as their default setting.

Drew, you're the only Christian I know who knows his shit, why does Satan punish you for going against God? It never made sense to me that God cast him down from heaven for being a prick, but then he would keep working for god more or less when he gets down there? Why punish the wicked, and not reward them?

From the stories, it's generally that Satan tempts you with the promise of reward and special treatment in this life. He preys on a person's impatience and covetousness, knowing full well that his endgame is that he gets the person's soul.

His whole thing is the deception that temporary happiness in this life is worth more than the opportunity to have eternal happiness in the next. He wins because people are, at their heart, capricious.

 

[afinalsin666]

Solely? I teach my students not to use blanket statements because they're so easy to disprove. All you need is one example of a person being a homophobic merkin without religion, and you've proven the original theory wrong.

Homophobia infuriates me, but it can't be blamed solely on religion.

Eh, it's a chicken/egg situation. Where did it start, and how was it perpetuated? That is the crux, but sadly we won't really know.

From the stories, it's generally that Satan tempts you with the promise of reward and special treatment in this life. He preys on a person's impatience and covetousness, knowing full well that his endgame is that he gets the person's soul.

His whole thing is the deception that temporary happiness in this life is worth more than the opportunity to have eternal happiness in the next. He wins because people are, at their heart, capricious.

Yeah i get that, but why basically torture them in the afterlife? He should be eternally rewarding because you follow him instead of god. Him punishing the wicked just seems like he is gods muscle rather than an opposing being.

 

[Skinner]

Moses totally walked around for 40 years though, when he got to the promised land a big Maori was standing at the door.

"Yeah not in those sandles mate"

Lolololol

 

[Dragon2010]

Drew, you're the only Christian I know who knows his shit, why does Satan punish you for going against God? It never made sense to me that God cast him down from heaven for being a prick, but then he would keep working for god more or less when he gets down there? Why punish the wicked, and not reward them?

^I'd like to see this one answered as well.

 

[muzby]

Drew, you're the only Christian I know who knows his shit, why does Satan punish you for going against God? It never made sense to me that God cast him down from heaven for being a prick, but then he would keep working for god more or less when he gets down there? Why punish the wicked, and not reward them?

is he working for god, or is his method of operation simply in direct opposition to the way god works?

should said devil exist (and if i does, i hope he looks like the ned flanders devil), his motive is to entice people to hell in order to build up the number of people down there, where he can gain more pleasure by torturing more souls..

whereas god, being all kind and loving (and from what i understand from pop culture looks like alanis morrisette) would prefer to bring more of his children back to the fold in the afterlife..


of course, both could simply be trying to amass as many souls as they can and build up armies of both the blessed and the damned, for a massive fight on earth for control of eternity...


game on, mofos...

 

[Drew-Sta]

Sorry gents, had to at some point do some work last night so exited to do so. Glad the convo went on though. Has provided me with stimulating material for the train ride in.

We must read different research then. How does one write in such a way so as to be obviously recounting Chinese whispers? It's a silly point.

I simply have to point you to the works of Homer regarding the Trojan War. Oral tradition, based on real events, written down later. More obviously embellished in many areas as it was based on the works of bards and written down much later, granted, but no less based in reality and no less distorted. Oral history is inaccurate at best, wildly overwrought at worst.

It was written as an eyewitness testimony that pointed to people who were still alive as being able to verify the story. If you read the story of Luke, you could, when it had been written, go to one of the people mentioned in the story and ask them about it. That's what I mean by 'it wasn't written in a chinese whispers way'.

Not to mention, there is no literature at the time by the Jews disputing or correcting the resurrection account. No Jewish literature that survives, and there is some of it, every said 'Actually, they were wrong - here's the body' and that is all they needed to do to stop the movement.

Yet it never happened.

Homer's Illiad is a story of the Trojan war, not a recounting of it. The Trojan War was Greek mythology; completely different to an eyewitness account. The fact they base themselves on a probable event in Greek history is the same as Stan Lee's Captain America being about WWII with a few super hero's thrown into it; you don't doubt that WWII happened, but you realise Captain America is a myth.

Drew is a good guy so I'll avoid singling him out, but this is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments made in favour religion. Intellectual dishonesty and special pleading in abundance, with mental gymnastics thrown in here and there.

The gospels being eyewitness testimony/the early dates for the gospels are a fringe view and not held by the majority of scholars. There is a lack of decent evidence for when they were written and as such their date is often given in a wide time frame spanning decades.

Not fringe at all. Bauckham's work is well accepted and a number of scholars, including Rodney Stark (Secular historian) consider it to be accurate.

There isn't a lack of decent evidence re when they were written. Given the ages of Paul etc, the originals were all likely written pre 100AD; Acts for certainty was written before 66AD due to the lack of mention of the fall of Jerusalem.

It's not the least bit surprising those with a vested interest in it being true believe they were written at the beginning of the period, and those with a vested interest in it being false believe otherwise.

Yes, this does tend to happen. Bias is bias, no matter what side of it you're on.

I use the argument being a Christian myself. I believe in God and I believe in the vaguaries of the Bible.

I have no faith in humans to interpret that without bias, as evidenced by pretty much every organised religion on earth being borderline evil villains when you cut through their holier than thou bullshit.

Not directed at Drew at all, but at the Roman Catholic Church which allegedly started all this shit. It's one of the most corrupt, insipid, hateful organisations out there.

I do tend to reject the Catholic Church for a lot of the things they've done. Not fully, for I know there are a lot of faithful Christians who are Catholic, but the institution should be shut down.

The interpretation bit is interesting - by interpret, do you mean the scriptures or how it is implemented?

Although I may have misunderstood Drew's point on the eyewitness testimony part, which is my bad if so.

Maybe. I'm suggesting the accounts were written by people who saw / knew Jesus, or by people who got their information from people who saw / knew Jesus.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. It's why the claim of Jesus existing means little to me - I accept that to be true because, well, it's not much of a claim is it? This guy existed. Lots of people who know so much more than me seem to think so, since this claim is very ordinary I'll take their word for it.

When you dive into the supernatural though and the claims go from ordinary and extraordinary, oral tradition and the written "evidence" just doesn't even come close to holding up.

Exactly what would prove it to you, though? What proof of the supernatural do you need? Genuine question.

And that's a point I made (probably poorly) earlier. Religion is superstition. Why is religion held to be more true than any other superstition? Based on embellished accounts written after the fact?

Except Jesus lived, so the story of Him is not superstition but historical fact.

Secondly, and I can only speak for Christianity, my faith is 'true' in so much as it accurately portrays the human condition and identifies the interaction between God and humankind.

And, unrelated to that, why does the Church get to decide which gospels are canon and which aren't? IF god exists, and IF Joshua of Nazareth was his son, WHY do men dictate what is true about the divine? It's utter and complete nonsense

The church, as the group of Christians in 100-odd AD, decided based on what it knew to be true writings from those who had first hand knowledge of Jesus.

Secondly, why doesn't it get to decide? Exactly who should get to decide, the Shooters Party?! You complain on one end that the Romans decided what was in the bible, so I show you that isn't true. You then complain that the Christians decided what was in the bible, and I'm thinking 'What is your point?' The basis for the canon was decided on who had first hand knowledge of Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit in those people to decide what not to include.

Thirdly, men didn't dictate what is true and what is not true. This is the bit where I get all 'supernatural' on you and suggest the Holy Spirit played its role in determining what to keep by moving through people and interacting in history. You can laugh at it all you want, but I don't believe the canon was 'selected' by men, but rather by the Holy Spirit - that is why I believe I can trust it.

You're right. I can't trust human fallibility. So I'm not.

I'm not sure which I would fall into. I do believe in the Holy Trinity and the Divine Revelation, but I do not believe that God is still up there playing a hand in everything that goes on.

I believe that any being that powerful has far better things to do than watch over the lives of people scurrying about on one planet in a vast universe. It's arrogant of us to think we're his most prized creations and to blame all of life's wrongs (and attribute all of life's successes) to him being up there engineering things.

My issue is not with the content of the Bible or the existence of a Supreme Being, it's with assholes here on earth deciding how best to interpret it to serve their needs.

I agree there is an issue with 'men' twisting the word of God.

Re the 'why are we His prized creations?' Because we were made in His image. That is why. We were meant to be the reflection of Him. A short answer for a larger question re the Imageo Dei.

Which is more what I meant. Jesus existed, although that was not his name, but so much else is superstition. There is no evidence to suggest he was anything more than a pretty good dude who travelled around helping folk and telling stories.

His name was Ἰησοῦς, which the Greek for ישוע, a Hebrew word for Yeshua and it means "to rescue", "to deliver". The English translation of the word is Jesus, which stems from the Greek. Why you keep pointing that out, as if it is some great debunker, is a curiosity for me. The issue is translation, not meaning.

Which, while I remember, why is that not good enough? Why does he have to be the son of a mythical being?

Because He said He was? The man spoke for Himself and said 'I am the son of God', and 'I am God' over and over and over again in the gospels. That's why. To ask that question is to completely ignore what He said about Himself.

He was, as best I can tell, a peacemaker and a preacher and a healer and a freedom fighter. That's pretty serious stuff anyway.

Yes, He was all those things. I am glad we agree on those things

Moses totally walked around for 40 years though, when he got to the promised land a big Maori was standing at the door.

"Yeah not in those sandles mate"

:lol:

What I'm getting at is are these people adhering to this religion because they genuinely believe in the faith or because of the community aspect it provides and what it provides to them emotionally and spiritually? Do people convince themselves it's true without really believing it just so they can be apart of all this? It just feels like they're accepting it to be true for all the wrong reasons to me; but each to their own of course. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

I actually think that is an issue, mate. I would rather someone not associate themselves with Christianity or call themselves Christian unless they hold to the beliefs of the faith; using Christianity for anything else is a perversion of it.

I'm not saying I want to disclude them from things; quite the opposite. I want to be in their lives explaining to them what the gospel actually is. But I have an issue when people say they believe but have never actually done more than say that. It has caused humongous issues for the history of Christianity. (Crusades, anyone?)

See, if there is a Great One God, why would he allow us into his realm? You said yourself that it is arrogant and conceited of the human race to assume he watches us and guides us through all we do, so why would he care when we die?

He made us in His realm. That's why.

The arc of salvation is not that the earth is some realm and heaven another. No, that is not the story my friend! The story of the gospel is that Jesus the Christ came to earth to redeem it, and part of the redemption process will be the recreation of the earth to be perfect as it should have originally been! That is the gospel. Earth will become heaven when Jesus returns, and that is why it is so exciting!

I think you'll find people of all kinds and across the whole spectrum you've described attending Church, although I imagine most would at the very least admit to believing in a God.

And what's wrong with that? Nobody's proven that there wasn't a God or that he hasn't sent Prophets. The major 'disproven' elements of the Bible could be argued to have been allegorical to begin with. I don't know many Catholics who still believe that the earth was literally created by God in seven days.

The tale of Adam and Eve is much like any other creation mythology.

Actually, the tale of Adam and Eve is a poem, or a chant. The similarities it shares with ANE creation stories is there, but the differences in the story are what is important. I don't doubt there was an Adam and Eve (of sorts, I'm still doing the research to better understand it, but I believe they were two people who were led to the Garden by God - Genesis 2:7-8 makes it seem that way) and I don't doubt God created the world, but the methodology of how He did it is very much not the realm of the bible. That He created it is enough. The 6 days were symbolic of various things and relate to the ANE creation experience.

The greatest disservice the Christian religion does itself is adhering to the obvious fallacy that the Old Testament wasn't essentially an extended creation mythology with mingled bits of truth.

Kind of. Its truth mingled with meaning. The Gilgamesh epic, the Flood story and a few others similar to it all originate from different sources, but are similar in their story. What they do suggest is a flood happened. What they then do is interpret the meaning of the flood. As you say, Christians have mythologised their own scriptures, when they should have worked harder to understand it and the meaning it was presenting. For instance, the Catholic Church ruined the Song of Solomon for nearly 1500 years by claiming it was allegory. Its only now we read it as something different. etc etc etc.

So its not to dismiss the flood tale; its simply recognising where it sits and why it sits there.

There is so much human arrogance in modern religion but outside of it too. It never ceases to amaze me and I find it very frustrating. Our time in this world has been minuscule, the space we take up in this world is next to nothing and the impact we'll have had on it when we're long gone will be barely a blimp on the radar. I can't stand the belief that we humans have some privileged position in the universe because everything suggests it is absolute nonsense.

That's a scientific-philosophical manner of looking at it. Given we're the only sentient beings in the solar system we live in, that makes us pretty special. Discounting our uniqueness is a very easy way to level us with animals. If we're all animals (I know we're mammals, but I mean animals as in unthinking), then we have significant philosophical issues to sort out re morals, ethics etc.

Don't get me started on the abdication of personal responsibility either. Or praising God for things he had nothing to do with. It genuinely annoys me when people try to attribute the beauty of the world to God - it takes away from it.

But if He did create it, why is there a problem with not recognising it? I create beautiful pictures via my camera, and people give me credit for it. It doesn't take away from the picture at all. Same with glorifying God for the world he created.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Who said anything about fairies? ;-)

That is another thing I hate about Christianity as an organisation (and other religions, but we're on the subject)...it's monstrous to presume that God loves everyone....except the people who don't prescribe to our way of life. The Christian Churches and huge elements of the Christian faith's treatment of homosexuality (for example) is inhuman and quite honestly evil IMO

And I mean that as an organisation, not a religion. I don't believe that any true Christian would wish ill of any other person.

Two things.

1. God loves all of humanity. Even the Hitlers.
2. God hates sin. Even the sin in people like Martin Luther King Jnr.

The 'God hates androtops' and all equivalents across varying topics thing is wrong. Just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. God does not hate you. I cannot in more insistent language make that claim.

Humans here have created the disservice and started the prejudice. We must separate the beliefs from the believers. How we are to act when we are Christians is enormously different to how Christians must love those who are not of the faith and not living in a way that is in line with how God created us. They are a dichotomy that Christianity and Christian societies have completely f**ked up.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Religion was done for me when they said that dogs don't go to heaven tbh

Have a read. Try not to cry. I teared up. C.S. Lewis believes similarly. To quote my favourite part:

My dad tells the story of a teary eyed little girl who showed up to church just after her beloved dog had died. The pastor heard about it and so went to talk with her. The little girl told him what had happened and then asked, "Will my dog be in Heaven"? The pastor said, "Sweetheart, if it takes your dog being in Heaven for you to be happy, then he'll be there."

As a guy who has a dog in Tonga that I love almost as much as my kid, I cannot believe God would let him rot when the new creation comes. I do believe, in fact, that he will be by my side.

P.S. Can I just say how much I love this thread and the FFB in general? If this shit were in Four Corners, it would have devolved hours ago.

It rocks, hey Solid thread, Bushy.

I've always enjoyed Hitchen's analogy

[youtube]GZ0r8oT0Ams[/youtube]

While I don't agree with him, I do enjoy and respect The Hitch. He was so bloody articulate. I mourn his death.

If there's an afterlife and I don't get in because of what went on down below, then the god that didn't let me in isn't loving enough for me to worship.

What gets you into heaven isn't what you've done, but what you've placed your faith in. If you don't place your faith in Him, why would you be worried about where you're going? Serious question.

Drew, you're the only Christian I know who knows his shit, why does Satan punish you for going against God? It never made sense to me that God cast him down from heaven for being a prick, but then he would keep working for god more or less when he gets down there? Why punish the wicked, and not reward them?

Good question.

Satan does not punish us. He is the tempter, not the punisher. A little background on Satan. We don't know much about him, except he was an angel of God who turned from God and was cast out of heaven. That's all we really know. Satan made earth his realm, I suppose you could call it. He tempts those to worship anything that isn't God. This is very subtle and very broad.

The root sin of Christians, as identified by Genesis 3, is idolatry; the turning away from God to worship something else. As David Foster Wallace suggests, we can worship anything:

This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship.

Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.

They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.

And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self.

Satan attempts to do this in any way he can. We can worship anything, and he tries to get us to do that.

I now cite Matthew 4:1-11, where Jesus is tempted in the desert. In this instance, Jesus is tempted by Satan. Not punished. This is the clearest MO we see on what Satan does. The difference between us and Jesus is Jesus doesn't succumb, where we do.

Re judgement; God will render to us what we deserve on the final day. If we place our faith in Jesus as our atoning, propitiatory substitute, then God will judge us according to Jesus' deeds, which will see us redeemed as a child of God. If we do not, and place our faith in something else, God will give us up to that faith and allow us to worship it for the rest of eternity. The issue with that is worship of anything that isn't God will lead to disintegration; emotional, psychological, physical. That is hell.

--

Side note. I took 1 hour and 26 minutes to write that. Don't tell my boss...

Apologies for any spelling too. I'll come back and edit it at lunch.

 

[Drew-Sta]

is he working for god, or is his method of operation simply in direct opposition to the way god works?

should said devil exist (and if i does, i hope he looks like the ned flanders devil), his motive is to entice people to hell in order to build up the number of people down there, where he can gain more pleasure by torturing more souls..

whereas god, being all kind and loving (and from what i understand from pop culture looks like alanis morrisette) would prefer to bring more of his children back to the fold in the afterlife..


of course, both could simply be trying to amass as many souls as they can and build up armies of both the blessed and the damned, for a massive fight on earth for control of eternity...


game on, mofos...

You're surprisingly not far off at all...

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

So the Devil does look like this:

 

[Drew-Sta]

I think he does. I must admit, I'm not keen to find out :sarcasm:

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

Sorry gents, had to at some point do some work last night so exited to do so. Glad the convo went on though. Has provided me with stimulating material for the train ride in.



It was written as an eyewitness testimony that pointed to people who were still alive as being able to verify the story. If you read the story of Luke, you could, when it had been written, go to one of the people mentioned in the story and ask them about it. That's what I mean by 'it wasn't written in a chinese whispers way'.

Not to mention, there is no literature at the time by the Jews disputing or correcting the resurrection account. No Jewish literature that survives, and there is some of it, every said 'Actually, they were wrong - here's the body' and that is all they needed to do to stop the movement.

Yet it never happened.

Homer's Illiad is a story of the Trojan war, not a recounting of it. The Trojan War was Greek mythology; completely different to an eyewitness account. The fact they base themselves on a probable event in Greek history is the same as Stan Lee's Captain America being about WWII with a few super hero's thrown into it; you don't doubt that WWII happened, but you realise Captain America is a myth.



Not fringe at all. Bauckham's work is well accepted and a number of scholars, including Rodney Stark (Secular historian) consider it to be accurate.

There isn't a lack of decent evidence re when they were written. Given the ages of Paul etc, the originals were all likely written pre 100AD; Acts for certainty was written before 66AD due to the lack of mention of the fall of Jerusalem.



Yes, this does tend to happen. Bias is bias, no matter what side of it you're on.



I do tend to reject the Catholic Church for a lot of the things they've done. Not fully, for I know there are a lot of faithful Christians who are Catholic, but the institution should be shut down.

The interpretation bit is interesting - by interpret, do you mean the scriptures or how it is implemented?



Maybe. I'm suggesting the accounts were written by people who saw / knew Jesus, or by people who got their information from people who saw / knew Jesus.



Exactly what would prove it to you, though? What proof of the supernatural do you need? Genuine question.



The church, as the group of Christians in 100-odd AD, decided based on what it knew to be true writings from those who had first hand knowledge of Jesus.

Secondly, why doesn't it get to decide? Exactly who should get to decide, the Shooters Party?! You complain on one end that the Romans decided what was in the bible, so I show you that isn't true. You then complain that the Christians decided what was in the bible, and I'm thinking 'What is your point?' The basis for the canon was decided on who had first hand knowledge of Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit in those people to decide what not to include.

Thirdly, men didn't dictate what is true and what is not true. This is the bit where I get all 'supernatural' on you and suggest the Holy Spirit played its role in determining what to keep by moving through people and interacting in history. You can laugh at it all you want, but I don't believe the canon was 'selected' by men, but rather by the Holy Spirit - that is why I believe I can trust it.

You're right. I can't trust human fallibility. So I'm not.



I agree there is an issue with 'men' twisting the word of God.

Re the 'why are we His prized creations?' Because we were made in His image. That is why. We were meant to be the reflection of Him. A short answer for a larger question re the Imageo Dei.



His name was Ἰησοῦς, which the Greek for ישוע, a Hebrew word for Yeshua and it means "to rescue", "to deliver". The English translation of the word is Jesus, which stems from the Greek. Why you keep pointing that out, as if it is some great debunker, is a curiosity for me. The issue is translation, not meaning.



Because He said He was? The man spoke for Himself and said 'I am the son of God', and 'I am God' over and over and over again in the gospels. That's why. To ask that question is to completely ignore what He said about Himself.



Yes, He was all those things. I am glad we agree on those things



:lol:



I actually think that is an issue, mate. I would rather someone not associate themselves with Christianity or call themselves Christian unless they hold to the beliefs of the faith; using Christianity for anything else is a perversion of it.

I'm not saying I want to disclude them from things; quite the opposite. I want to be in their lives explaining to them what the gospel actually is. But I have an issue when people say they believe but have never actually done more than say that. It has caused humongous issues for the history of Christianity. (Crusades, anyone?)



He made us in His realm. That's why.

The arc of salvation is not that the earth is some realm and heaven another. No, that is not the story my friend! The story of the gospel is that Jesus the Christ came to earth to redeem it, and part of the redemption process will be the recreation of the earth to be perfect as it should have originally been! That is the gospel. Earth will become heaven when Jesus returns, and that is why it is so exciting!



Actually, the tale of Adam and Eve is a poem, or a chant. The similarities it shares with ANE creation stories is there, but the differences in the story are what is important. I don't doubt there was an Adam and Eve (of sorts, I'm still doing the research to better understand it, but I believe they were two people who were led to the Garden by God - Genesis 2:7-8 makes it seem that way) and I don't doubt God created the world, but the methodology of how He did it is very much not the realm of the bible. That He created it is enough. The 6 days were symbolic of various things and relate to the ANE creation experience.



Kind of. Its truth mingled with meaning. The Gilgamesh epic, the Flood story and a few others similar to it all originate from different sources, but are similar in their story. What they do suggest is a flood happened. What they then do is interpret the meaning of the flood. As you say, Christians have mythologised their own scriptures, when they should have worked harder to understand it and the meaning it was presenting. For instance, the Catholic Church ruined the Song of Solomon for nearly 1500 years by claiming it was allegory. Its only now we read it as something different. etc etc etc.

So its not to dismiss the flood tale; its simply recognising where it sits and why it sits there.

There is so much human arrogance in modern religion but outside of it too. It never ceases to amaze me and I find it very frustrating. Our time in this world has been minuscule, the space we take up in this world is next to nothing and the impact we'll have had on it when we're long gone will be barely a blimp on the radar. I can't stand the belief that we humans have some privileged position in the universe because everything suggests it is absolute nonsense.

That's a scientific-philosophical manner of looking at it. Given we're the only sentient beings in the solar system we live in, that makes us pretty special. Discounting our uniqueness is a very easy way to level us with animals. If we're all animals (I know we're mammals, but I mean animals as in unthinking), then we have significant philosophical issues to sort out re morals, ethics etc.



But if He did create it, why is there a problem with not recognising it? I create beautiful pictures via my camera, and people give me credit for it. It doesn't take away from the picture at all. Same with glorifying God for the world he created.



Who said anything about fairies? ;-)



Two things.

1. God loves all of humanity. Even the Hitlers.
2. God hates sin. Even the sin in people like Martin Luther King Jnr.

The 'God hates androtops' and all equivalents across varying topics thing is wrong. Just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. God does not hate you. I cannot in more insistent language make that claim.

Humans here have created the disservice and started the prejudice. We must separate the beliefs from the believers. How we are to act when we are Christians is enormously different to how Christians must love those who are not of the faith and not living in a way that is in line with how God created us. They are a dichotomy that Christianity and Christian societies have completely f**ked up.

I hope that clears things up a little.



Have a read. Try not to cry. I teared up. C.S. Lewis believes similarly. To quote my favourite part:



As a guy who has a dog in Tonga that I love almost as much as my kid, I cannot believe God would let him rot when the new creation comes. I do believe, in fact, that he will be by my side.



It rocks, hey Solid thread, Bushy.



While I don't agree with him, I do enjoy and respect The Hitch. He was so bloody articulate. I mourn his death.



What gets you into heaven isn't what you've done, but what you've placed your faith in. If you don't place your faith in Him, why would you be worried about where you're going? Serious question.



Good question.

Satan does not punish us. He is the tempter, not the punisher. A little background on Satan. We don't know much about him, except he was an angel of God who turned from God and was cast out of heaven. That's all we really know. Satan made earth his realm, I suppose you could call it. He tempts those to worship anything that isn't God. This is very subtle and very broad.

The root sin of Christians, as identified by Genesis 3, is idolatry; the turning away from God to worship something else. As David Foster Wallace suggests, we can worship anything:



Satan attempts to do this in any way he can. We can worship anything, and he tries to get us to do that.

I now cite Matthew 4:1-11, where Jesus is tempted in the desert. In this instance, Jesus is tempted by Satan. Not punished. This is the clearest MO we see on what Satan does. The difference between us and Jesus is Jesus doesn't succumb, where we do.

Re judgement; God will render to us what we deserve on the final day. If we place our faith in Jesus as our atoning, propitiatory substitute, then God will judge us according to Jesus' deeds, which will see us redeemed as a child of God. If we do not, and place our faith in something else, God will give us up to that faith and allow us to worship it for the rest of eternity. The issue with that is worship of anything that isn't God will lead to disintegration; emotional, psychological, physical. That is hell.

--

Side note. I took 1 hour and 26 minutes to write that. Don't tell my boss...

Apologies for any spelling too. I'll come back and edit it at lunch.

Pretty sure War & Peace is shorter than that post...

 

[Drew-Sta]

Tolstoy had nothing on me... :sarcasm:

 

[Bazal]

I completely Cbf quoting the bits, but

1-I call him Joshua because that was his name. It's not a debunker, I just like to be accurate. Jesus is a mistranslation from the Greek
2-You are aware that Constantine, whether it's true or not that he assembled the new testament (and there is evidence of it regardless of your point of view) was Holy Roman Emperor, and therefore a major figure in the temporal power if the church? He's also a saint because of what he did for the church. So the point is in no way separate and I'm quite frankly surprised you tried to make it so.
3-So if I get twelve blokes to believe I'm the son of god, write scriptures, and get myself offed by the romans, I'll be a messiah in 2000 years? That's essentially the claim you make as evidence. I'm scientific. It doesn't stack up. Almost all of the bible is myth, we know this and you yourself admit that.
4-Other gospels contradict the new testament. Many from exactly the same era. Why?

 

[Drew-Sta]

I completely Cbf quoting the bits, but

1-I call him Joshua because that was his name. It's not a debunker, I just like to be accurate. Jesus is a mistranslation from the Greek

Well... except it is not. The Greek is Iesous, which is a translation from the Hebrew of Yeshua. Its a translation, which means things change. Jesus is a translation in English of Iesous.

Translations change the way it is spoke or written, but thats what you get when you change the writing of one language to another. My name in Tongan is 'Anitelu', which is no less right or wrong than 'Andrew', which is a translation of Ανδρέας from the Greek. Its all the same meaning.

2-You are aware that Constantine, whether it's true or not that he assembled the new testament (and there is evidence of it regardless of your point of view) was Holy Roman Emperor, and therefore a major figure in the temporal power if the church? He's also a saint because of what he did for the church. So the point is in no way separate and I'm quite frankly surprised you tried to make it so.

Actually 90% of scholars researching the canon (with the 10% being fringe or liberal) affirm Constantine had no role in the origins of it. He did, as you say, have a role in the sanctioning of it in the forming of the Roman Catholic church. I won't deny that at all - its history. But the canon itself was not selected by him.

The temporal power he possessed? Totally granted and agreed. He played far too big a role in the church itself. He shouldn't have. Things began to go off the rails when he took over.

Saint? Only according to Catholics and Orthodox. I consider him a challenged Christian man who didn't quite understand it despite faith. I also consider him a major figure who turned the course of church history and from there, issues arose.

I'm not separating it. I'm clarifying it. You make it sound like Constantine sat there and picked the books all by himself. That's incorrect. He never did any such thing.

3-So if I get twelve blokes to believe I'm the son of god, write scriptures, and get myself offed by the romans, I'll be a messiah in 2000 years? That's essentially the claim you make as evidence. I'm scientific. It doesn't stack up. Almost all of the bible is myth, we know this and you yourself admit that.

The resurrection identified him as God. It all hinges on the empty tomb. Nothing else matters as far as proofs.

You can claim 'I'm scientific, I don't believe the resurrection'. Sure. You're not the first to disbelieve in it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean it did. There's a degree of faith (ala trust in its veracity) required that the story of the gospel is true, and therefore the resurrection did happen, within all Christian believers. The only difference between you and I is I believe it did happen, while you do not.

4-Other gospels contradict the new testament. Many from exactly the same era. Why?

Like the gospel of Thomas?

Mark was written between 50AD to 80AD by most scholars work. I err to 60-70, as Peter would have been too old by 80AD but its semantics at that point. (BTW, some believe Mark recorded Peter's account, others believe he didn't. I believe it is Peter's account judging by the content)

The gospel of Thomas? Written in 220-ish. 200 is probably even fair. Over 160 odd years post the resurrection, and likely to be at least 120 years post the death of the final apostle.

Its in a completely different category of genre (it actually does conform to a 'legendary tale' style), and was virtually panned by all Christians at the time:

"[The Naassenes] speak...of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."

~ Hippolytus in Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20.

Of course it differs. It differs as much as a story would when it is written for an agenda that is in contrast to the original stories purpose and meaning.

All the rest of the 'gospels' you are referring to are later than Thomas (none are considered earlier) and all are in the same category as I just mentioned.

 

[Skinner]

Enough with the religion now thanks. Drew is chronically fapping with delight....

 

[Bazal]

Well... except it is not. The Greek is Iesous, which is a translation from the Hebrew of Yeshua. Its a translation, which means things change. Jesus is a translation in English of Iesous.

Translations change the way it is spoke or written, but thats what you get when you change the writing of one language to another. My name in Tongan is 'Anitelu', which is no less right or wrong than 'Andrew', which is a translation of Ανδρέας from the Greek. Its all the same meaning.

Well, except it is

http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php

Yeshua was mistranslated into Greek, and then translated from there into English. Yeshua, straight to English, becomes Joshua. I know it's semantics, but accuracy should be important. He was a real guy, and he doubtless was a pretty good man, so he should be referred to by his real name. IMO anyway.

Actually 90% of scholars researching the canon (with the 10% being fringe or liberal) affirm Constantine had no role in the origins of it. He did, as you say, have a role in the sanctioning of it in the forming of the Roman Catholic church. I won't deny that at all - its history. But the canon itself was not selected by him.

The temporal power he possessed? Totally granted and agreed. He played far too big a role in the church itself. He shouldn't have. Things began to go off the rails when he took over.

Saint? Only according to Catholics and Orthodox. I consider him a challenged Christian man who didn't quite understand it despite faith. I also consider him a major figure who turned the course of church history and from there, issues arose.

I'm not separating it. I'm clarifying it. You make it sound like Constantine sat there and picked the books all by himself. That's incorrect. He never did any such thing.

The only time I mentioned Constantine himself actually selecting the books was my very first, tongue in cheek throwaway. You are creating a strawman because you don't have the answer. And that's fine, I don't know why those books were chosen over the others. Probably no one truly does. The point is, however, that they were. By men. Whether that was a Roman Emperor, a Pope, or a random hillbilly in an Israeli cave, they were still chosen by men. That to me makes me wonder about the motive for choosing those texts.

The resurrection identified him as God. It all hinges on the empty tomb. Nothing else matters as far as proofs.

You can claim 'I'm scientific, I don't believe the resurrection'. Sure. You're not the first to disbelieve in it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean it did. There's a degree of faith (ala trust in its veracity) required that the story of the gospel is true, and therefore the resurrection did happen, within all Christian believers. The only difference between you and I is I believe it did happen, while you do not.

The tomb is almost undoubtedly myth, or a show put on by his disciples. He would have been buried in a paupers grave, as all crucified criminals were. You can't claim his existence historically as proof and then discount the rest of the history. He was crucified as a criminal by Rome in a Roman state. He didn't get a tomb.

But again, none of this is proof. It's 2000 year old hearsay at best. To be honest I'm going to let that bit of discussion lie here, because it's getting dogmatic.

Like the gospel of Thomas?

Mark was written between 50AD to 80AD by most scholars work. I err to 60-70, as Peter would have been too old by 80AD but its semantics at that point. (BTW, some believe Mark recorded Peter's account, others believe he didn't. I believe it is Peter's account judging by the content)

The gospel of Thomas? Written in 220-ish. 200 is probably even fair. Over 160 odd years post the resurrection, and likely to be at least 120 years post the death of the final apostle.

Its in a completely different category of genre (it actually does conform to a 'legendary tale' style), and was virtually panned by all Christians at the time:



~ Hippolytus in Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20.

Of course it differs. It differs as much as a story would when it is written for an agenda that is in contrast to the original stories purpose and meaning.

All the rest of the 'gospels' you are referring to are later than Thomas (none are considered earlier) and all are in the same category as I just mentioned.

Thomas is just one of dozens, Drew. And Thomas is actually one of the few undated gospels and is estimated anywhere from 40AD to 140AD. You'll notice neither of those is 220 years later. In fact 40AD is probably a rather familiar year. It's likely that the crucifixion took place around 35AD, so it's possible Thomas was written less than five years later. Certainly as possible as anything else about Joshua.

Also, why should Thomas' message be any less true? If anything it's far more relatable and real.....

 

[whall15]

You can claim 'I'm scientific, I don't believe the resurrection'. Sure. You're not the first to disbelieve in it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean it did. There's a degree of faith (ala trust in its veracity) required that the story of the gospel is true, and therefore the resurrection did happen, within all Christian believers. The only difference between you and I is I believe it did happen, while you do not.

Whilst you are right in the sense that disbelief doesn't disprove an event, science disproves the resurrection as it is impossible for somebody that has been clinically dead to be brought back to life. It's the same way that science also disproves dimension-crossing non-surgical and non-sexual insemination.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

Whilst you are right in the sense that disbelief doesn't disprove an event, science disproves the resurrection as it is impossible for somebody that has been clinically dead to be brought back to life. It's the same way that science also disproves dimension-crossing non-surgical and non-sexual insemination.

jeebus was a zombie?