Topic awaiting preservation: Media Violence, Christians?

Well, I've had this question on my mind for a while. Should Christians play violent video games, watch violent movies, act out violent scenes, etc. when they are supposedly carrying the "Gospel of Peace"? I would love it if some who are not Christians would post their thoughts on here as well, because I find that some of the hardest and best criticism comes from someone with opposing views as you. So please...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Honestly, Gideon, I think this is probably the wrong question to ask non-Christians. I imagine that most will be puzzled as to why you are asking them how you should live your life, especially when you live it according to a "code" that they do not subscribe to. And non-Christians are probably not the best source of advice on living the Christian life. That would be like a Zen Buddhist asking a Hinduist how he should meditate.

Or am I missing something?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Has all the smell and look of a trolling post, to me...

To get "feedback" (yeah, right) from non-Xians, so that he will have a soapbox to pundate from.



(Edited by WebShaman on 05-06-2005 10:56)

Strangely this seems like yet another Christian bashing post starting up, even though it was started by a Christian... Or is Gideon playing Devils advocate?

Anyway, if they're Catholic surely it's fine to play and watch violence games and films, as long as they go to confession afterwards

If their protestant then it doesn't really matter because it seems they can get away with whatever they like anyway! 'cake or death!, ooh I'll have cake please.'

quote:

---

Strangely this seems like yet another Christian bashing post starting up

---

Who is bashing Xians in this post?

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Should Christians play violent video games, watch violent movies, act outviolent scenes, etc. when they are supposedly carrying the "Gospel of Peace"?

---

It doesn't matter as long as you do not genuinely intend harm - duh.

*Skaarjj looks at 'Gospel of Peace', then opens up history book to read about the Crusades, then looks at 'Gospel of Peace' again and resumes his permanantly puzzled expression*


Justice 4 Pat Richard

(Edited by Skaarjj on 05-06-2005 13:20)

quote:

---

reisio said:

It doesn't matter as long as you do not genuinely intend harm - duh.

---

But doesn't it sound hypocritical? Telling people the Gospel of Peace, then endorsing violence?

You are right, Suho, I should have done a better job at targeting my question. My only excuse is that it was late at night. Well, the damage is done, so let's just go with it.

And I didn't mean to exclude any Christians, I greatly respect your input too. The only reason that I didn't want it to be targeted to Christians is because it migh have become a huge doctrine debate, and I thought there were enough of those threads already...

But alas, if someone wants to prove a point please do, I am pretty confused about this.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

You are pretty confused about everything.

Skaarj said it all.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

But doesn't it sound hypocritical? Telling people the Gospel of Peace, then endorsing violence?

---

No it doesn't - few things...
A great many tell people to be peaceful and find violent video games horrid.
I'd say the vast majority, however, take games for what they are - GAMES, fun, etc..

Coming soon to a store near you -

The Religious Right 100% sanctioned Violence Free (except for the Saints..."Oh when the Saints come marching in!" and other "allowed" groups by God) Video Games!

Noah's Ark

Can you get the animals on board the Ark, before the rains come and drown them? 10 thrilling levels of animal collecting fun! (note: no animals were actually drowned to make this video game!)

Job's Test

Can you survive the tests of God as Job? How much can you take before you crack? 1 million levels of brain-oozing fun!! Can you get to the last level, and still keep your faith?



(Edited by WebShaman on 05-06-2005 16:12)

There was a SNES game called Noah's Ark. Job's Test would probably not be all that good WS. A Moses game would be neat, you can lead the Jews from Egypt, run the nation of Israel, kinda a sim-like game.

As far as violence in games or media Gideon, my policy is if it doesn't sit right with me and my beliefs, I don't do it, or try not to. Really quite simple. It is a choice you make using the knowledge you have acquired through the Gospel, the spirit within you and your thoughts, follow that rather than what others tell you. If you are unsure about something, or you have a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach (guilt) about something, that is a trigger. What you must determine is what caused that trigger, your beliefs and the Gospel or someone elses beliefs that have been ingrained in you. Is it because of what you have learned in the Bible and through Christ or because of what others have said to you? Sometimes those things tend to get blurred.

I mean, if I listened to some of the religious leaders out there, I would have never known the joys of reading a good fantasy book, playing D&D, and would have missed out on many excellent films and video games which are deemed satanic. Oh, and don't forget all that satanic music out there. No, I refuse to listen to others on matters such as this, I listen to my heart, and IMO so long as my heart and mind are in the right place, I can't go wrong in my actions. If it feels wrong don't do it.

Of course, I have been called a 'bad Christian' many times by people because I follow my own path and interpret the Book as my mind and heart leads me to interpret it. I have had Catholics want to get into fisticuffs with me and Baptists call me satanic. I don't care. Letting others do the interpretation for you, IMO, takes away your ability to make up your own mind on things, basically cattle to be manipulated, a useful idiot.

What am I talking about? No idea. Carry on.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-06-2005 21:10)

Thanks Ram. Good idea, actually. I had came to the same conclusion a little while after posting this thread. I pretty much said, "Why am I asking them? This is between God and me." So thanks for helping me to affirm that belief more.

BTW, you are not a bad Christian. Other baptists may call you satanic, I will call you a good Christian. Because a good Christian seeks after God's will, and that is what it looks like you are doing.

I know that D&D is fun, all those fantasy games are fun, but the main reason why I am stopping them, is because they don't sit right with me. Doing an RPG as someone who steals things, when I wouldn't steal things in real life, gets to me. But I have realized that some people are able to play violent games and not be disturbed by them, so more power to those Christians.

As that I will sign off this thread...TTFN

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Most Christians believe in the entity "Satan" and its power of persuasion. I cannot speak for all Christians. But in this century for the most part, we Christians have to believe the "father of lies" uses all sorts of mediums as tools. Even video games, movies, TV, radio, CDs, idols in the form of movie stars, musicians, etc. We, as believers would be ignorant not to. Since Satan uses its power to do evil in persons, its only logical to think that Satan uses all sorts of mediums to confuse, tempt and will be gratified in its quest to capture souls. Yes, I do believe there is danger to the soul to give in to all sorts of packaging Satan uses in his attempt to send subliminal messages. If you try to remain true to the gospel, you will be on guard and see the medium or source for what it really is disquised as an evil entrance to darkness.

poor believers. They forbid themselves so many things.

Gideon:

quote:

---

I know that D&D is fun, all those fantasy games are fun, but the main reason why I am stopping them, is because they don't sit right with me. Doing an RPG as someone who steals things, when I wouldn't steal things in real life, gets to me

---

That's exactly the point of the Role Playing Games : to pretend to be someone else ... and incidentally to enjoy a good story line with some friends. It's not that different than hiding behind a nick name and chatting on a forum, which you do almost every day.

I suppose you don't play FPS either since you don't use a rocket launcher a rail gun and a machine gun in real life.

This is the biggest pile of rubish I have every seen on these forums

quote:

---

I know that D&D is fun, all those fantasy games are fun, but the main reason why I am stopping them, is because they don't sit right with me. Doing an RPG as someone who steals things, when I wouldn't steal things in real life, gets to me

---

Blocks are mine.

Gid, if you don't "feel comfortable" playing such a character, THEN DON'T PLAY ONE! Play a different one. That is allowed in D&D, you know. In fact, it is one of the founding principles of the game, TO PLAY THE CHARACTER YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE PLAYING!

I suggest you try playing the village idiot.

Whatever.

Just wasting air, here, obviously.

So much for 'Snakes and ladders' ... they must be heathens.

http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/images/Garden-games/snakes-and-ladders-lg.jpg

(Edited by NoJive on 05-11-2005 00:57)

My preciooooous.

sorry

Actually Poi, I don't hide. I am myself here, all my sometimes hypocritical, usually easily confused, sometimes funny, mostly lame, and always pro Christo self. I try to be myself. I only don't divulge information that I wouldn't want someone who I haven't met to know. Like a bank account for instance. I can't really be that way in RPGs.

BTW, if something hurts you, like a hot waffle iron, you are always supposed to either limit it or preferably remove it from yourself.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

That is allowed in D&D, you know. In fact, it is one of the founding
principles of the game, TO PLAY THE CHARACTER YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE
PLAYING!

---

But I don't think there are too many of the personalities I am comfortable with that are useful in D&D, old sport.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I suggest you try playing the village idiot.

---

I tried being an NPC, but my DM wouldn't let me...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This is the biggest pile of rubish I have every seen on these forums

---

Why is it a pile of rubbish?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Yes, I can see that playing something like a Paladin serving the good of the people and thier god, or playing as a Cleric who works to smite evils and be devoted to their god would not jive with something you would be comfortable with.

Don't talk out of your ass, it doesn't do any good for anything. At least take the time to think for at least two minutes before you respond.

Dan @ Code Town

^ I think that explains everything.

If you still cannot reason out why it is the biggest pile of rubish ever seen, then god help you, Gid.

D&D rocks!

I've played 'evil' characters before. One of them holds the record for PC/NPC murders. If you crossed him or the party, there would be Hades to pay. The other one wasn't a killer but a master of mind games (evil mind games).

I've also played plenty of other characters that weren't so 'evil'. One of them actually became the wife, avatar, and harbinger of Shaundical the Wind God. Another one took on a green dragon all by himself to protect a temple of Dumathoin.

And plenty of other characters with no association to any god or did anything 'evil'. The guy that I'm playing right now is a nice guy that doesn't say much.

For you, Gid, I recommend playing an elven undead slayer.

As far as violence and games go...
It's a non-sequitur that some people can't handle - Christian or not.
If you can't tell the difference between real life and a game, get some help.

Maybe some day we'll see violent games from a Christian perspective. There have been some, but nothing terribly mainstream that I've seen. Maybe an RTS where you play as General Moses.

A little addendum about Malici, my uber evil character.

Malici was evil and worshiped an evil god. Even though he was low-level, he was a *very* dangerous person because of his willingness and ability to murder. Not only did he take on single NPCs of much greater power than himself, but entire guilds and secret societies.

During one particularly intense session of role-playing, he gave up his evil faith. He is now roaming the lands and hunting down the evil priests that he used to call friends.

quote:

---

Actually Poi, I don't hide.

---

Why do you use a nick name then ?

Gideon: I've been meaning to post a longer reply here for some time, but it slipped my mind. I'm not going to comment on the current D&D discussion, since I believe it is secondary to the real issue. I basically have three points here:

1) Distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Most people, even children, are able to make this distinction. It is entirely possible, I believe, to indulge in fantasy while keeping it separate from reality. Not that our fantasies don't have any affect on our psyches--they can, depending on how deep you get into them. Even though I said I wasn't going to comment on the D&D issue, I will use it as an example here. I am comfortable playing RPGs, and I have no problem distinguishing between the fantasy existence of my character and my real life existence. Nonetheless, I feel uncomfortable playing evil characters. Every character I have ever played has been either good or neutral (neutral are the hardest to play, I think). Would playing an evil character be evil, though? I don't think so. I personally don't feel comfortable with it, but that's me. To bring this into another field, how about the field of acting? Role playing is very similar to acting--does this mean that actors who play villians are themselves evil people?

2) The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Matthew chapter 12, as you know, tells of Jesus and his disciples walking through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples began eating heads of grain, and the Pharisess (who were all hiding behind a nearby barn), jumped out and started ragging on Jesus for allowing His disciples to "work" on the Sabbath (apparently following Jesus and his disciples around all day doesn't qualify as "work"). What did Jesus say? "Dudes," He answered. "Chill out." The Pharisees had lost sight of the truth because they were so focused on the rules. What did Jesus say He had come to do with the law? "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). And yet He constantly ran afoul of the Pharisees, who knew the law better than anyone. What they didn't understand was that the foundation of all Biblical law is love: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40). In other words, once you've got love down, everything else falls into place. My advice? Follow that first commandment and the rest will come naturally. Don't spend your time sweating the little stuff.

3) They don't call it a personal relationship for nothing. As you already mentioned above, this is between you and God, and ultimately only you can make this decision. However, I'd like to add something to that, something that relates to my second point. In Romans chapter 14, Paul deals with a delicate situation. It turns out that some of the new believers in the Roman church were freaking out because some of the older believers were eating meat that had been offered to idols. Paul points out that we are all free to live by our own convictions, provided that we are sincere in our faith. We should not spend our time finding fault in how our brothers live their lives. We should also not try to convince others to live by our convictions, as that may be wrong for them. I have heard different interpretations of verses 20-21 ("Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.") The strict interpretation says that we should avoid any activities that might cause our brothers to lose faith. The more liberal interpretation argues that this would mean we are bound not by our own convictions (i.e., our personal relationship with God) but by the convictions of our brothers. I prefer to interpret this passage along the lines of freedom of speech (etc.) in the United States--that is, I am free to say (or do) what I want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The bottom line is that it comes back to my second point: it's all about love. If I truly love my brother, I will not allow my convictions to influence him negatively. Let's say I have a brother who believes D&D is evil (like, for example, you ). I would not swear off D&D for his sake, but I would make an effort not to mention the game when around him. I would certainly not try to convince him that it is OK to play D&D. But what I do with my own life should not affect this brother, and if we are both living in love then there will be no problem. I don't know if this is a sufficient explanation--it's actually a very simple idea, but it has been made complicated by varying interpretations.

Anyway, what it all comes down to is this: this is between you and God, and if you love God than you will know in your spirit what is right for you. Don't try to conform to other people's ideas of what is right and wrong.

And just to add a little flavor to this post, I would like to leave you with a Buddhist parable (if I may use the term) I am fond of...

Two monks were traveling along a road one day. They came to a stream that crossed the road, and there by the road was a young girl. There was no bridge over the stream, and she was trying to find some way across. Without hesitating, one of the monks said, "Climb up onto my back." She did, and they crossed the stream. The monk let the girl down on the other side of the stream and they went their separate ways. The other monk said nothing for some time, but finally he could hold it in no longer. "I don't understand," he said. "We are forbidden to have contact with women. How could you do such a thing?" The first monk looked at him in surprise. "I put that girl down back by the stream," he replied. "Why are you still carrying her?"

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

(Edited by Suho1004 on 05-12-2005 03:17)

Suho, in that small post I have learned a great deal.

Thank you.

Dan @ Code Town

Me 2, thanks.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Oh, do tell, Gid - what have you learned?

Interested minds want to know.

WS, I am sorry for whatever I have done to recieve a snide remark like that from you. Unless it is for being a Jesus Freak. I am not sorry about believing in my Savior, and loving Him for all He has done.

And it is love that pours out from Him that lets me love Him with all my heart. It is that same love that comes from Him that ables me to love everyone I come into contact with, even you WS. For all your semantics, I still love you, and I would not wish to see you hurt.

Just like I have a nick-name at school Poi. It is something that I like. I am not really hiding behind it. Besides, if you want my real name, and any info about me, either ask, and I will gladly tell you, or look at my account page. I don't want to hide anything.

Suho, thanks. I did need to be reminded that the Christian walk is a very personal one. I have problems in mine a lot, and I think that I might over-use the asking advice proverb of Solomon's.
To address your points indvidually:
1.) I agree that most can distinguish between reality and fantasy, unless it gets too deep. In my experience I am one that, if I do something I do it. No pussy-footin' around. That means that if I get in a game, I get into it and do my best to win. I am someone who does not leave a job undone, or an argument unargued (expressed ad nauseum on Asylum). Thus, for me these games, I have found, are bad. Others, maybe not.

2.) Jesus did tell the Pharisees and Saducees to "chill." But He also said to not to chill to the point of abandoning the law. What I got from your post is that as long as there is love, then the stuff afterwards will just happen. I can't really agree with that. Love is amazing, and should be given to all, but you can love a person, without accepting his or her beliefs (Like I do with Atheism. One of my best friends is nearly Atheistic, and another is very occultistic, or something along those lines, and I still love them both.)

3.) Yes. I agree with all, but if you see a brother walking out onto a busy highway, do you just let him "do his thing?" That commandment is about nit-picky things like eating habits, and minor doctrine. But, occult and Satanism are not really minor doctrinal differences, or an eating habit.

I know that I said a lot of argument things, but on the flip side, I agree with you on a bunch of things. I do really think that the Christian walk is extremely personal, and that what God says matters, not what people say. Thank you.

And btw, for Christians that are on the fence about D&D and such fantasy games, read this essay. It was made by a former Wiccan High Priest, who was born-again and started a battle with the Devil about fantasy games. I found it intriguing and thought provoking. I hope you do too.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

The Chick article is complete and utter hogwash.
Again, non-sequiturs and folks that can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy (on more levels than one).

If you don't want to play, then don't.

quote:

---

I do really think that the Christian walk is extremely personal, and that what God says matters, not what people say.

---

Then quit starting threads such as this and take it up with God instead of asking us.
Personal? Good. Keep it that way since it's God's word that actually matters.
While you're at it, don't make up your mind what other Christians should or shouldn't do, but what you, as a Christian, should do.

edit:

Suho, I'm kind of the opposite about characters that I play.
I can play all manner of characters, but playing a palladin gives me the willies.
When it comes to D&D clergy, I can play anything except a palladin.
Even though I can play an evil character with no qualms, even anti-palladins give me the willies.

(Edited by warjournal on 05-13-2005 05:37)

[tangent]

warjournal: I don't like the way most people play paladins. From what I've seen, the idea is that paladins are mindless crusaders who adhere slavishly to a code of conduct. To play them that way is very restricting. I tried to play a paladin once who was a little more "liberal," and my DM stripped me of my lawful alignment, which obviously did all sorts of nasty things to me being a paladin...

Anyway, in most of the campaigns I've played, the DMs have put limits on evil characters, as they tend to wreak havoc in a group and make playing a longer campaign difficult.

[Gideon do not read this part]Although I did once play a neutral character who was defeated and subsequently possessed by an evil villain, and I had to roleplay his attempts to destroy the party from within without being discovered. I must admit that was fun, and I do not believe I suffered any long term psychological damage from the experience. [/Gideon do not read this part]

It's been a while since I've played, though... D&D isn't exactly an adult pastime in Korea, I don't think.

[/tangent]

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

WS, I am sorry for whatever I have done to recieve a snide remark like that from you. Unless it is for being a Jesus Freak. I am not sorry about believing in my Savior, and loving Him for all He has done.

---

I asked you what you learned from Master Suho's post.

I don't know what BS you are reading into my post, but it certainly wasn't snide, and I certainly didn't ask you to blurt out lines of "god loves you, WS!"

You say you learned something from Master Suho's post. Why don't you share that with us, hmmm?

The point of my post is, I doubt very much that you really learned anything. You seem very incapable of learning, from what you have shown on these boards.

Bringing Chick crap to these boards is just...

Man, you have so much to learn.

But if you did learn something from Master Suho's post, then I would be interested to know what you learned from it.

quote:

---

Tool Time!

---

This line is about the only meaningful part of that essay. It sums it up quite nicely.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

hogwash.

---

Heh, that's a Greek word...

It's not what you asked WS, but how you asked it...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

certainly didn't ask you to blurt out lines of "god loves you, WS!"

---

Is there a problem with saying the truth?

I try to learn everyday. Being a student, that is what my occupation is right now. But it is hard to learn from sources that just want to bash you and your beliefs. That is why I try to learn from sources that are not "out to get me." But I will admit that learn comes in leaps and bounds, and some of the biggest bounds come from sources that disagree with me and make sure I know it.

Well WJ, I made up my mind that people shouldn't shoot themselves. Should I or shouldn't I tell a suicidal friend to not shoot themselves?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Well WJ, I made up my mind that people shouldn't shoot themselves. Should I or shouldn't I tell a suicidal friend to not shoot themselves?

---

Why did you decide that? Because of what God said or for your own reasons? There is a big difference, and will lead to the answer to your question.

Several of my friends back in school shot themselves in the head. Several members of my family committed slow suicide with alcohol. While sad, I didn't bat an eye.

I have heard of chick publications and it being a very popular source for anti-catholics bigitory, but it seems to me anyone who really believes in this site does not do a lot of historical or biblical reading. Its another case of a loose religious cannon gone wrong and taking many others with him. Now I know were many post here get their info.

Look what he says about my faith: Pure hogwash for sure WJ.
If you go to the very bottom, it shows the Vatican and refers to it as the Mother of all abominations.


http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

quote:

---

Why did you decide that? Because of what God said or for your own reasons? There is a big difference, and will lead to the answer to your question.

---

I myself believe, we must be our brothers keeper, and that doesn't mean to get in their faces. We, are the best examples of how to be Christian. The best ways is-
Preach the gospel and when necessary use words.

Treat others with love and pray for them if they are doing something against the love of of God. As Christians, we cannot hide our head in the sand and wait for this person(s) to commit spiritual suicide. The act of prayer works wonders for us. And if these persons refuse to do the will of God, then we as believers know we have tried to spread God into this persons life. We know and believe by faith that we will have to account for ourselves in that we did all we could to fullfill the will of God here on earth. This is the Christian way. It may not be the popular current trend of today, but it what we believe. So yes, we want and believe all the earth should follow the will of Christ, savior, redeemer of the whole human race. This doesn't mean if your not Chrisitan you will go to hell. IT just that we believe God left a blueprint here on earth and we must follow and build on it.

quote:

---

Is there a problem with saying the truth?

---

Obviously you didn't learn anything. Just as I thought.

*shrugs*

Yeah, Chick is considered a whack-job even by the criminally insane. Pointing to Chick in a serious manner is usually considered tacky, sometimes even rude. There is a really good article out there somewhere about the history of Chick and how he has touched the lives of some people in the most bizarre ways.

So, Jade, if you were faced with a suicidal maniac, you would base your actions on what God has said. Correct?

edit:
Just wanted to note that I am more familiar with Chick's reputation than his works.
I've read some of his stuff, but not a whole lot.
What little I have read points to a complete nut.

(Edited by warjournal on 05-13-2005 18:58)

quote:

---

I have heard of chick publications and it being a very popular source for anti-catholics bigitory...Now I know were many post here get their info.

---

Aside from Gideon, I am quite certain you won't see anyone pulling info from this quack to quote in any serious manner, Jade.

Anything 'anti-catholic' I have had to say is based on historical fact and personal observation...

quote:

---

That is why I try to learn from sources that are not "out to get me."

---

But the sources you continually quote *are* the people who are "out to get you". We would prefer that they not accomplish that goal.

quote:

---

Jade: If you go to the very bottom, it shows the Vatican and refers to it as the Mother of all abominations.

---

Don't know about the rest of what this guy has to say, but I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Read some history.

Catholicism, or Romanism, and the Vatican has done more to dishonor and steal glory from God than any one person or organization in history IMO.

There is nothing bigoted about being against the false church.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Obviously you didn't learn anything. Just as I thought

---

.


I think Gideon, like many of us is looking for truth as a seeking Christian. I apologize if I have ever myself gave the impression to you as not knowing anything. I believe the spirit works in all of us in many degrees. You have to know that we are a reflection of what the spirit of Christians are or try to be. Many claim us ignorant and docile robots in serving the Lord our God. We wonder why they don't feel & see the good works of the Lord and they wonder why we are so blind & ignorant. This forum sometime provides insights to why persons come to the conclusions they do. At best, you cannot not make anyone love Christ who is not open to love him. When harden hearts are ready they will see and know the good works of the Lord. We can explain ourselves as Christians in why we believe the way we do. I, myself know that my faith is misrepresented all the time. What people think we are and what we do is so wrong as opposed to what we are really about.


Ranasax

So are you a follower of chick publications and believe everything or just some of it?

quote:

---

There is nothing bigoted about being against the false church.

---

Ok. What church would you consider a true church Ramasax?

(Edited by jade on 05-13-2005 20:47)

Not being religious, I pardon my addiction to video-game violence with the excuse that it keeps me from actually killing some mouthy little scumbag on my journey to/from work. Unleashing a little bloodlust on some unsuspecting pixels is certainly more wholesome than becoming a full-on psychotic vigilante.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

quote:

---

Many claim us ignorant and docile robots in serving the Lord our God. We wonder why they don't feel & see the good works of the Lord and they wonder why we are so blind & ignorant. This forum sometime provides insights to why persons come to the conclusions they do. At best, you cannot not make anyone love Christ who is not open to love him. When harden hearts are ready they will see and know the good works of the Lord.

---

I don't believe I asked for any explanation of any kind from you in this thread, Jade.

In any event, you seem to be forgetting, that I once WAS a believer, and a quite feverent one. Sort of like Gid. In hindsight, I can see how I was, by looking at him.

quote:

---

We wonder why they don't feel & see the good works of the Lord and they wonder why we are so blind & ignorant.

---

I can only say, that finally waking up and seeing that for what it is, an illusion, is something you may never experience. You have my deepest of sympathies. It is like viewing somone who has been programmed by a sect that you were once a part of. You hope that somehow, someday, they come to their senses and break free, like you did.

Makes me shudder, and I am so very happy that I broke free of that mindset and grasped reality with both hands.

I was not referring to you specifically WS

quote:

---

Makes me shudder, and I am so very happy that I broke free of that mindset and grasped reality with both hands.

---

WS...it is of your opinion, that we are programmed. Just because you were once a Christian fundamentalist as Gideon and you left your faith doesn't make you seem or sound more creditable as to discredit Christianity. For whatever reason you were disillusioned with Christ in the sect you were in no-doubt you were unable to expereince the holy shock that develops when you have reached a level of no return. I have encounterd many Christians who have accepted Christ so they say, yet they are not living the gospel. They continue to go against the teachings of faith and think its ok because they have worked it in their daily life. Just one example, as Christians we are not suppose to have sex ouside of marriage or sleep around, yet there are many Christians who do so and feel they are living as born-again or have accepted Christ as their personal savior. To be truly Christian you must try to follow the teachings and not decieve yourselves into thinking as long as I am not hurting anyone, its ok. But the one you are hurting is yourself. I see many born again fundamentalist and my faith has them as well that experience temporary faith when they needed Christ for a crisis, and then left him as things turned back to normal. Or when things go really bad and Christians or Christian represtatives treat them bad so they turn their back on Christ. Poor Christ gets the bad wrap for peoples behavior. Where or are these persons really committed? I say not.

(Edited by jade on 05-13-2005 23:34)

quote:

---

Jade: Ranasax

So are you a follower of chick publications and believe everything or just some of it?

---

A follower ? Hardly. I simply agreed with his assesment that the catholic church is an abomination. Other than that, I have only heard of his name in passing.

With regards to which church is the true church, I really cannot say, and it is hardly important to me. The only 'church' I have ever needed in my journey is my personal relationship with Christ. I don't need a middleman, a holy pontiff, priests, bishops, or saints. I pray to God and God alone. Fellowship is one thing, but reverence directed toward those who place themselves on the level of the Most High is repulsive and nauseating.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 2:5

The history of the catholic church is rife with blasphemy, lies, murder and death. This is not to say that catholics, those who IMO have been duped, are bad people. Quite the contrary, but the catholic church itself, at the highest levels, is dispicable and has, for all I can tell through it's history, been taken over by those with impure motive, and many say Lucifer himself. I tend to agree.

quote:

---

Jade: Poor Christ gets the bad wrap for peoples behavior.

---

Exactly my point.

I know my view is a radical one, but the history and makeup of the Romish church, in my eyes, only confirms it.

quote:

---

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Matthew 7:15

---

Ramasax

quote:

---

WS...it is of your opinion, that we are programmed.

---

Well, yes and no.

Most get born into a religious family (as I was) and are programmed to believe. I was born into a Mormon family (and on one side of my family, there are hordes of very influential Mormons).

Be that as it may, your words are very typical of what I have had to hear down the years...

And it is exactly what one who is part of a sect says to one who is no longer part of the sect - one who has woke up and escaped.

Ramasax

Your post typifies what most understand to be the church and isn't. I can't understand why. Most Catholics I know are so nice loving persons. In our 2000 year history we have had the most loving saints an holy people. Our hierarchy through the ages has withstood wars, uprisings, dissent within, scandals, and still it remains committed and world strong. We have shaped cultures and have affected history all over the world. I can't understand why you have a hatred for an institution that doesn't get in your business or harm you. How does my church affect you as opposed to the Buddist religion affect you? Do you feel the same way about them also? Or is it just catholics. And if you hate the hierarchy, you must hate the 2000 years of them and that sure is a lot of years. We, throughout history have been seen in a very negative light. I try to understand it and can only come up with what the reason is. Its fear.

To be a bigot is un-christian, yet you claim to be christian as your personal God inspires you to hate the Roman Church, yet she has not personally affected you or your life. I don't get you. Christianity inspires love for all people and all faiths, unconditionally. What kind of Christianity do you practice?

(Edited by jade on 05-14-2005 04:08)

quote:

---

Our hierarchy through the ages has withstood wars, uprisings, dissent within, scandals,

---

I almost spit my drink all over my monitor.

'Your' heirarchy has PROPAGATED 'wars, uprisings, dissent within, scandals,' throughout its history.

What you have to remember, jade, is that many of us are quite educated - apparantly far more than you are - in regard to european history, which of course means educated in the history of the catholic church.

Your statements in denial of historic fact are just plain silly.

quote:

---

he history of the catholic church is rife with blasphemy, lies, murder and death.

---

And so is the history of entire early chrsitianity and judaism and hinduism and every other major belief humans have seperated themselfs among.

The whole faith was born on wars, constantly eliminating competitors and rivals

DL has said it and pointed out many many times that there never was and never were "original" teachings of Christianity.
It all started out like a boiling pot each sect struggling for it's righteousness, murdering, fighting, accusing others of blashphemy

There is very little information and evidence to the "orginal" teachings of christianity.

But I am sure you are aware of it.

When I posted the second time up above (the "tangent"), I neglected to reply to the comments that directly followed my first post. To WM, I would not presume to teach anyone here, but I am glad that you found what I said to have some worth. I appreciate your comment.

Now to clarify some of my statements for Gideon...

quote:

---

2.) Jesus did tell the Pharisees and Saducees to "chill." But He also said to not to chill to the point of abandoning the law. What I got from your post is that as long as there is love, then the stuff afterwards will just happen. I can't really agree with that. Love is amazing, and should be given to all, but you can love a person, without accepting his or her beliefs (Like I do with Atheism. One of my best friends is nearly Atheistic, and another is very occultistic, or something along those lines, and I still love them both.)

---

It is unfortunate that that's what you got from my post, because that is not what I meant. When did I ever say that one should abandon the law? I said that the foundation of all law is love. And when I said that everything else will fall into place, I did not say that it would "just happen." What I meant was that the building blocks of the law would fall into place on a foundation of love, because if you love God you will do what He commands. I was trying to stress the importance of love, because without love it is all pointless.

I will make a brief confession: I used to be a pretty severe legalist. I would argue viciously with people about the finer points of religion, always determined to prove my point. A lot of things have happened to me in my life that I don't have the time to go into right now, but I learned that love is not just "amazing," it is everything. I drove people away with my arguing and self-righteousness, and I thought I was doing God's work. Well, so did the crusaders (sorry, just got back from seeing Kingdom of Heaven). God's work is love.

I also did not say that to love someone meant to accept his or her beliefs. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

quote:

---

3.) Yes. I agree with all, but if you see a brother walking out onto a busy highway, do you just let him "do his thing?" That commandment is about nit-picky things like eating habits, and minor doctrine. But, occult and Satanism are not really minor doctrinal differences, or an eating habit.

---

"Nit-picky things like eating habits"? Honestly, I am surprised to hear someone as well-versed in the Scriptures as yourself say something like that. You know how big of a deal eating habits were in Biblical times. You also know that the problem the new believers had with eating meat offered to idols was that, to them, it was the same as partaking in the occult. Before these new believers joined the church, they also ate the meat offered to the idols, but this was as part of their worship of these idols. To the older believers it was nothing, since they saw the idols as nothing more than wooden and stone images, but the new believers didn't see it the same way.

The "busy highway" metaphor is one that is used a lot in churches, but I have a few problems with it. Firstly, it is not up to you to decide what is right or wrong for your brother, it is up to him to decide. Secondly, even if what he is doing is obviously wrong to you, what makes you think that anything you say or do to him will change his mind? You may talk to him about it, certainly, but unless he shows a desire to change, you will most likely be talking to him in vain. So what should you do? Pray for him. Pray that the Holy Spirit moves him to repentance, because as Christians we believe that only the Holy Spirit can change a man's heart, and even then only when that heart is open. We cannot take the work of the Holy Spirit upon ourselves.

Perhaps we disagree on minor points. That's fine. But I trust that the foundation of our faith is the same, and so I trust that you will decide what is right for you in your love for God, and I will decide what is right for me in my love for God.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I wish you would post more often, Suho.

While we share no such foundation of faith, I admire both your outlook and your ability to express it.
As I've said to Bugs fairly often in the past - remove god from your words and we're on the same page

^ Amen!!

Nice post, Master Suho!

quote:

---

So, Jade, if you were faced with a suicidal maniac, you would base your actions on what God has said. Correct?

---

Well.... it depends on the circumstance. If it was someone I knew then I would say or act differently as opposed to some stranger I came across. I don't have the credentials to do some psychology on them to talk them out of it. I would try to reason them to calm down and give them some TLC. Though I have had exposure to persons who had suicidial tendencies, they were not able to carry it out. Or the time in which they felt worthless and depressed passed. I always encourage prayer to most my friends anyway. If the person needs medication to help his depression, then its just a matter of getting them the right medical help.

This might be a pointless question, but perhaps you'll pardon my ignorance: how does one know what God commands? Surely (as in the Catholic Church) the commandments of your average organised faith are simply the expressions of mortal men; the middle-men of your religion imparting to you what they think God wishes of you?

In this respect, and as these Godly demands have evolved so radically since first being bloodily debated by mere mortals, a true believer surely defines their level of faith by how they have satisfied somewhat changeable religious requirements, as set down by that religion's mortal go-betweens? Even the foundations of a faith's teachings are no more than historical documents, written and repeatedly re-interpreted by mortals.

As the more obviously brutal or impractical elements of most faiths have become comparitively subdued over time, the commands to slay non-believers, stone bastard-mothers to death, or deny the meat of a cloven animal have been conveniently forgotten - but do you suppose for a moment that some of these earlier believers might have looked at even the most devout of modern "lovers of Christ" as timid and half-hearted followers? Untrue to their faith?

Always having had the choice, I chose to hold myself accountable for the way in which I lead my life. I shan't indulge in self-flagellation to atone for playing a morally repulsive character in a game, but neither shall I accept the role as a model for my real life. I'm not sure that I'd ever want to be part of an organised belief system that blurred my distinction between the two.

In that respect, I'd probably give up religion before fantasy violence.

^ You should hang out here a bit more. =)

quote:

---

This might be a pointless question, but perhaps you'll pardon my ignorance: how does one know what God commands? Surely (as in the Catholic Church) the commandments of your average organised faith are simply the expressions of mortal men; the middle-men of your religion imparting to you what they think God wishes of you?

---

WH. I will put it into this perspective as best I can. Thur the power of the holy spirit of Jesus Christ, I am lead to follow a religious faith, which I believe in wholehearlty. Though the faith was handed down to me from many generations, during my growing up years I practiced because that was what Caths did. I observed all holy days and teachings of the church. Into adulthood and after I married I grew lets say lukewarm, but still attented Mass because that was disipline. I began to persue interest that took much time and raising three children along with being a wife I did not dedicate much time in searching for why I believe the way I did. I started to study my faith because I was getting all these questions and I couldn't answer them as well as I should of . So I thought what kind of Cath am I? Because its one thing to be born into a religion and another when you have to come to the realization that you have to uderstand the whys of why you are Cath? This is when I began my spiritual jornney into the truth of my faith and thus began to grow and feel a deep intense love for it. I began to read church early hisory, its fathers, its tradtions, its saints. I began to feel a deep passion for reading about it. I began to grow in wisdom. I realized God calls you in small steps in revelation and not all at once. Because it too much to bear at once. The love of my faith became so important to be in its history and beauty. It it then when I understood the relationship in which God desires complete union thur his son. And how so good I felt. Thur the centuries though there was reforms and changes, the important teachings from Christ have never changed. Though mortal men are safegarged to hand down the faith thur the centuries, its continuity to remain true to the gospel never waivers. It was not about how many people the church persecuted centuries ago or what horrible scandals it went thur, it was about me and the Lord my God. ITs about love. The institution of the faith is still a beacon for millions of followers, because they see past the human failing of men. We, as believers always continue to seek truth, because the truth doesn't lie.

My good friend is dying of Cancer and has about 2 weeks. I see how she is at peace with dying because she believes truth has revealed itself to her. She is radiant, loving and not angry or scared to die. She is in extreme pain, but she continues to offers thanks and give praise to the Lord or God. I believe this courage comes from Christ. I hope I have the courage to die like this.

(Edited by jade on 05-15-2005 16:40)

quote:

---

Though the faith was handed down to me from many generations, during my growing up years I practiced because that was what Caths did. I observed all holy days and teachings of the church.

---

Or, in other words, programmed.

Thanks Jade, that makes things so much clearer.

Well... actually not, but at least you've given me an insight into the relationship between self-definition in the context of a religious follower/fanatic, and the determination of that religion's edicts.

I am now an enlightened being. The fact that I have always sought truth means that I should believe in God, and therefore lead my life according to some religious leader's ideals of his/her faith.

I'm so glad you converted me from a non-religious, righteous, moral, and truth-seeking person, into a religious, righteous, moral, and truth-seeking person. :P

I was not, in fact, questioning the strength of your faith, but rather wondering if the quality of one's faith can be defined outside of the constraints of the religion as defined by its leaders, or if each faithful follower of a religion sees themselves as truly righteous only when following what they see as the absolute word of God as related to them by a wholly human and mortal (and therefore fallible and changeable) council.

The answer you have given me is that faith comes first, then the definition of that faith (therefore providing the possibility that fanatics will always require some leader or other to tell them when it is okay to sneeze)... or was it that the faith is defined, but the comitment to it is a matter of personal determination... or was it that "I am adamantly religious, and therefore your question will go unanswered as I tell you all about it"?

I'm just confused now...

[edit] And I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but are you suggesting that only the truly religious are able to die well? I do not fear death, and I hope that I can go with a little grace in spite of pain or suffering - but I truly believe that each of us has a strength to overcome adversity (even in the face of imminent death) with-or-without 'true faith' or 'the love of Christ'. [/edit]

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-15-2005 21:52)

I've seen those who "believed" go yammering and crying to their deaths, and I have seen those who worshipped Satan go calmly.

*shrugs*

I don't see that that has anything at all to do with belief, nor do I see that it has anything to do with the topic.

Personally, my experiences tell me it doesn't matter what you believe, every person reacts differently when faced with their own personal death.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I wish you would post more often, Suho.

While we share no such foundation of faith, I admire both your outlook and your ability to express it.

---

Thank you, DL (and WS). You can probably imagine why I don't post more often in these types of threads--it's very easy for me to slip back into my legalist, argumentative self, and that's something I'd like to avoid. Debate and argument can be good, sharpening the intellect and strengthening faith, but (as you know) a lot of these threads devolve very quickly into mindless yammering. I only posted here because Gideon was seeking guidance, so I figured I'd offer my thoughts. I'm glad others have appreciated them as well.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

You can probably imagine why I don't post more often in these types of threads--it's very easy for me to slip back into my legalist, argumentative self, and that's something I'd like to avoid. Debate and argument can be good, sharpening the intellect and strengthening faith, but (as you know) a lot of these threads devolve very quickly into mindless yammering.

---

Maybe if you posted more often, Master Suho, it would tend NOT to devolve. Just a thought.

Bugs doesn't tend to post much anymore - and a more "enlightened" side of Belief is always welcome (at least, it is imho).

A reasoned, well-written response I believe is always well received, even if it is not entirely agreed with.

Be that as it may - your post was well written, and well received!

Bugs who?

Gideon, I think you would do well to read and then re-read Master Suho's advice he's offered you. Don't worry about responding to them as much as taking it in and doing your best to understand what was said.

I think there is a definite parallel to the "meat sacrificed to idols" issue with regards to D&D and other media that you originally asked about. For some there is absolutely no problem with playing these games or watching certain movies. That is simply a fact as I know from my own life as well as others. Still there are those who will be adversely affected by such activities and they should abstain. If I could add just one more point from Paul it would be:

quote:

---

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God? even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. --1 Corinthians 10: 31-33

---

The point is to never lose sight of our mission and purpose on this earth which is firmly rooted in love, of God and of our fellow humans.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Are you back for good, Bugs?

Say it's true!

Sorry for the brief departure from the thread...

Hehe.

WS, I've *always* been here

But seriously, I will be coming and going for periods at a time. Due to new responsibilities and varying schedules in my life these days, it just seems the way of things for a while.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Maybe if you posted more often, Master Suho, it would tend NOT to devolve. Just a thought.

---

You know, I had a feeling you were going to say that. I can't really say that I have a good answer to that, except to say that is easier to avoid some threads entirely than it is to resist the temptation to verbally pound people into the ground. I am a bit weak in that regard. What can I say?

Bugs: Good addition. That is definitely the heart of the matter. I'm also glad to see you around again, too.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

WS, I've *always* been here

---

"And Bugs said, Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the thread."

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Gggg....Webshaman, you forgot to mention Bible Adventures....

Hee hee! I played that "wonderful" game some time ago--and wasn't really impressed with it (and I'm a Christian)! It's good for kids....

But...What I think is funny, is the fact that most people, in reference to Christian computer game making, bring up Bible Adventures and others--especially, when Wisdom Tree quite obviously made it for kids!

Why don't you focus on the demonic thrillers entitled Catechumen and Ominous Horizons??? They were a smashing success--although I don't recommend even a Christian playing them. Now, Saints of Virtue or Captain Bible are another story....

In closing, if I found a Christian playing the computer game "Grand Theft Auto", I would have a LONG talk with that boy!

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

Not being religious, I pardon my addiction to video-game violence with the excuse that it keeps me from actually killing some mouthy little scumbag on my journey to/from work. Unleashing a little bloodlust on some unsuspecting pixels is certainly more wholesome than becoming a full-on psychotic vigilante.==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

---

Sir, you are influenced by what you do the most--ask the Indian Sadhus, Yogis, and the Yoga experts.....

Here is a quote to ponder on....What I practice in a fictitious world, I soon practice in the real world.

--JFB

Gggg....Webshaman, you forgot to mention Bible Adventures....

Hee hee! I played that "wonderful" game some time ago--and wasn't really impressed with it (and I'm a Christian)! It's good for kids....

But...What I think is funny, is the fact that most people, in reference to Christian computer game making, bring up Bible Adventures and others--especially, when Wisdom Tree quite obviously made it for kids!

Why don't you focus on the demonic thrillers entitled Catechumen and Ominous Horizons??? They were a smashing success--although I don't recommend even a Christian playing them. Now, Saints of Virtue or Captain Bible are another story....

In closing, if I found a Christian playing the computer game "Grand Theft Auto", I would have a LONG talk with that boy!

quote:

---

I was not, in fact, questioning the strength of your faith, but rather wondering if the quality of one's faith can be defined outside of the constraints of the religion as defined by its leaders, or if each faithful follower of a religion sees themselves as truly righteous only when following what they see as the absolute word of God as related to them by a wholly human and mortal (and therefore fallible and changeable) council.

---

Ok. Sorry.

Quality of faith? Well, ... maybe sincerity or the truth of ones aspirations in faith.

For Christians its very clear thur sacred scriptures that when even the most sincerist believers are left to themselves without a guiding authority, they will wander off into error. This makes sense in any organization. Right?. Look at the thousands of Christians sects out there today each claiming authority. Yes, you can love Christ apart from a organized faith following, but the fullnesst of truth in what scripture reveals is that Christ's Church has the authoritiy to keep the flock together as one. How can the sheep be tended & kept together without a shepherd? This is only the visible part of the doctrine of faith. What about the invisible church in its divine communal rituals. The faithful need each one other to be communal in their offerings. For me, I cannot follow my own path., I follow the path Christ shows me along with many others thur the power holy spirit given to us at Pentecost. Together we are building Christ church up in the physical as well as the spiritual. We cannot do this alone.
Per Scripture:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Who are the teachers referred to here?

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is a different gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.'' (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
St. Paul writes to a junior bishop in commissioning his apostles:
Christ himself established the apostles with the authority to teach in his name until his coming again at the end of time. He promised them the holy spirit to keep them free from all error.

How does a human institution keep the church free from error?

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29-30)



Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. (John 15:20)
and you [Apostles] also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:27)

When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)



Matthew 28 18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Here, authority has been been given and delegated to men before the church was incepted.

So the church in its fullness, is not only made of wood or stone. It has flesh and bone. Its also people, who without them the chruch could not stand alone. So the church needs people as much as the people need a chruch to guide them into the ages to come.

Actually, to tell you the truth this is the first I have heard of Jack Chick. If what Jade says is true that he writes stuff against Catholics, then He really doesn't know what Christ's love is about.

I apologize for the whole scare, but this article was not written by Chick. It was instead posted on his site with permission from the author, William Schnoebelen.

He was the ex-Wiccan High Priest I was talking about. Just to clarify more, he wrote that essay explicitly for Christians. It is not really meant to persuade those who are not trying to follow Christ's Way. If you do take it from the world's point of view it, as many other Christian works, looks like hogwash. Taken from a Christian perspective, though, it is an essay that presents some good ideas about playing fantasy games.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Taken from a Christian perspective, though, it is an essay that presents some good ideas about playing fantasy games.

---

No.

It isn't.

Regardless of religious perspective.

Jade - if you were to follow the sacred scriptures to the letter, you might be a bi-polar schizoid psychotic who preached forgiveness and love while wreaking the wrath of God upon the unworthy; your brutal moral and humanitarian values would be completely out-of-odds with the supposedly enlightened modern world, and you'd probably be in prison right now, having attempted a defence of "...but they deserved to burn - they were copulating while unmarried, worshipping false idols [celebrities?]..." or something along those lines...

In context, I queried the validity a religious follower attributes to the contemporary teachings and attitudes of their denomination's ministers. It seems that their inspiration is almost worshipped as an abstract; an ideal that the chosen celebrants are charged with encouraging the masses to adhere to. I am now more curious than ever about the evolving interpretation of a faith's scriptures, the reconciliation of a religion's founding principles with its contemporary understanding, and the relationship faith has with personal belief; esp. the cyclical nature of faith and belief. Which begets which?

...and why is a question of the devout answered with a rant? A tirade of quotes, always selectively extracted or manipulated into a personal expression? Why is it not possible to determine what drives the person behind the worshipper?

I suspect it is a way of avoiding facing the real issues. A kind of fantasy.


JFritzyB - you astound me with your ability take a potentially profound concept and reduce it to cheap flippancy...

Perhaps you would like to note my later post:

quote:

---

Always having had the choice, I chose to hold myself accountable for the way in which I lead my life.

---

If I become a psychotic killer, then it might just be possible that this latent propensity for violent homicide was the reason for my love of (violent) computer games in the first place.
True - indulging in the fantasy might plausibly have hastened my ultimate descent into inhumanity, but without the desire to indulge in the first place, I might never have partaken of either- fantasy or reality.

Now, joking aside, I am simply not a violent person - no more than I've ever had to be. I am often criticised for being a little too submissive.

Anyway, computer games allow me to do more than reap carnage upon hapless sprites - they allow me to escape into a fantastic world of heavenly beauty or insidious mystery; to trade with bizarre aliens, or to save an entire civilisation from their demise at the hands of a brutal aggressor; to soar across galaxies in pursuit of unimaginable treasures, or take command of a naval fleet against a well-equipped foe; to free furry cutesy thingies from cruel imprisonment...

...or, once in a while, play the bad guy for a little gratuitous stress-relief. -->

As most other forms of stress relief are either frowned-upon by most religions, or possible causes of repetitive stress injury, then these little flights of fancy are sometimes the best (though most certainly not the only) relief from feelings of frustration or anger that are physically manifest.

Most of all though, games (inc. computer games) are just simple stimulation any time you fancy doing something that challenges your reflexes, co-ordination, strength, stamina, problem-solving abilities, team-playing spirit, or even (shock horror) for a little competitive fun!

Now, kids have played Cowboys and Indians (for instance) for generations, and yet it was there forefathers - possibly more devoutly God-fearing people - who virtually eradicated an entire race for their land (in a manner that was seen at the time as, if not acceptable, then at least unworthy of significant protest), or slaughtered eachother over their beliefs, or burned women out of superstition, etc, etc. These children don't necessarily grow up to become killers just because they put down their sucker-bows and cap-guns for a console controller.

In fact, it is arguably those whose parents failed to provide a balance of discipline and love, and encourage personal moral values, and perhaps who had no creative or fantasy outlet for their frustrations, who turned to drugs (which is not an entirely popular gaming theme), violence (not the 'saving mankind from alien invaders' variety), and murder.

It strikes me that one of the most prevalent asserions common to pathological killers and gangsta' gunmen, is that they have no way to escape it, no choice in doing it, and that they're the product of circumstance. They seem to think the world owes them something

Strangely enough, though I still have yet to see a mad gunman slaughter half a city with a plasma rifle, I often hear/read that the latest celebrity serial-/mass-/psycho-killer blamed his/her actions on the command of God, or on their belief that they were punishing the infidels, or simply because they saw themselves as doing God's work.

Ultimately, if you are unhinged enough to commit such an atrocious act as pre-meditated murder, then the playing of violent games would either not interest you that much during the inevitable degradation of your principles (who wants to play games when you've a gruesome murder to plan?) or would be no more than a temporary outlet until a suitable opportunity to enact the reality came along.

In conclusion, to answer Gideon's initial question, I really don't think that the devoutly religious should be given access to potentially inflamatory or violent media or games - they're just not well-balanced enough! It is obviously harder for the average God-fearing (fear of God = love of God?) neurotic (as opposed to your average plain or vanilla varieties) to differentiate between reality and fantasy; even to the point of questioning their ability to participate, uninfluenced, in a little role-playing!


However, I do worry more that certain games, video and music might be inappropriately marketed to younger age groups.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-17-2005 22:46)

quote:

---

I chose to hold myself accountable for the way in which I lead my life.

---

Spot on! Nicely said!

THAT is the kernel that drives the realist, IMHO. Accepting responsibility for ones own life, actions and being held accountable for ones actions.

quote:

---

quote:Taken from a Christian perspective, though, it is an essay that presents some good ideas about playing fantasy games.



No.

It isn't.

Regardless of religious perspective.

---

Amen to that, DL!

Thanks Suho. I thank you for the reprimand. You are right about Christ's love, and how it is first. I must admit that I have problems with the legalistics too much as well. The nit-pickiness I was refering to was "kosher," I think it is called, but I could be wrong. I didn't think about the idol thing, and that makes sense. Thanks for that. About the brother/sister thing, I agree that it is the Holy Spirit's work in the heart, but I believe that if we see a brother or sister going down a dark path, we need to caution them. I'm not talking about yelling and storming around like an angery chicken, but at least tell them that it could pose problems. Just to clear up, it really doesn't matter what I think of the matter, it is what the Word says.

I personally think about such fantasy games that they have the potential to wreck a person's spiritual life. I know some can avoid the temptation, but a lot can see subtle changes. I was convicted a while ago about fantasy games and violent games, but I didn't (and still really haven't) come to a solid conclusion about it yet. I have researched, and looked in God's Word, and prayed, and am pretty sure that I know what is what, but you are right Suho, it is personal. I just posted that essay because it helped bring some info I hadn't thought about before into light, and I was hoping others might like to see it.

Jade-
About the church, I believe that there really is only one Church, the Christian Church that is the body of believers. To me a church is not a building, it is not an organization, and it is certainly not something worried about personal holdings on earth. This belief has come from prayer and reading God's Word. I don't believe that Catholics are evil, I believe the exact contrary and believe that the true believers are going to heaven just as I. But that does not mean I agree with everything in the Catholic Church.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

And so is the history of entire early chrsitianity and judaism and hinduism and
every other major belief humans have seperated themselfs among. The
whole faith was born on wars, constantly eliminating competitors and rivals

---

Ponder this: Jesus was more interested in dying Himself than killing others...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Gideon: There was no need for a reprimand, and that's not the way it was intended--it was just some heartfelt advice from one brother to another. Glad I could be of assistance.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I have a question for you Gideon - do Mormons, according to your belief, go to Heaven? They believe that Christ is the savior.

Do they?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Yes.

quote:

---

Basic beliefs

You may have questions about what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe. Some of the basic beliefs of the Church are:

* God is our Heavenly Father. He loves us and wants us to return to Him.
* Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is our Savior. He redeems us from death by providing the Resurrection. He saves us from sin as we repent.
* Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can return to live with God if we keep His commandments.
* The Holy Ghost helps us to recognize truth.
* The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
* The Church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth.
* The priesthood authority of God exists in His Church today, just as it did in the original Church.
* The Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God.
* God reveals His will to prophets today, just as He did anciently.
* Our life has a sacred purpose.
* Families can be together forever.
* Through serving others, we can experience joy and draw closer to God.

---

http://www.mormon.org

Do they believe that Jesus Christ is their savior? Yes, they do.

Allow me to pose a critical question though. Is the Jesus Christ who Mormons speak of the same Jesus Christ described in the New Testament?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

They do use the new testament - the bible is as integral a part of their religion as the book of mormon is.

Certainly, from my limited understanding at this point, there are some bizarre differences in the view of world history....

But though they seem to use 'additional' information, they do still also use the bible as a critical source.

quote:

---

Ponder this: Jesus was more interested in dying Himself than killing others...

---

again, what does this has to do with anything?

quote:

---

Is the Jesus Christ who Mormons speak of the same Jesus Christ described in the New Testament?

---

Yes...and no. Rather, It is the same Jesus Christ, it is just that apparently he also visited North America (which certainly isn't mentioned in the New Testament, but in the Book of the Mormon).

Otherwise, yes, it is Jesus Christ, son of God, yadda yadda...

Read your quote, then read my quote Ruski. Jesus was not in the business of killing rivals. Quite the contray, he said to submit to the very ones who killed Him...

quote:

---

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

If someone calls on Jesus they are saved.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

ok, I know all that thankyouverymuch

but what the hell does it has do with what I have said?
I was not talking about any Jesus, I talked about groups of religions including christianity that were born from violence.

It's getting old to heard from fanatics like you the same old shit. "believe and Jesus saves" Sticking in Jesus in every other sentence.

there is nothing to be saved from, Gid. And this whole eternal Disney Land is what keeps you delusioned

Ruski, keeping Jesus Christ central to our lives represents the core of Xianity. We could hardly call ourselves Xians if we didn't. It's just the way it is, when you speak with Xians you are going to get reminded about Jesus Christ at every turn. It is uncomfortable by design.

WS and DL, there are many differences between mainstream Xianity and Mormonism to be sure. The key difference, in fact the one that does not allow me to consider Mormons as Xians, is that they do not believe Jesus Christ is God. They believe him to be a created being. This is a very similar situation with the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus Christ to be an arch angel.

I maintain that you cannot deny one of the most crucial aspects of who Jesus Christ is and be a true follower. As soon as you've done that you've created a separate religion from the Xianity of the 1st century.

I have explained here before where the New Testament states that Jesus Christ claimed to be God. These other groups are really just recycled heresies like the Arians who also denied the divinity of Christ.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-20-2005 20:47)

Sooo...according to you, Bugs, someone has to believe that Jesus is God before they go to heaven?

Just checking.

quote:

---

I maintain that you cannot deny one of the most crucial aspects of who Jesus Christ is and be a true follower

---

And I am sure they feel the same way =)

Thing is....we don't have a whole lot in the way of explaining the nature of christ until well after the fact.
The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't read such things until further down the road.

I would assume that this is part of what is meant when the mormons say that the true way was lost in the 2nd century...

We owe this view of the nature of christ to the proto-orthodox (those who became the roman catholics), and their evolving doctrine (as each revision of the view of the nature of christ came about, earlier versions [by very devout and upstanding proto-orthodox christians] became declared as heretical).

So these "crucial aspects" of who Jesus was are very much open to interpretation and have been viewed very differently by christians right from the start.

I try to relay what is written in the NT to you. It says that the only way to heaven is through Christ. The Christ described is not a created being and not an angel but God himself. So, yes, I hold that one must believe in the Jesus Christ that we find in the NT in order to go to heaven.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

So the Jews do not go to heaven, God's chosen people?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't
read such things until further down the road.

---

There's no way I can agree with that. Christ's divinity expressed in the gospel accounts that we know were written while Christ's apostles were still alive.

WS, the most amazing and exhilerating tihing about the gospel of Christ is that it is open to all peoples.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-20-2005 22:53)

And thats where you are wrong Bugs, I would highly recommend looking at the book called "Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

Regardless where your personal feelings lead you to or how you percieve new testament there was never a true original idea of christianity.

Most recent historians and biblical scholars agree that Books in NT were written at least up to 80 years after the death of so called "Jesus" and his followers. There is very little evidence or knowledge of what exactly was the movement like.

It's even evident that at the beggining Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish sect and tried to remain so, until a newely converted fanatic as we know him Paul or Saul spread his interpretations and ideas to non Jews as well added to the idea to the worship of "Jesus".

There were so many christian practices and beliefs all percieving so called "Jesus" in very radical different ways, one includes "the gospel of Mary Magdaline" spreading a popular legend of Jesus being from the Heritage of Abraham and Davind as he was supposed to provide with the heir to the throne.

Not to mention still surviving "gnostic" sects of christianities.

Hell we don't even know a true name of this so called saviour which probably was Yehoshua or something.

Even this gospels you hold so true contradict each other on various points. Like, Matthew and Luke give a completely different versions of Jesus's last words, both of them being incidentally quotations from the old testament.

Sometimes it seems like you cannot be objective when discusing a history of christianity.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-20-2005 23:25)

Okay...here is what Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein has to say about it.

quote:

---

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said that the theology of Evangelical Christians has an ?exclusivist? nature to it ? believing in the ?centrality of Jesus? in order to obtain salvation ? which runs counter to many other religions, and even other denominations of Christianity. For example, Eckstein notes that in Judaism, one can be considered a good person without being Jewish by observing the Noahide laws outlined in Genesis.

---

from here Bush clarifies his
stand on Jews, heaven

Then we have this

quote:

---

A Rabbi?s perspective
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp
by Rabbi Shraga Simmons

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

Scriptures from teh Qur'an 4:163-165
163 Lo! We inspire thee (Muhammad) as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;

164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;

165 Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Robage

---

From Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

quote:

---

Ruski said:

Sometimes it seems like you cannot be objective when discusing a history of
christianity.

---

Please point out where I am not objective because I do try my best to be so.

You'll notice that I told you very plainly what is contained in the NT. My words above are not how I "perceive" it, nor are they how I "want" it to be, they are conveying what I read there.

I understand there are differing interpretations of many Xian doctrines and I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is that mainstream Xianity agrees on whether or not the NT says that Jesus Christ the man was Jesus Christ God. All the major Xian sects agree on that. Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses do not agree, each for different reasons neither of which are defensible without mangling the words found in the NT documents.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Your replay to DL was just that

quote:

---

quoteL-44 said:

The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't
read such things until further down the road.


There's no way I can agree with that. Christ's divinity expressed in the gospel accounts that we know were written while Christ's apostles were still alive.

---

we were discussing history and as I remeber DL pointed out this same thing many many times before how different was early christianity. Sometimes he would point out things like that the divinity of Jesus was not taken into concideration and would provide the source from contemporary biblical scholars, of course it's is very contrary to the collection of texts that make up bible, but you suddenly put away historical data and directly embraced the literature as your historical source. That's were subjectivity gets in a way and the whole discussion of history turns into personal interpretation of Jewish literature.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the NT itself cannot be regarded as historical evidence. Are you saying that?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Oh that's helpful... thanks, WH. Wasn't it you who said this earlier?

quote:

---

Even the foundations of a faith's teachings are no more than historical documents, written and repeatedly re-interpreted by mortals.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2005 06:01)

Jiminy Crickets batman, the Jews are as self-deluding as the xians.

Look at all that circular reasoning, trying to prove the argument by quoting as authority, the very subject matter under discussion. No wonder they never lose an argument...there is no argument to win, either one of them.

No wonder poor gid is so confused.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

There you are. Sorry I missed ya


Ruski, what I'm saying is that I am aware of the arguments that DL is bringing up but I am refuting a specific one about Jesus' divinity not showing up until later by citing historical documents that prove there were a substantial number of followers in the first century who held that belief.

I'm sure DL can shed more specifics on just how much longer he thinks this belief showed up. I am not emotional or unobjective, I am simply disagreeing based on the evidence I'm citing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2005 06:06)

I understand Bugs, but on what grounds? What were exactly those early beliefs that held divinity of Jesus, what kind of divinity, fully God? or demi-god?
We know that the concept of trinity was decided much much later around after or during the 4th century CE, buy a bunch of bishops that constanitne apointed to debate over this issue and bring christianity to a final concept.


And yes I do concider NT and OT to play good amount of evidence interms of history, but not in this way " Ohh look it says so, then it must have been so"

NT and OT are Literature books, they do not relfect objective historical and realistic information, what on the other hand they do reflect is the ideals and phychological mentality of people that wrote and lived by this ideas.

There was a link in the other thread I posted regarding the development of Yahwishim from Baalishm and other babylonian mythologies. To me this is just that, another culture developing it's ideals on dieties and how they must be interpret, no wonder they broke away from most of the tribes and developed Judaism, the same people who did not accept the worship of nature gods that were common in those areas. Christianity just futher expanded on similar path with it's own idea and broke away as a new faith, similar path was fallowed by the development of islam....
But what the hell, it's not like you are going to accept that Yawishim was just another human concept people came up with for the explanation of how the world has functioned aka Genesis...and all this "evilness" of so called idol worship which was very necessary part of polytheistic faithes. The followers of new born faith Judaism did nothing more than break away from old traditions with the emerging of new idea about one invincible omnipotent diety to fit their needs.

Traditions are alwasy challeneged with the new emergin ideas and always are concidered to be "evil".

(Edited by Ruski on 05-21-2005 06:38)

Brief notes for the moment -

It is agreed by most scholars that the gospels were written in the vacinity of about 70 ad, up until the finishing of the gospel of John around the turn of the century.

If my memory is correct, this late addition to what we view today as the gospels (and again I must remind you there were many others) is the first time we see mention of Jesus in the light of being part of god.

I will need to refresh my memory on the specifics.

It is also important to note that we *cannot* be in any way certain what the gospels originally said.
We do not have significant portions of the texts from any earlier than the 3rd/4th century.

So we have a gap of several decades before the gospels started being put down on paper at all.

We have a couple of centuries of doctrinal evolution before we find significant portions of the text.

During these times we see many forgeries of texts and manipulations of texts (many gospels were rejected because they were known to be forgeries in their own time, and nearly half of the works of paul in the NT have been shown to be forgeries).

If that can be considered historical evidence of something as specific as wether a person was the son of god, god himself, an angel, or some other form of divine being (when there is not even a consensus on the issue among the various gospels), then 'evidence' needs to be redefined...

But there is something else to consider - and that is what the Jews are saying.

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies that were given to the Jews from God himself through prophets (according to the Jews).

quote:

---

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

Blocks are mine. The Jews have other books, manuscripts, and teachings that are far older than the NT, btw. Apparently early Xians didn't include them into the Bible and the NT (I wonder why? Because they show that Jesus could not be The Messiah?).

I find this more than telling, especially when one combines it with the information that DL has posted. Just "conviently" leave out those manuscripts that show that Jesus cannot be The Messiah. Interesting.

Why would God lie to his Chosen people, and exclude them from Heaven? Is any Xian seriously suggesting that Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Moses, David, Joshua, etc did not go to heaven?

And it would seem that the Mormons and JW are accepting the view of the Jews to a point (concerning the human properties of Jesus), moreso than the Evangelist Xians.

And who are Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi? I need to do some research on these two. It would seem that the Jews have more information on the actual events of that time, than what is revealed in the NT.

Pretty interesting stuff!

Bar Cochba - Under the leadership of Bar Cochba, or Barcochebas, the Jews revolted in Palestine during Hadrian´s reign (A.D. 117-138). They persecuted the native Christians for refusing to join the insurrection.

Shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish warrior Bar Cochba led a short-lived rebellion against the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel (80-83 CE). Maimonides describes Bar Cochba as "a great king whom all of Israel, including the great sages, were convinced was the messiah" (Hilchot Ta'aniot Ch. 5, Hilchot Melachim Ch. 11). In fact, one of the reasons that the solemn fast of Tisha B'Av (the ninth of Av) was instituted - in addition to the destruction of the Holy Temple - was to commemorate Bar Cochba's downfall.

This is crucial to a proper understanding of the role of the messiah. From Maimonides' words, we understand that Bar Cochba's attempt to restore the kingdom to Israel and return the nation to its land is clearly defined by Jewish law as a messianic manifestation. Thus a fast was decreed for all generations to mourn the failure of this process. In other words, the attempts of Bar Cochba had messianic potential.

Bar Cochba was the Jewish leader of the disastrous rebellion against Roman occupation in 132 A.D. Bar Cochba believed he was a messiah and descendent of King David. The rebellion was put down savagely, and Bar Cochba was killed in battle

This makes for fascinating reading - Mashiach: The Messiah especiallythis part

quote:

---

What About Jesus?

Jews know that Jesus could not possibly have been the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both of which are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as Jews have always understood it. Jesus neither did any of the things described above, nor did he bring about the anticipated messianic age.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, and harsh military figure. Among others, Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the mashiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold, of course. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach (as Jesus' followers should have done with their pretender to be mashiach).

Throughout Jewish history, there have been many people who have claimed to be the mashiach, or whose followers have claimed that they were the mashiach: Shimeon Bar Kochba, Shabbtai Tzvi, Jesus, and many others too numerous to name. Leo Rosten reports some very entertaining accounts under the heading False Messiahs in his book, The Joys of Yiddish. But all of these people died without fulfilling the mission of the mashiach; therefore, none of them was the mashiach. Thus, the mashiach and the messianic age lie in our age or in a future age, not in the past.

In our generation, thousands of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's followers claim that their brilliant Rebbe was the mashiach. But his more sensible students have now, after his death, expressed disappointment that it turned out that the Rebbe just did not fulfill the expectations described above in his lifetime, and admit that we are still waiting for the real mashiach to come.

---

And what about Shabbtai Tzvi?

quote:

---

The Doenmeh roots go back to the immense messianic crisis of the 1660s. Across the Jewish world, Shabbtai Tzvi, an Izmir-born kabbalist, was accepted as the promised redeemer of Israel. It was a turbulent time for Europe's Jews, who were looking for deliverance in the wake of the devastating massacres in Ukraine and elsewhere. Tzvi declared himself the messiah in 1665, and prepared to lead the Jewish people to the Holy Land. He also told his followers that the Ottoman sultan would become his slave.

In response, the Ottomans arrested Tzvi and gave him the choice of conversion or death. The messiah chose apostasy, and converted to Islam the next year. While the great majority of Jews subsequently renounced him, some - the ma'aminim, or "believers" - secretly kept their faith in him. About 200 families of believers - the original Doenmeh - followed Tzvi into Islam. In secret, they practiced their own form of Judaism, based on the "18 precepts" supposedly left by Tzvi - essentially the Ten Commandments (with a very ambiguous replacement for No. 7), along with a ban on intermarriage with true Muslims.

---

from Jewish Whistleblower

Interesting.

I find it particularly interesting, that followers of other "past" Messiahs continued to believe in them afterwards. Sects, if you will.

But the mainstream Jewish faith is still waiting for The Messiah to come.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-21-2005 10:38)

Me to Bug, next time.

Despite the high level of biblical scholarship displayed here, well beyond my simple abilities, none of it proves the existance of a god and I am still awaiting definitive proof of the existance of this fella jesus.

Please don't quote biblical or talmudic sources in this effort.

Show me.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Bugimus - my apologies if I was unlclear. My observation/opinion is, as I shall clarify:

Even the founding documents of faith are little more than repeatedly re-written and re-interpreted historical [fables? stories? testaments] that were written by people living in a very different time when superstition and ignorance were rife.

As such, they only evidentially represent the testimony of long-dead individuals whose sanity, gullibility, and susceptibility cannot be easily determined - being dead for thousands of years and all that.

Is that a little more helpful?

WH, I been tryin' to tell 'em that! They jist won't lissen.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

proof of the existance of this fella jesus.Please don't quote biblical
or talmudic sources in this effort.
Show me.

---

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians

Check out the ancient historians, I think those are the ones you want.

Sounds like you got a real wopper there WS. Thanks for that info, I never really knew why Jews didn't believe Jesus, now I do.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Those sources have been addressed here as well (recently Bugimus and I discussed them in one of these threads...)

Bottom line: the ones that are in the general time frame to be worth anything have only passing mentions, and in the context of the christian movement - not direct reference to him as a person.
Some of those sources are hundreds of years after the fact and are strictly theological in nature - nothing to do with any historical evidence of the man himself.

As I have said many times, I do accept that Jesus existed. The evidence does show that it is relatively probable he did.

There is a big leap between merely existing and being accurately described in gospels and the subsequent proto-orthodox theology.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-24-2005 01:11)

I find it pretty odd, how you, Gid, can believe what the Jews are saying in the Old Testament to the point that you believe in a "Young Earth", but you refuse to accept what they say about Jesus - both sources of knowledge are the same, you know.

How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the source itself.

In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do Jews go to heaven?

To be Christian doesn't mean being a citizen of some remote unfamiliar nation or something. It is not citizenry or election to high office. It it isn't some birth right or anything like that. You are not born Christian. You cannot resign and are not hired. It is a state of being. It is no man's to give it to you or take it away. Regardless of having been baptized or not you can be a good Christian because to be Christian is to accept a given (by the Bible) set of beliefs and values (a moral code) and to honestly try to endorse them with right deeds and lifestyle. If you do this then you are a good Christian, no matter what anyone (including the Church) says. If you strive not to harm (or hurt) when you can do nothing or not sit idly by when you can help, if you forgive when you can hate, etc.

I honestly don't see how playing CounterStrike, paintball or something can possibly be a sin. It's just plain silly and it's things like this that turn people from faith merely because they associate too closely the Clergy with God. Contrastingly, carrying a gun or hunting for fun is, in my opinion, wrong if not a sin. A gun is specifically designed to kill or permanently disable. By carrying a gun you basically affirm that you are willing to kill. You embrace the idea. You are ready to take life. You need but a reason. You only need to reach some trigger level or be given an adequate reason to kill. Yea, sure, it's for self defence. So many people can afford guns, can get permits and actually do need protection but they never buy a gun.

So we essentially agree, though I think that I can be a good 'person' without being associated with something as historically dubious as Christianity. Urgh! I like my morality without the hypocrisy myself.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I find it pretty odd, how you, Gid, can believe what the Jews are saying in the Old Testament to the point that you believe in a "Young Earth", but you refuse to accept what they say about Jesus - both sources of knowledge are the same, you know.
How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the source itself.
In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do Jews go to heaven?

---

I read The Book. I take The Book seriously, and I adhere to its teachings. I accept the truth, and I try what men say against the truth. What they say does not fit the Truth, that is why I am not a Jew, but a Christian who has entered into that beloved family of God's.

There are so many different views on the Jews, and that beloved nation that God has His hand on. It is amazing what has happened in recent years. Did you know that in the last few decades, Jews have slowly been trickling back into Jerusalem, and they now even have a country again? It is amazing what God does. But the revival of Israel is one of the last events on the prophecy calendar. It is pretty neat to think that the stage is set for the end-days.

Did you know that Israel has now decided to reinstate the old Sanhedrin? That is so awesome! A rumor going around is that their first order of buisness is deciding on making the Throne of David again! The very throne Jesus said He would come back and sit in! It is amazing!

Sorry about that, but I am really excited about God's chosen people. They aren't out of God's plan, no sir.

To answer your question, the Jews have a different kind of faith. They have the faith of Abraham in the invisible God. They may not believe in Jesus, but that doesn't mean God will pour out His wrath on them. He still loves them. I believe that in the glorious day that Jesus comes back, the scales will be lifted from our Jewish brothers' eyes, and they will realize that Jesus is Lord. All those things that the Rabbi mentioned were things that Jesus said He would do when He comes back. When He does they will realize the truth, and God will welcome them back into His arms.

So, long question, but it really excites me what God has planned for Israel.

I believe, though, that you wanted a less prophetic answer, and a more carnal one. Death perhaps? Well, that subject is a tough one, but Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

All those things that the Rabbi mentioned were things that Jesus said He would do when He comes back.

---

Typical brainwashing.

Nowhere does it say that the Messiah will do things AFTERWARDS.

Ok, whatever.

Hey shaman give it a rest, it's impossible to talk to him...time to start ignoring gid, since no matter what you say, his fundametalist views are just....well...scary.

If religion didn't exist, he'd have invented it...

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

Someone just like him did....many times.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

Is that a little more helpful?

---

Yes, now I know where you were coming from. My response is that you are correct about the documents being very old and certainly they have passed through many hands. However, as far as historical documents are concerned, they are the best supported ones we have compared to other works of antiquity by a large margin. Modern scholarship tells us that the text you and I can read in the NT was written before the end of the second century.

This means that we are not debating as much about whether what they say was really what they said, but rather whether what they say has any merit.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the
source itself.

In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do
Jews go to heaven?

---

It's a valid question to ask why we trust the Jewish scriptures but then distrust Jewish theologians about Jesus as Messiah. The answer is that Jewish scripture and history all pointed to Jesus Christ as is explained in the NT. All Christians before they were even called that were Jewish. There was hardly a distinction at the time.

Judaism experienced a schism the day the church was born and that schism remains unto this day. The Jews of the first century that didn't accept Christ as Messiah simply didn't recognize him but we can't ignore that many did.

WS, I don't know how many more times this needs to be stated... anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord will go to heaven and anyone who doesn't won't.

quote:

---

sonyafterdark said:

If you do this then you are a good Christian, no matter what anyone (including
the Church) says.

---

... or what Bugs says ;) But it needs to be pointed out that the Bible says that good works alone are not sufficient to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't know how much weight you put on the scripture, sonyafterdark, but that is what it says. We are saved by our faith in God and our good works are the natural result of that salvation.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

There are so many different views on the Jews, and that beloved nation that God
has His hand on.

---

And this is where I have to point out a different one. I strongly disagree with your view of the Jews, Gideon. God's people will be found in God's church. I do not believe the nation of Israel plays any role in God's plan today. The founding of the nation was not a fulfillment of prophecy and I do not believe there will be any miraculous conversion of modern Jews to Xianity in the future.

Jewish people of today come to God the same way we all do and that is through faith in the Messiah. As a Xian, I love the Jews as I love all humans. The only thing that is special is the obvious rich heritage and honor of knowing they are descended from God's chosen people, which is quite exciting. God's plan of redemption for all humanity was given first to the Jews and then to the rest of us through his son Jesus.

WS, so there are different views of the "afterwards" in the christian world. My views are far more in line with jade's on the Second Coming of Christ than they are with Gid's. I suspect I part company with JKMabry, Fig, and few others on that one too. I have to be true to my understanding of scripture and I know they are doing the same.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-25-2005 15:43)

Bugs, as always, I prize your well thought-out and reasoned answers, even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

Thank you for being so candid, and for the information that you have provided.

I dunno Bug, thos last couple of paragraph's sound as though gid was dictating over your shoulder.

Not all xians hold you dear love of all mankind it seems, if this little bit of hypocrisy is any example; http://www.seekgod.ca/embrachrist.htm

Seems fairly widspread too, though not a lot of originality:http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html

Boy, they just won't let it rest: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-toledot.htm

If I were to compare possible accuracy of the two books, I would favour the Talmud. I suspect it has suffered less in translation through the ages as it seems to have been translated through fewer languages, though doubtless with no fewer translators twisting things to reflect their own own 'special' views.

The theory of Mary being raped makes a whole lot more sense than some immaculate conception considering the prediliction of soldiers even today.

xians being, in general, amongst those who tend to view raped women as somehow being not the victim, but the insitgator of such acts, one is hardly suprised they would want to sanitize such an act.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Well, it stands to reason that he and I are going to spout similar information since we share the same world view. You, DL, and WS share a very similar world view as well, but you all have your unique ways of communicating it to the rest of us here.

Hmm... I'm not seeing the hypocrisy in the first link and I just read/scanned the entire page. What exactly do you see there that is problematic?

Yeah, the second link is clearly a copy of the first... a rebuttal to the claim that Jesus was not Messiah.

I have not heard of the "Toledot Jeshu" before so I'll need to look into that a bit more. From these pages it seems it is a document that claims to be the Life of Jesus but it has little support from scholars. It also seems to be good source material for Jews when warding off unwanted advances from proselatyzing Xians.

I am confused as to what you find unloving and/or hypocritical in these links.

About the charge itself, if all the information I had was that someone called Mary had a kid that she claimed was fathered by God, then I would favor other explanations too. But that is hardly the case. We have a movement that literally changed the world where the claim of divine conception is only a part of the whole story.

About hypocrisy from Xians, I acknowledge that occurs regularly. But also know that I do not believe that anyone who calls themself Xian... is. For instance, the NT states that "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness". Whenever you come across people claiming to speak for God, a good test is to see how much they love their fellow humans.

Loving humanity is hard. It is not natural. I believe that seeing some people actually doing it, is evidence of the eternal in us. I'm not talking about screwing anything that moves and maintaining the species from our natural instincts to procreate but rather the type love that goes far beyond that. In the Greek, it is called "agape" love which is the purest and highest ideal of sacrificing for others and serving them out of a true motivation for their benefit. I think it would be safe to assume that you would not put much weight on this sort of behavior. If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and I've got to head out for the day. I've only been able to check here once in the mornings this whole week because of my schedule.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Not a ramble bugs. Good food for the soul. Thanks. I appreciate good enlightend soul juice.

Bug, if you can't see, with your intelligence the hypocrisy and thus the attendant lack of your 'agape', evident in those links, I am at a loss to figure out how to explan to you the obvious.

It is telling too, that you cannot see why someone not infected with religion would have the ability to love his fellow man.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

You, DL, and WS share a very similar world view as well, but you all have your unique ways of communicating it to the rest of us here.

---

Uhhh...no. Bugs, I am personally shocked by this!

I DO NOT share a world view with Ehtheist. I leave the question of a Supreme Being open, as I believe that DL does. AFAIK, Ehtheist does not.

quote:

---

Loving humanity is hard. It is not natural. I believe that seeing some people actually doing it, is evidence of the eternal in us. I'm not talking about screwing anything that moves and maintaining the species from our natural instincts to procreate but rather the type love that goes far beyond that. In the Greek, it is called "agape" love which is the purest and highest ideal of sacrificing for others and serving them out of a true motivation for their benefit. I think it would be safe to assume that you would not put much weight on this sort of behavior. If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

---

Blocks are mine.

Though I do not consider myself to be an Athiest, I can fathom a reason to practice that sort of love, Bugs, and I have expressed the reasons for that, before.

The advancement of Mankind.

In that sense, I feel that it is the most natural thing in the world, to pratice "agape". In fact, I feel that only one that is NOT religious, can truly practice this.

Why? Because I do not do it because of the direction of some Being, but because I want to. Because I see the long-term benefits of doing so, out-weight the short-term benefits of not doing so.

Including the direction(s) of a Being in the equation, means that one truly does not wish to do so - that one is only doing so, because a Being directs it.

quote:

---

All Christians before they were even called that were Jewish. There was hardly a distinction at the time

---

It depends on exactly when we are talking about. At the very outset, this is true - it is true primarily because Jesus was in many ways just another radical jewish rabbi, and nobody but the jews cared about jewish prophecy. Towards the end of the first century, when the christian movement had spiraled so far away from Judaism, and the claims of exactly what jesus was and where he came from became more abnormal and esoteric (and became less and less to do with the actual jewish prophecies), the jews wanted nothing to do with the christians. The group became more and more aimed at the pagans, and grew further and further from the jewish traditions.

So the initial group was obviously of jewish origin, but that didn't last long.

quote:

---

If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

---

I must honestly say that that would seem to be a personal shortcoming, bugs. To me, the idea that the only reason to be a good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a pretty shallow useless reason.

I knew it was going to be difficult to communicate my point without raising the natural defense mechanisms. But the point is one that I am very interested in understanding better.

Please note that I did not say atheists cannot be moral, or do good works, or even be self sacrificing for their fellow human beings. I know for a fact they can.

I chose my words very carefully, "If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others."

I do not understand the "reason" for doing so given a world view that says there is no purpose or meaning to life. Can you please explain your rationale to me? I really would like to know how you each view this personally.

WS, you say your motivation is to benefit humanity for the long run. I can accept that, although I don't fully understand or appreciate that motivation.

I also find it ironic that my questioning this can be seen as a personal shortcoming. I hope that the bold sentence above clarifies things.
[edit]

quote:

---

To me, the idea that the only reason to be a good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a pretty shallow useless reason.

---

After reading this more closely, I think I understand the shortcoming comment much better. You're saying that it is a shortcoming to not be able to love for no good reason.

I also think your description of my motivation is a mischaracterization and/or possible misunderstanding. I would ask on what basis were we told to love others? Are you assuming that commandment is an arbitrary one? Assuming God exists and he is watching, then that provides a basis of meaning that is absent without him.

I have often wondered why certain decisions I make matter. There are quite a few decisions that I deal with that no other human being will ever or could ever know about yet how I act will affect others. As soon as you know there is a person who transcends creation that cares what I do and also who will know for eternity the decision I make, then that is the moment you realize meaning.

It is a very common thing to hear people say that our only access to immortality is how we are remembered by friends and loved ones. Why is that said? It is because we place meaning an purpose on our actions based on what others will perceive.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-27-2005 02:42)

Bugs, there is a reason and puprose for the realists, objectivists, and the like. Quite simply: to live and be happy.

If I can remember, I'll expound later.

My reason is terribly simple, achieve the most long term happiness possible.

I believe this to be true of everyone.

I also do not believe that anything is selfless. Anything one does that can bring happiness to another can bring happiness to the person performing the action.

Dan @ Code Town

The best reason in the world for treating others well, loving others and being thoughtful of others...and the reason I do it...selfishness...it makes ME feel good to make others feel good.

One does not need direction from a myth to arrive at this conclusion.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Cool, thanks very much for those. Some follow ups if I may:

warjournal, is that purely self based happiness you're referring to? If hurting other humans added to your happiness, how would you choose your actions? Do you see practicing "agape" love on a regular basis consistent with your world view?

WarMage, I suppose I would like to ask you the same questions since it sounds like your motivations are similar to warjournal's.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yes, selfishness or self-based happiness. Self-sacrifice is an illusion that is actually selfishness. I 'sacrifice' a lot for my daughters, but only because it makes me happy.

Each person is responsible for self. I'm responsible for myself and you are responsible for you. It's not up to me to make decisions about you. If I were to punch you in the nose, I would be making a decision about your body and that's wrong. Hurting others, or initiating force, is bad.

Some people get a kick out of hurting others against their will (rape comes to mind). In my experience, this kind of bad happiness is empty and doesn't last long (not that I've raped anybody or anything). These people are actually looking for something else and don't know what it is.

Then there is the survival slant on hurting others. Some people are just too lazy to be productive, so they resort to hurting others for a living. Again, short-lived survival happiness and back to baddie square one.

Ah, loosing my train of thought.

If caring for others is your thing, go for it. "Agape" all you want - just don't do it against anybody. Like mugging people to put change in the church's tithe or something. That's just plain rude.

Hurting people is bad.
Living life is good.
That's the bottom of it.

quote:

---

"Agape" all you want - just don't do it against anybody.

---

I would like to add, who doesn't want it.

Bugs, the long term view matches the purpose that I believe in. Evolution and advancement of Humanity.

One quick interjection about self-sacrifice.

It does make one happy, to an extent, but it also would have the potential to make one unhappy as well, true? For instance giving someone a dollar. You are happy that you could allow that person a sandwich for the day, but now you are out your dollar for a sandwich.

Unhappines for happiness? Which is greater? Which serves the self more?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Unhappines for happiness? Which is greater? Which serves the self more?

---

Depends on whether or not one holds a short-term or long-term worldview, IMHO. In the long run, one dollar will not make a diference to me. But for that short period of time, it might just make that other person a bit happier.

I'll point out an example that happened yesterday.

I was sitting in a Cafe with my Father-in-Law, enjoying a coffee with him in the sun - a very nice, relaxed atmosphere.

An old woman (ca. 70) came by on a bicycle, and lost control, and crashed.

We jumped up without a thought and rushed over to help her, along with about 5 others. We tended her injuries, sat her in some shade (too much sun, she was overheated), and ordered her a nice, cold water (which the Cafe put on the house).

Now, why did we all spring up to help? We certainly didn't have to. And why was the cold drink offered, without cost? That certainly wasn't necessary (the old woman offered to pay, and was politely refused).

What benefit did any of us get out of all this? Why did we help?

It was pure un-selfishness. We helped, because someone NEEDED help and we were the nearest to provide it (at least, that was my motive, after I thought about it afterwards).

So the happiness in the situation of helping the woman out, out-weighed the unhappiness of your afternoon with your father-in-law being disrupted?

Do you think this same scale is always used to determine decisions, or sometimes does doing something that results in a net unhappiness actually get priority over that of one with a net happiness?

For instance, the sacrifice of something larger: a car, a job, or a life?

Do things like that happen, and if so, why would someone go against the selfishness of self elevation to help out another at the risk of self diminuation?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

That's real nice of you to help her out BTW, WS. A really noble thing to do.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

So the happiness in the situation of helping the woman out, out-weighed the unhappiness of your afternoon with your father-in-law being disrupted?

Do you think this same scale is always used to determine decisions, or sometimes does doing something that results in a net unhappiness actually get priority over that of one with a net happiness?

---

I don't tend to analyse the situation as it is happeneing, Gid. There is normally no time for such (especially in the example I gave). Either one feels impelled to help, or one does not.

It didn't really disrupt my afternoon with my father-in-law. We were both active in helping the woman. We had something new to talk about afterwards, as the adrenaline let up. In fact, it gave us both something that we could share between us.

WHEN I have time to actually analyse and think before making a decision, then I usually weigh all the factors that I can and decide based on my results. When I don't have time, then I act first, and analyse later.

quote:

---

That's real nice of you to help her out BTW, WS. A really noble thing to do.

---

I don't really think of it as noble. It is one human helping another, that needs help. I find that a natural response.

Bugs, I believe that hurting other can lead to a whole lot of happiness. Beating up the person who cut me off, kicking the individual who looked at me funny. I am sure I could get a lot of enjoyment out of that.

But this happiness would be very temporary. It would be short sighted, and would most likely result in a whole lot more negative backlash than the enjoyment was worth. There are much easier and much less costly ways to get happiness.

I think that Eetheist's selfishness motivation is pretty much the same motivation I have. If you are intelligent about it, it works out smoothly.

Gid, helping out the woman provided so many different types of happiness it is hard to know where to begin. I don't want to speak for WS, but were I in his shoes it would provide:

1. A bonding experience with my father
2. The gratitude of the woman who fell
3. A great story to be able to tell to others

This falls into what the three areas that I think are important. Love, Happiness, and Respect. In the above situation by offering that little service to the woman you would be getting all three of those. It was a great trade, for 10 minutes of your life you will have an experience that might last you years.

The natural response thing, is IMO, just your conditioning. I do many things without thinking, per se, but I have developed patterns of response over the years that allow me to make quick decisions without performing active thought. This is your super-ego, and I know I haven't quashed mine so I doubt many others have quashed theirs.

Dan @ Code Town

WM I worry about someone who would get pleasure, or contemplate getting pleasure, out of beating some-one up for cutting them off or "looking at me funny".

These are not the reactions of a balanced, rational individual...one of which you seemed to be, up to now.

Where do you live that cafes charge for water?

Give up on gid, I don't share WS belief that he is progressing. I am not even certain he mentates, more like the 10,000 monkeys with typwriters.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Again my failure to appropriately use the english language raises its ugly head.

When considering myself as a whole individual the statement in question is a false statement. I was writing that when thinking only in terms of my id.

Second, the above statement is used as an exhageration to highlight the innumerable number of ways in which such emotions are put in check by other overriding emotions.

So I don't think you need to worry about anything other than my lack of communication skills.

Dan @ Code Town

WB. I just was going back thru the thread and wanted to post a response to this one sentence and I think the rest of what you listed will be answered in this response as well.

You posted:

quote:

---

As to the reasons why Jews do not believe in Jesus as the true Messiah .

---

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

I believe the Jews are looking for a literal temple. Christians believe the third temple is the Lord Jesus Christ The third temple in the OT describes a central place, of gathering, celebration, and prayer, whose physical structure will serve as a sanctuary. (Does this sound like Christian Churches already in existence?)
What we learn from biblical teaching is that the temple referred from the OT is the Lord Jesus Christ who fulfills this prophecy. I make references:
In John verse 19, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'" The people are flabbergasted by such an outrageous response. (20) "The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?'" Then the writer, John, comments in verse 21 "But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
Yes, but don't miss the point and the meaning of shifting from the temple in Jerusalem to the temple of his body. He had just purged the temple in Jerusalem with a whip. He had called it his Father's house. The disciples had recalled Psalm 69:9, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." They want a sign for this behavior. Jesus does not say, "I have nothing to say about your temple. I have only a word about my body. No. No. He does have something to say about their temple. He says, Destroy this temple . . . this temple, the one I just purged, the one you have turned into a market place. The one for which I am consumed with zeal.
But how? How will they destroy it? How will they bring the entire sacrificial system of the OT, centered in the temple to an end? How will they bring the entire OT priesthood ministering in the temple to an end? How will they destroy the meeting place with their God?
The answer is by rejecting Jesus, the Messiah, and putting him to death. When Christ died, Judaism as it was practiced in the temple died. The final sacrifice was made. The sacrifice of Jesus ended all sacrifices. The final high priest offered himself for the sin of his people. Forty years later the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. But the decisive end came at Calvary when Jesus was destroyed. "In three days I will raise it up." Now Jesus, himself speaks only of his body. After the of day of the destruction in my death he says, I will be the temple. I will be the way to meet God. I am the sacrifice needed to cover sin. I am the priest, the only mediator between God and man. I am the dwelling place of God.
From this time on. wherever men and women and little children want to meet God they may come to me - anywhere, anytime. The forgiveness they need, they find in me. The God they need, they find in me. I am the new temple, and there will be no other. Jesus gave this response to the question in John 2:18, "What sign do you show to us, seeing that you do these things?" What sign? What evidence? That you take such authority and make such claims? His answer: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."

quote:

---

WM I worry about someone who would get pleasure, or contemplate getting pleasure, out of beating some-one up for cutting them off or "looking at me funny".

These are not the reactions of a balanced, rational individual...one of which you seemed to be, up to now.

---

You can't stop emotions. If you get mad, then you get mad. The rational/irrational part is how you act on such emotions. There is a big difference between thinking about smashing someone's nose out of anger and actually doing it.

Just a quick note:

There is a *huge* difference between pleasure and happiness.

What you might get out of taking out your anger against the person who caused it is pleasure. Pleasure is always temporary, and of course there are far better ways to attain pleasure which are not harmful to others.

Happiness is far more elusive.

Haven't read the most recent few posts, and I will be back, Bugs, to respond to your post!

quote:

---

Give up on gid, I don't share WS belief that he is progressing.

---

I sure as HELL never said that!!

As for you post Jade, GO BACK and read what I posted. Even if you "rationalize" the building of the temple, examine ALL the other points that Jesus did not fulfill. Good luck with the Prophetic one. The Jews have very streng rules governing when one can become a Prophet, and under what conditions.

Jesus COULD NOT fulfill the one requiring that a certain amount of the Jewish population be in one area. Not at that time.

Good luck.

Blimey! You could go mad thinking about stuff like that (and taking it too seriously)!

Short version of a loooooong story:

I was the passenger in an awful crash in Ireland. It took three hours to cut me out. During my time in the wreckage, I told the driver to get out of the car and wait - she seemed to be fine, as it was my side of the car that had become intimate with a tree.

She was a recent acquaintence, and I was starting to wish I hadn't got into the car with her.

I smacked one would-be rescuer in the head and told him to wait for the fire and ambulance services when he started trying to pull my legs clear. I was trapped from the thighs down, spitting blood and tooth fragments through what was left of the door frame. A few too many American movies had me worrying about explosive petroleum and car collisions, and I certainly didn't want anybody else going up with me. On top of that, if I had injuries I couldn't momentarily detect, I certainly didn't want some idiot pulling me around and making things worse.

...but I felt okay, and I told the driver this - it stopped her crying quite so loudly.

I had no idea that they thought I had a broken back. I couldn't see the fifty-kilo sack of coal that had been occupying the boot, but was now where I had been before my seat had been torn from the vehicle floor. It wasn't until they'd finally cut enough metal away that I could move tht I even realised my back was injured.

The worst thing was the pins and needles after three hours of reduced blood-flow to the feet.

When it turned out that I had no broken bones (just several torn muscles, ligaments and tendons, and my legs, back and ribs were all bruised horrifically) and no concussion or internal injuries, they couldn't stop me from crawling out of the hospital. I discharged myself within twelve hours of arriving. I knew I wasn't badly injured enough to warrant their care when others in the same ward were in far worse condition.

People die in hospital - so I spent forty-five minutes struggling to pull my boots back on (with the steel toe-caps that had saved my feet from severance) and hobbled from the compulsory wheelchair to a waiting car.

When the dust had settled (and I'd had my fifteen seconds of fame rising from the rumoured paralysis and leg amputation that so many in the nearby town had heard about) I made the decision not to claim for compensation - it would have made things impossible for the driver, my friend, with automatic liability for the huge fireman's bill, raised premiums on her insurance, etc, at a really crucial time in her life.

Besides, being a dental nurse, she got my teeth fixed for nothing, and if I had sought compensation, I would most likely have lost her friendship.

About eight months later, I was visiting her to congratulate her on some good news, when she collapsed in front of me. Head pain, violent purging, losing consciousness, convulsions, and heart-rate and body temperature soaring so high that her flesh turned bright red.

I thought it could have been poisoning or cerebral haemorrhage.

I wrapped wet towels round her head and shoulders, carried her into the bathroom (to continue vomitting blood into the bath), made her drink water and annoyed her into consciousness while I phoned an ambulance. I'm no doctor, but I did what seemed obvious, then kept her talking.

It took nearly two hours for the ambulance to turn up, whereupon they waited for her doctor to arrive too (another hour) who agreed with my desperate assertion that she should have been at hospital already. It took another two hours to get to the nearest hospital with decent facilities.

It turned out to be a haemorrhage that caused hydrocephalus. The bizarre symptoms were secondary to the pressure on her brain-stem.

I was told by the doctors that she would most likely have slipped quietly into a coma within an hour of the initial bleed, and died long before either of her daughters had arrived home that evening. Such was the severity of her condition.

It was apparent later that it had nothing at all to do with the crash eight months before. She was just one of many who had a genetic propensity for vessel weakness in the brain, and one of the few unlucky enough to have it realised.

We're still long-distance friends. A scar hidden by facial hair, the odd back-ache, a knee that cracks constantly, and a couple of high-maintenance teeth - these are a small price to pay for still having her around... even if she's hundreds of miles away across the Irish channel.

In light of all that's been said here, I could go completely schizo thinking too deeply on the motivations behind the interactions in my life. I think about the choices I make, and I just hope that they all lead to such happy consequences, even if I don't always know what they are or who they benefit.

Also, sometimes, I can't help thinking that luck favours the kind from time to time - perhaps that is selfish in a superstitiously benign way.
__

And yes, I lost track completely of what I wanted to post about then... sorry.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

WH, regardless, what an awesome story you just shared with us... I very much appreciate it

Knowing and understanding the why we act the way we do is not an easy thing. I believe that few people ever really get to that point and the ones that do, understand only in part.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I knew it was going to be difficult to communicate my point
without raising the natural defense mechanisms. But the point is one
that I am very interested in understanding better.



Please note that I did not say atheists cannot be moral, or do good
works, or even be self sacrificing for their fellow human beings. I know for a fact they can.

I chose my words very carefully, "If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others."

---

I need to state that I did certainly realize what it was you were saying, and to point out that the reaction received is not entirely a defensieve one.

quote:

---

I do not understand the "reason" for doing so given a world view that
says there is no purpose or meaning to life. Can you please explain
your rationale to me? I really would like to know how you each view
this personally.

---

First of all, let me reiterate that an atheistic view is not necessarily a view that there is no purpose, and most certainly is not a view that there is no meaning.

I do not personally subscribe to any view that incorporates a higher purpose in some grand scheme the like of which christianity espouses. I do not beleive in fate. I do not beleive that we will punished or rewarded in some grand eternal afterlife (and, for the record, that view is one that was not initially present in christianity either - it was a somehwat later construct).

I have said many times that we, as a species, exist for one purpose: to recreate and die, just like every other species of plant or animal.

I have also been explicit in stating that our true purpose here is of our own making.

As for meaning - it goes hand in hand I suppose, that life has whatever meaning you ascribe to it. You ascribe such meaning not by stating "this is the meaing of life". You ascribe such meaning by living your life in a way that exerts a particular meaning. Actions most definately speak louder than words.

quote:

---

I also find it ironic that my questioning this can be seen as a
personal shortcoming. I hope that the bold sentence above clarifies
things.

---

Again I have to say - I understood your statement. I want you to realize that you are a person I hold in high regard, and when I speak of shortcomings, I do not imply that such a shortcoming is your downfall, or in some way invalidates the positive qualities you posess.

But I do view the statements you have made in this regard (on several occasions) to be one of your shortcomings. To not be able to understand what motivates humanitarian behavior in someone who lacks your concept of god and heaven is something that I can see no other way.

To me, if it takes your diety to tell you that you should behave in this way, then it loses something.

At the same time, I have most certainly always stated in concurrance with the views expressed by WM and WJ - all seemingly 'selfless' acts are in fact selfish on at least some level.

Any time any person does something for someone else, the ultimate motivation is selfish.
There are many people who will instictually refute this blindly and ineffectually.

There are several ways in which this selfishness presents itself.

The first is blatant and overtly phony. We have all seen the person who, always (exclusivley) in the presence of others will feign at some charitable act, with the obvious goal of looking good in the public light. There are many many variations of this type, and I'm sure you've seen them all.

The second is less blatant, more effectual in the real world. This is the type of person who feels obligated to such things - who does it willingly, but if there was not the presence of the obligation (whether of religious or purely social origin), would not think twice about it.

The third is less noticacble, and many people would object to using the word 'selfish', but connotations aside, that is exactly what it is.

It becomes important at this point to single out the word empathy. Empathy motivates a very large amount of charitable behavior. Empathy allows us to understand the plight of another person, and to respond in a way that is helpful to the person in need.

But empathy is purely a statement of selfishness. We see a person in duress. We understand the way it would feel to be that person. We feel guilt, we feel compassion. In order to ease the guilt, in order to rid the thoughts of how awful it must be to be the person in question, we act to alleviate the predicament.

Is our action positive? Yes. Is our action beneficial? Yes. Are we to be viewed in a good light for behaving this way? Overall, I say yes.

Is it still selfish to act this way?

YES!

The fact that a person beleives that eternal reward belings to them for behaving in this way (and that eternal punishment is theirs for *not*) is *obviously* not something that stops it from being a selfish act - it does nothing but reinforce manyfold the fact.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:To me, the idea that the only reason to be a
good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a
pretty shallow useless reason.

---

e]
After reading this
more closely, I think I understand the shortcoming comment much better.
You're saying that it is a shortcoming to not be able to love for no
good reason.

I also think your description of my motivation is a mischaracterization
and/or possible misunderstanding. I would ask on what basis were we
told to love others? Are you assuming that commandment is an arbitrary
one? Assuming God exists and he is watching, then that provides a basis
of meaning that is absent without him.

---

Hm. This is a rather good point. One that I have not before considered on the level that you present it. While I would not characterize such a 'commandment' as arbitrary, I would say that the majority of people still do such things only because they feel they are being watched. The idea that you ascribe a higher meaning to such behavior because you view such commandments as deeper in meaning than simply 'commandments' is intriuging. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be plenty of christians who will agree with on a verbal level.

I would not buy this argument from the majority of such people - it carries some meaning, however, coming from you.

quote:

---

As soon as you know there is a person who transcends creation that cares what I do and also who will know for eternity the decision I make, then that is the moment you realize meaning.

---

This, however, I just cannot buy.
There are 2 people who's existence forces me to scrutinize my decisions.

1) ME. I have to live with me. I know that whether or not anyone else ever knows about something I have done, that I have done it.

2) My daughter. I am, anythign and everything else aside, a role model for my child. If she is to learn what I think is important for her to learn, it will be from my behavior. I live with this understanding at every moment, and must try to be successful in my role.

Neither myself nor my daughter "transcends creation" in the manner you purport.

No such entity exists for me. No such entity is required to make me look closely at my behavior.

No such entity is required to find meaning.

quote:

---

It is a very common thing to hear people say that our only access to
immortality is how we are remembered by friends and loved ones. Why is
that said? It is because we place meaning an purpose on our actions
based on what others will perceive.

---

I agree for the most part in this assessment.
We live as long as we are remembered.
It is true that we place meaning based on the perception of others.

Some go by the perception of the public at large. Some, like yourself, go by what you see as the perception of your creator. Some, like me, go more on the perception of someone close to them.

All of these views are still ultimately selfish and exist for the sake of personal satisfaction.

That is the motivation, no matter what you beleive in.

So, the *real* answer to your question - what is the motivation for us athiests?


The same as yours.

^A-fucking-Men!!!!!!

Well said, DL! Nice post.

Brilliantly put. Nice one DL.

My kudos as well DL.